19931136 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970206

0 BECKER MINERALS, INC.
HARNETT QUARRY EXPANSION
HARNETT COUNTY N.C.
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
JANUARY 1997
0
E
0 BECKER MINERALS., INC.
401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Becker Minerals submitted an application for 401 Water Quality Certification to the
Department in December 1996. The Department has reviewed the application and
requested an economic analysis be performed to support the request to be allowed to
disturb 5.93 acres of wetlands to expand our Harnett Quarry.
Harnett Quarry commenced operating in 1979 on approximately 140 acres. The
quarry has been developed to its maximum perimeter size based on the current land
ownerships and physical constraints. If the quarry is to continue in operation a long term
expansion plan has to be developed.
An alternatives analysis was conducted to determine the most practical expansion
plan for the quarry. Two alternative plans were discussed in detail in our original
application before selecting the proposed expansion plan. Should it be necessary we can
IS provide economic details to support the rejection of the alternatives.
Having decided that the only viable and environmentally acceptable alternative
was to expand the quarry to the west on to property owned by the Layton Estate, Becker
Minerals requested personnel from the Department of Environmental Management,
Division of Water Quality, Fayetteville Regional Office to visit the site to review our
proposed quarry development plans. Following these meetings and subsequent discussion
we were able to develop a minimization plan to limit the impacts to the delineated
wetlands along an intermittent stormwater channel.
The delineated wetlands along the intermittent stormwater channel are not in
pristine condition having been damaged by Hurricane Fran and clear cut by the property
owner in 1996. The wetlands have also been impacted by the existing quarry operations
which have channelized the water course around the quarry to the recirculation
/freshwater basin system. Excess water from the system is discharged to the Upper Little
River via an NYDES permit outfall. Despite the fact that the quarry is located just 50
feet from the end of the delineated wetlands the function of these wetlands had not been
altered by the quarry. The wetlands along the intermittent stream are present due to the
fact that there is a impervious layer of clay in the lower soil horizons that traps the water
preventing migration to the sandy subsoils and overburden. Thus the clay layer keeps the
surface water close enough to the surface for saturated conditions to exist and for the
• development of hydric soils. The fact that these unaltered wetlands exist so close to the
existing quarry means that the quarry expansion will not affect or degrade the wetlands
that are to be left undisturbed in the buffers around the quarry expansion area. Thus we
are confident that the remaining wetland resources around the quarry will not be affected
by the quarry expansion.
As noted above, the quarry expansion plan is controlled by a number of physical
constraints that dictate the only viable location where expansion can take place. The
quarry cannot be expanded to the north since that is the location of the quarry entrance,
processing plant and stockpile area without finding an alternative location for these
facilities, or to the immediate east because of the Upper Little River, or to the south
because of the existing overburden disposal site. Thus the only viable direction for the
quarry expansion is to the west onto contiguous property.
The quarry expansion, as proposed, is designed to disturb as little additional
surface area as possible yet yield the maximum volume of granite reserves from both the
existing quarry and the expansion area using the set back requirements for DEHNR Land
Resources, Land Quality, mine permit. The development plan requires a new ramp be
driven into the quarry at an 8% maximum grade from the surface to a final depth of -220
feet. This will allow the development of 9 benches before the ultimate pit depth is
reached and yield an estimated 20 million tons of granite reserves that can be recovered
from the quarry. Based on current markets and future market trends we believe this
reserve will last 15 - 20 years. These minerals have a market value of $115 million at
• today's values. The demand for crushed granite from our major market area of Fayettville
is growing at a rate of over 30 % on an annual basis. With the continued industrial
growth of Fayettville and the growth of Ft Bragg we see an increasing demand for
gushed granite. If we are unable to meet the market demands then the crushed granite
will have to come from an alternative source which would mean we would need to
develop another quarry in the immediate area which would cause even greater
disturbance. In our opinion it is better to maximize the recovery of the granite resource
from this one location rather than having two areas impacted despite the fact that
approval of the quarry expansion will impact 5.93 acres of wetlands. It should be
remembered that we are offering to create forested wetlands at a ratio of 1:1, in the same
watershed, as mitigation for this project and that the creation will be done during the
first year of the project so as to reduce the overall impact to the wetland balance. The
proposed mitigation is a part of a larger wetland planting which will cover some 15 acres
in total.
The Department is unwilling to approve the project as submitted at this time but
have offered an alternative which would allow 3.1 acres of impacts to wetlands. The
reduction of wetland impacts from 5.93 acres to 3.1 acres, while small in itself has a
significant impact to the overall project. Because the overall size of the quarry has been
• reduced the quarry cannot reach the ultimate planned depth of the original design and
the quarry will now only have 7 benches to a depth of -140 feet. The effect of the
• reduction is to reduce the estimated recoverable reserves by 45% to 11 million tons and
the quarry will only have an anticipated life of 8 to 12 years. This reduction in available
reserves translates to a loss of $51 million in sales at today's values.
We have provided a cross sections through the quarry expansion area that
graphically demonstrate the effect that reducing the area of wetlands to be impacted has
on the available granite reserves for mining. The reduction of surface area may be small
but it cuts over 45 % off the project life.
This reduction in the project life is financially unacceptable since overburden is
to be removed from 91% of the original project area yet only 55% of the original project
rock will be exposed for mining. 'Thus we request that the Department approve the
project as submitted.
Additional Information for Mitigation Plan;
As compensatory mitigation for being allowed to impact 5.93 acres of riparian
wetlands Becker Minerals is to create riparian hardwood wetlands at the required ratio
of 1:1 on property it owns at our Senter Mine, off US 401, about three miles south of
I111ington in Harnett County. The mitigation site is about four miles east of the area of
• impact and within the same Upper Little River watershed. The mitigation site can be
considered as headwaters of First Silver Run. a tributary of the Upper Little River.
The area chosen as the mitigation site is a portion of a former settling basin at our
sand and gravel mine that has been filled over the years with silt and clays from the
processing plant. When the settling basin was abandoned the majority of the surface
water was drained to stabilize the silts and clays. The dry surface areas which are devoid
of natural soils were then seeded with a variety of grasses. Conditioners such as lime,
fertilizer and chicken litter were used to help establish permanent vegetation. The
reclamation practices described above were successful in certain areas but not in others.
The lack of success is partly due to the stormwater runoff establishing a dendritic ground
flow pattern in the upper portions of the abandoned basin and the excessive water ground
water levels in the lower portions of the basin. Reclamation practices have been repeated
to try to increase the vegetative cover with varying success. In addition to the
reseeding some of the lower portions of the basin were planted with loblolly pines to
assist in consolidating the sediment.
At the time the reclamation of the settling basin was being conducted a few
shallow drainage ditches were established to connect the areas of surface water so as to
keep them relatively small and shallow. Seasonally as the level of the surface water
IS expands it cues seasonally flooded zones around the lakes. The primary source of new
water for the system comes from rainfall. The catchment area covers some 50 acres and
• excess water is discharge from the basin through a fixed 36" diameter outfall to First
Silver Run. We believe this mitigation area in the abandoned settling basin almost
duplicates a natural wetland hydrological environment.
The mitigation plan has been devised to take advantage of the hydrological
environment of the abandoned settling basin which creates three zones excluding the
upland areas. The first zone is the permanently shallow water areas which vary in depth
from 1 inch to 18 inches in depth, the second zone is the seasonally flooded zone which
becomes inundated at various times of the year, and the third zone is the intermittently
flooded zone which is drier only being flooded a few times of the year and not for
extended periods. Since the mitigation plan is to create a forested wetland environment
the species selection has been made based on the hydrology of the three zones and the
species available as bare root stock from the N.C. Division of Forest Resources. We plan
to plant bare root seedlings at a rate of about 600 trees per acre. We estimate that we
will be seating 10 acres of seasonally flooded wetlands and 5 acres of intermittently
flooded wetlands. Only 5.93 acres are to be used as mitigation for the current application
and the remainder of the created wetlands will be available for future mitigation needs.
The seasonally flooded areas are being planted with a mixture of Cypress, Tupelo, and
Buttonbush. The intermittently flooded areas are being planted with a mixture of
Cypress, Tupelo, Swampchestnut Oak, Overcup Oak, Green Ash, Willow Oak, Water
Oak and Black Gum. We have deliberately excluded invasive species such as Red Maple
• and Sweetgum from our selection as we expect to see some of these seeded naturally nor
have we included any pines as they have already been established in some areas and have
the ability to spread.
To take advantage of the tree planting season and to reduce the period of loss of
the wetlands we are to plant approximately 9200 of the above described seedlings in late
January 1997. Once the areas have been planted we will prepare a map to show the areas
planted and will locate monitoring lines on the map as well as in the field.
Monitoring, to be conducted on an annual basis in the spring, will measure the
distance from the monitoring line to the nearest seedling, record the species of seedling,
its status, (alive or dead) its height and girth. The monitoring will also note if any species
has invaded the monitoring area and the same data will be collected on the invasive
species as the other seedlings. Photo documentation of the monitoring lines will be
provided. Monitoring will be conducted for a period of three years following the planting
of the seedlings.
The success of the mitigation will be determined by the survival rate of the
seedlings. We are planning to achieve a survival rate of 320 trees per acre. If the
monitoring shows the planned survival rate is not being achieved we will come back and
IS
replant as many seedlings as necessary to achieve the required survival rate. Additional
plantings will be done during the following dormant season. If it is observed that a
• particular species of trees has not performed as well as expected we will exclude that
species from the mixture to be replanted. Any replanting will be noted in the annual
monitoring reports.
The overall goal of the wetland plantings is to create a forested wetland ecosystem
that will survive and thrive in the created environment and thus a degree of flexibility will
be required to achieve this goal. Becker Minerals believes the goals of the proposed
wetland creation are achievable and intends to work aggressively to ensure the success
of the wetland creation in the mitigation area.
Becker Minerals as owner of the property where the mitigation is to be conducted
can provide the necessary conservation easements to ensure the created wetlands are
preserved in perpetuity.
0
0
JAN 22, 1997
GARDNER QUARRY
MINABLE ROCK SUMMARY
BASED ON DESIGN AS SUBMITTED BY BECKER MINERALS
ELEV TO-ELEV WIDTH_ LENGTH DEPTH TANS
160 135 0
135 100 1010 1100 35 3,168,407
100 60 910 1060 40 3,143,881
60 20 810 1060 40 2,798,400
20 -20 755 1060 40 2,608,385
-20 -60 580 1060 40 2,003,793
-60 -100 505 1060 40 1,744,681
-100 -140 490 1450 40 2,315,704
-140 -180 370 1370 40 1,652,119
-180 -220 310 1290 40 1,303,378
TOTAL TONS 20,738,748
0ASED ON DESIGN PROPOSED BY NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY
ELEV TO ELEV
160 135
135 100
100 60
60 20
20 -20
-20 -60
-60 -100
-100 -140
-140 -180
-180 -220
TOTAL TONS
WIDTH- LENGTH DEPTH TONS
0
740 1140 35 2,405,822
655 1100 40 2,348,296
550 1090 40 1,953,926
390 1080 40 1,372,800
295 1070 40 1,028,785
200 1060 40 690,963
360 1420 40 1,666,133
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
11, 466, 726
0

•

Used.
That Ie Being
View p?aee settling Water Zones.
Fiood? and Permanent Sha114v?'
banally
0
M

4

Relationship of All Three Zones.
Seasonally Flooded Zone.
19
r
L
E,

•

{
r
View from Seasonally Floded Zone to Uplands.
Seasonally and Intermittantly Flooded Zones.
•
•

0
0
Internittantly Flooded Zone and Uplands.
View From Upland to Upland Across All Zones.
11
0
E o 'o
rt w Z ?Ui
m F_ (-n n
~ a `w°
Cl)
W (DD (DD / c
?(') c 0 z
ti pl;_ 0
o° (Z)(D0 n min
n M D rt F' I 4
rt n / p p `
?y\0 (J
0w SNP 1d
IS9L??16b i
c,r
0
O
aFi
rr
0
A)
a
N
0
a
?I? tolo
Q`
O
O

01o 1r4
O
Ia
of
o?.
05'
oe
o
o
r
c ?
? n
?0
m
0
w
G
N
0
a
0
O
o
0 0 0 0
? L o
? o
r ?
P4 o 0
.r
v ? t
?8311ne a3000M
3?lli? d3ddn ..-
r- 63AI6 ?
1:?
P'
-i so
-Irv
0
o°
0 orn
D
00
zc
r- Z
? A
r ? <
z
Z 4 O
C) °
_ Ul
? C C
? rn
O
a
2

.l/
o?
2
b ?
OC ?
J
? b
n
fi
9

rlpl

N
00
n?
U?
? -P C)
O O 70

2 Z 70
n
0
Q >

n
S
O?
C)

0
'gyp ,??o a
\X
UNOVETU TAT ON
r
?I

MACHINERY
STORAGE

EXISIINC PLANT EQUIPMENT
& STOCKPILE AREA
OPERN BON NLMRY/ /1 00 FT. BUF' L?
oIBANCE
?v)R-
.IT,
P MODIFICATI tl?l1 OF
R R(
P
100 F? P NN
EXISTING -
PROCESS WA ER
L ING P0N0
ivo
Haul Road
fao
Becker Minerals, Inc. \
Harnett Quarry
Quarry Development plan based \
on 3.1 acres of im cts to
wetlands (DE?1 Plan
Scale V - 200' January 1997 \
v
\ ? ,o O
20 Haul Road

83n?? - ?1??-
I ?
I '
I
I •
I
?I
I
w
CO a'
of
I
I
I
I
I
I
b
0
C4
H
0
? I
i
I
I
I
I
0
? 0 0
0
J
r-
V) rn
o -4
41 H
o a' co
Cn G G
G to S •0
cn w
?° ro w W W Q
.-1 G co Gco ?
rl O &•rI H
'L 4J c i
x v o v
-4 Q)
N

m
0 ?
p p o 0 0
o °
?I "? v J pn N v
I \ ` N N
I I ? I I
' -n
C +,
\
\ 11 \
to ' '•, \ ?_
M' ` \
- VIA-,
jpR
]f a t +
ss V \
BECKER MINERALS, INC.
i^
HARNETT QUARRY Jig
MITIGATION SITE AT SFNTER MINF SHOWING P' \ +.ok Vr/?
TYPICAL ZONING FOR PLANTING
',,% PFRMANFNT SHALLOW WATFR j
SEASONALLY FLOODED
INTERMTTTANTLY FLOODED 1 (I
SCALF 1"-200' JAN. 1997 II
Z
7 ?i
vi z
0
v F
W
W
Y
Q ?w
D?
Q
m 1
x. ,
Q
?I
D h;
I.
Cho
ul
4-- ? 1I
X ?JI
Q
V)
Q
Q
00
' 8 D
? c
r
I
Q La
m 1.
Q ??
- - - - - - - - - ?` _ ---?j
I
?01
156
r
-. ; r it .. r or
rig
Brick
Kilns
W'
F' 768 _.'' A -- -- -- \,.
,.>
MITIGATION
I I.
tt e _ _
° SITE Y
Marne ?? ; n, ?rsl ?7 '` 2016
i
' ? o JJ 4
•
• /60
7071' ---- c• i
^'e
/ N -
_ l - - `-
l i
Mtj leasant R no
r-
61
i r
61
BUNNLEVEL QUADRANGLE
NORTH CAROLINA hq.uTilk
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) SENTER MINE MITIGATION SITE
Pmj.c1 Lambm
UPPER LITTLE RIVER, HARNETT COUNTY
AMbcw%
BECKER MINERALS, INC.
Kevin= Daft Aumorimd ASSm
C 2 scak 1"-2000 FT. D.. 1-27-97
km M shw of

F

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO February 6, 1997
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199701563 and Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Headwaters and Isolated
Waters)
J,,
Becker Minerals, Inc. RECEIVED
Attn: Mr. N. F. Wills ,-,-„
Post Office Drawer 848 rt 1 1 1997
Cheraw, South Carolina 29520 ENVIRONMENTALSCIENCES
r)"NrW
Dear Mr. Wills:
Reference your application received December 12, 1996, for Department of
the Army (DA) authorization to impact 5.93 acres of wetlands above the
headwaters of an unnamed tributary to the Upper Little River for expansion of
your mine pit, on your property located at the intersection of N.C. Highway
210 and SR 2072, near Lillington, Harnett County, North Carolina.
We agree that your proposed off-site mitigation by creation of wetlands,
at a ratio of 1:1, within an old settling basin at your Setter Mine site (also
located within the Upper Little River drainage basin ) may be adequate
compensation for your proposed impacts. However, we have reviewed your
initial mitigation proposal and found the information you have provided is
inadequate. Please reference the enclosed Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation
Guide and forward the following information with regards the mitigation area:
1. Exact location of proposed mitigation area.
2. Soil profile description of mitigation area.
3. Description of existing hydrology in immediate mitigation area
(estimated frequency of flooding) and the surrounding property.
4. Description of vegetation in area to be impacted and mitigation area.
5. An as built plan of the mitigation area indicating location and
species of plantings, final elevations, and locations of hydrology
adjustment structures (e.g. filled ditches, ditch plugs, dikes, weirs,
etc.).
6. Monitoring plan to insure adequate hydrology and plant survival.
7. Planting schedule and success criteria.
8. Remediation plans for failure to meet success criteria for vegetation
or hydrology.
0
-2-
9. Provisions to insure mitigation area is protected in perpetuity.
Please note that this authorization contains a special condition
requiring the submission and approval of a final mitigation plan prior to the
commencement of work.
Accordingly, for the purposes of the Corps of Engineers' Regulatory
Program, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in
the Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization was provided, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
Nationwide Permit No. 26, for discharges of dredged or fill material into
headwaters and isolated waters.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions, special
conditions, and provided you receive a Section 401 water quality certification
from the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). You
should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water
quality certification. This nationwide permit does not relieve you of the
responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval.
Although this nationwide permit expired on January 21, 1997, we hereby
verify your activity to be valid ("grandfathered") until January 21, 1998.
This verification is based on our determination that you have made a
significant investment of resources. If your work is not completed before
January 21, 1998, your proposed activity must be considered pursuant to a DA
individual permit. It is incumbent upon you to remain informed of changes to
the nationwide permits, which will be announced by public notice when they
occur.
Questions or comments may be addressed to me at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Michael L. Hosey II
Regulatory Specialist
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
ti Mr. John Dorney
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
w
SENTER MINE MITIGATION PLAN
Harnett County, North Carolina
ESI Project: ER97-012
Prepared for:
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Cheraw, South Carolina
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
July 1997
Becker Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 848, Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone]
July 29, 1997
Mr Ernest Jahn)ce
Department of Army
Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
P O Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27607
Re: Final Mitigation Plan for Senter Mine
Harnett County
Dear Mr Jahnke:
Becker Minerals is please to submit a copy of the final
mitigation plan for the Senter Mine in Harnett County for your
review. our consultants were given copies of your comments and those
from NC DWQ and were asked to address them in the final report. We
hope your comments have been adequatly address and that the final
mitigation plan report meets with your approval. We would be pleased
if you could approve the report quickly so that we may commence work
during the late summer months when, hopefully, it will be drier.
Should you require any additional information do not
hesitate to contact the writer.
Yours Sincerely,
BECKER MINERALS, INC.
N. F. Wi
vice President
encl.
cc: Mr E. Galamb - DEHNR.
\1etters\ncwater\03mitp14

C.0-
C-)
z
0
Alfred McAlpine
- -4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO August 7, 1997
Regulatory Branch
t
Action ID 199701563
R?
Mr. Nigel Wills
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Post Office Drawer 848
Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Dear Mr. Wills:
Reference your letter dated July 29, 1997, forwarding the draft mitigation plan for
5.9 acres of wetland impacts associated with Becker Minerals' request for a Department of the
Army Section 404 permit to expand a portion of their existing mine operation into wetlands of an
unnamed tributary above the headwaters of the Upper Little River. The property is located at the
intersection of NC Highway 210 and SR 2072 near Lillington, Harnett County, North Carolina.
I have reviewed the draft plan and request that Becker include the following information
in the document:
1. Describe the wetland area (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) of the Harnett mine
permit area.
2. Describe the functions of the wetlands at the Harnett mine permit site. Compare these
to the wetland functions of the Senter Mine mitigation site. Explain how and why the mitigation
area replaces the lost functions of the permit site.
3. What remedial actions will be taken if success criteria is not met? Of special concern
is our request for more information as set out in the comments on site hydrology by the
Wilmington District Hydrology section forwarded in our July 14, 1997, letter. The draft plan
does not satisfactorily address these concerns.
4. The plan should include provisions for the maintenance of the outlet pipe for the
mitigation area as requested in paragraph 7 of our July 14, 1997,, letter.
-2-
5. Paragraph 1.1 of the plan states "...Becker minerals is proposing to mitigate
jurisdictional impacts through the creation (emphasis added) of forested wetlands..." This
should be revised to reflect the Corps position that the proposed mitigation consists of r
enhancement of existing wetlands pursuant to our August 4, 1997, letter.
4w
6. Paragraph 5.5 of the plan states that there are 5.5 acres of existing shallow open water
and freshwater wetlands available for future mitigation use. State what type of mitigation is
being proposed for this area (e.g. preservation, enhancement).
7. The plan should state that the proposed mitigation is in-kind (if appropriate, based on
the physical description of the permit area compared to the mitigation site) and off-site wetland
enhancement.
Before it can be approved by this office, your final mitigation plan must contain
provisions for protection of the mitigation site in perpetuity.
If you have any questions on these issues please call me at telephone [phone]. In
the meantime we await your next submission of the draft mitigation plan.
Sincerely,
Ernest W. Jahnke, Manager
Wilmington Field Office
Copy Furnished:
l/ Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
July 3, 1997
Mr. Michael Hosey
Wilmington COE
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Dear Mr. Hosey:
Subject: Draft Mitigation Plan for Senter Mine
Harnett County
DWQ No. 961136
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed your May 1997 "Draft Senter Mine Mitigation
Plan". This plan was developed to provided compensatory wetland mitigation for the DWQ impacts to
the Lillington Plant. The approved impact to wetlands is 5.9 acres. We offer the following comments
on the draft plan:
1) The pH values range from 4.1 to 4.2. Is there a need to lime the site for a better survival rate or
provide conditions for the plants to thrive rather than survive?
2) The culvert between the channel connecting the upstream area and the mitigation site has
a reduced passage efficiency. Does Becker Mineral have any control of this culvert? If
the culvert was cleaned out, would the additional flow significantly increase the hydrology
of the mitigation area?
3) The report states that the detention time is likely in excess of 12 hours for a one inch rain
(pg 7) . Please elaborate on this statement.
4) Please explain the field observations that suggest the presence of surface saturation for
extended periods of time, perhaps year-round (page 8). This statement may be in conflict
with the statement on page 7. The piezometer data was not included in the report.
5) The low evapotranspiration rate will change once the trees are established and mature.
How will this effect the site's hydrology?
6) How does a value of hydraulic conductivity indicate whether wetland hydrology will be
established (page 9)?
7) Please expand on the statement, "Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the
growing season at intervals to satisfactorily document the hydrology success criteria"
(page 16). Will continuous monitoring wells be installed? If not, what is the frequency of
sampling?
Mr. Michael Hosey
July 3, 1997
Page 2
8) The vegetative success criteria will be a density of 320 stems per acre. This density should
be at the end of 5 years, not 3. The viability of the trees should be conducted in late
summer. Measuring survival is not sufficient. The trees must also grow over the
monitoring period.
9) DWQ believes that pioneering hardwood species (i.e. red maple, sweet gum, tulip popular
etc.) should not exceed 10 percent of the total composition.
10) The plan does not have a schedule for monitoring well installation, vegetative monitoring,
dates for annual reports etc..
11) The plan does not discuss whether the site was a jurisdictional wetland prior to mining
activities. The soil series prior to impact were not discussed. Only the surrounding soils
were discussed.
12) The plan does not discuss the method of mitigation (restoration, creation etc.).
13) The plan does not provide acreage for the various communities nor does it propose credits
or justify credit ratios.
14) The plan does not discuss the service area for remaining, if any, credits.
15) The plan does not discuss the final dispensation/management of the mitigation area.
16) All sampling should be for 5 years and not 3.
17) I am concerned about the long term viability of the metal outlet pipe. DWQ believes that
this pipe should be replaced with a gated concrete pipe. Thge gate will allow for the
manipulation of site hydrology.
Please provide a final mitigation plan that discusses the above issues. Thank you for the
opportunity to review the draft plan. Should you have any questions, please call me at (919) 733-
1786.
Sincerely,
Eric Galamb
Environmental Specialist
cc: Central Files
Ken Averitte, FRO
Mr. Nigel Wills -Becker Minerals, Inc

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................ 1
1.2 Purpose ...............................................1
1.3 Mitigation Site History ..................................... 1
2.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 3
2.1 Soils and Topography ...................................... 3
2.2 Hydrology .............................................. 5
2.2.1 Watershed Characteristics ............................. 5
2.2.2 Surface Hydrology ................................... 6
2.2.3 Subsurface Hydrology ................................ 8
2.2.4 Hydrology Summary .................................. 9
3.0 BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................... 10
3.1 Vegetation ............................................10
3.1.1 Natural Vegetation .................................. 10
3.1.2 Planted Areas ..................................... 11
3.2 Wildlife ............................................... 13
4.0 MONITORING PLAN ........................................... 15
4.1 Soils ................................................. 15
4.2 Hydrology ............................................. 15
4.3 Vegetation ............................................ 16
4.4 Report ............................................... 17
4.5 Contingency ........................................... 17
5.0 MITIGATION SITE UTILITY ...................................... 15
5.1 Available Mitigation Credits ................................ 15
5.2 Service Area ........................................... 15
5.3 Dispensation ........................................... 16
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................19

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Site Location Map ........................................ 2
Figure 2. Topography, Soil Sample and Piezometer Locations ................. 4
Figure 3. Planting Plan for the Senter Mine Mitigation Site .................. 12
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Simulated response of mitigation pools to rainfall events ............. 7
Table 2. Senter Mine Mitigation Site Planting Stock ...................... 11
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Soil Analytic Test Results
Appendix B. Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
I
' Senter Mine Mitigation Plan
Harnett County, North Carolina
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
1
Becker Minerals, Inc (Becker Minerals) is proposing an a ansion of its granite quarrying
' operations at its Harnett Quarry located on NC 210 appr imately 3 miles south of Lillington.
The proposed expansion will result in impacts to 5.9 res of jurisdictional wetlands for which
Becker Minerals has been issued a Nationwide 2 permit. Becker Minerals is proposing to
' mitigate jurisdictional impacts through the cr n of forested wetlands at the Senter Mine
which lies approximately 4 miles east of Harnett Quarry, or approximately 1.6 miles east of
' the community of Senter (Figure 1), within the same Upper Little River watershed. Becker
Minerals is c_rf _ ?ng• approximately 15 acres of forested wetlands of which only 5.9 acres are
being used for m' igation of the impacts at the Harnett Quarry and the balance is being held
' in reserve for use i future permits.
I o tvAz e-
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to document existing environmental conditions of the mitigation
' site and to describe the mitigation efforts already undertaken. Specifically, the tasks
performed for this study include: 1) an evaluation of soil conditions; 2) a preliminary
' investigation of surface and subsurface hydrology; and 3) an assessment of biological features
within the mitigation site, including descriptions of existing vegetation and wildlife usage.
1.3 Mitigation Site History
The mitigation site was mined ir3 the late 1950's and early 1960's and then used as a closed
loop recirculation basin for the wastewater from the sand and gravel processing plant. This
area was constantly used to recirculate waters and settle out silt and clays until 1991 when
' the basin had reached capacity. At this point in time the recirculation system was moved
further east in the basin complex and reclamation activities commenced on this portion of the
settling basin system. The first step in the reclamation process was to remove the surface
' waters. This was done by natural drainage followed by pumping. Draining the basins took
approximately 3 years after which time the present surface water configuration had been
developed. An outfall structure was installed so that excess stormwater could drain naturally
from the area.
1

N
n .
I 1 ;1

r
)
1
• 1668 6 v L.
brick
Kilrs \
•
L
I

68

HarnE
,60,

//?I ? %/'111 \67? 1? \\\ \ -
n u , ?
% il
/
Mitigation Site Boundary ` 4'
0 0.25 0.50 MI
0 025 0.50 Km
Source: USGS Bunnlevel Quadrangle, 1981%,-'/
JU
1
1?6

0
\\?? btt'Pleasant
??
)%,l
L
r
O
A V E L
i (\
Site Location Map Figure: 1
Environmental Senter Mine Mitigation Site
Services, Inc. Becker Minerals, Inc. Project: ER97012
Harnett County, North Carolina Date: May 1997
2

2.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Soils and Topography
Natural soil has been removed from the mitigation site through historic mining practices.
-r-bed landscape indicates that much of the
1 - -
Review of soils mapping for the surrounding undistu-
mitigation site originally may have been composed of Grantham loam (Typic Paieaquuits),
' Exum very fine sandy loam (Aquic Paieuduits), and Nahunta loam (Aeric Pa/eaquuits) (USDA
1994). The medium now present is a sedimentation/slurry residue.
The settled residue forms a nearly level surface contained within steep-sided dikes which are
former overburden stripping piles. Overall, the mitigation site is nearly level, with a gradual
slope from approximately 148 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwest to
' approximately 142 feet MSL in the southeast (Figure 2). This equates to an overall slope of
approximately 6 feet over a distance of 2400 feet. The historic landscape is presumed to have
been nearly level based on characteristics of the soils thought to have been present originally.
Each of the three presumed dominant historic soils (Grantham, Exum, and Nahunta) may form
in areas which typically have 0 to 2 percent slopes (USDA 1994).
' Soil borings were taken throughout the mitigation site to determine profile characteristics,
especially along discernible topographic gradients within the site. Soil characteristics across
much of the mitigation site are fairly homogeneous with slight differentiation observed in gross
characteristics between the interior of the site and the site periphery.
Profiles in the interior portions of the mitigation site are characterized by material comprised
mainly of clay and silt particles with little development of horizon differentiation beyond
particle deposition. Clay concentrations are higher in surface zones, and silt concentrations
are higher in subsurface zones. No sand deposition was noted within 6 feet of the surface
' within interior portions of the site. Free water occurs at depths of approximately 6 inches, and
the silt/clay mixtures at this depth are mostly in a highly viscous, free-flowing, state.
' Along the periphery of the mitigation site a sandy layer is present beginning at a depth of
approximately 24 inches. This sandy layer may be a product of the most recent slurry input,
' or may result from sand sloughing from adjacent dikes. This sand has created a more solid
profile, with evidence of the development of horizon differentiation. Gleying is press at
depths of 12 inches, and free water occurs at depths of approximately 8 inches. Oxidized
' rhizospheres were noted.
Soil samples were taken at two locations for additional analysis (Figure 2). For each sample,
a surface sub-sample and subsurface sub-sample were submitted to the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) Agronomic Division for analytic analyses of nutrient

.L M
ISO 1
i % 15L1? 111.6 36? l5V
\? x
--
1506 _;? \ 16
l469
I 141.48 111 11
y ? IIP.O\ 1170 \
x ( ?/ \
531 \, I \
150.1 ?.y.\ 1 ? 11
1l \ ? x
3 3 I, 1.6L
?\ \\
it I` ? /s?\ sz\ ? \
\1 ua?
1! .1.6.7 \A? 9 \, PZ-3 \ \,\ 11 ues
PZ-
566 ,
161
1e5,
3 15
117.6
z
1]
, 161.6
1561 1
V.C. 145.0 14
15191
}
151 4
1544 147.1 140
x "
U62 ; ,115.
71 154.6
6 ` \
111.2 1.1 `\
/ ?r.] 7??? ••\ \\._/7 11:?`,,t I
III J/ 1'11J?? `R ? 1 1 1111.\\\ 1119.0 yl Sll x 1159 \ 1 6',.
\ SB/
1 x \? \ 1\ \ 1\
1110 IS \\ 14 \ \ ).
1 6611?? 15 6 1 \-N\144.4
I ] \
\1 \\ X SS-,15p
` I/T6 \ 611 `
Ii.? •?? '71 X 1\ \ x 1
) \
x_
1 .14 143
`i , X11 1\\??( X \\
X I/ ? i6 X FIIIy\\` `P.
",,6?--\ \ Il ?i " 1 I5r r \\ 1, 50.5
,
76 1•
?, r ? ? %115.6 \, ; X • PZ-2l
_ \1 I
V 11 \ L \\. \ i r
/ ? ?\ L 111.6 V \? 111.1 \ 111\ I ? Ai ' 1 X \
U6') X 1 \\? 111, i
1112 X 1441 r x \ ?;? I \ I H .] `1- \• 1.4:,`
1 4 I ?9
?' 144 •?\_ 141
1504 X 14 ,
1 \?\ \\ 4 1494 1 ,
¦
146 SS-2
'
1413
4`i ,?? \\ 2J x ,? 1
1469
Piezometer location 14
... \ . \? )7 YYt K
? Soil sample location \_ \ \ ? - ?, \
X34 ?l I ? 1 -- ?
6ti Mitigation site boundary 1??
1 ? i z ?a r
0 200 400 Feet ?\- -
Iu1
x
O 50 100 Meters\ 1416 171 109
` X 1 ,1
Map Source: GeoOne, Reynoldaburg, Ohio
140
\- _ / ` 1 11•
1415
Topography, Soil Figure: 2
Environmental Sample and Piezometer Locations
Services, Inc. Senter Mine Mitigation Site Project: ER97012
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Harnett County, North Carolina Date: May 1997
4
I

I

presence, cation exchange capacity, and base saturation. Analysis of both samples indicates
acidic conditions, with a pH range of 4.1 to 4.2 within the top 12 inches. Cation exchange
capacity and base saturation are low, with corresponding low levels of available nutrients.
Complete test results are presented in Appendix A. -
2.2 Hydrology
Hydrology issues for the Senter Mine mitigation site are presented in the following three
subsections which cover watershed characteristics, surface hydrology, and subsurface
hydrology.
2.2.1 Watershed Characteristics
The mitigation site is located within the Upper Little River sub-basin (unit 030613) of the Cape
Fear River Basin. Drainage from the site is received by First Silver Run, which is a small
tributary with an origin located near the southwestern corner of the mitigation site. First Silver
Run has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 18-20-33 by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). First Silver Run flows in a southerly direction for approximately 1.3 stream-
miles before entering the Upper Little River (SIN 18-20-[23.51). The Upper Little River
continues in an easterly direction for approximately 6.2 stream-miles before entering the Cape
Fear River (SIN 18416.71). Second Silver Run (SIN 18-20-33-1), which provides drainage east
of Senter Mine, joins First Silver Run approximately 0.3 stream-miles above the Upper Little
River confluence.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best
usage classification of_)q?j as been assigned to First Silver Run from the source to the
confluence with the Upper Little River, as well as to the receiving waters of the Upper Little
River and Cape Fear River (DEM 1993). The designation WS-IV denotes waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point
source discharges are permitted pursuant to special rules. Local programs to control nonpoint
source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. WS-IV waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental
basis.
The mitigation site is part of an estimated 100-acre watershed draining to a culvert located
near the southeastern corner of the mitigation site. For hydrologic modeling purposes, this
watershed is divided into two watershed sub-basins which are separated at the overburden
stripping pile located along the western periphery of the mitigation area. The mitigation area
occupies 15 acres of an approximately 40-acre sub-basin located in the downstream portion
5

of the culvert watershed. A channel which breaches the overburden stripping pile provides
hydrologic input to the sub-basin containing the mitigation site in the form of runoff from the
approximately 60-acre sub-basin located upstream.
2.2.2. Surface Hydrology
The mitigation site is divided into cells, each about 100 to 200 feet wide and up to about
2700 feet long. Areas of pooled water exist within each cell. These pools are formed by
depressions in the mine tailings. The mitigation site is bounded by earthen berms such that
if outflow were restricted, and seepage and evaporation losses were not too great, the site
could re-form a larger pool comparable to that present before de-watering operations began.
Outflow from the mitigation site must pass through a 30-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe
culvert located near the--sguthea.stern_cnrner of tha site. -Surface water inflow to the mitigation
site comes from direct rainfall and discharges from adjacent cells.
Surface water hydrology and hydraulics were modeled with the aid of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' computer program HEC-1, Flood Hydrology Package. HEC-1 was used to
develop and route hypothetical storm hydrographs through the mitigation site. This model
uses drainage area and topography to predict the degree of surface inundation from rainfall
events. A rigorous evaluation was not possible because available aerial topographic mapping
provided detail only to the level of 2-foot contour intervals; as such, the analyses and results
should be considered preliminary.
A lumped parameter, distributed element model of the system was developed consisting of
two catchment elements and two reservoir elements. Catchment elements were selected to
divide the watershed into two parts: the area within the mitigation site, and the area upstream
of the channel along the western periphery of the mitigation site. Rainfall depth-duration-
frequency data were taken from NOAA HYDRO-35 and USWB TP-40. Hypothetical design
storm events were developed within HEC-1 from the rainfall depth-duration-frequency data.
Rainfall runoff was estimated within HEC-1 using the USDA Soil Conservation Service Unit=
Hydrograph Method. Peak discharge for the mitigation site catchment is computed at 20 cubic-
feet per second (cfs) for a one-inch rainfall and 162 cfs for a 2-year rainfall; for the catchment
upstream from the mitigation site these values are 11 cfs and 145 cfs, respectively. Routing
of the catchment discharges was completed within HEC-1 using estimated elevation-area data
for the pools and computed elevation-discharge relations for the culvert and channel. Because
of the limitations imposed by available mapping, elevation-area data may be subject to revision.
Individual pools or cells were not modeled due to insufficient definition provided on the
topographic mapping. As such, the entire mitigation site is modeled as one pool.
6

I

I

11

Two reservoir elements are defined in the HEC-1 model: one for the pools within the mitigation
site, and another for the area upstream of the mitigation site. Elevation-discharge relations
were computed from standard relationships between head and flow for weirs or taken from
published culvert capacity data (USBPR 1963). The channel connecting the upstream area
with the mitigation site was assumed to act as a broad-crested weir. Discharge from the 30-
inch corrugated metal pipe culvert-Was estimated as _ if the culvert were only a-24_-inch
diameter pipe because of the reduced hydraulic efficiency of the bent ends, oblong cross-
section, and sediment deposits.
Two initial conditions were modeled to reflect different pool conditions within the mitigation
site. First, the system performance was evaluated assuming the pools within the mitigation
site had some "normal" water elevation. The assumption of "normal" water elevation is based
on site observations on April 25, 1997. Next, the performance of the system was evaluated
with initially dry pools. Again, these estimates assume the pools within the mitigation site are
at the same elevation and connected. Table 1 summarizes the results of the analyses for the
mitigation site pools.
Table 1 . Simulated response of mitigation site pools to rainfall events.
Normal Water Dry Pool
Rainfall Event Starting pool Peak pool Starting pool Peak pool
elevation elevation elevation elevation
One-inch storm 143.7 143.8 . 141.8 142.3
2-year storm 143.7 144.5 141.8 144.1
To aid in evaluation of soil moisture and groundwater conditions, ten years of rainfall data
were obtained for a station at Dunn, North Carolina. Based on this data, an average of 13 to
14 one-inch or greater storms can be expected in any year; 7 to 8 of these events will occur
within the period April through September.
The preliminary surface modeling shows that a 1-inch rainfall will cause only a slight rise (0.1
foot) in the mitigation pools if water is near "normal" levels, as defined by the water levels
present on site April 25, 1997. A one-inch rainfall may not quite fill the mitigation pools if
they are dry initially (0.5 foot rise). A two-year rainfall will likely fill all pools under any initial
conditions. Detention time (water above initial elevation) is likely in excess of 12 hours for a
one-inch rain at "normal" water conditions. Detailed information on retention time is not
provided by the HEC-1 modeling. Even so, excess surface water is currently being adequately
drained by the existing culvert without prolonged periods of inundation.
7

I

However, field observations suggest the presence of surface saturation for extended periods
of time within the hardwood planting zones, perhaps year-round. Total detention time depends
largely on groundwater and subsurface conditions. The "normal" groundwater table is believed
to be at or near the surface. Seepage from adjacent cells, low evapotranspiration rates
attributed to sparse vegetative cover, and regular rainfall events determine the overall
hydrology of this site. The evapotransporation rate is expected to increase as the trees
become established and mature. Site hydrology may be affected slightly by the increased
evapotranspiration rate; however, this increase may be offset by other factors such as
increased shading over open water areas from maturing tree canopy reducing surface water
evaporation rates and prolonged precipitation retention time due to increased foliage cover.
2.2.3 Subsurface Hydrology
During an April 6, 1997 site visit, a series of three exploratory soil borings were made to
evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of the slurry within the bottomland tree planting zones of
the mitigation site. The soil borings were advanced to a depth of 28 inches and then a
temporary, sleeved piezometer was installed in the boring. Temporary piezometers (PZ) (Figure
2) were installed to obtain hydraulic conductivity data in areas representing the major
hydrologic regimes present on the site. Temporary piezometers were removed following data
collection.
PZ-1 was installed near the northern end of the site within a transitional, "intermittently
flooded" zone between lower elevation pools and dike sides. This area was sufficiently stable
on the surface to form a crust capable of supporting weight. The location of PZ-1 was
selected to obtain data on those areas not currently inundated; depth to free water at this
' location was 28 inches below the surface. The other two piezometers were installed adjacent
to ponded areas in two of the former settling basin cells: PZ-2 in the south, and PZ-3 in the
northwest. The slurry was very viscous at these two locations; the depth to free water was
' within 2 inches of the surface.

Following the establishment of equilibrium conditions, hydraulic conductivity tests were
performed with each temporary piezometer using a slug test method, which measures the
response of the saturated zone to a localized, induced stress. Slug tests were conducted
following a standard protocol: 1) the static depth to water was measured in each piezometer;
2) a quantity of water was then removed from each piezometer to draw the water level down;
and 3) the resulting rise in water level over time was recorded. The time-recovery data were
then analyzed using methods established by Bouwer and Rice (1976). Data and calculations
from the slug tests are presented in Appendix B.
The calculated values for hydraulic conductivity are low, ranging from 18.1 x 10.5 cm/sec at
PZ-1 to 0.7 x 10-5 cm/sec at PZ-2 and 0.3 x 10' cm/sec at PZ-3. The low calculated hydraulic
8

conductivity values are typical for the slurry material found at each location. For comparison,
hydraulic conductivity values for Grantham, Exum, and Nahunta soils (believed to have been
present on site historically) range from 8466.7 x 10-5 to 25400.1 x 10-5 cm/sec in surface
layers and 846.7 x 10-5 to 2540.0 x 10-5 cm/sec in subsurface layers. The differences in
hydraulic conductivity values among the piezometers is attributed to the ratio of clay and silt
particles in each profile. Clay consists of finer-sized particles than silt, with corresponding
smaller pore spaces between particles and higher adhesive properties. PZ-1, with a calculated
hydraulic conductivity value slightly higher than the other two borings, was located in an area
that had dried out considerably on the surface and possessed 6 inches of crust and
substantially more silt than clay in the profile. The other two piezometers (PZ-2 and PZ-3)
were located adjacent to areas of ponded water. The profiles for these two piezometers
contained a higher proportion of clay in the cuttings than was present in the profile for PZ-1,
which accounts for calculated hydraulic conductivity values for PZ-2 and PZ-3, which are
lower than that calculated for PZ-1.
The low hydraulic conductivity values calculated for the slurry present at the mitigation site
indicate that there is very little subsurface drainage; inputs, such as precipitation or runoff, will
remain on-site until either drained off by surface drainage features or lost to
evapotranspiration. The values of the hydraulic conductivity testing, together with the results
of the surface water modeling, indicate that the mitigation site is capable of supporting
wetland hydrology consisting of saturation at or within 12 inches of the surface exceeding
12.5 percent (continuous) of the growing season. This equates to a minimum of 28
consecutive days in Harnett County based on a growing season of 226 days, defined as March
23 through November 5 by the 28° Fahrenheit threshold with a probability of 5 years in 10.
In fact, it is assumed that the site exhibits subsurface hydrology at or near the surface for a
majority of the year.
2.2.4 Hydrology Summary
Based on investigation of subsurface and surface hydrology, this mitigation site is expected
to meet wetland hydrology criterion of inundation or saturation exceeding T2:5-percent of the
growing season. Hydraulic conductivity tests show that little water is lost through subsurface
seepage. The depressional areas within the mitigation site retain water derived from
precipitation events and run-off from an approximately 60-acre catchment basin located
upstream. Because most of the mitigation site planting area lies within 2.3 feet elevation of
the normal pool elevation within these depressional areas, the mitigation areas are expected
to receive hydrologic influences by saturation or overflow from the depressional areas. A one-
inch rainfall is expected to raise the pool levels by 0.1 foot over normal levels; an average of
13 to 14 one-inch rain events may be expected in any year. Severe flooding is not expected
to be a problem; a 2-year rain event is expected to raise pool elevations by only 0.8 foot over
normal levels. The outlet pipe appears to provide adequate surface drainage for the site.
9

3.0 BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Vegetation
Vegetation present within the Senter Mine mitigation site is discussed in the following two
subsections covering vegetation naturally colonizing the site (Natural Vegetation) and the
species planted as part of the mitigation plan (Planted Areas).
3.1.1 Natural Vegetation
' De-watering operations have resulted in a mosaic of shallow water and exposed flats which
are conducive to colonization by hydrophytic vegetation. Much of the exposed area within the
' mitigation site is covered by sparse to dense herbaceous vegetation, although large areas of
unvegetated flats remain. The vegetation cover has increased steadily since the de-watering
operation began according to observations by Becker Minerals employees.

The mitigation planting area consists of poorly-drained flats surrounding several permanent or
semi-permanent shallow water located in the interiors of former settling basin cells. Deeper
portions of the pools are generally devoid of rooted vegetation, but algae predominates in some
pools. The shallow fringes of these depressions are generally well-vegetated with 50 to 75
percent coverage dominated by hydrophytic herbs such as Canada rush (Juncus canadensis),
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), blunt spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa), and cat-tail (Typha sp.).
Vegetative cover is generally sparse and patchy in areas subject to seasonal flooding and
prolonged saturation. Where vegetation has become established in this zone, herbaceous
coverage generally ranges between 30 and 50 percent. Canada rush and woolgrass dominate
the vegetated areas; other species present in this zone include bushy broom-sedge
(Andropogon glomeratus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and clubmoss (Lycopodium
alopecuroides/appressum). Pioneering shrub and tree species are present in low numbers
throughout this zone and include young individuals (mostly less than 3 feet tall) of loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata)rgroundsel-tree (Baccharis
halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and willow (Salix sp.). -Pioneering shrub and tree
species, especially tag alder, are found in higher densities in the southwestern portion of the
mitigation site and along the dike bases.
Contiguous to the mitigation planting areas are better-drained sites within the slurry residue
t and dike slopes. An area in the northwestern portion of the site has been planted with rows
of pine seedlings; this area is not included in the mitigation acreage. Although densities are
' still low, pioneering shrubs and trees are more prevalent on the better-drained dike slopes and
include many of the species found in the mitigation planting areas as well as sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and winged sumac (Rhus copallina).
' 10

I
' Herbaceous species are present in low densities (mostly less than 50 percent coverage) and
include species typically adapted to better-drained conditions such as bush-clover (Lespedeza
' sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), broom-sedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), and grasses.

I

3.1.2 Planted Area
Becker Minerals designed two general planting zones (Figure 3) based on hydrologic conditions
observed within the mitigation site: these planting zones consist of cypress-tupelo-buttonbush
in areas subject to permanent to semi-permanent flooding; and mixed hardwods in areas
subject to seasonal flooding or prolonged saturation. Tree and shrub species were selected
for planting based on hydrologic tolerances of the species and availability of stock.
Approximately 10 acres of permanently to semi-permanently flooded areas have been planted
with bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis). Approximately 5 acres of seasonally flooded to saturated areas have been
planted with a mix of black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
overcup oak (Q. lyrata), willow oak (Q. phellos), water oak (Q. nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), as well as bald-cypress and tupelo. Table 2 presents the breakdown for the
seedlings planted at the Senter Mine mitigation site.
Table 2. Senter Mine mitigation site planting stock.
Number of Seedlings Planted in Zone
Species Cypress-Tupelo-Buttonbush Mixed Hardwoods
Bald Cypress 2300 400
Tupelo 1800 300
Buttonbush 1900
Black Gum 400
Swamp Chestnut Oak 400
Overcup Oak - 500
Willow Oak 500
Water Oak 300
Green Ash 400
Total (number per acre in 6000 (600) 3200 (640)
parenthesis)
11

ER97012/IANE.DWG
000
o °o°o °o
Ooog??o
r?`0 0
o 0
r r
O r r
r r 0
r
o°r °
r r O
0000 00
r 0 0 0 00p00
O
r 0 00
0p00 000 DO
O O O
°0 000 r °O
r 00 0 r r
r O r r 00
O r r 000
0 r r O
? r r r
0 r r r r
rr
/ 00 00
/ O
00 r
/ 00 r
0
0
0 ,
°0
PLANTING ZONES
CYPRESS-TUPELO-BUTTONBUSH
0°00 MIXED HARDWOODS
SHALLOW WATER/MARSH
a GRASSES AND/OR PINES
0 p0
00
° °
o ° Oo
/ 0
O r

O 0
0 O
O O r
r O
0
r O
/ 0 /
0
0 ,
°
00 /
O

/ 0 r r 00
r r r- .-- -0 /
0
0
0
rr
rrr
/ r
0 r
r r 00 r r r 00 00 r
0 0
O 00 r r r °° 00 00 O r
O r r r

0 r O O
°0 r ° i
0 r 0 O°O ° 0 00 r .-
0
0
0 0
00 r r r
r r 00 00 r ° r r
r
°
°°
O 00000
00°
r r 000000 r r ,-. ,-. O
r .--r O O O r r 0
°O
°0°
°
°
r
r r O O
O
r
°
0
0
0
0
0
r
0
0
r
p
p
p
°O
00
00
0
00000
000
00000°
0 FEET 300 000
PLANTING PLAN FOR THE SENTER MINE MITIGATION SITE
SnvtronmenW BECKER MINERALS, INC.
Services, Inc. HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Drawn By: WGL Figure: 3
Checked By: KWM Project: ER97012
Scale: 1:3600 Date: MAY 1997

Bare-root seedlings of bottomland tree and shrub species were planted in January 1997. Leaf-
out of the planted seedlings has been confirmed as of the date of this report. Viability of
newly planted seedlings has not been established.
3.1 Wildlife
In spite of on-going mining operations adjacent to the mitigation site, the mosaic of pools,
freshwater marshes, early successional wetlands, and upland ecotones within the mitigation
site provide potential habitat opportunities for a variety of wildlife species.
Mammal signs observed within the mitigation area represent larger- and medium-sized species
including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Felis
rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.). Because cover is
generally limited within the mitigation area, most of these species probably represent
individuals foraging from the protective cover of adjacent forested areas to the south. These
species would be expected to continue utilizing the mitigation site. The open and early-
successional habitats are expected to be utilized by small mammals such as southeastern
shrew (Sorex longirostris), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
and eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis). Development of forest cover will
eventually result in the replacement of least shrew, hispid cotton rat, and eastern harvest
mouse by species that utilize wet forested communities, such as southern short-tailed shrew
(Blarina carolinensis), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nutallil, and cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus).
Several species of birds were observed within the mitigation site during the site visits (late
March and April), including late winter visitors, migrants, and presumed breeders singing on
territory. Waterfowl observed during site visits include pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus
podiceps), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Arras platyrhynchos), and wood duck
(Aix sponsa). Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) was observed on site, and other fish-
eating birds expected to utilize the mitigation site include green heron (Butorides virescens) and
great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Wintering and migrant shorebirds are expected to utilize
the existing exposed flats and shallow pools, although the only shorebirds observed include
killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), a late migrant.
Species observed utilizing the marsh vegetation and adjacent shrubby vegetation include red-
winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas).
The peripheral dikes and interior overburden stripping piles provide habitat for a variety of
species common to ecotonal and early successional habitats. Species observed include
' northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern kingbird
(Tyrannus tyrannus), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis), barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica), purple martin (Progne subis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), American crow
1 13

(Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum),
gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), pine warbler (Dendroica pious), prairie warbler (D.
discolor), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
chipping sparrow (Spizella arborea), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Tracks of wild
turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) were observed along the dike on the southern edge of the
' mitigation site.
' Assuming development of bottomland hardwood forest will occur over time, this cover type
will favor wood duck over waterfowl adapted to open, marshy pools. Development of forest
cover also will eliminate habitat for most shorebirds, but saturated mixed hardwoods may favor
' species such as American woodcock (Scolopax minor). Mature bottomland forest is expected
to provide habitat for such species as Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), prothonotary
' warbler (Protonotaria citrea), northern parula (Parula americana), barred owl (Strix varia), and
red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Development of mixed hardwoods would increase
forage available for wild turkey, a species recently stocked in the vicinity.
1 The semi-permanently inundated and ephemeral pools in the mitigation site provide suitable
habitat for an array of semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians. Species observed include
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) and southern leopard frog (Rana utricu/aria). Other
species expected include eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), yellowbelly slider
' (Trachemys scripta), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and redbelly watersnake
(Nerodia erythrogaster). Aquatic and semi-aquatic reptile and amphibian usage of the
mitigation site is expected to continue as the mitigation site matures.
' Fish observed in pools within the mitigation site include eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrooki), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
Crappie (Pomoxis sp.) is reported to have been present prior to de-watering. Over time,
mitigation site pools may be colonized by other fish entering the site during high water
' conditions through the drainage pipe located at the southeastern end of the mitigation site.
Possible colonizers include species adapted to the conditions present in shallow pools and
waters, such as golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), yellow and brown bullheads
(Ameirus natalis and A. nebulosus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), eastern mudminnow
(Umbra pygmaea), and bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus).
0

14

1 4.0 MONITORING PLAN
' The Senter Mine mitigation site is unique in its origin as a clay settling pond; as such, its
success will be measured by how it meets success criteria for wetland soils, hydrology, and
vegetation. The proposed monitoring plan is based on the Corps of Engineers' (Wilmington
' District) Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93). Monitoring will be
conducted for a period of 5 years in order to document success and propose remedial actions
as needed. Monitoring reports will be generated annually for the 5-year monitoring period.
4.1 Soils
' Because this site does not contain natural soil conditions, target conditions within the slurry
residue should be the demonstrated suitability of the slurry medium for supporting the target
' plant species. Target conditions include increasing soil pH to between 5.5 and 6.0 following
recommendations from the N.C Department of Agriculture for optimum hardwood tree and
seed production.
Soil remediation will be necessary to increase existing soil pH (currently within the 4.1 to 4.5
' range) to conditions better suited for hardwood tree growth (5.5 to 6.0 range). Approximately
0.6 tons of lime per acre will be broadcast onto the mitigation site before the start of the next
' growing season.
Monitoring will consist of:
1. Visual inspection of soil borings along transects across the slope gradient
throughout the site to document the development of horizon differentiation. A
minimum of two (2) borings in each of the two bottomland hardwood planting zones
should be made to represent conditions across the site. Locations of these monitoring
sites will be provided with the first monitoring report.
' 2. Annual analysis of organic content, nutrient presence, pH, cation exchange
capacity, and base saturation for samples from each of the two bottomland tree
_ planting zones.
4.2 Hydrology
The Corps of Engineers wetlands requirements call for a minimum hydroperiod, which can be
' either inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the surface, for at least 12.5 percent of the
growing season. Hydrology investigations indicate that this criterion is likely met. Hydrology
' monitoring will be conducted to verify this assumption. Hydrology monitoring may be
discontinued following successful documentation that the site meets wetland criteria in a
normal r•ain?alT year.
15

L
'1

n
L'

Monitoring will consist of:
1. A minimum of four (4) wetland monitoring wells will be installed within each of the
two bottomland tree planting zones prior to the onset of the next growing season.
These wells will be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in the Corps
of Engineers' Installing Monitoring We//sl ezometers in Wet/ands (WRP Technical Note
HY-11-3.1, August 1993). Wells will be oriented as linear transects within each former
settling basin cell across slope gradient, extending from the bottom of drainage swales
to the upland dike ridges. Within each transect along a particular landscape gradient,
wells will be placed at a maximum 200-foot interval; however, changes in topography
may require closer placement of wells within individual transects. The monitoring wells
will be set to a depth 24 inches below the surface. Locations of monitoring wells will
be determined when monitoring transects are established; locations will be provided
with the first monitoring report.
2. The monitoring wells will be manually checked twice a month during the growing
season. Hydrological monitoring will continue until the hydrology success criterion has
been documented.

1 4.3

f?

3. The outlet pipe located near the southeastern corner of the southeastern corner of
the mitigation site will be checked on a regular basis and cleaned out as needed.
Vegetation
Vegetative success will include the survival of a minimum 320 treU..PBr.-acre_within the. 15
acre planting zone after 5 years. Pioneering individuals of species compatible with the planting
plan may be counted towards this goal provided pines do no exceed 10 percent of the total
composition, or pioneering hardwood species (i.e. red maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar) each do
no exceed 10 percent of the total composition.
Monitoring will consist of: _
1. Up to eight belt transects will be established within the mitigation area which will
be representative of the bottomland tree planting zones. Locations of these transects
will be provided with the first monitoring report.
2. Annual monitoring of bottomland tree plantings will be conducted during the
growing season for the 5-year monitoring period. The trees within the belt transects
across the mitigation area will be monitored for growth and survival rates.
16

4.4 Report
A report will be produced within two months following each annual monitoring period and
submitted to relevant agencies. Included in the annual report will be photographs, sample plot
data, well data (if applicable), and a discussion of problems/resolutions. Deviations from
accepted mitigation plan will be coordinated with and approved by the appropriate regulatory
oversight agency.
4.5 Contingency
In the event that success criteria are not met, Becker Minerals will assume responsibility for
remediation. Coordination will be undertaken with appropriate resource/regulatory agencies
in an effort to determine strategies for modifying and implementation of remediation efforts.
17
' 5.0 MITIGATION SITE UTILITY
1 5.1 Available Mitigation Credits
The mitigation site includes approximately 10 acres of permanently to semi-permanently
' flooded areas planted with bald cypress, tupelo, and buttonbush; approximately 5 acres of
seasonally flooded to saturated areas planted with a mix of bottomland hardwood species; and
approximately 5.5 acres of shallow open water and freshwater marsh. The COE has made a
' preliminary determination that the proposed mitigation by tree planting and soil modification
? ?
existing low quality wetland rather than creation due to
may be considered enhancement of
the naturalization of the settling basin as a jurisdictional wetland. Becker Minerals has
requested that the COE reconsider its position since the mitigation site has been created by
conversion of a former non-vegetated, deep-water settling pond. De-watering operations
' occurring in conjunction with mitigation site preparation has created the conditions which have
been conducive to naturalization by pioneering hydrophytic species. The COE has determined ,
that 5.9 acres of proposed mitigation will be acceptable for use at 1:1 ratio under terms of the
' existing Nationwide Permit 26 authorization which is "grandfathered" until January 21, 1998
(draft letter from COE dated June 27, 1997).
'
Remaining mitigation credits will be determined following site monitoring. Approximately 9.1
' acres of wetlands within the tree-planting zones and 5.5 acres of existing shallow open water
and freshwater marsh wetlands are expected to be available for future mitigation use. Future
use of remaining credits will be coordinated with the COE and DWQ.
'
5.2 Service Area
' The remaining credits will be held for use in mitigating unavoidable impacts on future Becker
Mineral projects in the Upper Little River watershed.
' 5.3 Dispensation
Becker Minerals will remain responsible for the mitigation site. Restrictive covenants for
protection in perpetuity are being provided under separate agreement with the COE.

1 18

i
6.0 REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of
unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources
Research 3:423-428.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Soil Survey of Harnett County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 171 pp.
19

F,

I

I

APPENDIX A
SOIL ANALYTIC TEST RESULTS

I

L
r-

C
' O
co
U
O
O
' N
LL
L
a?
O
CL
E
' 0
O

•n
'? ti
O j ,^ ` ••
O C O

O U 3 J V

? z
v cv .s

zd
T ? M
J p M
Zi.

J
1 ^'
N C,
v
N cc
v 00
m
e
s
? v
V
I N v
V

?a N ? N

v
N
O
N v
O M
NIf"

f
L
"

oc

M C
v C
+n
r .- N C ti -4T.
(1 J

ll1 :J .-. ^
O V coq pC

1
0
1
;
Ln
ell

f

C -
z:
C
Lr,
C
C)
C v ? v

.? Z cs v 4 J ? v a v U

? _
17, _

i
a
CC
V N
'r CZ,
C er
L' p oo = p
„ \ O
6, Lr,
U-N
q

q
? s.

O ` ..•

M
?
O
?
L 12

?

?.

.`•o.

LVj ci

.f

?

w ?i
?, N V V
..
o_
.
? ocn lip
uc

v = -" y
.. -? ?
N C
O h
y
c C
O C
y
c

OL •
r •

d o
I
~ v
^
G
L
c G
p
.?

h

h
L
?O
p
r

E
En

h

z Q t o o
v

C
O
m
u
O
O
N
N
v?
(n
N
a?
a
N
O
N I
rl
N
M
O
z
'J
LJ.
o -3
J
? N
? Z
O a?
Ci
.O
v

ice. in
'V V7 '1
J

J
If1
r
r
N
v
z
t?
a
0.
V
a
0
0
M
C
0
N
G
lz
O

Pv
'N
O
V
V
r
O
C
'o
Z
c.;
z
z
u.
v
V
w
., c
{o
b.0

? G G

?
N

N V
N ?
M N
N
U V

v
v V
v
1 ? 1 N
?0 lV ?4 ?7 ?0

O N1-n O N N

FN

O
O w
O

ti kr, ^

O ? O
v ?^ v
'r N 'r N

ar m ^. ? ? Q

'.1 i. p ? '? L Lv N b i.

o h
o h ,..
o h
o o y
to ? O ? y ? O
o C h o r =I h 1
0 C
,2
6J Cie ? ? ~.• ? 6) cat ? v? ? .G 6) ? ....
,C
i
1
C
h
M
h Lr,
?a N
U Ln
N
N
N
N
N
5
~ N
ti O
N
00 ?
C ?
v `=
ti
y
C. V
Q' O
h o.
q ?
U
N
3
M
y 1 O
? ? z

APPENDIX B

F1

HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
i
a)
U
N
7
O
m
T N I N
O10'O
L'WWIW
E .M iT III
u'InIU) r
Y CO 1 N
`T (O l (D
OlOO
y
.WIW,W
Tico i-4.
U'OOiOIN
Y IT ?(p IM
i
M 1rl-- i0
?cD?rnv
Q) Ct) O
T iN IM
c'.
O O 10
0 L 10
0) ' T co
i I T
.... I T Ii W v
IO M N
T
Cl) C14
Ir T r
t`N
r T
U?
T v"' T
(D Cl)
T'r
o ?
L;Lo
O O
p
m '
N LO U)
(V r N
IN
Q I
N Cl) 00
O tr) ti
a) 0) Cl)
r- r- (D
O N ti
O r Lo
J T iU)
CO " t IT
O U7 U?
U7 N N
U) Lq Uq
N ;N?N
00 00 'CO
(D (D 1(D
'~ILO'Ln
r iT ?T
Lo a) ' --:I'
In U''v'
.? T
co
T
J
C). 0 0
O i0 0
N'N 1N
I
SI I
'1 II
TiN M
? NIN'N
J
U)
N
N
n.
(D
J
U)
M
N
a
0
J
U)
r
N
CL
CD LO I-q- "IT NT Iq
O O 00 co co 00
C) O M in D) 0
O r 0 0 0 0 0
2

O 00 co co c7 CO
M Cl) M (M Cl)

O 00 M ('M M M
oO t`
V V ?Y V V

O O O O O o
?
U co to O) N U)
a)
T
T
V)
m
E

O
V
O
m
r
00
ao
V
00
U7
T
t,-
00 Q)
N I 0
O
O O
O co
Q) co
O 00
O ti
O ti
O O
m (D
0 (D
0 (0
0 LO
0
0 V I N T

07 Q)
0
O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 O
S
S _ 1
M
(D O
(D 00
(n (D
u') ct
LO M co
(n O
co 00
q- 1-
?t (n M
-,T D)
M (D
M I O V
M I N

S
O t- U7 CO r 0 (n q N O i (D co ;r- T
O 0 O O O) O C) C3)
J OO 00 00 100 ? ? 0 (D
I
U7 4 4 I' V V ? V T V q V 'V'
q

O O O O 0 10 10 O O O 0 10 10 0 0,0
U M (D O N (n ! CO V O (D CO
' O U) O O 0
N co
a) r r r N M CO V (D t- O
r
r
I

E
I
(D I CD t- (V M r (D I t- O V' I-
U7 0 O r CD 'IT O " M N U7 0 CO CO O
, m m U7 N 00 U7 M - (D N ? 00 ti
(D U) zf V' V M M M M N N T r
O T r- M M IT ?f 0 0 (D (D f- M ' 'q
O fl- O M 00 N ao I r N M t- O V r
O CO ti n M M U7 (f) U,) lt M N r r r
r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
2
S
N (D r 00 00 (D 00 O M (D 'P (D D) O 1 M
O t- (D g M N T O 0 CO t` LO M N 1 N
N r r r T T T 0 0 0 0 0 0
S
I? M 00 r T M r O M M U) M O O (D
M M tl- 0 0 r N M M (f) (D 00 O T r
O O O O T r .- r r r T r N N N

U 0 0 0 0 0 0
U7 0
00 0 0
Iq 0
O 0
(D 0
00 0
O 0
U, 0
I O
co (D O N
T r r T
N N CO Cl) V (D t- O

10.00 -
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.00 -
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.10
PZ-1 Slug Test
Senter M ine
Drawdown vs. Time
Best Fit
l

I '
?

i
i
I
I T

I L

i
I
_

I . I
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00
Time (sec)
800.00 1000.00

10.00
9
8
7
E
4

1.00
PZ-2 Slug Test
Senter Mine
Drawdown vs. Time
Best Fit

i

i I i
I I
I
I I i

I 74-

i

I

?
I ,
1
? I
I I j

; I
I
i

-

I

-

'
I

I

j

-

I

I

I

-
0.00 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00
Time (sec)

10.00 -
9
8
7
6
5
4
= 3
PZ-3 Slug Test
Senter M ine
Drawdown vs. Time
- Best Fit
2

I I I I ? II'

-- --

I I I
I
? I I
I j-- I I
I _
I I? ?= 1 I _ i
I
I ( I

I 'I
I I II
? i II
i
I I

? I I
?? I
I

I I %
I I

j I j
I

i
I

i
?
I
i I ? I

I
I ?? I
?

I I

' ?I ? I ?,

III I
I
I

?

?

' I
I
I
? I ? II

I Il

I I
I I
I
I ? ? I ?

I ' I
I I I I,
?

I i
I
?I I? li
I
1.00
0.00 400.00 800.00 1200.00
Time (sec)
1600.00 2000.00

FINAL
SENTER MINE MITIGATION PLAN
Harnett County, North Carolina
ESI Project: ER97-012
Prepared for:
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Cheraw, South Carolina
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
October 1997
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................ 1
1.2 Purpose ...............................................1
1.3 Mitigation Site History ..................................... 1
2.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................3
2.1 Soils and Topography ...................................... 3
2.2 Hydrology .............................................. 5
2.2.1 Watershed Characteristics ............................. 5
2.2.2 Surface Hydrology ................................... 6
2.2.3 Subsurface Hydrology ................................ 8
2.2.4 Hydrology Summary .................................. 9
3.0 BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................... 10
3.1 Vegetation ............................................10
3.1.1 Natural Vegetation .................................. 10
3.1.2 Planted Areas ..................................... 11
3.2 Wildlife ............................................... 13
4.0 MONITORING PLAN ........................................... 15
4.1 Soils ................................................. 15
4.2 Hydrology ............................................. 15
4.3 Vegetation ............................................ 16
4.4 Report ............................................... 17
4.5 Contingency ........................................... 17
5.0 MITIGATION SITE UTILITY ...................................... 15
5.1 Available Mitigation Credits ................................ 15
5.2 Service Area ........................................... 15
5.3 Dispensation ........................................... 16
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................19
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Fagg
Figure 1. Site Location Map ........................................ 2
Figure 2. Topography, Soil Sample and Piezometer Locations ................. 4
Figure 3. Planting Plan for the Senter Mine Mitigation Site .................. 12
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Simulated response of mitigation pools to rainfall events ............. 7
Table 2. Senter Mine Mitigation Site Planting Stock ...................... 11
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Soil Analytic Test Results
Appendix B. Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
Appendic C. Harnett Quarry Permit Area Wetlands and Functional Assessment
it

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Senter Mine Mitigation Plan
Harnett County, North Carolina
' Becker Minerals, Inc (Becker Minerals) is proposing an expansion of its granite quarrying
operations at its Harnett Quarry located on NC 210 approximately 3 miles south of Lillington.
The proposed expansion will result in impacts to 5.9 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for which
' Becker Minerals has been issued a Nationwide 26 permit. Becker Minerals is proposing to
mitigate jurisdictional impacts through enhancement of existing wetlands at the Senter Mine
' which lies approximately 4 miles east of Harnett Quarry, or approximately 1.6 miles east of
the community of Senter (Figure 1), within the same Upper Little River watershed. Becker
Minerals is enhancing approximately 15 acres of wetlands of which only 5.9 acres are being
' used for mitigation of the impacts at the Harnett Quarry and the balance is being held in
reserve for use in future permits.
1 1.2 Purpose
' The purpose of this study is to document existing environmental conditions of the mitigation
site and to describe the mitigation efforts already undertaken. Specifically, the tasks
performed for this study include: 1) an evaluation of soil conditions; 2) a preliminary
t investigation of surface and subsurface hydrology; and 3) an assessment of biological features
within the mitigation site, including descriptions of existing vegetation and wildlife usage.
' 1.3 Mitigation Site History
' The mitigation site was mined in the late 1950's and early 1960's and then used as a closed
loop recirculation basin for the wastewater from the sand and gravel processing plant. This
area was constantly used to recirculate waters and settle out silt and clays until 1991 when
' the basin had reached capacity. At this point in time the recirculation system was moved
further east in the basin complex and reclamation activities commenced on this portion of the
' settling basin system. The first step in the reclamation process was to remove the surface
waters. This was done by natural drainage followed by pumping. Draining the basins took
approximately 3 years after which time the present surface water configuration had been
' developed. An outfall structure was installed so that excess stormwater could drain naturally
from the area.
1

J

?..

,
\
li I
t 160 i i.
K
1
6

\1 O
T
O ? o• _ ____ ?1 it

?
r
J ?
\ -
I
II
ll
. 1. • y J'„a,fc<- ?, ,tr?'°,: ,.N 's
/ S• ? L

1 ., ?I
?' 1?.. ' ,
u
1 / y r
/
Brick
iin )
,_
i Y• I li Y

- ?= r r

.. 1
• f \
r
Harne
,_
I)
K n u
/
i // II
u u -

I
first \ o -
r 1
C2(

• `
60,
\ • 401
2021 ` y
° I
/ r 1
1

}• lylt pleasant i ao n U
A` It ;f

/I x

1 Mitigation Site Boundary
1
afl
0 0.25 0.50 MI
a'
I Ir I
/ /J
J c _
.
0 0.25 0.50 Km
!/
r
S
USOS B
O
d
1 ?i / f 1
A V E L

,..
J
ource:
unnlwel
ue
rengle.
981
\

Site Location Map Figure: 1
Environmental Senter Mine Mitigation Site
Project: ER97012
Services, Inc. Becker Minerals, Inc.
Harnett County, North Carolina Date: May 1997

1 2.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Soils and Topography
' Natural soil has been removed from the mitigation site through historic mining practices.
Review of soils mapping for the surrounding undisturbed landscape indicates that much of the
mitigation site originally may have been composed of Grantham loam (Typic Paieaquuits),
' Exum very fine sandy loam (Aquic Paieuduits), and Nahunta loam (Aeric Paieaquuits) (USDA
1994). The medium now present is a sedimentation/slurry residue.
' The settled residue forms a nearly level surface contained within steep-sided dikes which are
former overburden stripping piles. Overall, the mitigation site is nearly level, with a gradual
' slope from approximately 148 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the northwest to
approximately 142 feet MSL in the southeast (Figure 2). This equates to an overall slope of
' approximately 6 feet over a distance of 2400 feet. The historic landscape is presumed to have
been nearly level based on characteristics of the soils thought to have been present originally.
Each of the three presumed dominant historic soils (Grantham, Exum, and Nahunta) may form
in areas which typically have 0 to 2 percent slopes (USDA 1994).
Soil borings were taken throughout the mitigation site to determine profile characteristics,
' especially along discernible topographic gradients within the site. Soil characteristics across
much of the mitigation site are fairly homogeneous with slight differentiation observed in gross
characteristics between the interior of the site and the site periphery.
Profiles in the interior portions of the mitigation site are characterized by material comprised
' mainly of clay and silt particles with little development of horizon differentiation beyond
particle deposition. Clay concentrations are higher in surface zones, and silt concentrations
' are higher in subsurface zones. No sand deposition was noted within 6 feet of the surface
within interior portions of the site. Free water occurs at depths of approximately 6 inches, and
the silt/clay mixtures at this depth are mostly in a highly viscous, free-flowing, state.
' Along the periphery of the mitigation site a sandy layer is present beginning at a depth of
' approximately 24 inches. This sandy layer may be a product of the most recent slurry input,
or may result from sand sloughing from adjacent dikes. This sand has created a more solid
profile, with evidence of the development of horizon differentiation. Gleying is present at
' depths of 12 inches, and free water occurs at depths of approximately 8 inches. Oxidized
rhizospheres were noted.
' Soil samples were taken at two locations for additional analysis (Figure 2). For each sample,
a surface sub-sample and subsurface sub-sample were submitted to the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) Agronomic Division for analytic analyses of nutrient
3
1
S? x
ISO
x 151.111)8 15U 9
00 602 1599
1508
41.9 2 ?1 ?i. 1163 56.e
147.48
141
ISi`1 I \\ , ?50 1619
\ \ / ] u 11U
140 w 14.0 \\ w
\ 39 IJ
" 161,11
)I1 \\ ? ?\ 136.1 ,
11 V1, 145.0 1523 ILL
190.1 x
J ) 1519
\1 ) J 1
1 l w 14.6 ?\\ 1711
t I! , 52.1 1 1541 .1-72 w 14e
s \
1/6.? ,
IS x ?PZ-12 ?-
IS
6 x . PZ-3 1549
x 1 \ `4,61
\ \
6 \
w
] ??? ` 11.6 \\ 1112
737 1139 \ t 6"
.
1x\ 1 I/ 1 90
\
1170
15 \ 11 \ \ 6-
?? w 149 , 11 w 1A\ 11.1 t ?1 J x 56.9
\ IS 6
I 1 ' \ x SS-1
I ,1 1476
`ti?L? X1,71 x ; ' ' I 7 63: 1
x
\ x
\ N?
115 y1 .1 11 l1s 143
YJ 1 \(/\(' \\/f? \ 111
t ;I 11 I \ \ 12
1418
HZ 2?
)? 6L 1 x \•. I r
I.41
1472 x 116'i', IL x 1..] 1 1 w I/l?\. i1:.
1,6.1 I (? x
--??
{ L ?9 -
x 141
101
1 l ISO. 11 /
__ 152.1
\ 1196
116 1 ' SS-2
1112 ? ? •1
w??\??-DSO l 14117
x 1 1168
B Piezometer location
Soil sample location
/Sp i 11 I
Mitigation site boundary \ l 1 .---_.. I
1 t` __yt0.7?. - _
z
0 200 400 Feet \\ ?\ ?O••7"}'? •/ _.- - -``J -?. 1447 ' -
0 so 100 Meters * ?IU q2 1.0.9 \\ 1 I '
\? x
Map Source: GeoOne, Heynoldsburg, Ohio
,,- „U ?-
Iq.)
Topography, Soil Figure: 2
Environmental Sample and Piezometer Locations
Services, Inc. Senter Mine Mitigation Site Project: ER97012
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Harnett County, North Carolina Date: May 1997
4

presence, cation exchange capacity, and base saturation. Analysis of both samples indicates
acidic conditions, with a pH range of 4.1 to 4.2 within the top 12 inches. Cation exchange
capacity and base saturation are low, with corresponding low levels of available nutrients.
Complete test results are presented in Appendix A.
2.2 Hydrology
Hydrology issues for the Senter Mine mitigation site are presented in the following three
subsections which cover watershed characteristics, surface hydrology, and subsurface
1 hydrology.

n

2.2.1 Watershed Characteristics
The mitigation site is located within the Upper Little River sub-basin (unit 030613) of the Cape
Fear River Basin. Drainage from the site is received by First Silver Run, which is a small
tributary with an origin located near the southwestern corner of the mitigation site. First Silver
Run has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 18-20-33 by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). First Silver Run flows in a southerly direction for approximately 1.3 stream-
miles before entering the Upper Little River (SIN 18-20423.5]). The Upper Little River
continues in an easterly direction for approximately 6.2 stream-miles before entering the Cape
Fear River (SIN 18416.7]). Second Silver Run (SIN 18-20-33-1), which provides drainage east
of Senter Mine, joins First Silver Run approximately 0.3 stream-miles above the Upper Little
River confluence.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best
usage classification of WS-IV has been assigned to First Silver Run from the source to the
confluence with the Upper Little River, as well as to the receiving waters of the Upper Little
River and Cape Fear River (DEM 1993). The designation WS-IV denotes waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point
source discharges are permitted pursuant to special rules. Local programs to control nonpoint
source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. WS-IV waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, agriculture, and secondary recreation
which includes human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis.
The mitigation site is part of an estimated 100-acre watershed draining to a culvert located
near the southeastern corner of the mitigation site. For hydrologic modeling purposes, this
watershed is divided into two watershed sub-basins which are separated at the overburden
stripping pile located along the western periphery of the mitigation area. The mitigation area
planting zones occupy 15 acres of an approximately 40-acre sub-basin located in the
downstream portion of the culvert watershed. A channel which breaches the overburden
5

stripping pile provides hydrologic input to the sub-basin containing the mitigation site in the
form of runoff from the approximately 60-acre sub-basin located upstream.
' 2.2.2. Surface Hydrology
' The mitigation site is divided into cells, each about 100 to 200 feet wide and up to about
2700 feet long. Areas of pooled water exist within each cell. These pools are formed by
' depressions in the mine tailings. The mitigation site is bounded by earthen berms such that
if outflow were restricted, and seepage and evaporation losses were not too great, the site
could re-form a larger pool comparable to that present before de-watering operations began.
Outflow from the mitigation site must pass through a 30-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe
culvert located near the southeastern corner of the site. Surface water inflow to the mitigation
' site comes from direct rainfall and discharges from adjacent cells.
Surface water hydrology and hydraulics were modeled with the aid of the U.S. Army Corps
' of Engineers' computer program HEC-1, Flood Hydrology Package. HEC-1 was used to
develop and route hypothetical storm hydrographs through the mitigation site. This model
' uses drainage area and topography to predict the degree of surface inundation from rainfall
events. A rigorous evaluation was not possible because available aerial topographic mapping
provided detail only to the level of 2-foot contour intervals; as such, the analyses and results
' should be considered preliminary.
A lumped parameter, distributed element model of the system was developed consisting of
two catchment elements and two reservoir elements. Catchment elements were selected to
divide the watershed into two parts: the area within the mitigation site, and the area upstream
' of the channel along the western periphery of the mitigation site. Rainfall depth-duration-
frequency data were taken from NOAA HYDRO-35 and USWB TP-40. Hypothetical design
' storm events were developed within HEC-1 from the rainfall depth-duration-frequency data.
Rainfall runoff was estimated within HEC-1 using the USDA Soil Conservation Service Unit
' Hydrograph Method. Peak discharge for the mitigation site catchment is computed at 20 cubic
feet per second (cfs) for a one-inch rainfall and 162 cfs for a 2-year rainfall; for the catchment
upstream from the mitigation site these values are 11 cfs and 145 cfs, respectively. Routing
' of the catchment discharges was completed within HEC-1 using estimated elevation-area data
for the pools and computed elevation-discharge relations for the culvert and channel. Because
' of the limitations imposed by available mapping, elevation-area data may be subject to revision.
Individual pools or cells were not modeled due to insufficient definition provided on the
topographic mapping. As such, the entire mitigation site is modeled as one pool.
' Two reservoir elements are defined in the HEC-1 model: one for the pools within the mitigation
' site, and another for the area upstream of the mitigation site. Elevation-discharge relations
6

were computed from standard relationships between head and flow for weirs or taken from
published culvert capacity data (USBPR 1963). The channel connecting the upstream area
with the mitigation site was assumed to act as a broad-crested weir. Discharge from the 30-
inch corrugated metal pipe culvert was estimated as if the culvert were only a 24-inch
diameter pipe because of the reduced hydraulic efficiency of the bent ends, oblong cross-
section, and sediment deposits.
Two initial conditions were modeled to reflect different pool conditions within the mitigation
site. First, the system performance was evaluated assuming the pools within the mitigation
site had some "normal" water elevation. The assumption of "normal" water elevation is based
on site observations on April 25, 1997. Next, the performance of the system was evaluated
with initially dry pools. Again, these estimates assume the pools within the mitigation site are
at the same elevation and connected. Table 1 summarizes the results of the analyses for the
mitigation site pools.
Table 1. Simulated response of mitigation site pools to rainfall events.
Normal Water Dry Pool
Rainfall Event Starting pool
elevation
Peak pool
elevation
Starting pool Peak pool
elevation elevation
One-inch storm 143.7 143.8 141.8 142.3
2-year storm 143.7 144.5 141.8 144.1
To aid in evaluation of soil moisture and groundwater conditions, ten years of rainfall data
were obtained for a station at Dunn, North Carolina. Based on this data, an average of 13 to
14 one-inch or greater storms can be expected in any year; 7 to 8 of these events will occur
within the period April through September.
The preliminary surface modeling shows that a 1-inch rainfall will cause only a slight rise (0.1
foot) in the mitigation pools if water is near "normal" levels, as defined by the water levels
present on site April 25, 1997. A one-inch rainfall may not quite fill the mitigation pools if
they are dry initially (0.5 foot rise). A two-year rainfall will likely fill all pools under any initial
conditions. Detention time (water above initial elevation) is likely in excess of 12 hours for a
one-inch rain at "normal" water conditions. Detailed information on retention time is not
provided by the HEC-1 modeling. Even so, excess surface water is currently being adequately
drained by the existing culvert without prolonged periods of inundation.
However, field observations suggest the presence of surface saturation for extended periods
of time within the hardwood planting zones, perhaps year-round. Total detention time depends
largely on groundwater and subsurface conditions. The "normal" groundwater table is believed
7

' to be at or near the surface. Seepage from adjacent cells, low evapotranspiration rates
attributed to sparse vegetative cover, and regular rainfall events determine the overall
' hydrology of this site. The evapotransporation rate is expected to increase as the trees
become established and mature. Site hydrology may be affected slightly by the increased
' evapotranspiration rate; however, this increase may be offset by other factors such as
increased shading over open water areas from maturing tree canopy reducing surface water
evaporation rates and prolonged precipitation retention time due to increased foliage cover.
' 2.2.3 Subsurface Hydrology
' During an April 6, 1997 site visit, a series of three exploratory soil borings were made to
evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of the slurry within the bottomland tree planting zones of
the mitigation site. The soil borings were advanced to a depth of 28 inches and then a
temporary, sleeved piezometer was installed in the boring. Temporary piezometers (PZ) (Figure
' 2) were installed to obtain hydraulic conductivity data in areas representing the major
hydrologic regimes present on the site. Temporary piezometers were removed following data
collection.
' PZ-1 was installed near the northern end of the site within a transitional, "intermittently
flooded" zone between lower elevation pools and dike sides. This area was sufficiently stable
' on the surface to form a crust capable of supporting weight. The location of PZ-1 was
selected to obtain data on those areas not currently inundated; depth to free water at this
' location was 28 inches below the surface. The other two piezometers were installed adjacent
to ponded areas in two of the former settling basin cells: PZ-2 in the south, and PZ-3 in the
northwest. The slurry was very viscous at these two locations; the depth to free water was
' within 2 inches of the surface.
' Following the establishment of equilibrium conditions, hydraulic conductivity tests were
performed with each temporary piezometer using a slug test method, which measures the
response of the saturated zone to a localized, induced stress. Slug tests were conducted
' following a standard protocol: 1) the static depth to water was measured in each piezometer;
2) a quantity of water was then removed from each piezometer to draw the water level down;
' and 3) the resulting rise in water level over time was recorded. The time-recovery data were
then analyzed using methods established by Bouwer and Rice (1976). Data and calculations
from the slug tests are presented in Appendix B.
The calculated values for hydraulic conductivity are low, ranging from 18.1 x 10' cm/sec at
PZ-1 to 0.7 x 105 cm/sec at PZ-2 and 0.3 x 105 cm/sec at PZ-3. The low calculated hydraulic
' conductivity values are typical for the slurry material found at each location. For comparison,
hydraulic conductivity values for Grantham, Exum, and Nahunta soils (believed to have been
present on site historically) range from 8466.7 x 10-5 to 25400.1 x 10-5 cm/sec in surface
8

1

0

L

n

layers and 846.7 x 10-6 to 2540.0 x 10-5 cm/sec in subsurface layers. The differences in
hydraulic conductivity values among the piezometers is attributed to the ratio of clay and silt
particles in each profile. Clay consists of finer-sized particles than silt, with corresponding
smaller pore spaces between particles and higher adhesive properties. PZ-1, with a calculated
hydraulic conductivity value slightly higher than the other two borings, was located in an area
that had dried out considerably on the surface and possessed 6 inches of crust and
substantially more silt than clay in the profile. The other two piezometers (PZ-2 and PZ-3)
were located adjacent to areas of ponded water. The profiles for these two piezometers
contained a higher proportion of clay in the cuttings than was present in the profile for PZ-1,
which accounts for calculated hydraulic conductivity values for PZ-2 and PZ-3, which are
lower than that calculated for PZ-1.
The low hydraulic conductivity values calculated for the slurry present at the mitigation site
indicate that there is very little subsurface drainage; inputs, such as precipitation or runoff, will
remain on-site until either drained off by surface drainage features or lost to
evapotranspiration. The values of the hydraulic conductivity testing, together with the results
of the surface water modeling, indicate that the mitigation site is capable of supporting
wetland hydrology consisting of saturation at or within 12 inches of the surface exceeding
12.5 percent (continuous) of the growing season. This equates to a minimum of 28
consecutive days in Harnett County based on a growing season of 226 days, defined as March
23 through November 5 by the 28° Fahrenheit threshold with a probability of 5 years in 10.
In fact, it is assumed that the site exhibits subsurface hydrology at or near the surface for a
majority of the year.
2.2.4 Hydrology Summary
Based on investigation of subsurface and surface hydrology, this mitigation site is expected
to meet wetland hydrology criterion of inundation or saturation exceeding 12.5 percent of the
growing season. Hydraulic conductivity tests show that little water is lost through subsurface
seepage. The depressional areas within the mitigation site retain water derived from
precipitation events and run-off from an approximately 60-acre catchment basin located
upstream. Because most of the mitigation site planting area lies within 2.3 feet elevation of
the normal pool elevation within these depressional areas, the mitigation areas are expected
to receive hydrologic influences by saturation or overflow from the depressional areas. A one-
inch rainfall is expected to raise the pool levels by 0.1 foot over normal levels; an average of
13 to 14 one-inch rain events may be expected in any year. Severe flooding is not expected
to be a problem; a 2-year rain event is expected to raise pool elevations by only 0.8 foot over
normal levels. The outlet pipe appears to provide adequate surface drainage for the site: the
outlet is placed at the lowest elevation of the settling basin area and was designed to pass a
20-year storm event. A rip-rap filter is in place at the mouth of the outfall to trap debris that
the water may bring to the outfall.
9

3.0 BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Vegetation
t Vegetation present within the Senter Mine mitigation site is discussed in the following two
subsections covering vegetation naturally colonizing the site (Natural Vegetation) and the
species planted as part of the mitigation plan (Planted Areas).
' 3.1.1 Natural Vegetation
' De-watering operations have resulted in a mosaic of shallow water and exposed flats which
are conducive to colonization by hydrophytic vegetation. Much of the exposed area within the
' mitigation site is covered by sparse to dense herbaceous vegetation, although large areas of
unvegetated flats remain. The vegetation cover has increased steadily since the de-watering
' operation began according to observations by Becker Minerals employees.
The mitigation planting area consists of poorly-drained flats surrounding several permanent or
semi-permanent shallow water located in the interiors of former settling basin cells. Deeper
portions of the pools are generally devoid of rooted vegetation, but algae predominates in some
pools. The shallow fringes of these depressions are generally well-vegetated with 50 to 75
' percent coverage dominated by hydrophytic herbs such as Canada rush (Juncus canadensis),
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), blunt spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa), and cat-tail (Typha sp.).
' Vegetative cover is generally sparse and patchy in areas subject to seasonal flooding and
prolonged saturation. Where vegetation has become established in this zone, herbaceous
coverage generally ranges between 30 and 50 percent. Canada rush and woolgrass dominate
the vegetated areas; other species present in this zone include bushy broom-sedge
' (Andropogon glomeratus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and clubmoss (Lycopodium
alopecuroides/appressum). Pioneering shrub and tree species are present in low numbers
throughout this zone and include young individuals (mostly less than 3 feet tall) of loblolly pine
(Pious taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), groundsel-tree (Baccharis
halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and willow (Safix sp.). Pioneering shrub and tree
species, especially tag alder, are found in higher densities in the southwestern portion of the
mitigation site and along the dike bases.
' Contiguous to the mitigation planting areas are better-drained sites within the slurry residue
and dike slopes. An area in the northwestern portion of the site has been planted with rows
of pine seedlings; this area is not included in the mitigation acreage. Although densities are
' still low, pioneering shrubs and trees are more prevalent on the better-drained dike slopes and
include many of the species found in the mitigation planting areas as well as sweetgum
' (Liquidambar styraciflua), longleaf pine (Pious palustris), and winged sumac (Rhus copalfina).
10

s

Herbaceous species are present in low densities (mostly less than 50 percent coverage) and
include species typically adapted to better-drained conditions such as bush-clover (Lespedeza
sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifoiia), broom-sedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrod
(Soiidago sp.), and grasses.
3.1.2 Planted Area
Becker Minerals designed two general planting zones (Figure 3) based on hydrologic conditions
observed within the mitigation site: these planting zones consist of cypress-tupelo-buttonbush
in areas subject to permanent to semi-permanent flooding; and mixed hardwods in areas
subject to seasonal flooding or prolonged saturation. Tree and shrub species were selected
for planting based on hydrologic tolerances of the species and availability of stock.
Approximately 10 acres of permanently to semi-permanently flooded areas have been planted
with bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and buttonbush (Cephaianthus
occidentafis). Approximately 5 acres of seasonally flooded to saturated areas have been
planted with a mix of black gum (Nyssa syivatica) swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
overcup oak (Q. iyrata), willow oak (Q. pheiios), water oak (Q. nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsyivanica), as well as bald-cypress and tupelo. Table 2 presents the breakdown for the
seedlings planted at the Senter Mine mitigation site.
Table 2. Senter Mine mitigation site planting stock.
Number of Seedlings Planted in Zone
Species
Cypress-Tupelo-Buttonbush Mixed Hardwoods
Bald Cypress 2300 400
Tupelo
Buttonbush
Black Gum
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Overcup Oak
Willow Oak
Water Oak
1800 300
1900
400
400
500
500
300
Green Ash 400
Total (number per acre in 6000 (600) 3200 (640)
parenthesis)
11
i
ER97012/MINE.DWG
°o
00 0 r
EVN?
O-r PLANTING ZONES
r 0
000
r
r 00
r 0000
00
00
0
r CYPRESS-TUPELO -BUTTON BUSH
MIXED HARDWOODS
SHALLOW WATER/MARSH
a GRASSES AND/OR PINES
O°O°O
000000
0°00 000
O
0
0
%600-0
r r
0 00
rrr 000
0 r r O
r r r
O r r r r
2D 0-
r .--/
/
0
00
0
10
00
r
/ r
? / r r
/ O r 00
O 00
O 00
/ O
0
O O r
0 0
00 0 61 Vr_' ?0 /
0`61E 0
0 00
0
0
/
/
/ 0 r r 00
r r r r 0 r 00
/
r r 0 r r r O
0 r r 00 00 r
r r 0
0 r
0 0 0
°O 0 r
000 0
0 0
r r r
00
O
r O r
O r
00 O°O 00 ° 00 r
0
0
O r ' r r r
0
0
r r 00 000 r 0 rr
°
°
r O
r O
x ?O
°
0
°
O r r 0 r r 0
0
0
0
0
0
O
?. r 0
0
r r r r
0
r r 0 000000 r r 00
0
0
0
0
r 0
0
r r 0 0
0 0
O 0 r r
r
0
00
00
00
0
0
0
000000000
O O O
°
0
0 FEET 300 ,0
0
PLANTING PLAN FOR THE SENTER MINE MITIGATION SITE
Snvlronmentel BECKER MINERALS, INC.
9ersicee, Inc. HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Drown By: WGL Figure: 3
Checked By: KWM Project: ER97012
Scale: 1:3600 Dale: MAY 1997
12

Bare-root seedlings of bottomland tree and shrub species were planted in January 1997. Leaf-
out of the planted seedlings has been confirmed as of the date of this report. Viability of
newly planted seedlings has not been established.
3.1 Wildlife
In spite of on-going mining operations adjacent to the mitigation site, the mosaic of pools,
freshwater marshes, early successional wetlands, and upland ecotones within the mitigation
site provide potential habitat opportunities for a variety of wildlife species.
Mammal signs observed within the mitigation area represent larger- and medium-sized species
including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Fefis
rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.). Because cover is
generally limited within the mitigation area, most of these species probably represent
individuals foraging from the protective cover of adjacent forested areas to the south. These
species would be expected to continue utilizing the mitigation site. The open and early-
successional habitats are expected to be utilized by small mammals such as southeastern
shrew (Sorex longirostris), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
and eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis). Development of forest cover will
eventually result in the replacement of least shrew, hispid cotton rat, and eastern harvest
mouse by species that utilize wet forested communities, such as southern short-tailed shrew
(Blarina carofinensis), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nutaffi1, and cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus).
Several species of birds were observed within the mitigation site during the site visits (late
March and April), including late winter visitors, migrants, and presumed breeders singing on
territory. Waterfowl observed during site visits include pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus
podiceps), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Arras platyrhynchos), and wood duck
(Aix sponsa). Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) was observed on site, and other fish-
eating birds expected to utilize the mitigation site include green heron (Butorides virescens) and
great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Wintering and migrant shorebirds are expected to utilize
the existing exposed flats and shallow pools, although the only shorebirds observed include
killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), a late migrant.
Species observed utilizing the marsh vegetation and adjacent shrubby vegetation include red-
winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas).
The peripheral dikes and interior overburden stripping piles provide habitat for a variety of
species common to ecotonal and early successional habitats. Species observed include
northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern kingbird
(Tyrannus tyrannus), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis), barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica), purple martin (Progne subis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), American crow
13

(Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum),
gray catbird (Dumeteffa carofinensis), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), prairie warbler (D.
discolor), common grackle (Quiscafus quiscufa), rufous-sided towhee (Pipifo erythrophthafmus),
chipping sparrow (Spizella arborea), and song sparrow (Mefospiza melodia). Tracks of wild
turkey (Mefeagris galfopavo) were observed along the dike on the southern edge of the
mitigation site.
Assuming development of bottomland hardwood forest will occur over time, this cover type
will favor wood duck over waterfowl adapted to open, marshy pools. Development of forest
cover also will eliminate habitat for most shorebirds, but saturated mixed hardwoods may favor
species such as American woodcock (Scofopax minor). Mature bottomland forest is expected
to provide habitat for such species as Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), prothonotary
warbler (Protonotaria citrea), northern parula (Parufa americana), barred owl (Strix varia), and
red-shouldered hawk (Buteo fineatus). Development of mixed hardwoods would increase
forage available for wild turkey, a species recently stocked in the vicinity.
The semi-permanently inundated and ephemeral pools in the mitigation site provide suitable
' habitat for an array of semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians. Species observed include
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) and southern leopard frog (Rana utricufaria). Other

ri

species expected include eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), yellowbelly slider
(Trachemys scripta), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and redbelly watersnake
(Nerodia erythrogaster). Aquatic and semi-aquatic reptile and amphibian usage of the
mitigation site is expected to continue as the mitigation site matures.
Fish observed in pools within the mitigation site include eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
hofbrookil, bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus safmoides).
Crappie (Pomoxis sp.) is reported to have been present prior to de-watering. Over time,
mitigation site pools may be colonized by other fish entering the site during high water
conditions through the drainage pipe located at the southeastern end of the mitigation site.
Possible colonizers include species adapted to the conditions present in shallow pools and
waters, such as golden shiner (Notemigonus crysofeucas), yellow and brown bullheads
(Ameirus natafis and A. nebufosus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), eastern mudminnow
(Umbra pygmaea), and bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gforiosus).
14

4.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Senter Mine mitigation site is unique in its origin as a clay settling pond; as such, its
success will be measured by how it meets success criteria for wetland soils, hydrology, and
vegetation. The proposed monitoring plan is based on the Corps of Engineers' (Wilmington
District) Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93). Monitoring will be
conducted for a period of 5 years in order to document success and propose remedial actions
as needed. Monitoring reports will be generated annually for the 5-year monitoring period.
4.1 Soils

Because this site does not contain natural soil conditions, target conditions within the slurry
residue should be the demonstrated suitability of the slurry medium for supporting the target
plant species. Target conditions include increasing soil pH to between 5.5 and 6.0 following
recommendations from the N.C Department of Agriculture for optimum hardwood tree and
seed production.
Soil remediation will be necessary to increase existing soil pH (currently within the 4.1 to 4.5
range) to conditions better suited for hardwood tree growth (5.5 to 6.0 range). Approximately
0.6 tons of lime per acre will be broadcast onto the mitigation site before the start of the next
' growing season.
Monitoring will consist of:
1. Visual inspection of soil borings along transects across the slope gradient
throughout the site to document the development of horizon differentiation. A
' minimum of two (2) borings in each of the two bottomland hardwood planting zones
should be made to represent conditions across the site. Locations of these monitoring
' sites will be provided with the first monitoring report.
2. Annual analysis of organic content, nutrient presence, pH, cation exchange
' capacity, and base saturation for samples from each of the two bottomland tree
planting zones.
4.2 Hydrology
' The Corps of Engineers wetlands requirements call for a minimum hydroperiod, which can be
either inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the surface, for at least 12.5 percent of the
growing season. Hydrology investigations indicate that this criterion is likely met. Hydrology
' monitoring will be conducted to verify this assumption. Hydrology monitoring may be
discontinued following successful documentation that the site meets wetland criteria in a
' normal rainfall year.
15

' Monitoring will consist of:
1. A minimum of four (4) wetland monitoring wells will be installed within each of the
' two bottomland tree planting zones prior to the onset of the next growing season.
These wells will be designed and placed in accordance with specifications in the Corps
of Engineers' Installing Monitoring We//s/Piezometers in Wet/ands (WRP Technical Note
HY-11-3.1, August 1993). Wells will be oriented as linear transects within each former
settling basin cell across slope gradient, extending from the bottom of drainage swales
' to the upland dike ridges. Within each transect along a particular landscape gradient,
wells will be placed at a maximum 200-foot interval; however, changes in topography
' may require closer placement of wells within individual transects. The monitoring wells
will be set to a depth 24 inches below the surface. Locations of monitoring wells will
be determined when monitoring transects are established; locations will be provided
' with the first monitoring report.
' 2. The monitoring wells will be manually checked twice a month during the growing
season. Hydrological monitoring will continue until the hydrology success criterion has
been documented.
3. The outlet pipe located near the southeastern corner of the southeastern corner of
the mitigation site will be checked on a regular basis and after each storm event as part
' of the mine stormwater pollution prevention plan. This outlet structure will be cleaned
out as needed.
4.3 Vegetation
' Vegetative success will include the survival of a minimum 320 trees per acre within the 15
acre planting zone after 5 years. Pioneering individuals of species compatible with the planting
plan may be counted towards this goal provided pines do no exceed 10 percent of the total
composition, or pioneering hardwood species (i.e. red maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar) each do
' no exceed 10 percent of the total composition.
Monitoring will consist of:
1. Up to eight belt transects will be established within the mitigation area which will
be representative of the bottomland tree planting zones. Locations of these transects
will be provided with the first monitoring report.
2. Annual monitoring of bottomland tree plantings will be conducted prior to October
' 1 during each growing season of the 5-year monitoring period. The trees within the
belt transects across the mitigation area will be monitored for growth and survival
' rates.
16

4.4 Report
A report will be produced within two months following each annual monitoring period and
submitted to relevant agencies by December 1 each year. Included in the annual report will
be photographs, sample plot data, well data (if applicable), and a discussion of
problems/resolutions. Deviations from accepted mitigation plan will be coordinated with and
' approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency.
' 4.5 Contingency
In the event that success criteria are not met, Becker Minerals will assume responsibility for
remediation. Remedial action to be taken should the success criteria not be met includes
replanting of the areas where sufficient numbers of seedlings have not survived, broadcasting
' of additional lime to maintain soil pH in the 5.5 to 6.0 range, and modifications necessary for
providing appropriate site hydrology. If blockage of the outfall culvert becomes a problem, a
trash guard will be installed. Replanting would likely involve use of species shown to be
successful in comparable portions of the mitigation area; additional species not included in the
original species suite also may be considered. Coordination will be undertaken with
appropriate resource/regulatory agencies in an effort to determine strategies for modifying and
' implementation of remediation efforts.

17

I

5.0 MITIGATION SITE UTILITY
5.1 Available Mitigation Credits
The proposed mitigation site offers in-kind and off-site wetland mitigation for Harnett Mine
wetland impacts. Appendix C contains a description and functional analysis of the wetland
impacted. The mitigation site will generate credit for enhancement of approximately 10 acres
of permanently to semi-permanently flooded areas planted with bald cypress, tupelo, and
buttonbush; and enhancement of approximately 5 acres of seasonally flooded to saturated
areas planted with a mix of bottomland hardwood species. Preservation of approximately 5.5
acres of shallow open water and freshwater marsh adjacent to the planting zones will also
generate mitigation credit.
The COE has determined that 5.9 acres of proposed mitigation will be acceptable for use at
1:1 ratio under terms of the existing Nationwide Permit 26 authorization which is
"grandfathered" until January 21, 1998 (draft letter from COE dated June 27, 1997).
Approximately 9.1 acres of wetlands within the tree-planting zones and 5.5 acres of existing
shallow open water and freshwater marsh wetlands are expected to be available for future
mitigation use. Future use of remaining credits will be coordinated with the COE and DWQ.
5.2 Service Area
The remaining credits will be held for use in mitigating unavoidable impacts on future Becker
Mineral projects in the Upper Little River watershed.
5.3 Dispensation
Becker Minerals will remain responsible for the mitigation site. Restrictive covenants for
protection in perpetuity are being provided under separate agreement with the COE.
18

6.0 REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of
unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources
Research 3:423-428.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Soil Survey of Harnett County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 171 pp.
19

F

l
APPENDIX A
SOIL ANALYTIC TEST RESULTS
11

n

n

' C
O
.M
U
O
' O
N
m
7
N
N
v?
m
CL
O
U)

fV M
H < 0 < O
O O

O
z c? ? u
-

O 1 O N
^ ?
: ~ •?• ` ?=
.. C. ? ?
.
C Cry ?.?
C C'
h
C'., U V 1 Z -?
r.
_

G -y `J

4 .. G, ... ~ CA
`? 1
u N V ?". N V 0

O ?

.

ci
N
N V
N ?
O O

r ooc > V cG •. ..
IPA L ; cc

^Q GC

1? .. V 1

r 1
C)
V n-:
Lj in
e ? W
v

h H

O V v i. V

CC W ? ? O o ? ? C O o 0 4?
.`t ?
z _
M v *, J V v a V V
y rd

?.
U
c?

v N
V '^
-r ?

m
.yam-. ^
v N
C? '"
-?
L F'
V ^
Qo\

U
0 Z ? w w
O L ?.
O 26
-,I, -,
t
v

O
. v
N .?. OQ OA M _ 44, 'r
C ? acs
? V ? _ '' U ? O
_
y
v
N C
°
'?
o: C
° h
'?
oe
o
C `
? ? . M ?•
,? . r?
. a a
• ? r ?
1 oc

oA = . 4 V '? 4 V
V d _

C
O
co
U
O
0
N
N
7
rn
LL
O
N
N
N
an.
E
y
O
U)
N I
1-4
`W
N
M
O
z
a
v
Cyi
Flo
J

N
V V'?
y fn
?.1 J
? w
O
rl ?
? v
u-,
r
O
r
N
v
z
a
L
V
as
a
0
0
M
Nr
C
0
A
v
•o
C
0
d
A
V
Zi

0
N
v:
0
? N
ry ..J
1 Z
r
v--x

O
w
w
L
O
C
N
O
z
J
h

.N ?
C
oZ
v
% O ' G
p
? O
C O
C
` C
c ry L n

? ~ 1 h
ti
?

'C1
N
N ?? N ? N
v M
v
v v v
? ?
0ppp
Vr ? N
.,°Q

00 M
N N N

?

V

V

o \ o
all ?06 o)
w
4 d N

v

y ^ y
L"
O O O ,.,

te
O o 2, C O o 4:44? O

? a
..
?- V
p
U V Q
O CJ
V

Mil V ^'? N Q N Cr V •--? N Q, M ay L„1 ? N

06 06

C C 0
o y ? o 1-4 ? O y

,O ;C O h ,O Z O h
ui v ? v ??. v ? v r.[i v

0
r
7
7
? M
7 ?
J
N
N
V
N N
N
ti
a
w O
? N
OR
C ?
v ?=
? O
y?
V ??
Q' O
a
I? o
4 r
vN
I, ON
r
Al*
h ? G
d O

w

L

1

APPENDIX B
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TEST RESULTS
7
e
i
N
U
0)
3
O
m
r i(V ICV
O
O I O
I
L ,W ;W W
?,M;'-Its
U U) I In T7
1
Y
1ON-
?t (D (D
ololo
LW IW ,ui
100 I',T
U 00 cO (7
YIrICD!M J
W
It- I O N
'.D I rn v N

Irn Irn
s i? IN o
CO
C
O'O1 O
O LO 1 0
0 r 1 00
? r ! 00 e1'
IOIO N
ti r 6
Cl)

r
N
r
A;

to r r

tD M
r 'me'
r
o ?
U) U)
O O o J
m (n
N LO U) M
N rIN N
i I N I a.
N Cl) co
Cn LO I`
2 ti CY) (D Cl)
C O NIr
(J r- U)
J r iU) 1
00 "t 'cr
O U) U7
LO N N
I
I'
I-T i T : .I-
U? 9 IU?
N IN IN
I
` 100 . CO ? CO
O I(D I(D
LO LO I U')
r Ir it
U) 0) ''T
I I? ; ? (D
LO l LO v
00 I r
ml Iri
J
O ?O O
IO 1O'O
IN 104 IN
2
I'r IN IM
? N IN'N
J
r
N
a.
O ?7 Cn C0 M O u7 ti 00 N O) I (D
O

O O

m
00

0
00

0
00

0
r__

M

f?
O

O
O

(D
O

CO
m

CO
0)

to
O

ci
O V

O

N
D)

)
r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O

M
(D O
(D 00
U7 'O
U7
LO M
LO M
U) O
(D 00
V. I--
V LO
N I M
d O
M (D I
M O I
M V
N

2

O
I--
U)
M
r
0 _
0
I-
Lo
,T
m
N
CO
O l
CO
(o
t`
M
r`
I?
(D
r
(D
O O m m m O O m 0o
Lo -T V q -.I' V V V V V V ?t V ?I

0
0 0 0 0 0 O 1o 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 10
U M (D O) N
r U)
r co
r
N O
M (O
M co
? O
O LO
ti O O
CD CV I O
IO
N r r
V)
a)

I- V I` r (0 O f,- CV O r (D 1 [,- O) " r
LO (O O r O V C) N M N U? 0 00 I
00 O
M O U7 N M U) M - (D N I- M r-
0 lf) - 'T V' M M M M N N r T
O r h M M IT 'qt O O (O (D I- M d'
O fl- O M co N 00 'IT ?- N (D I- Q) -T r
O O t` ti (D (D U') LO U7 Iq M N r r r
r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
m
2
N (D r 00 00 U] CO O M (O ?T (D O m ('O
O f` m d M N r 0 0 O t` 0 M N N
N r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0

I- M M r r M r 0 (O M m m O O (D
M W I- O O N M M U7 (D O 9 7 7
O O O O r r r' r r r N N N

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U M U:) O N Ln CO r IT O O W O M O
? ? r r N N M M cf' (D I? Q)
U
)
L

i
2
10.00
9
8
7
E

1.00
0.1c
PZ-1 Slug Test
Senter M ine
Draw down vs. Time
Best Fit
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00
Time (sec)
i
i
10.00
s
8
7
E
E
1.00
PZ-2 Slug Test
Senter M ine
Drawdown vs. Time
Best Fit
0.00 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00
Time (sec)

10.00
9
E
i
E
0

1.00
PZ-3 Slug Test
Senter M ine
Drawdown vs. Time
Best Fit
0.00 400.00 800.00 1200.00 1600.00 2000.00
Time (sec)

u

APPENDIX C
HARNETT QUARRY PERMIT AREA WETLANDS
AND FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

Appendix C. Harnett Quarry Permit Area Wetlands and Functional Assessment
General Ecological Assessment of Impacted Wetlands
The wetlands present within the Harnett Quarry permit area are located along an intermittent
stream located near the intersection of NC 210 and SR 2072 (see accompanying location
map). This stream, not depicted on USGS topographic mapping, is an intermittent tributary
of the Upper Little River upstream from the quarry site. The watershed for this intermittent
stream consists of approximately 100 to 120 acres. Agricultural land, timbered lands, and
rural residential lands are located adjacent and upstream. An active quarry is located
downstream.
The two general wetland types present in the Harnett Quarry permit area correspond to
frequently flooded areas present on the floodplain adjacent to the stream, with the slopes
above the floodplain containing saturated wetlands not subject to regular flooding. The total
wetland width generally varies between 200 and 250 feet, with the frequently flooded areas
occupying approximately half the width and saturated conditions prevailing in the remainder.
The area adjacent to SR 2072 is hummocky and does not contain any well-defined channel.
A channel approximately 12 inches wide with banks 8 to 16 inches high is present
approximately 300 feet east of SR 2072. The channel briefly flows northeast before turning
to the east-southeast towards the quarry. The stream channel at the turn to the east is
approximately 3 feet wide with banks 12 to 16 inches high. Soils within the wetland are
mapped as Bibb loam. A delineation conducted by Mitchell & Associates indicates that Bibb
loam is present within the floodplain, with a transitional series, possibly Roanoke, present on
the slopes.
The wetland is forested by species typical for local headwater forests. The floodplain contains
a low-diversity canopy dominated by tupelo, tulip poplar (L/riodendron tu/ipifera), red maple,
and sweetgum. The understory contains individuals of these same species. The shrub layer
is variable in density with species including American holly (flex opaca), sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana), and privet (Ligustrum sinense). Dense, diverse herbaceous growth is present.
Herbaceous species present in the frequently flooded reaches include lizard's tail (Saururus
cernuus), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindr/ca), clearweed (P/lea pumi/a), netted chain-fern
(Woodwardia areolata), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), water parsnip (Sium suave),
water pimpernel (Samolus parvif/orus), arrow arum (Pe/tandra virginica), jack-in-the-pulpit
(Arisaema triphyllum), sedges (Carex sp.), and smartweeds (Polygonum sagittatum, P.
pennsy/vanicum). Woody vines are prominent and include species such as common greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia) and grape (Vitis sp).
The saturated wetland vegetation has been subjected to more obvious disturbance, particularly
timbering activities, as evidenced by the decreased canopy coverage and increased presence
C1

of weedy species. The remaining canopy and sparse subcanopy are dominated by such
pioneering species as red maple, tulip poplar, and sweetgum. Scattered willow oaks are
present. Privet, an exotic, invasive species, dominates much of the shrub layer. American
holly and sweet pepperbush (Clethra a/nifolia) are also present. The herbaceous layer is
generally sparse and contains a low diversity of species. False nettle and Virginia chain-fern
(Woodwardia virginica) are present, but Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), another
exotic, invasive species, dominates much of the herbaceous layer.

n

Functional Assessment
The two wetland types represented within the Harnett Quarry permit area were evaluated
according to the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina, Fourth Version
(DEM 1995) as an indicator of wetlands value and quality. For comparison, the wetland types
represented on the Senter Mine mitigation site have also been evaluated.
The DEM procedure rates wetlands according to six value attributes: water storage,
bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and
recreation/education value. The value of each attribute, as derived from worksheets, is scored
between 0 and 5, with 0 representing no value, and 5 representing maximum value to the
attribute. These attribute scores are then weighted to enhance total wetland score in favor
of water quality values.
The DEM ratings system weights pollutant removal potential as the most important wetland
value. Water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, and aquatic life values of the wetland are
weighted equally at a level slightly below the value attributed to pollutant removal. Weighting
reduces the influence that wildlife habitat value and recreation/education value have on the
overall wetland score.
Several assumptions have been used in this evaluation. The Harnett Quarry wetlands are
located along an intermittent stream in a basin with a non-urbanized landscape present
upstream and with an active quarry downstream. The frequently flooded areas of the Harnett
Quarry permit area are generally within 50 feet of the intermittent stream and the saturated
wetlands are within 300 feet of the intermittent stream.
The Senter Mine mitigation site wetlands are located along non-linear, depressional, permanent
pools connected by channels with evidence of surface flow in the channels and overbank
flooding of the pools. The cypress/tupelo planting zones are generally located within 50 feet
of the permanent pools and the mixed hardwood planting zones are generally within 300 feet
of the pools. Because the Senter Mine wetlands are located on the site of an active mine,
more than 10 percent of the landscape upstream from the mitigation site has been considered
C2

heavily disturbed for the purposes of this assessment. The vegetation structure of the Senter
Mine mitigation planting zones has been projected at the end of the five-year monitoring period
to consist of at least 80 percent coverage by upright, woody vegetation or persistent,
herbaceous vegetation. Table C1 presents the results of the evaluations.
Table C1. Results of an assessment of wetland types within the Harnett Quarry permit area and the
post-mitigation Senter Mine mitigation site. Scores are given for six value attributes based on the
Guidance for Rating the Values of Wet/ands in North Carolina (DEM 1995). The maximum possible
score for each attribute is 5; the maximum possible total weighted score is 100. The total score
reflects weighted value.
Wetland Type Total
Score Water
Storage Bank
Stability Pollutant
Removal Wildlife
Habitat Aquatic
Life Recreation/
Education
Harnett Quarry: 62 4 3 5 2 1 1
floodplain wetlands
Harnett Quarry: 50 4 1 5 2 0 1
slope wetlands
Senter Mine: 74 4 3 5 2 4 1
cypress/tupelo zone
Senter Mine: 54 3 1 5 2 2 1
mixed hardwood zone
Senter Mine: 69 4 3 4 2 4 1
shallow water/marsh
The Senter Mine mitigation area cypress/tupelo planting zone corresponds ecologically to the
floodplain wetlands of the Harnett Quarry permit area. These two areas receive similar scores
for most attributes, but the Senter Mine cypress/tupelo zone receives a higher rating for
aquatic life value due to adjacency to permanent water. The Senter Mine shallow water/marsh
zone, which is in a similar landscape setting as the cypress/tupelo zone but has a less complex
vegetation structure, receives a lower value for pollutant removal due to projected vegetation
coverage by less than 80 percent of persistent herbaceous species.
The Senter Mine mitigation area mixed hardwoods planting zone corresponds ecologically to
the slope wetlands of the Harnett Quarry permit area. The Senter Mine mixed hardwoods zone
receives a slightly lower score for water storage value due to lack of substantial
microtopographical relief in comparison to the Harnett Quarry slope wetlands. The Senter
Mine mixed hardwoods zone does offer higher aquatic life value due to proximity to permanent
water.
C3

1 Summary
' The Harnett Quarry permit area wetlands are located along an intermittent stream upstream
from an active quarry. The wetlands consist of a headwater forest system containing
frequently flooded floodplain wetlands and saturated slope wetlands with a total wetland width
of 200 to 250 feet. Existing land uses have isolated the impact area wetlands from adjacent
wetlands. The Senter Mine mitigation site wetlands are located in a similar watershed
position. Mitigation plantings on the Senter Mine have included a more diverse mix of tree
species than is currently present in the Harnett Quarry wetlands. Hydrologic conditions are
more varied on the Senter Mine, with a range from permananently flooded zones to saturated
zones adjacent to uplands. Hydrologic connectivity to downstream wetlands is maintained by
an outflow ditch bordered by forest. A comparison using DEM wetland ratings techniques
t shows that mitigation activities on the Senter Mine mitigation area will result in similar total
wetland values being replaced within similar landscape settings to those lost on the Harnett
Quarry permit area. In general, the Senter Mine mitigation wetlands will have similar values
' for most attributes, but will will have higher value to aquatic life. The DEM wetland ratings
system shows that the Senter Mine mitigation wetlands will have as high or higher total value
as the wetlands within the Harnett Quarry permit area

C4
•
BECKER MINERALS, INC.
HARNETT QUARRY EICPANSIOI? \
HARNETT COUNTY N. C. \ , 1G t?

NATIONWIDE PERMIT 26 APPLICATION
AND
SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
DECEMBER 1996
0
F]
•
BECKER MINERALS, INC.
HARNETT QUARRY EXPANSION
HAM= COWWff N. C.
CONTENTS
1) Section 401 Certification Application.
2) Harnett Quarry Expansion Plan.
3) Wetland Delineation Data Sheets.
4) Representative Photographs of the Wetlands.
MAPS TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION
Sheet 1 of 9 General Location Map.
Sheet 2 of 9 Topographic Map of the Site.
Sheet 3 of 9 Certified Wetland Delineation Map.
Sheet 4 of 9 Hamett Quarry Expansion Plan.
Sheet S of 9 Detail of Wetland Impacts.
Sheet 6 of 9 Cross Sections.
Sheet 7 of 9 Photographic Location Map.
Sheet 8 of 9 Location Map of Mitigation Area (Senter Mine).
sheet 9 of 9 Mitigation Plan.
0
DEM ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #) : 26
• PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN
(7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
(SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: Becker Minerals, Inc.
2. MAILING ADDRESS: P. 0. Box 848
CORPS ACTION ID:
L) NOTITICATION TO TSZ CORPS or manu .RS
2) APPLICATION Z'OR S=CTION 401 CSRTITICATION
3) COORDINATION wiTS TRZ NC DIVISION or COASTAL bD1rDwmaNT
CITY
Cheraw
STATE:
SUBDIVISION NAME:
SC ZIP CODE: 29520
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
LING ADDRESS ABOVE): 0£f SR 2072 In Harnett County
(See attached location map)
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Nigel Wills - Vice President Becker Minerals, Inc.
P. 0. Box 848 Cheraw, SC 29520 [phone]
S. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC
MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE) :
COUNTY: Harnett NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Lillineton
0 1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD
VUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.) : Property corner is located 587 feet from intersection
• of NC 210 and SR 2072 along SR 2072 on left hand side of raod. Wetlands parallel
northern boundary of 48 acre tract belonging to Toel G To ten Estate
Unnamed stormwater course leading to
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER:
RIVER BASIN: -Cape Fpar
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES ( ] NO (X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
KANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC) ? YES [ ] NO (X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES.),, WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
• N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES ( ] NO (X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION) :
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES ( ] NO (X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 48 acres
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
7.77 Acres and 2.10 acres on adjacent property
2
•
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: 1.35 EXCAVATION: 4 5f?
FLOODING:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED:
5.93
DRAINAGE:
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION :
375 FT AFTER: ± 350 FT
LENGTH BEFORE:
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 1 FT to 15 FT in in
Braided channels
WIDTH AFTER: 2-5 Feet FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: - 1 FT FT AFTER: 1-2 FT. FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
•
•
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: * X PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: X
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: * channel is not well defined on the property
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY) : Attached text provides dPtailes of f A project Mapag to arrromp n*
the text are attached.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To allow for expansion of existing granite
quarry to mine crushed stone
3
• 14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIj= WETLAND
IMPACTS): Alternatives analysis shows this project is tithe most practical.
We have added buffers adjacent to property boundaries to decrease the effect of
our activities on wetlands present. We also offer to create wetlands as
mitigation.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED. OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT
IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE
CONTACTED: 11-27-96 No replies received as yet (ATTACH RESPONSES
FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: 11-27-96
• 17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF
PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES () NO QQ (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT?
YES (I NO (I
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES (I NO ( )
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
• NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
OPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
0 TO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR 1
INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
c. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Existing quarry to east
farmland/woodland to north and west, rural residentail to south
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL? N/A

g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES QNLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
Qe Nf I rvc_
OWNER / G S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
d E OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
-q6
DATE
• BECKER MINERALS INC.
Harnett Quarry Expansion - Harnett County N.C.
December 1996
Becker Minerals owns 284 acres of property about 3 miles south of
Ullington on the east side of N C Highway 210 in Hamett County and has an option on
an additional 48 acres. The Upper Little River, which crosses under N C Highway 210
divides the owned property in two. The area under option lies to the southwest of the
owned property and is bounded in the west by State Road 2072. Becker Minerals
operates a crushed stone quarry called Harnett Quarry ( State Mine Permit # 43-08) on
141 acres of owned property that is South of the Upper Uttle River.
The Harnett Quarry began operating in 1979 with the quarry itself covering 37
acres and 104 acres being used for plant site, stockpiles, offices, overburden disposal,
water re-chrdlation basins and buffer areas.
A quarry is limited as the depth it can be developed by the surface area of the
quarry. Harnett Quarry has reached its maximum surface area and Becker Minerals is
• looking to expand the surface area of the quarry to ensure a continued life of the quarry.
An expansion of the surface area of the quarry will also allow additional stone reserves
to be mined from lower levels in the existing quarry.
Becker Minerals, in developing the expansion plan for Harnett Quarry, looked at
a number of alternative plans, which will be discussed later, before deciding on the plan
to be implemented. Becker Minerals entered into an option with an adjacent landowner
to acquire 48 awes of his property for the quarry expansion and began to analyze the
environmental impacts of the expansion plan. We contracted with Mitchell and
Associates to delineate jurisdictional Waters of the United States, including wetlands,
adjacent to an intermittent stormwater channel on the Northern boundary of the project
area This intermittent stormwater channel does not appear on the latest version of the
7.5 minute USGS topographic map. The jurisdictional Waters of the United States were
delineated, surveyed, and a plat produced that could be certified by the Corps of
Engineers. The Corps of Engineers visited the property on October 24, 1996 at which
time they requested the delineation be extended to the adjacent property to include all
the Wetlands on either side of the intermittent stormwater channel. The additional
delineation was also completed by Mitchell and Associates, and the plat has been revised
and submitted to the Corps of Engineers for approval. The Corps of Engineers approved
IS
the plat on December 2, 1996. The delineation showed the presence of 9.87 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the intermittent stormwater channel on both
The quarry will be expanded in a southwestward direction onto the property
under option. The expansion of the quarry will impact approximately 5.93 acres of
wetlands which includes 4.58 acres of wetlands that will be incorporated into the quarry
excavation area, and 1.35 acres of wetlands will be filled to allow access around the
perimeter of the quarry. 1.84 acres of wetlands on the property will remain undisturbed
as will the 2.10 acres of wetlands on the adjacent property. All these wetlands are
associated with an intermittent stormwater channel which does not appear on the latest
version of the 7.5 minute USGS topographic map.
The intermittent stormwater channel crosses under SR 2072 and enters the
property under option close to its eastern corner. This intermittent stormwater channel
will be allowed to follow its existing course for a distance of 950 feet before it reaches the
edge of the proposed fill, at which point the stormwater will be culverted in a 24 inch
diameter pipe through the fill. On leaving the fill the stormwater will flow in a new
channel for a distance of 375 feet until it reaches its current outfall point onto the
Aa/
existing quarry property. As the quarry expansion proceeds it will be necessary at a later
date to create a new channel for the intermittent stormwater channel. From this point
onward. the stormwater flow will be contained in the existing channels on the quarry
property and directed into the water re-circulation and settling basin systems with excess
water being discharged via our NPDES Permit (Permit # NCG020164).
The existing quarry will be developed in an easterly direction onto the property
under option. Initially the topsoil will be removed and stored to be used in the
reclamation process. The overburden will be removed and placed in overburden disposal
areas and berms which will be vegetated. Once the granite is exposed, it will be mined
and delivered to the processing plant where it will be crushed into saleable aggregate
products. It is expected the expansion of the quarry, as described above, will take three
years to complete, although the impacts to the wetlands will take place within the first
six months of the expansion plan.
Prior to deciding on the quarry expansion plan described above, Becker Minerals
looked at a number of alternative expansion plans to ensure the plan chosen was the most
practicable after taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light
of the overall project purpose.
The alternative projects considered were as follows: Move the processing plant
across the Upper little River and incorporate the existing plant site into the quarry. This
alternative would mean either dismantling the existing plant and re-building it across the
2
• river or building a new plant Dismantling the existing plant and re-building it is not
considered practicable as the plant is needed to continue to provide material to sell to
customers. Alter nath* we would have to close while the plant was moved which would
take six months to a year and this loss of customers is considered impracticable. Building
a new plant across the Upper Little River would cost $& 10 million, which is considered
impracticable as the present plant still has an expected life of ten years and is not hilly
depredated.
The second alternative looked at, is to keep the processing plant where it is located
and move the quarry across the Upper Little River. This alternative has been discounted
as the topography of the area is rising quickly which results in an increasing thickness of
overburden cover over the rock. 'Ibis thickening of overburden translates into increased
mining costs. The thicker overburden cover requires a larger area for overburden disposal
which is a problem here because of the topography of the area. Opening a new quarry has
additional mats associated with it in comparison to expanding a quarry from an existing
face. The initial material mined from a new quarry can only be used to make a base
material and not a clean stone. Over 50 % of our sales at the Harnett Quarry are clean
stone. If this new quarry was developed the haul distance to the processing plant would
be twice as long as the haul from the preferred expansion plan. For the above masons,
this alternative has been dismissed.
• Having decided on the most practicable project, Becker Minerals set about
minimizing the impacts to the wetlands in and around the project area. In developing the
quarry expansion plan, it was decided to have a set back of 250 feet from SR 2072 and
100 feet from the northwestern property line of the project area which will assist in
reducing impacts to wetlands. The majority of the timber on the property under option
was recently dear cut by the landowner, including the timber in the wetlands to be
impacted. However, the timber has not been cut in the wetland areas we plan to avoid.
The wildlife corridor paralleling the intermittent stormwater channel will still be available
on the north side of the channel. Impacts to the actual stormwater channel will only
occur to the lower portions of the channel. There will be no change to the quality of the
water in the stormwater channel since the water from the stormwater channel is
currently, and will be in the future, discharged onto the existing quarry property and
taken through the water m<l:rc ilation and settling basin system before being discharged
into the Upper Little River. All necessary Best Management Practices will be used to
ensure water quality in the intermittent stormwater channel does not become degraded.
Becker Minerals believes it proposed excavation and filling of 5.93 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands will have minimal secondary impacts to the remaining 3.94 acres
of jurisdictional wetlands immediately adjacent to the project site. The reasoning for such
a statement is the fact that the wetlands to be impacted currently exist adjacent to an
• open quarry face. Our excavation in the quarry has not drained these wetlands nor has
it impacted the groundwater resources in the area, as the local residents use well water.
Secondary impacts to these adjacent wetlands will be minimal or non-existent.
To compensate for the loss of 5.93 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, Becker
Minerals is prepared to offer mitigation in the form of creation of wetlands, at a ratio of
1:1, on a portion of our property at our Senter Mine, located four miles east of the
Harnett Quarry in the Upper Little River watershed. The Senter Mine is a sand and
gravel mine where we are in the process of reclaiming an abandoned settling basin. A
portion of this abandoned settling basin is subject to periodic flooding, and can be
reclaimed to wetlands. We are under no obligation to reclaim any portion of this settling
basin to wetlands, but we have voluntarily changed our reclamation plan to allow for the
creation of forested hardwood wetlands.
We plan to create two types of wetlands around small shallow lakes, the first being
those subject to permanent inundation and secondly those subject to periodic
inundation. In the area subject to permanent inundation, we plan to plant a mixture of
Cypress, Tupelo and Buttonbush. In the areas subject to periodic inundation, we plan to
plant a mixture of Cypress, Tupelo, Water Oak, Willow Oak, Black Gum, Green Ash,
Overcup Oak, and Swamp Chestnut Oak. Species that are invasive have been
deliberately left off the list of species to be planted. We plan to use bare root seedlings
• planted at 600 trees an acre and we are planning for a survival rate of 400 trees per acre.
The seedlings will be mixed so that, on an overall basis, no one species is dominant. We
plan to set up monitoring lines to record the success of the wetland creation and will
prepare annual reports showing survival rates, rates, presence of invasive species
and other such parameters. At the end of a ear monitoring period, we will have
achieved the stated survival rate of 400 trees including invasive species. If during
the monitoring period it appears we will not the stated survival rate, we will plant
additional seedlings to achieve the stated goals.
Should any Agency reviewing this permit application require any additional
information, we will be happy to provide it. Please rward your request to Nigel Wills
at 803-537-7883.
\wrp\07app401
?J ?-
•
4
N 350 --2-1'2-t DATA FORM W g ° 5D
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
1 NQ2 A L- - I-AV TDnI Date:
F : M
wner. County: r: Mitchell & AssociatpR. TncState: ZJ, r-
Circumstances exist on the site? No Community ID: significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? (tp Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Areal Yes o Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
•
C]
Dominant Plant Soeclee datum Indicator Dominant Plant Species stratum Indicator
l.W(U OWBA1, `sfvQACJ{1t1A_ ? 9•
2.A?Cw n al r-l'_Z PAC, lo.
3. pl NUS :iaA -T_ f9v" 11.
?L.
4.?ot?-?T??a I ?>J?uSTn??k ? ?
-P 12.
?
?
X17.
5. V 17rle7 13.
I
d. r,IL"'1?-fQt? PA.i?I?)?b F$1 14.

e . 16.

Percent of Dominant Specisi that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded OatAk (Describe in Remarks):
-Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs '
_ Other
_ o Recorded Oata Avallable Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated In Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
G Drift Vnes

Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Sacc ary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (In.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: On.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC•Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: '14 On.) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name . .1
(Series and Phase); _ N ?lfl (_IL
W ' ?
•
.
Drainage Class:
Feld Observations
Taxondmy (Subgroup): MiQlr -- 2AIJ=- (A 011 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Proflle DesoOption,
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Conorsdons,
Onches) Norm n I
f
o
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast $SLtcttre. etc.
D_g O /? ?r5
r
QZ rZ /0 VIZ <S'.
Hydric Sop Indicators:.
_ Hlstow _ Concretions
- "ado 41pedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
_ Sulfldic Odor _ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
AQuic Moisture Regime
-
_ Usted on Local Hydric Soils Ust
_ Reducing Conditions _ Usted on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
ircle)
P:i (C
Yes No
(Clrcla)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? yea-No)
C]
N35•21'--2-4 "
DATA FORM W ?8 .Sar 2??t
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: Bgg 1 k L E12;LL '- LA.y Tnr.l F_S% Date: 11)4? q (o
Applicant/Owner: 'I County:
Investigator: Mitchell & AssoeiahRR. Tne_ State: -WIG
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the she? A e) ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Transact ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ?uo Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION

Lr ?'
u
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. La(?a to6,LA k4_ SruRAUT h`AG 9. -
2. t (r i n n,* t ¢rY? TI A t o T_ 10.
3. N U !?6A- -Al L y"Ca -.1. 81 Lb, -r bell l l.
4. A ru Li ra n1 ArAl ft Art Ere, ?.1 T15J? A- T__A_cj?_ 12.
S.6cQr rt110ru M -- r-py-r_ 13.
e._ \I ITLS U. _J L--kC 14.

8. 0.-1QJt1 k)DA- (' K)W'n f tiD4_)gA 16.
Percent of Dominant Speclei that are 08L, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). Ica I
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Date, (Describe In Remarks):
-Stream. Lake, or nds Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_&Kurated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary
Ind 5Lwn, (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: On.) -
_L+ zod-Root Channels In Upper 12 Inches
ater-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water In Pit: 3 On.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): 81 Drainage Class: P=
Taxono Field Observations
my (Subgroup)•• • G Fl-d U Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Desariptlon:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Onc_ hs) Horizon (Munsell Molsd IMunsell Moist) Abundance /Contrast Structure, etc,
La?
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Wstosol _ Concretions
_ FQstio Ep 1podon _ High Organic Content In Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidlo Odor or _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
- AQulo Moisture Regime _ Usted on Local Hydric Soils List
- Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gleyed or low-Chroms Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophydo Vegetation Present? No (Circle)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Noe (Circle)
Hydric Solis Present? s No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ? No
------------------
Remarks:
p
0
•

•
N
C'O
N
P4
V

,-4
9
W
_z
P4
V
W
CQ
A
Z V
.] O
H ?
O
Z
fsa
Q V
xz
V ?
Ho
Az
w .-a
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
•
Project/Site: ,a
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator: 1
Date:
County:
State: _
•

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation17 Y%5
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
"r-n CT A"n 1U
Community ID: f
Transact ID: -r-?21
Plot ID:
Y L<1G A0%1 awn
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator- Dominant Plant Special Stratum Indicator
1.21 NUS .F-PiCz- 9.
10.

EPACz
3. Z_ 1111
4.Y-Ki ohbA- - Ek)A- 12.

8.P,ni?-ICI M 14.
7.
.1- L 15.
8. -Bb?c' 16.
Percent of Dominant Speciai that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).

Remarks:
ivnont nrw
n r vnvw%J a
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wedand Hydrology Indicators:
_
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Other
_
o Recorded Data Available N Water Marks
E Drift Lines
osits
D
di
ep
ment
Se
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Field Observations: Second ry Indicators (2 or more required):
On
) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
.
Depth of Surface Water: Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
An.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depth to Saturated Soil: T -On.)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Ifs(( ?_t'?? Drainage pass:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Sold Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Desor(otlon,
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors
finches) Horizon IMunsell Molstl (M
li M Mottle Texture. Concretions,
unse
olst) Abundanoe/Contrast Str uotu?e. etc.
0-5 i4 - 3!?- F,& L.oann

icators:
wstosol
li Concretions
_
wsdo Epipedcn_ High Organic Content In Surface Layer In Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
_ AQulo Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils Ust
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydrio Soils List
_ Gleyed of Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophydo Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hyddc Soils Present?
Yes (Circle)
Yas
Yee o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
(Circle)
Yas No
Remarks:
ro
•
1?1
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
• Project/Site: _ Date: QI? ?,Cf to ,
Applicant/Owner: hA Nj ?S? County: 1ET`f
Investigator: Mitchell & As G oc i a . G , T n _ State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Ypp to Transact ID: _
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
r?
L
0
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1.IJgj11 MMOA" 9.
2. e- A AC.. 10.
/
3. EAcl 11.
4. T + 12.
5 -410M42hir20-DfJ 13.
6. TA L- I PI FV,7-A "r 14.
7.05t\AIAMDA QAwt4nWft1eZ F_ RW is.
?M ? LA IC(11?11 nYlJlil Q V_ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
:2 SM
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
.1 1
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
Aerial Photographs ` Inundated
Other ?turated in Upper 12 Inches
L'-'No _
Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sedi nt Deposits
Field Observations: ainsga Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indi ton (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) d Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
'
?? isr•Stained Leaves
-?a
?
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6o fin.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: fin.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): I Eli I/ AM A y-?
Drainage Class: t'• ?•

Taxonomy (Subgroup): Feld Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
(Inches) Horizon IMunsell Moist) IMunsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, sto.
IMLL 3/2 'KAUC-Y-1I
LOAM
I.L--.?? _
E2 , 1r)y I-nA64
Hydric Soli Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
- Histio Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sullidlo Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aqu)o Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Gieyed or Low-Chrome Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
No•
No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
•
•
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
0 987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
• Project/Site: ' ; fl T QE K) iC,, 24 Q Date:
Applicant/Owner: M)t\ ?QA1?, _ _ County
Investigator: MitChell & Associates, Tnc- State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? es hip Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: _
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
•

Dominant Plant Suedes Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Qjl llcS `TF?EDR E? s.
-0,LaX oppA _A T F-Af 10.
3. T_ FA C_ 11.
' A 12.
13.

L 14.
7.LSM t,A_ adm kJD ,
1 r-Pe-,_
TA 1s.
_
n1f7 Gil? . FP, C_
16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). ?-(5Z) .
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream, Lake, cr Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other
"
0 Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
c Reoorded Data Available i Water Marks
1V Drift Lines

Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Saco ry Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: On.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24_0n.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC•Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Drainage Class: VJ n,

Taxonomy (Subgroup): C. Field Observations
Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colon Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Qnohee) Horizon IMunsell Moist)- IMunsell Moist ) Abundance/Contreet Struoture. sto.

Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_
Hisdo Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Suf idlo Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydrio Soils List
_ Gleyed or low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: •WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophydo Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydrio Solis Present?
Remarks:
Yu (Circle) (Circle)
N
Yes No Is We Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No

0
0
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
•
•

Project/Site: _ i OF , k i. r j 240 Date: _
Applicant/Owner: PEC_V_pQ_ pAI County:
Investigator: Mitchell &-Associates. Inc_ State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a Community ID: j^
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? NaJ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Areal Yes No Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum or
1. 9.
2. 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
8. 14.
7. 15.
e. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-).
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
_ Stream. Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
_ Aerial Photographs Inundated
_ Other _ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: On.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) _ Local Soil Survey Data
_ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name 120
(Soria and Phase): I?•G Drainage C1uss
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): \ Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Desorlotion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture. Concretions,
Onches) Horizon IMunssll Molstf IMunseU Moletl abundance/Contrast Structure. eto.
Q I cm R- Lofl M
L1=1.? ? s l??-M
Hydrio SoU Indicators:
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Wsdo Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Sulfidlo Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Aqulo Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydrio Soili List
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophydo Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
No (Circle) (Circle)
O•
o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wadand? Yea No
'0
•
0
•
A
z
a
a
•
A
z
a
a
A
z
w
a.
o,
cY, -
Wa N
A W O
w
V
z
? w O
? q H
W pq z F1
w '
00 a
w > t-4
'-' xaw
V V
W
?-1
? W H V
•

1. VIEW INTO WETLANDS FROM SR2072
2. VIEW IN WETLANDS TOWARDS SR2072
.r i
?? ? 1 It ,, Krl 1,
u
3 h '
r k d-'b'

!I

Zak, ? ?;:
I
T
41
. r f?t p l?f
•
•
1

M>I

•W

1
lYl?
5. VIEW EAST TOWARDS QUARRY
6. VIEW WEST UP WETLANDS
dt P r
rt
:? l?
low
iti(k)
}
I? I VI I I .,. •.?
1
f
•
ti 1`q 1
7. VIEW WEST FROM QUARRY ACROSS OLD POND
INTO WETLANDS
8. VIEW SOUTHWEST FROM QUARRY ACROSS OLD POND
INTO WETLANDS
r
y ,
11 11

¦
0
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 330 660 1320
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 660 ft.
Project Title HARNETT QUARRY EXPANSION
DISTURBANCE OF WETLAND
Project Location
UPPER LITTLE RIVER- LILLINGTON, NC
Revision Dote Project Location
BECKER MINERALS, INC.
Authorized Agent
Drawing Scale: 1 °= 660' Date: DEC. 13, '96
Application ly Sheet 6+. of 9
N•0' 21?
Ln
co
of 00
ip
P
z
3
IE TO
RTY CORNER
.11'E 74.19'
L_
N
r-
0
N
Q'
N
U
2
WETLANDS DELINEATION BY MITCHELL do ASSOCIATES,
GREENVILLE, N.C.
SURVEY OF WETLANDS POINTS BY BECKER MINERALS, INC.
PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TAKEN FROM A PLAT BY SOUTHWIND SURVEYING AND
MAPPING, INC., DATED MAY 5, 1996 AND REVISED ON OCTOBER 8, 1996.
200 0 100 200 400
( IN FEET )
1 inch - 200 ft.
REVISED NOVEMBER 4, 1996 TO INCLUDE WETLANDS ON
ADJOINING PROPERTY.
THIS CERTIFIES
OF THE JURISDICTION OF SECTIONT 404COFATHE CLEAN DEPICTS ACT BE `v? -? ??
BOUNDARY •• R14,LSD JIV ?
PURSUANT TO THE 1987 CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLANDS DELINEATION MANUAL ?'?E? ARA?' JR'®? ??®?G,.?ppr?
AS DETERMINED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ON THIS DATE. UNLESS THERE IS A Alfred I
CHANCE IN THE LAW OR OUR PUBLISHED REGULATIONS, THIS DETERMINATION
OF SECTION 404 URISDI TION MAY BE RELIED UPON FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE McAlpine ULLINCTON, HARNETT COUNTY, NC
YEARS FR M AT ? DATE: OCT. 1996
SCALE HARNETT QUARRY
: AS NOTED
U. S. ARMY CORPS F EN ERS OFFICIAL DATE OF ICNATURE DR. BY: J. CLARK QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT CK. SHEET 8Y; 3 N. OF q WILLS MAP OF WETLANDS
SHEET
L33 C 1-C2 S27'O539 W 35.63'
L34C2-C3 N78'37 27 E 44.34
L35 C3-C4 N72'04 50 E 49.03
L36 C4-CS N86' 15'20-E 38.92
L37 C5-C6 N77'19 18 E 46.00
L38 C6-C7 N78'S8 33 E 37.06'
L39 C7-C8 588'21 02 E 40.88'
L40 C8-C9 N81'O1 0 6"E 48.24'
L41 C9-C 10 N69'14'35-E 49.38'
L42 CIO-C11 N85'2949 E 30.18
L43 (C 1 I -C 12 N63'44 36 E 36.35
L44 C12-C13 S83'56 42 E 55.08'
L45 C13-C14 N84-189 YE 24.36'
L46 C 14-C 15 N74' 1 1'07"E 84.35
L47 C15-C16 N51'06'27"E 56.02'
L48 C16-C17 N50'32'30"E 34.95'
LINE I DIRECTION DISTANCE
34.31'
838-837
L50 S 14'30' 30"E 46.50'
j
? 45.95'
L52(836-835) S2V51'13"E 41.76'
L53(835-834) S32'37'09"E 58.81'
L54(834-8,33) S33*35*38"E 57.32'
L55(633-832) S39*56'53W 19.66'
L56(932-6.3 1) N82*44'51"W 37.86'

L5 7(93 1 -030)
S87*35'00"W 32.73'
-
08(830-S29) N 38' 47'1 2W 44.98
50.67'
L600328-827) N38*24'08'W 56.04
L61(827-926) N48*32'43"W 37.71'
78.48'
L63 25-824) N7(Y24'14'W 35.71'
L64(824-823) N29*39'41"E 91.55'

? 39.01'
L:T602
21PIj? N52-32' I 4W 41.02'
L67(621-820) N59'45'47-W 53.36'
L68(620-819) S82606'59'W 46.87'
L69(61 9-6 18) S87*03'03'W 43.25'
L70(918-617) S51'33'3VW 54.40'
56.40'
34.92'
L73(915-814) N82'03'31 "W 38.49'
49.52'
56.84'
46.25'
L 77(811 -9 10
56.37'
56.13'

A 44.85'
M-86) 88.63'
SI 6- 5 S51'22'13W 68.76'
S70'18'15 W 51.02'
L83(84-6,3) S85'51'00 43.00'
{ N73'50'32 49.93'
- 1 Al 1,168'37'04 61.26'
L66(8 1 A18-A17 N56'I0'46 37.13'
L87LA17-A16) N57'02'39 49.77'
L88 (A 16-A 15) N67'02'51'W 37,95'
L89(A 15 - 4 S69'50'44W 45.74'
S34'14'52"W 26.41'
L91 A 13-A 12 S05'1 9'59'E 35.52'
L92 A12-A11 S04'29'02 W 44,34'
193 A11-A10 S29'29'43 34.99'
L94 (A 10-A9 S30' 17'35 33.23'
L95 A9-A8 S29'20'10 26.00'
L96 A8-A7 S11'49'36`W 37.91'
L97 A7-A6 570'18'01"W 25.43'
L98 A6-A5 S26'21'41'W 33.39'
L99 A5-A4 S28' 10-2 P 20.86'
LIOO A4-A3 S06'34'32'W 20.58'
L101 A3-AI S75'54'05 70.08'
REVISED NOVEMBER 4, 1996 TO INCLUDE WETLANDS ON
ADJOINING PROPERTY.
Alfred CHERAW, SOUTH CAROLINA
DATE: OCT. '96
SCALE: AS NOTED
OR. BY: J.CLARK
CK. BY: N.WILLS
SHEET 2 OF 2
LILLINCTON, NARNM COUNTY, NC
HARNETT QUARRY
QUARRY EXPANSION PROJECT
MAP OF WETLANDS
1l ?/
?
i ? a?? •y,? -mil, ?? l
?_ --- - " `? OWNED PROPERTY \X
_ ?? •,??- - urr. \, r\ _??? ? `-..x'111
OPTION ?.
r7z ' AREA
/l OPTION - J
, AREA 78 -? ?00
?A ??-
1
99
z3 r?
A 144
BUNNLEVEL QUADRANGLE harm rwo
NORTH CAROLINA GARDNER QUARRY EXPANSION
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) hao" L mlioe
UPPER LITTLE RIVER AT NC HWY 210
AMbo
Rsviioe Dale Au wnmd Axel
12Z=dcm s? 1 "-200 FT. Dew ' 96
0 shm 2, of
LO CATION MAP
scALE: r - 2 MES
u..
O.
F.W _ ux

LUZ
r..... ;. Y Us n y 1A
I
CAPE

uW TON L ,
tact
+
R7t aor. 7sa ? a
• ,
4
n ?a s:u 4 t
tut
?
at
71L
i

>m tmt
I11 ?, v
2mL ?
? SITE 'a
? s
`4 4 ? \
Mtl.
?, •? Iam.n tau
..
?
? s
y
ti iJ ?
1
a? i 17S
• ? talL J? `•

, 4 t G ??
4
?
'1 l!LL t97l.
L
70
fG .:

• MU -
- t"V
• , taL• ?m u 2
tau
raft tart
A
+ •
5 G ?
tuo t4 o tYtt n71eatvn
s?,
Md?aw rata for. 7t+
1411
7030 r•a ?? Owo.l
rata.. w .. _
HARNETT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
tlojad Tidy
GARDNER QUARRY EXPANSION
hojad Laatioo
UPPER LITTLE RIVER-LILLINGTON, NC
AMbcmt
BEXER MINERALS INC.
Rrlimcw Dana Authmimd Afew
Dmwwl ' Scak 1"-2 Miles Data Oct. '96
dac r Sheet of
g

x

f'r

9
0
r-1l
-rl (A
C) r?
z
o'
]
0
0
n
o' ? o
E J
I n Q r
O ?
i ^ Q O
?u n
?N z
o
C
Z
m
o n
r
° z
I
L
m
(A z
rTl
o?
Zz
D ?
DI
0 0
A n
C
o
0 O r
r r 2
D Z
rn r' m
om :1 a,
r n
D r
r ~
Z O m 2
O X
i Z D 70
Z ci o
C) z
i
O ,
20? 2 0
R/w
00
Ng O
O O O ? ?
D
N
o? °0o
Z my n
(A 0 Z
r V O
p?? O 1' I I
SOD O
DOO y
n C rn C
D K?o? D
w?
n co
A rn
o
N
K o? rn
A ? D
n0
1= (A C) N b n
O Z
M
r O
F i r*i
?o
F
I
o n
n ?
Z
rn
? Z
? O
rri
I O ?
D m
O Co
z=
rri
o FT,
Tj ?
rr, O
C)
0
Z (n
n
O
z
L D
n
r
Fri
J V 1
00
<_
rn rn
O C1i O U,
0+00
PL
U
n
Z
-+ WETLAND
C) + °+ WETLAND
Cf)
LIMIT
r1l
? on
-i
rri
C) QD
1+00
O rn
m
?o
o ? o0
z CO
O m
n
? z
O 2+00
L
FTI
N
-i
-' O
i
r

_ X C:
0
rri
D Z
g o` 3+00
z
o 0 0

?o
ti• n' o'
C n'
Ln
a n o

o o

o M1

^
k
a w
n
rr)
n
m
D N Z
Z (2
M
°
i ? ir?
rZ•, r °05 4+00
0

^ q cn n
k

°
n

n ~

?

Z D
N
°
w Z C
2Z

?O
Ch

(P Ui rn rn
O cn O ?
0 + 00 ?- --+--- - _+
PL

c

z
rTl F: LIMIT

1+00
°
Z X

o y

Frj °
IT

O ?
z °
Cf)
+ - + D 2400 -

c
I
D
I
?,-?
?,
r
= n
c?
r
m D °
r Z
D m
\

? II II

C) O O
+ z + < = 3+00
cri
m
I
WETLAND
LIMIT

+ + m
r?
4+00

+ +

} + +
+ F+ +
0
S rn = m cn _
0 2 r 2 2p12
o?o° NGSR
Z?mZ
°K: cc?
° mD
Ilk
O
2 ?GJ,
?' O
'? Z
11 o y`
oo R?W
RIW 0, m
II ? ~ ?
.. S n
? o
r m
? D
n C
b ° o °
z --? ? om
\ n ?
40
Dz
° 00
v1 D
$ v
O ? 0
Z N
a
^
? O D
q b
n
n`
N
°o
Ln o
7 p
m
J R,
0
w
.-9
rn
n
N_
7
4
O
A
r
0
^
O
7
OD
M
I?
z
m
SID
r
Z
0 0
C n n
? ^ n
r ? OpD
r i n'?n
Do
0
Z -rl
r` D=am
Z b?X
b
r
o n?Z
z OXzz°
C-) ZNi
r r
w
m
n
M
Z
m
D
r
z
n
cn
rv ? O

r
F F

r

°
t
cn
P
r ? v
0
r_
Z
m
O
Z
Z
n

- - - -
6 )o (2 ?ws o00 . Iddv
961 'IDO Asa salzy? wU
wdv PWLWWV ma WW!A"
DNI STVIENIR 2IMHU
A*Xodv
DN LNOIDNI`I/II"I-2{ A121 `3r1UI`I Hdddfl
ooo- pDkQ
"P1 PD(c,d
VNIIOdVD HAON
A1Nna) 113NZIVH
[YI'Jd 0, oTbC '1p'PW t; L, n 3i'bt
Ira TIM. f
NNwnt TM
h uLi 1161 ?uT bFbi
L' 1
01
L s iibC
Pnor 4
L Fist
r'r ?? v e
rr -V - tiff y. r.
T ^M
t- : LI ( a a?.
7 i bi
iFOi
?NIInI s aZIS " ?3ado
' 2I?1.N3S R
TM Tw
S„
P? !
I' W 1 `4
Olt
%
^i lot o
,. LC
sv, ? iTdi
Lti, i 'Jod Noll flit!"'
4 ry r
MWID t ° i r- iti ?• ?L
srI ! LL sY, 3
r i YI ?r ??? 1M
LL
r m iTiT ?? Ct u • 7CCl
t. ; L
r; Li 1 Iii 4 3.3 o•r
?i ? L 1Mf o. 'n'r
ado]
?D Tw ['
iTi"1 c' sr IMF {iii -.,.. ..-: -r.1 lot b. V" 1 Jr.
i,ny.)

¦
re
¦
1
m
1

I

k

$EGkER M INERAi-s, )NC.
SENT ER M I NEE
0,
aCA-AMA-Tl o N OF FO I,KER
SETrLI Ny B AS I nl TO
WETL,ANOS.
O LTID&6t. ttb
Zoc FT.
? v
sir 9oF1

er
We"
u"
y
Di ICE
A -A
Note-
P? - C~t nas x t* - i o' of wr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and
Mr. Nigel Wills, V. President
Becker Minerals Inc.
P.O. Box 848
Cheraw, SC 29520
Dear Mr. Wills:
A "'W
T4
?EHN
March 26, 1997
Harnett County
DWQ Project # 961136
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
You have our approval to place till material in a total of 5.93 acres of wetlands or waters as shown on
the attached map dated 16 January 1997 for the purpose of expanding an existing granite quarry at your
existing quarry off of SR 2072 near Lillington, as you described in your application dated 11 December 1996
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this till is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers. This Certification replaces one issued on 21 January 1997.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If total wetland tills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed
below. Compensatory mitigation shall be required at a 1:1 acreage ratio at the Senter Mine site. A draft
mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWQ by 1 June 1997. Wetland till and excavation may not occur until
written DWQ approval is received for the mitigation plan. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will
expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General
Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Domey
Central Files
961136.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff irmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • A
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary C) E H N F=1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 7, 1997
Mr. Nigel Wells
Becker Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 848
Cheraw, SC 29520
Dear Mr. Wells:
Re: Conditionally Approved Senter Mine Mitigation Site Plan
Harnett County
DWQ Project #961136
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed your 12 September 1997 Revised
Senter Mine Mitigation Plan. The plan is satisfactory and will adequately compensate for the
5.9 acres of wetland impacts at the Lillington Plant. DWQ believes that two conditions need to
be included in the approval. They are:
1) All annual monitoring (vegetative and hydrologic) must be completed by October 1.
2) Annual reports are to be submitted to DWQ by December 1.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this approval, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To
ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North
Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
NC 27611-7447. This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have nay questions, please tel9phone me at 919-733-1786.
R.
cc: Ron Ferrell
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Central Files
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
S
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
P-A
--
U

76

UU
-- ---- - - -------------------------
-------- ---------
-\A r
?)qp ?

---- - -------
?.1 -----
VW v n v
1 Y1'r -
U
- rovT
J
V
???? ????? ????? a
77

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

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AF1WqA1
?EHNFi
January 21, 1997
Harnett County
DWQ Project # 961136
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Nigel Wills, V. President
Becker Minerals Inc.
P.O. Box 848
Cheraw, SC 29520
Dear Mr. Wills:
You have our approval to place fill material in 2.5 acres of wetlands or waters as shown on the attached
map dated 16 January 1997 for the purpose of expanding an existing granite quarry at your existing quarry off
of SR 2072 near Lillington, as you described in your application dated 11 December 1996. After reviewing
your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number
2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it is issued by the Corps of
Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed
below. Compensatory mitigatin shall be required at a 1:1 acreage ratio at the Senter Mine site. A draft
mitigation plan shall be submifTed to DWQ by 1 April 1997. Wetland fill and excavation may not occur
until written DWQ approval is received for the mitigation plan. Additional wetland fill (up to a total of 5.93
acres) may be granted at this site if information is presented to DWQ concerning the impracticality of this
minimization (15A NCAC 2H.0506(g)). In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal
Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the
accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper*
Page 2
DWQ Project #961136
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
.
ton Howard, Jr. P. 11
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
k, John Dorney
Central Files
961136.1tr
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and
Mr. Nigel Wills, V. President
Becker Minerals Inc.
P.O. Box 848
Cheraw, SC 29520
Dear Mr. Wills:
A715VA
1•• 21
ID EHNF=?L
February 6, 1997
Hamett County
DWQ Project # 961136
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
You have our approval to place fill material in a total of 5.93 acres of wetlands or waters as shown on
the attached map dated 16 January 1997 for the purpose of expanding an existing granite quarry at your
existing quarry off of SR 2072 near Lillington, as you described in your application dated 11 December 1996.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 2671. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 26 when it is
issued by the Corps of Engineers. This Certification replaces one issued on 21 January 1997.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed
below. Compensatory mitigation shall be required at a 1:1 acreage ratio at the Senter Mine site. A draft
mitigation plan shall be submitted to DWQ by 1 April 1997. Wetland fill and excavation may not occur
until written DWQ approval is received for the mitigation plan. In addition, you should get any other federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and
Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This
approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the
General Certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
Fst y,
on oward, Jr.
961136.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Becker Minerals, Inc.
P. O. Drawer 848, Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone]
March ll, 1997
Mr. J. Dorney
NC Dept. Environment Health & Natui
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch d
4401 Reedy Creek Road"
Raleigh, NC 27607
rrJ?j?
?x 1991
MNR
Re: Request For Extension In Time For Draft Mitigation Plan
DWO Pro'iect If 961136
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Becker Minerals wishes to request that your office grant us a
60-day extension period for the submission of our draft mitigation
plan for the Senter mine mitigation area (DWQ project # 961136).
We are confident that we will be able to supply you with a draft
plan by 1 June 1997.
We met with member's of your staff and the Corps of Engineers
at the mitigation site February 27, 1997 to review the requirement
for the draft plan. Since that meeting we have been in contact
with a consultant who is preparing a scope of work to help us
develop an acceptable plan.
We hope you will grant our extension request and should you
have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the writer.
Yours sincerely,
BECKER MINERA , INC.
N. ?. Will
Vice President
NFW:dmb
"I'll 4i'm
Alfred McAlpine
Minerals Division
Becker Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 848, Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone]
March 11, 1997
Mr. J. Dorney
NC Dept. Environment Health &
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Natural Resources
V 1 ?1 -0-
?AR1 1 X1991
Re: Request For Extension In Time For Draft Mitigation Plan
DWO Project # 961136
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Becker Minerals wishes to request that your office grant us a
60-day extension period for the submission of our draft mitigation
plan for the Senter mine mitigation area (DWQ project # 961136).
We are confident that we will be able to supply you with a draft
plan by 1 June 1997.
We met with members of your staff and the Corps of Engineers
at the mitigation site February 27, 1991 to review the requirement
for the draft plan. Since that meeting we have been in contact
with a consultant who is preparing a scope of work to help us
develop an acceptable plan.
We hope you will grant our extension request and should you
have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the writer.
Yours sincerely,
BECKER MINE". INC.
N. KWi
Vice President
NFW:dmb
'aka
Alfred McAlpine
Minerals Division
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Michael Hosey
Wilmington COE
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
A 5?'
[D EHNFi
July 3, 1997
Dear Mr. Hosey:
Subject: Draft Mitigation Plan for Senter Mine
Harnett County
DWQ No. 961136
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has reviewed your May 1997 "Draft Senter Mine
Mitigation Plan". This plan was developed to provided compensatory wetland mitigation for the
DWQ impacts to the Lillington Plant. The approved impact to wetlands is 5.9 acres. We offer the
following comments on the draft plan:
1) The pH values range from 4.1 to 4.2. Is there a need to lime the site for a better survival
rate or provide conditions for the plants to thrive rather than survive?
2) The culvert between the channel connecting the upstream area and the mitigation site has a
reduced passage efficiency. Does Becker Mineral have any control of this culvert? If the
culvert was cleaned out, would the additional flow significantly increase the hydrology of
the mitigation area?
3) The report states that the detention time is likely in excess of 12 hours for a one inch rain
(pg 7) . Please elaborate on this statement.
4) Please explain the field observations that suggest the presence of surface saturation for
extended periods of time, perhaps year-round (page 8). This statement may be in conflict
with the statement on page 7. The piezometer data was not included in the report.
5) The low evapotranspiration rate will change once the trees are established and mature.
How will this effect the site's hydrology?
6) How does a value of hydraulic conductivity indicate whether wetland hydrology will be
established (page 9)?
7) Please expand on the statement, "Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the
growing season at intervals to satisfactorily document the hydrology success criteria" (page
16). Will continuous monitoring wells be installed? If not, what is the frequency of
sampling?
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Mr. Michael Hosey
July 3, 1997
Page 2
8) The vegetative success criteria will be a density of 320 stems per acre. This density should
be at the end of 5 years, not 3. The viability of the trees should be conducted in late
summer. Measuring survival is not sufficient. The trees must also grow over the
monitoring period.
9) DWQ believes that pioneering hardwood species (i.e. red maple, sweet gum, tulip popular
etc.) should not exceed 10 percent of the total composition.
10) The plan does not have a schedule for monitoring well installation, vegetative monitoring,
dates for annual reports etc..
11) The plan does not discuss whether the site was a jurisdictional wetland prior to mining
activities. The soil series prior to impact were not discussed. Only the surrounding soils
were discussed.
12) The plan does not discuss the method of mitigation (restoration, creation etc.).
13) The plan does not provide acreage for the various communities nor does it propose credits
or justify credit ratios.
14) The plan does not discuss the service area for remaining, if any, credits.
15) The plan does not discuss the final dispensation/management of the mitigation area.
16) All sampling should be for 5 years and not 3.
17) I am concerned about the long term viability of the metal outlet pipe. DWQ believes that
this pipe should be replaced with a gated concrete pipe. Thge gate will allow for the
manipulation of site hydrology.
Please provide a final mitigation plan that discusses the above issues. Thank you for the
opportunity to review the draft plan. Should you have any questions, please call me at (919) 733-
1786.
Sincerely,
4?iLCl? to_?
Eric Galamb
Environmental Specialist
cc: Central Files
Ken Averitte, FRO
Mr. Nigel Wills -Becker Minerals, Inc
Becker Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 848, Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone]
RECEIVE
May 28, 1997 MAY 2 9 19W
ENV!RONML-N 1AL SG
Mr Eric Galamb
N.C. Dept. Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Re: Draft Mitigation Plan for Senter Mine
Harnett County
Dear Mr Galamb:
Hecker Minerals is please to submit a copy of the DRAFT
mitigation plan for the Senter Mine in Harnett County for your
review. We would be pleased if you would review the draft plan to
ensure it meet your requirements prior to us issuing the final
version. If you have any suggestions to make concerninq the report
we would be pleased if you would forward them to us so we can have
them included in the final version. We have sent a copy of this draft
report to the Corps of Enqineers for their review and comments.
Should you require any additional information do not
hesitate to contact the writer.
Yours Sincerely,
BECKER MINERALS, INC.
N. Wi
Vice President
encl.
cc: Mr M. Hosey - COE Wilmington.
\1etter3\ncwater\03mitp1n
Alfred McAlpine
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 27, 1997
Regulatory Division
Action ID 199701563
Mr. Nigel Wills
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Post Office Drawer 848
Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Dear Mr. Wills:

?oy ter' ??
F
?N
Reference your letter dated October 14, 1997, forwarding the final draft of your "Senter
Mine Mitigation Plan" for the impacts associated with Becker Minerals' request for a Department
of the Army Section 404 permit to expand a portion of their existing mine operation into
wetlands of an unnamed tributary above the headwaters of the Upper Little River. The property
is located at the intersection of NC Highway 210 and SR 2072 near Lillington, Harnett County,
North Carolina.
As agreed, Becker Minerals may use anyone it chooses to conduct the annual monitoring
and reporting of the establishment of wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology at the mitigation
site. With the inclusion into the plan that monitoring will conclude by October 1 (paragraph 4.3)
and that the monitoring report will be submitted to relevant agencies by December 1 of each
monitoring year (paragraph 4.4), the Corps of Engineers considers the plan acceptable and
finalized. Mining may now commence within the permitted area at your Harnett Quarry
provided all state and local permits have been obtained.
Thank you for your patience and cooperation in this matter. The Corps of Engineers
looks forward to receiving your annual monitoring reports as the mitigation area moves towards
meeting all success criteria. If you have questions or if I can be of any assistance, please call me
at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Ernest W. Jahnke, Manager
Wilmington Field Office
dopy
Fir°rsh
tLlr J ed
b;?, • , ohn b ?2.
r°r? SrOr1 Of °?r0Y
nvi orjarOl1 D' 9Uall
tur'al ?rC")t Opart ty
R? ' lea fie
RCod So lth nt of
h r• Urc°S ?"v
e
ON Ca oRoad
rya 27607
i
DRAFT
SENTER MINE MITIGATION'PLAN
Harnett County, North Carolina
ESI Project: ER97-012
Prepared for:
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Cheraw, South Carolina
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1100 Wake Forest Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
May 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................ 1
1.2 Purpose ...............................................1
1.3 Mitigation Site History ..................................... 1
2.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 3
2.1 Soils and Topography ...................................... 3
2.2 Hydrology .............................................. 5
2.2.1 Watershed Characteristics ............................. 5
2.2.2 Surface Hydrology ................................... 6
2.2.3 Subsurface Hydrology ................................ 8
2.2.4 Hydrology Summary .................................. 9
3.0 BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................... 10
3.1 Vegetation ............................................ 10
3.1.1 Natural Vegetation .................................. 10
3.1.2 Planted Areas ..................................... 11
3.2 Wildlife ............................................... 13
4.0 MONITORING PLAN ........................................... 15
4.1 Soils ................................................. 15
4.2 Hydrology ............................................. 15
4.3 Vegetation ............................................ 16
4.4 Report ............................................... 16
4.5 Contingency ........................................... 16
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................17
LIST OF FIGURES
Paae
Figure 1. Site Location Map ........................................ 2
Figure 2. Topography, Soil Sample and Piezometer Locations ................. 4
Figure 3. Planting Plan for the Senter Mine Mitigation Site .................. 12
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Simulated response of mitigation pools to rainfall events ............. 7
Table 2. Senter Mine Mitigation Site Planting Stock ...................... 11
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Soil Analytic Test Results
Appendix B. Hydraulic Conductivity Test Results
DRAFT
Senter Mine.Mitigatioh Ptart''
Harnett County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Becker Minerals, Inc (Becker Minerals) is proposing an expansion of its granite quarrying
operations at its Harnett Quarry located on NC 210 approximately 3 miles south of Lillington.
The proposed expansion will result in impacts to 5.9 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for which
Becker Minerals has been issued a Nationwide 26 permit. Becker Minerals is proposing to
mitigate jurisdictional impacts through the creation of forested wetlands at the Senter Mine
which lies approximately 4 miles east of Harnett Quarry, or approximately 1.6 miles east of
the community of Senter (Figure 1), within the same Upper Little River watershed. Becker
Minerals is creating approximately 15 acres of forested wetlands of which only 5.9 acres are
being used for mitigation of the impacts at the Harnett Quarry and the balance is being held
in reserve for use in future permits.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to document existing environmental conditions of the mitigation
site and to describe the mitigation efforts already undertaken. Specifically, the tasks
performed for this study include: 1) an evaluation of soil conditions; 2) a preliminary
investigation of surface and subsurface hydrology; and 3) an assessment of biological features
within the mitigation site, including descriptions of existing vegetation and wildlife usage.
1.3 Mitigation Site History
The mitigation site was mined in the late 1950's and early 1960's and then used as a closed
loop recirculation basin for the wastewater from the sand and gravel processing plant. This
area was constantly used to recirculate waters and settle out silt and clays until 1991 when
the basin had reached capacity. At this point in time the recirculation system was moved
further east in the basin complex and reclamation activities commenced on this portion of the
settling basin system. The first step in the reclamation process was to remove the surface
waters. This was done by natural drainage followed by pumping. Draining the basins took
approximately 3 years after which time the present surface water configuration had been
developed. An outfall structure was installed so that excess stormwater could drain naturally
from the area.
1

N

1 6
o (`

A / e•
w J? r? o
Y. .

O
r ? •
.
___..

69 -kU,
Kilns \ j ? `` -

66

Harne it
`I o , ?,' ' . ,z rst \ \ o

r
1
e
) O ` `\ RNF i i Ilc`' `1 1 ? ?? 1
?? I r
leasant
\ b1t
.
v ,
•
,
lI
lee
I n 1 a ?1'`,?
?'
1
"
r
,?? \? 1- / ? :? ?_:,_. ? •/? -.-? ;? - ?./ CCU ? _? (? ? ? ? 1 `t.
--4 0

Mitigation Site Boundary
?- • I
"
U /
f 0 0.25 0.50 Mil
_?il-i
?
0 0.25 0.50 Km ,.; , i„?''?.

?•` !
I\

,
R
AVELJI 1
Source: USGS Bunnlevel Quadrangle, 1881%,
?~
`
???
1 ^ n
??..-
II
?
/I / l
\
1
?
_ i
•-..?
'
Site Location Map Figure: 1
Environmental Senter Mine Mitigation Site
I Services, Inc. Becker Minerals, Inc. Project: ER97012
l Harnett County, North Carolina Date: May 1997
2.0 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Soils and Topography
Natural soil has been removed from the mitigation site through historic mining practices.
Review of soils mapping for the surrounding undisturbed landscape indicates that much of the
mitigation site originally may have been composed of Grantham loam (Typic Pa/eaquu/ts),
Exum very fine sandy loam (Aquic Pa/eudu/ts), and Nahunta loam (Aeric Pa/eaquu/ts) (USDA
1994). The medium now present is a sedimentation/slurry residue.
The settled residue forms a nearly level surface contained within steep-sided dikes which are
former overburden stripping piles present within the mitigation site interior. Overall, the
mitigation site is nearly level, with a gradual slope from approximately 148 feet above mean
sea level (MSL) in the northwest to approximately 142 feet MSL in the southeast (Figure 2).
This equates to an overall slope of approximately 6 feet over a distance of 2400 feet. The
historic landscape is presumed to have been nearly level based on characteristics of the soils
thought to have been present originally. Each of the three presumed dominant historic soils
(Grantham, Exum, and Nahunta) may form in areas which typically have 0 to 2 percent slopes
(USDA 1994).
Soil borings were taken throughout the mitigation site to determine profile characteristics,
especially along discernible topographic gradients within the site. Soil characteristics across
much of the mitigation site are fairly homogeneous with slight differentiation observed in gross
characteristics between the interior of the site and the site periphery.
Profiles in the interior portions of the mitigation site are characterized by material comprised
mainly of clay and silt particles with little development of horizon differentiation beyond
particle deposition. Clay concentrations are higher in surface zones, and silt concentrations
are higher in subsurface zones. No sand deposition was noted within 6 feet of the surface
within interior portions of the site. Free water occurs at depths of approximately 6 inches, and
the silt/clay mixtures at this depth are mostly in a highly viscous, free-flowing, state.
Along the periphery of the mitigation site a sandy layer is present beginning at a depth of
approximately 24 inches. This sandy layer may be a product of the most recent slurry input,
or may result from sand sloughing from adjacent dikes. This sand has created a more solid
profile, with evidence of the development of horizon differentiation. Gleying is present at
depths of 12 inches, and free water occurs at depths of approximately 8 inches. Oxidized
rhizospheres were noted.
Soil samples were taken at two locations for additional analysis (Figure 2). For each sample,
a surface sub-sample and subsurface sub-sample were submitted to the North Carolina
3
+
x , 151.10,
IsOB
19 163
1 l 117 68 1 SU 1
'? 1 c
151 1
IR'. \ ? \ \S? I 165,
HIB
1 16i e
x \ j ? + B \ \\
519 4
1u3 \ II
j \ , 531 \\ j 1 -L11? u vL 11510
X
\ I03\
6U 112 x119
1 \ u1ISO
' 16 6 sa \`f I,?` z x
" PZ-'1
111r u ? u).
PZ-3
6 1111 1 \ \ , v Isle 481 593
I F
L) V , 1\ , \`\t ` 11611
Sl, x 1159 \ 6'.
x x
I? 1. x
69 1 A " \LJ , IS 6 \ .1.1 t 1] \ x Me ?`
x \ 1 1 1 ]
x 672 11
\ \ 115 1 I h1 xI15. \\ 13
14 x
1), x i 16' 1 I + I-, ?1\ 1479 ?4.
?., ?' 4/ •16E A
501
!? Ci ?? ?II ?-/ I.5.1, \`; I? x •? PZ-L
1.4 \1 6A ?
1.6'x\ 141 .,
N
?Mk
144
llv
x
ISO"
11.2 14 SS-2 ¦ /i
Piezometer location 1169
Sail sample location (\-
do V
Mitigation site boundary
J \? ??rl -- ?1
15
0 200 400 Feet \\ \?\\ \/J x."?
0 50 100 Meters
\ `'?' V 1/?6 ,? nog ,
\_-
Mep Source: GeoOne, Feynoldsburg, Ohio
,0
? 111.5
Topography, Soil Figure: 2
Environmental Sample and Piezometer Locations
Services, Inc. Senter Mine Mitigation Site Project: ER97012
Becker Minerals, Inc.
Harnett County, North Carolina Date: May 1997
4
Department of Agriculture (NCDA) Agronomic Division for analytic analyses of nutrient
presence, cation exchange capacity, and base saturation. Analysis of both samples indicates
acidic conditions, with a pH range of 4.1 to 4.2 within the top 12 inches. Cation exchange
capacity and base saturation are low, with corresponding low levels of available nutrients.
Complete test results are presented in Appendix A.
2.2 Hydrology
Hydrology issues for the Senter Mine mitigation site are presented in the following three
subsections which cover watershed characteristics, surface hydrology, and subsurface
hydrology.
2.2.1 Watershed Characteristics
The mitigation site is located within the Upper Little River sub-basin (unit 030613) of the Cape
Fear River Basin. Drainage from the site is received by First Silver Run, which is a small
tributary with an origin located near the southwestern corner of the mitigation site. First Silver
Run has been assigned Stream Index Number (SIN) 18-20-33 by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). First Silver Run flows in a southerly direction for approximately 1.3 stream-
miles before entering the Upper Little River (SIN 18-20-(23.51). The Upper Little River
continues in an easterly direction for approximately 6.2 stream-miles before entering the Cape
Fear River (SIN 18416.7]). Second Silver Run (SIN 18-20-33-1), which provides drainage east
of Senter Mine, joins First Silver Run approximately 0.3 stream-miles above the Upper Little
River confluence.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin. A best
usage classification of WS-IV has been assigned to First Silver Run from the source to the
confluence with the Upper Little River, as well as to the receiving waters of the Upper Little
River and Cape Fear River (DEM 1993). The designation WS-IV denotes waters protected as
water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point
source discharges are permitted pursuant to special rules. Local programs to control nonpoint
source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. WS-IV waters are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation refers to human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental
basis.
The mitigation site is part of an estimated 100-acre watershed draining to a culvert located
near the southeastern corner of the mitigation site. For hydrologic modeling purposes, this
watershed is divided into two watershed sub-basins which are separated at the overburden
stripping pile located along the western periphery of the mitigation area. The mitigation area
5
occupies 15 acres of an approximately 40-acre sub-basin located in the downstream portion
of the culvert watershed. A channel which breaches the overburden stripping pile provides
hydrologic input to the sub-basin containing the mitigation site in the form of runoff from the
approximately 60-acre sub-basin located upstream.
2.2.2. Surface Hydrology
The mitigation site is divided into cells, each about 100 to 200 feet wide and up to about
2700 feet long. Areas of pooled water exist within each cell. These pools are formed by
depressions in the mine tailings. The mitigation site is bounded by earthen berms such that
if outflow were restricted, and seepage and evaporation losses were not too great, the site
could re-form a larger pool comparable to that present before de-watering operations began.
Outflow from the mitigation site must pass through a 30-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe
culvert located near the southeastern corner of the site. Surface water inflow to the mitigation
site comes from direct rainfall and discharges from adjacent cells.
Surface water hydrology and hydraulics were modeled with the aid of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' computer program HEC-1, Flood Hydrology Package. HEC-1 was used to
develop and route hypothetical storm hydrographs through the mitigation site. This modeling
uses drainage area and topography to predict the degree of surface inundation from rainfall
events. A rigorous evaluation was not possible because available aerial topographic mapping
provided detail only to the level of 2-foot contour intervals; as such, the analyses and results
should be considered preliminary.
A lumped parameter, distributed element model of the system was developed consisting of
two catchment elements and two reservoir elements. Catchment elements were selected to
divide the watershed into two parts: the area within the mitigation site, and the area upstream
of the channel along the western periphery of the mitigation site. Rainfall depth-duration-
frequency data were taken from NOAA HYDRO-35 and USWB TP-40. Hypothetical design
storm events were developed within HEC-1 from the rainfall depth-duration-frequency data.
Rainfall runoff was estimated within HEC-1 using the USDA Soil Conservation Service Unit
Hydrograph Method. Peak discharge for the mitigation site catchment is computed at 20 cubic
feet per second (cfs) for a one-inch rainfall and 162 cfs for a 2-year rainfall; for the catchment
upstream from the mitigation site these values are 11 cfs and 145 cfs, respectively. Routing
of the catchment discharges was completed within HEC-1 using estimated elevation-area data
for the pools and computed elevation-discharge relations for the culvert and channel. Because
of the limitations imposed by available mapping, elevation-area data may be subject to revision.
Individual pools or cells were not modeled due to insufficient definition provided on the
topographic mapping. As such, the entire mitigation site is modeled as one pool.
6
Two reservoir elements are defined in the HEC-1 model: one for the pools within the mitigation
site, and another for the area upstream of the mitigation site. Elevation-discharge relations
were computed from standard relationships between head and flow for weirs or taken from
published culvert capacity data (USBPR 1963). The channel connecting the upstream area
with the mitigation site was assumed to act as a broad-crested weir. Discharge from the 30- Q I q
inch corrugated metal pipe-culvert was estimated as if the culvert were only a 24-inch '` del
l1't''I
diameter pipe because of the reduced hydraulic efficiency of the bent ends, oblong cross-
section, and sediment deposits. `
Y L ? Cr-L?-(/?1lG.f my
Two initial conditions were modeled to reflect different pool conditions within the mitigation
site. First, the system performance was evaluated assuming the pools within the mitigation
site had some "normal" water elevation. The assumption of "normal" water elevation is based
on site observations on April 25, 1997. Next, the performance of the system was evaluated
with initially dry pools. Again, these estimates assume the pools within the mitigation site are
at the same elevation and connected. Table 1 summarizes the results of the analyses for the
mitigation site pools.
Table 1 . Simulated response of mitigation site pools to rainfall events
Normal Water Dry Pool
Rainfall Event
Starting Pool Peak pool Starting pool Peak pool
elevation elevation elevation elevation
One-inch storm 143.7 143.8 141.8 142.3
2-year storm 143.7 144.5 141.8 144.1
To aid in evaluation of soil moisture and groundwater conditions, ten years of rainfall data
were obtained for a station at Dunn, North Carolina. Based on this data, an average of 13 to
14 one-inch or greater storms can be expected in any year; 7 to 8 of these events will occur
within the period April through September.
The preliminary surface modeling shows that a 1-inch rainfall will cause only a slight rise (0.1
foot) in the mitigation pools if water is near "normal" levels, as defined by the water levels
present on site April 25, 1997. A one-inch rainfall may not quite fill the mitigation pools if
they are dry initially (0.5 foot rise). A two-year rainfall will likely fill all pools under any initial
conditions. Detention time (water above initial elevation) is likely in excess of 12 hours for a -
one inch rain at "norma water conditions. Even so, excess- - surface water is currently__E?e ing
adequately drained by the existing culvert without prolonged periods of inundation.

7

However, field observations suggest the presence of surface saturation for extended periods
of time, perhaps year-round. Total detention time depends largely on groundwater and
subsurface conditions. The "normal" groundwater table is believed to be at or near the
surface. Seepage from adjacent cells, low evapotranspiration rates attributed to sparse
vegetative cover, and regular rainfall events deter + the overall hydrology of this site.
(61-11 C?_ 1??Iv /
2.2.3 Subsurface Hydrology r
During an April 6, 1997 site visit, a series of three exploratory soil borings were made to
evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of the slurry within the bottomland tree planting zones of
the mitigation site. The soil borings were advanced to a depth of 28 inches and then a
temporary, sleeved piezometer was installed in the boring. Piezometers (PZ) (Figure 2) were
installed to obtain data on conditions in areas representing the major hydrologic regimes
present on the site.
PZ-1 was installed near the northern end of the site within a transitional, "intermittently
flooded" zone between lower elevation pools and dike sides. This area was sufficiently stable
on the surface to form a crust capable of supporting weight. The location of PZ-1 was
selected to obtain data on those areas not currently inundated; depth to free water at this
location was 28 inches below the surface. The other two piezometers were installed adjacent
to ponded areas in two of the former settling basin cells: PZ-2 in the south, and PZ-3 in the
northwest. The slurry was very viscous at these two locations; the depth to free water was
within 2 inches of the surface.
Following the establishment of equilibrium conditions, hydraulic conductivity tests were
performed with each temporary piezometer using a slug test method, which measures the
response of the saturated zone to a localized, induced stress. Slug tests were conducted
following a standard protocol: 1) the static depth to water was measured in each piezometer;
2) a quantity of water was then removed from each piezometer to draw the water level down;
and 3) the resulting rise in water level over time was recorded. The time-recovery data were
then analyzed using methods established by Bouwer and Rice (1976). Data and calculations
from the slug tests are presented in Appendix B.
The calculated values for hydraulic conductivity are low, ranging from 18.1 x 10' cm/sec at
PZ-1 to 0.7 x 10 5 cm/sec at PZ-2 and 0.3 x 10' cm/sec at PZ-3. The low calculated hydraulic
conductivity values are typical for the slurry material found at each location. For comparison,
hydraulic conductivity values for Grantham, Exum, and Nahunta soils (believed to have been
present on site historically) range from 8466.7 x 105 to 25400.1 x 10-5 cm/sec in surface
layers and 846.7 x 105 to 2540.0 x 10-5 cm/sec in subsurface layers. The differences in
hydraulic conductivity values among the piezometers is attributed to the ratio of clay and silt
particles in each profile. Clay consists of finer-sized particles than silt, with corresponding
8
smaller pore spaces between particles and higher adhesive properties. PZ-1, with a calculated
hydraulic conductivity value slightly higher than the other two borings, was located in an area
that had dried out considerably on the surface and possessed 6 inches of crust and
substantially more silt than clay in the profile. The other two piezometers (PZ-2 and PZ-3)
were located adjacent to areas of ponded water. The profiles for these two piezometers
contained a higher proportion of clay in the cuttings than was present in the profile for PZ-1,
which accounts for calculated hydraulic conductivity values for PZ-2 and PZ-3, which are
lower than that calculated for PZ-1 .
The low hydraulic conductivity values calculated for the slurry present at the mitigation site
indicate that there is very little subsurface drainage; inputs, such as precipitation or runoff, will
remain on-site until either drained off by surface drainage features or lost to
evapotranspiration.' The values of the hydraulic conductivity testing indicate that the 42?--r e,
mitigation site will support wetland hydrology of saturation at or within 12 inches of the
surface exceeding 12.5 percent (continuous) of the growing season. This equates to a
minimum of 28 consecutive days in Harnett County based on a growing season of 226 days,
defined as March 23 through November 5 by the 28° Fahrenheit threshold with a probability
of 5 years in 10. In fact, it is assumed that the site exhibits subsurface hydrology at or near
the surface for a majority of the year.
2.2.4 Hydrology Summary
Based on investigation of subsurface and surface hydrology, this mitigation site is expected
to meet wetland hydrology criterion of inundation or saturation exceeding 12.5 percent of the
growing season. Hydraulic conductivity tests show that little water is lost through subsurface
seepage. The depressional areas within the mitigation site retain water derived from
precipitation events and run-off from an approximately 60-acre catchment basin located
upstream. Because most of the mitigation site planting area lies within 2.3 feet elevation of
the normal pool elevation within these depressional areas, the mitigation areas are expected
to receive hydrologic influences by saturation or overflow from the depressional areas. A one-
inch rainfall is expected to raise the pool levels by 0.1 foot over normal levels; an average of
13 to 14 one-inch rain events may be expected in any year. Severe flooding is not expected
to be a problem; a 2-year rain event is expected to raise pool elevations by only 0.8 foot over
normal levels.
1 L 7
?1 V
9
3.0 BIOTIC ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Vegetation
Vegetation present within the Senter Mine mitigation site is discussed in the following two
subsections covering vegetation naturally colonizing the site (Natural Vegetation) and the
species planted as part of the mitigation plan (Planted Areas).
3.1.1 Natural Vegetation
De-watering operations have resulted in a mosaic of shallow water and exposed flats which
are conducive to colonization by hydrophytic vegetation. Much of the exposed area within the
mitigation site is covered by sparse to dense herbaceous vegetation, although large areas of
unvegetated flats remain. The vegetation cover has increased steadily since the de-watering
operation began according to observations by Becker Minerals employees.
The mitigation planting area consists of poorly-drained flats surrounding several permanent or
semi-permanent shallow water located in the interiors of former settling basin cells. Deeper
portions of the pools are generally devoid of rooted vegetation, but algae predominates in some
pools. The shellow fringes of these depressions are generally well-vegetated with 50 to ' 5
percent coverage dominated by hydrophytic herbs such as Canada rush (Juncus canadenisis),
woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), blunt spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa), and cat-tail (Typha sp.).
Vegetative cover is generally sparse and patchy in areas subject to seasonal flooding and
prolonged saturation. Where vegetation has become established in this zone, herbaceous
coverage generally ranges between 30 and 50 percent. Canada rush and woolgrass dominate
the vegetated areas; other species present in this zone include bushy broom-sedge
(Andropogon glomeratus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and clubmoss (Lycopodium
alopecuroides/appressum). Pioneering shrub and tree species are present in low numbers
throughout this zone and include young individuals (mostly less than 3 feet tall) of loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), groundsel-tree (Baccharis
halimifolia), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), and willow (Safix sp.). Pioneering shrub and tree
species, especially tag alder, are found in higher densities in the southwestern portion of the
mitigation site and along the dike bases.
Contiguous to the mitigation planting areas are better-drained sites within the slurry residue
and dike slopes. mAm-w--ea in the northwestern portion of the site has been planted with rows
of;pine seedlings; t11419 area is not included in the mitigation acreage. Although densities are
still low, pioneering shrubs and trees are more prevalent on the better-drained dike slopes and
include many of the species found in the mitigation planting areas as well as sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and winged sumac (Rhus copallina).
10
Herbaceous species and present in low densities (mostly less than 50 percent coverage) and
include Species typically adapted to better-drained conditions sfich as bush-clover (Lespedeza
sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), broom-sedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), and grasses.
3.1.2 Planted Area
Becker Minerals designed two general planting zones (Figure 3) based on hydrologic conditions
observed within the mitigation site: these planting zones consist of cypress-tupelo-buttonbush
in areas subject to permanent to semi-permanent flooding; and mixed hlrrdwods in areas
subject to seasonal flooding or prolonged saturation. Tree and shrub species were selected
for planting based on hydrologic tolerances of the species and availability of stock.
Approximately 10 acres of permanently to semi-permanently flooded areas have been planted
with bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus
occidentalis). Approximately 5 acres of seasonally flooded to saturated areas have been
,planted with a mix of black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii),
overcup oak (Q. lyrata), willow oak (Q. phellos), water oak (Q: nigral, and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), as well as bald-cypress and tupelo. Table 2 presents the breakdown for the
seedlings planted at the Senter Mine mitigation site.
Table 2. Senter Mine mitigation site planting stock.
Number of Seedlings Planted in Zone
Species Cypress-Tupelo-Button bush Mixed Hardwoods
Bald Cypress 2300 400
Tupelo 1800 300
Buttonbush 1900
Black Gum 400
Swamp Chestnut Oak 400
Overcup Oak 500
Willow Oak 500
Water Oak 300
Green Ash 400
Total (number per acre in 6000 1600) 3200 (640)
parenthesis)

ER97012/MINE.DWG
PLANTING ZONES
OHO ?
o°
00 PELO-BUTTONBUSH
?r
O r ^,
0 r r ,
10-
CYPRESS-TU
OoOO MIXED HARDWOODS
SHALLOW WATER/MARSH
F-] GRASSES AND/OR PINES
000
000000
0000 00
00 00
00 r O
0 0
O r r r 000
0 r r O
r r r
O r r r r
00 r r
00
/ °00 r
O
O
r ?n9'
r
/ r
00
/ O r O 0 00
O
0
O 0
/ O
0
O O r
O p
2 / / r O r
/, 0
0 00 /
O

/ 0 r r 00

r
r 0 r r r r r O /
.--+ r r 0 0 r 0 / r
.-- r 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r
000 OD r r r ° ° 000 00 00 r

0 O
o0 r O
0000°° O °p
Or /
r
?.. r ^
00 00 r 0
°°

O
rr r
0
0000 r r 000
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
- r - r
r r
r
0 0 000000 _ r 00
O 0 O O r r O O
r r 00000
0 r x00000000
0

1 °0
0
0
0°
1
0 FEET 300 0
0
0
00000
PLANTING PLAN FOR THE SENTER MINE MITIGATION SITE Drown By: WGI Flpuro: 3
Environmental BECKER MINERALS, INC. Checked Project ER97012
297
Services, Inc. HARNETT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA By: KWM MAY 1297
Seals: 1:3800 Date: pale: MAY Y 1
12
Bare-root seedlings of bottomland tree and shrub species were planted in January 1997. Leaf-
out of the planted seedlings has been confirmed as of the date of this report. \Nb01`tyiOf
,,x.owly pVsht6d'-see-d1ings• has not been establishegl,
3.1 Wildlife
)CA
In spite of on-going mining operations adjacent to the mitigation site, the mosaic of pools,
freshwater marshes, early successional wetlands, and upland ecotones within the mitigation
site provide potential habitat opportunities for a variety of wildlife species.
Mammal signs observed within the mitigation area represent larger- and medium-sized species
including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Felis
rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.). Because cover is
generally limited within the mitigation area, most of these species probably represent
individuals foraging from the protective cover of adjacent forested areas to the south. These
species would be expected to continue utilizing the mitigation site. The open and early-
successional habitats are expected to be utilized by small mammals such as southeastern
shrew (Sorex longirostris), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
and eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis). Development of forest cover will
eventually result in the replacement of least shrew, hispid cotton rat, and eastern harvest
mouse by species that utilize wet forested communities, such as southern short-tailed shrew
(Blarina carolinensis), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nutalli), and cotton mouse (Peromyscus
gossypinus).
Several species of birds were observed within the mitigation site during the site visits (late
March and April), including late winter visitors, migrants, and presumed breeders singing on
territory. Waterfowl observed during site visits include pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus
podiceps), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and wood duck
(Aix sponsa). Belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) was observed on site, and other fish-
eating birds expected to utilize the mitigation site include green heron (Butorides virescens) and
great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Wintering and migrant shorebirds are expected to utilize
the existing exposed flats and shallow pools, although the only shorebirds observed include
killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and greater yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), a late migrant.
Species observed utilizing the marsh vegetation and adjacent shrubby vegetation include red-
winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas).
The peripheral dikes and interior overburden stripping piles provide habitat for a variety of
species common to ecotonal and early successional habitats. Species observed include
northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), eastern kingbird
(Tyrannus tyrannus), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis), barn swallow
(Hirundo rustica), purple martin (Progne subis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), American crow
13
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum),
gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), prairie warbler (D.
discolor), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus),
chipping sparrow (Spizella arborea), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Tracks of wild
turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) were observed along the dike on the southern edge of the
mitigation site.
Assuming development of bottomland hardwood forest will occur over time, this cover type
will favor wood duck over waterfowl adapted to open, marshy pools. Development of forest
cover also will eliminate habitat for most shorebirds, but saturated mixed hardwoods may favor
species such as American woodcock (Scolopax minor). Mature bottomland forest is expected
to provide habitat for such species as Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), prothonotary
warbler (Protonotaria citrea), northern parula (Parula americana), barred owl (Strix varia), and
red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Development of mixed hardwoods would increase
forage available for wild turkey, a species recently stocked in the vicinity.
The semi-permanently inundated and ephemeral pools in the mitigation site provide suitable
habitat for an array of semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians. Species observed include
northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans) and southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia). Other
species expected include eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), yellowbelly slider
(Trachemys scripta), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and redbelly watersnake
(Nerodia erythrogaster). Aquatic and semi-aquatic reptile and amphibian usage of the
mitigation site is expected to continue as the mitigation site matures.
Fish observed in pools within the mitigation site include eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrooki), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).
Crappie (Pomoxis sp.) is reported to have been present prior to de-watering. Over time,
mitigation site pools may be colonized by other fish entering the site during high water
conditions through the drainage pipe located at the southeastern end of the mitigation site.
Possible colonizers include species adapted to the conditions present in shallow pools and
waters, such as golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), yellow and brown bullheads
(Ameirus natalis and A. nebulosus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), eastern mudminnow
(Umbra pygmaea), and bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus).
14
4.0 MONITORING PLAN
s yr
The Senter Mine mitigation site is unique in its origin as a clay se ing pond; as such, its
igyq ess will be measubad by how it meets success -criteria for we and soils,, hydrology, d '
yo.getation. •ThW,, 4rOhding criteria upon which the succes the mitigation plan is to be
iu¢ged is. the survival of 320 trees per acre at the end of th ear monitoring period. The ?L
proposed monitoring plan is based on the Corps of Engineers' (Wilmington District)
Compensatory Hardwood Mitigation Guidelines (12/8/93). Monitoring will be conducted for \
a period of 3 years in order to document success and propose remedial actions as needed. ?.
Monitoring reports will be gene ed annually for thex-year monitoring period.
4.1 Soils
Because this site does not contain natural soil conditions, target conditions within the slurry
residue should be the demonstrated suitability of the slurry medium for supporting the target
plant species.
Monitoring will consist of:
1. Visual inspection of soil borings along transects across the slope gradient
throughout the site to document the development of horizon differentiation. A
minimum of two (2) borings in each of the two bottomland hardwood planting zones
should be made to represent conditions across the site.
2. Annual analysis of organic content, nutrient presence, pH, cation exchange
capacity, and base saturation for samples from each of the two bottomland tree
planting zones.
4.2 Hydrology
?0
The Corps of Engineers wetlands requirements call for a minimum hydroperiod, which can be
either inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the surface, for at least 12.5 percent of the
growing season. H"rdfogy investigations indicate that this criterion is likely met. 'Hydrology
monitoring will be conducted to verify this assumption. Hydrology monitoring may be-l
discontinued following successful documentation that the site meets wetland criteria in aJ I
normal rainfall year.
(5
Monitoring will consist of: ("A 11
1. A,`fhrlihitxiuiari ,6t, four (4) wetland monitoring wells will be installed within each of the
two botto eland' tree planting zones. These wells will be designed and placed. in
accordance with specifications in the Corps of Engineers' Installing Monitoring:
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-11-3.1, August 1993). Wells
15
,,, vill be oriented as linear transects within each former settling basin cell across slope
gradient, extending from the bottom of drainage swales to the upland dike ridges.
Within each transect along a particular landscape gradient, wells will be placed at a
maximum 200-foot interval; however, changes in topography may require closer
placement of wells within individual transects. The monitoring wells will be set to a
depth 24 inches below the surface.
2. Hydrological sampling will be performed throughout the growing season at intervals
to satisfactorily document the hydrology success criteria.
4.3 Vegetation
Success for the mitigation site will be considered documentation of the survival after 3 years
of a minimum of 320 trees per acre within 15 acres of the bottomland tree planting zones.
P-Ibn6*elng individual of species compatible with the planting plan may be counted towards
this goal provided pines do no exceed 10 percent of the total composition, or pioneering
hardwood species (i.e. red maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar) each do no exceed 20 percent of,
the total composition. /o e/Q
Monitoring will consist of: G
1. Up to eight belt transects will be established within the mitigation area which will
be representative of the bottomland tree planting zones. The trees within the belt
transects across the mitigation area will be monitored for survival rates.
2. Annual quantitative sampling of bottomland tree plantings will be conducted during
the growing season for the 3_year monitoring period. Within each established belt
transect, the number of living individuals of each tree species will be recorded.
4.4 Report f o?. `I
A report will be produced following each annual monitoring period and submitted to relevant
agencies. Included in the annual report will be photographs, sample plot data, well data (if
applicable), and a discussion of problems/resolutions. Deviations from accepted mitigation
plan will be coordinated with and approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency.
4.5 Contingency
In the event that success criteria are not met, Becker Minerals will assume responsibility for
remediation. Coordination will be undertaken with appropriate resource/regulatory agencies
in an effort to determine strategies for modifying and implementation of remediation efforts.
16 aA"

5.0 REFERENCES
Bouwer, H. and R.C. Rice. 1976. A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of
unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resources
Research 3:423-428.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 46 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Soil Survey of Harnett County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service. 171 pp.
17
M
r
N
O
z
L
lA
l/'1
V
N
M.
M
r
lP1
r
O
r
N
V
z

0
cC
6J
v
L
V
0
0
M
• oVi
d
Q
V
z

V ^J

rl
V
7 ?

ZI
n h ` n
'? O fV

? ? u U
V U 1 Z
O ?

,?
c4
O

0
Q
u
N

v N 1
V
=_

i N
cc J
L

V
L
'l.
?
OA
Z f _ C
^

J

0

'r

"v
'N
(AO)
n C
cY
J
;J
v ?
7
-
O
OA
N
v
op
O
52
i ?
OA
? O
J
v?
.1
G
V
.J y
c
i ? o o c°
o y
ct
V
c1 6)
?- CG U ? N
i o
C Imo.
N
L
N r
N
L
6! y V
L V
] ca y C C
H ? ? V
rl ? ?
O
? C o>
w
= N Oi CS M
i O

f C

V 9

\ ti ?

M M

.. r N o

N ? N
'C

N O N v,

to 00

V

v M v ?^

H

L
? V

y? `
c o o ??
0 c ? ?
V _
?" V1 C V ^-? N ?" M

? Er ? o
in
q `f,

O

W
3 = v ? o
v
ti M .? y ti

h h h
h Q

N
r1
N
M
z

:J O
u
? p
N
O ?

_ o
Q) I-D
'? J N
-
T L
p e
1 y :J
:.J C..7 ? Z
...
O ,
? O
T ?
.
74
c:
U
V
H
tom. O
Ln
.ter = N

?
o
? i
M
rn
o.

.O O
r
0
r
N
z

?i
.SC
a?
V
a
0
0
M
a
0
42
Q
0
M
0
Q
V
z

N
C
(0)
e •
¦
0
h
ti
N
v
Leo
44
0

y
G
O
? U
z
O O ?
V ? U v
av ? N
b

a
v ?
V

? C
V O '•?
V
\ y
r Q ?? { Vi
i

E-
r o p
G
C ?
h
{
{
ti
U
N
v ? N
v
N
00
?• 00
N ? O
N ?
a
0
N (?
M
O
w
•w
V '^
M
H
C
O
4 M ? p
M ? ? Z
? C.
+y' C o o
V ? V V
v c?i OG U ?' °
Q --? N
O
V
v,
? 0 0
C ?
1,4
O
C
C
h
{
ti
G\
~ w
M N
U
M V
.,. N
N
~ M
N N
N
0
ti
7p
.V?
o? O
o6 c,
'^C
ti..
o
C ?
N
!.? N
`? to
C
y? J
N ? ? Z
O ? v
eMaCv ? N
os?
Qn "D
N ?
Q
C ?
O y
o?
O
CS C. 01
co,
W)
a
?I
v
F-
i ?
{
{
{
~ M
lo; V?
? N
N
N
NN
N
ti
rq
? N
U ? I
\ O
Q' O
?°
?r
v
? o
3 -?
O
h
h
v
oC
h
iz v z
?n
F-
N
U_
cr-
4)
7
O
m
CN I N
010'0
MIW1r--
U U?1?CI'T
Y (O 1 C i
I
.,,Q- (D I (D
O i010
t° WIW.W
E r OO V
U CO 10 1(V
r OO M
? I
Q) ' r 10
z (D Q) v
0 `a' r
CAI (3) O
(U IT N M
,O O10
C) LO C)
0 r 00
r co I'IT
IO O) N
r• T O
cl) 04
i r r
T
r- 'T:N
T T
T T
T
-,zr L,LO
.O O I.
co O
N U-) U,)
N ~ '(V
IN
I
Q
N Cl) cO
a) LO . r-
Q) m m
2 t` ti (D
C 0 N r?
J -,LO
co 't V
O LO lll?
LO N N
CV ;(V jN
? I I
cc) 00 : co
(D : (O I O
l17 to I LO
? r I
r r
J
LO O)' IT
r-, d .(6
UO u) IT
00 v r
? I I
J
0 0 0
0100
N 'CV 1CV
1
I I
2 I I
q 1
_ r ?N IM
d W'd
J
U)
N
N
J
(!J
M
N
d
0
J
U)
T
N
W
CD L O v v v v
o C )) co 0o ao 00
O 0) rn( D rn rn
O T 0 0 0 0 0
2

O OD M M M Cl)
M M M M I M
V V V 'T V V

- O CO M m I M I M
co r` r- r- t` Ir`
V' V d' V V '?T

0 _
0 0 0 0 0 0
M (D O) N
? r r
rn

E

O
O
O Nr
O
O) m
00
0) (o
co
rn T
co
0) 00
ti
0) co
ti
0) "T
O
m CO
(D
rn to '
(D I
M r
(D
O) r-
In
O 00
'c1
O N 0
'IT N
O m (D
r
m
- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I
0 0 0 0 010 O
O

M
(D O
(D 00
(O (D
LO ?
rn Cl)
LO M
Lo O
(D 00
v r-
v to
V M
I ct O
M (O 0
M M v
N
V d V V V V V V V I V V d

O
CD ' r-
I Cl) U)
O , CO
O
Q) CD
I O O
O r-
O U-)
I CO d-
CO C,4
co 0
00 . (D c) t--
ti I (D j (D
1

tO
4
V
V
?t
V
V
V
rl
V
V
V
V
V' ,
'
V
I
0
0 0 0 C) CD IO O C) CD O O 10IO
to O 1010
1 0 1 0 10
(j M (D O N
r LO
T M
T N 10
M (D
M 100
"q O
(D ti O) N co
r r
?

E
f-' I
r- V' r- T (D O r- N M r (D I ti O) ` V i t
LO O O T O V' O N M N LO O O
* O! 0
'- M 6 N O 6 M •--' O N ti - CO ti
(D LO IT V' V M M M M N N T T
O r r- Cl) M d' V O O (D M r- M 'c!• -,T
O I? O M M N M 'V' r N (D r` O V r
O m ti ti (D (D 10 (O tO ,q m N r 7 -
T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
CD
I

2 - - - - -
-
N -
(D -
r -
W -
M -
M -
O M M M IT (D O C) 1 Cl)
O r- (D v M N r 0 0 (A r- Lo M N I N
V - - - - - i-- r T 0 0 0 0 C:) C:)
C r s

r- M Co r ?- M T O (D Cl) (o M O 0 )(D
M M r- O O - (N M M E CD 00 0 T T
O O O O T T T - T T r T (V N N

O O O O O O
t O O O
IT O
O O
O O
00 O
10 O
L, O
( 0
U M (D (3) N
T f)
T CO
T r
N N M M V (D r-- I O

PZ-1 Slug Test
Senter M ine
i
---- Draw down vs. Time
- Best Fit
i
L
10.00 --
9
8
7 -
6
5
--7-1
I I I ? I ?
I I I I
I I i
j
I j
I ? I
I
! i I
I
4 - - --- -
i
I I! I I j I
I I
j
I
I I
0.10 --- _;
0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00
Time (sec)
4 -l
-- T-
I
I
2 I I ? III
1.00 -- . -??? =-
?
7
i j 'i
PZ-2 Slug Test
Senter M ine
---- Drawdown vs. Time
Best Fit
10.00
9
8
7
6
5
4
i
i
I I I i
1.00 --- -- - -? --- - _.
0.00 40.00 80.00
Time (sec)
120.00 160.00
i

PZ-3 Slug Test
Sein ter M ine
Drawdown vs. Time
-- -- Best Fit
10.00
9
8
5 --? ---L- - - ; ----I----- ------_.l . -? ?I _ --- 'I ._ I-- ? - - III - ------,I--- '
I I
3 - - - - --- -- -------
i ? I I
i
'I I ?I it
I , ', II
1.00 _ ,?_- --- ?_ ..- 1- -- --
0.00 400.00 800.00 1200.00 1600.00
Time (sec)
2000.00
Barrett Kays & Associates
Civil Engineering/Environmental Engineering/Environmental Assessment
March 1, 1995
RECEIVED
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers MAR
P.O. Box 1890 0 61995
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 ENV!RUNMENTALSCIENCES
R.RA N r,H
RE: Action I.D. 199303261, D.E.M. I.D. 93581
BKA Project #9306006, Crossroads IV
To Whom it May Concern:
The attached plan is to be included with the NWP 26 Joint Form dated 2/17/95 for
the above-referenced I.D.'s. I apologize for the clarity of the plan, however this is
the best information I have at this time.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BARRETT KAYS & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
J
1a1'uZeer_1. J'a4ae16
James A. Spangler, CEI
Project Manager
JAS287:cgi
Enclosure
cc: Addison Causey, NationsBank
Mike Hager, Hager-Smith Design
Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh COE Field Office
John Dorney, NCDEHNR-DEM
304 East )ones Street / Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
MAR-01-1995 12:13 FROM HAGERSMITH DESIGN PA
..__ ?? ;ass ? ? A os
) I.TC.W TO . P I . E _._ r1.,d4
too :
TO 98280365 P.01

Iu/ LLOV 4V7.._ '4 T
!NV IN 441.7'!
DILLARD RC
!NY IN 445.89
INV OUT 445.74
E
?T
f?
I
r LEv 4?
4w
r•
>1
1. .
446
i
2.5>
2 Rim ELEV 44j.:3
2 INV IN 435,)3
-.INv Out 435.98
RIM ELEV 441.03
INV IN 435.53
1 NV OUT 435.33
F 44B - -`,, --``__?S _
?1?
FRS. 101
Post-ft,P.w._, `- - - -
Barrett Kays & Associates
Civil Engineering/Environmental Engineering/Environmental Assessment
January 24, 1995
RECEIVED
M
E
i
Al AN 26.1"51
r.
r
smeyer
c
US Army COE EWIRCWAf
ALSCIENCES
11413 Falls of Neuse Road rH
A^
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: COE Action I.D. #199303261, DEM Project #93581.
Crossroads II Corporate Park, Cary, NC
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
As agent for the permittee on the above-referenced site, we request that you
review the attached plans. These plans include some of the "road crossing"
portion of the authorizations provided in August 1993 (attached), and are for the
next phase of the project.
Note however that the design of the road crossing exceeds the 200 linear feet
condition of the COE authorization. The present plans now call for 328 linear feet
of 2 x 66-in. RCP, in addition to, and as an extension of, the previously
authorized crossing. This new configuration is for a subsequent phase of the
same project. This subsequent phase is entitled "Crossroads III".
We request that the prior authorization be amended to include this extension.
Please contact me directly should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
BARRETT KAYS & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
,l es A. S gler, CEI
Project Manager
JAS273:cgi
Attachments
cc: Mr. Floyd Boyce
Ms. Sharron Scroggin
Mr. John Dorney
304 East )ones Street / Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Becker Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 848, Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone]
December 11, 1996
Mr John Dorney
N.C. Dept. Environment Health & Natural
Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh North Carolina 27607
Re: 401 Certification Application.
Harnett County. N.C.
Dear Mr Dorney:

Becker Minerals is pleased to forward you seven (7) copies of
our 401 Water Quality Certification application for our Harnett
Quarry expansion project. We have also sent a copy of this
application to the Corps of Engineers in Wilmington so they can
process this application for a Nationwide Permit 26.
We hope that we have provided you with all the necessary
information to process our application. However should you require
any additional information do not hesitate to contact the writer.
Yours Sincerely,
BECKER S, INC.
N. F. Wills
Vice President
encl.
\letters\corp3\07401app
Alfred

Becker Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 848, Cheraw, South Carolina 29520
Telephone [phone], Fax [phone]
December 30, 1996
Mr. John Dorney
NC Dept. Environment, Health & Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Mr. Dorney:
RE?F?V&
F AM U2 lyyy
IRpN?NrAC
Sc??S
As part of our 401 Water Quality Certification application we
are required to notify certain State and Federal agencies of our
application. These notifications were made on November 27, 1996
and to date we have only received one reply from NC Department of
Cultural Resources. We enclose a copy of their letter for your
records.
Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the
writer.
Sincerely,
INC.
BECKER M RA SkWil
N. FVice President
NFW:dmb
Enclosure
Alfred McAlpine
Minerals Division
• !' ER 97-7936
,•°v Received 12/2/96
Due 12/16/96
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
PPLICANT:
Project Location:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REVIEW
N. F. Wills
Vice President
Becker Minerals, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 848
Cheraw, SC 29520
HARNETT
Proposed Project: Gardner Quarry Expansion
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1a'
We have received the application for the above project from the Applicant and our
comments are noted below.
Additional information is needed (maps, photographs, other).
V-- No comment.
We have reviewed the requested information and have no comment.
Signed
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
Historic Preservation Office
919/733-4763
FAX [phone]
Date ( f la
' r.r-
b D FC "U :,:n
DECO 1?9C QODI
109 East !ones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
JAN.14.1997 6.53PM ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT NO.876 P.1i2
January 14, 1997
MEMORANDUM by fax No 919-733--9959
To: John Dorney
Environmental Sciences
/Wetlands and Aquatic Plants
From: 1 an a eritte Phone No. 910-486-1541
Fayetteville Regional Office
Subject: Backer Minerals Mine Expansion
Harnett County
The map faxed to me I/13/97 appears to be an accurate assessmant of what Nigel
Wills proposed on my last visit to this site. The bulk of the WL impact is in
what appears to be an old pond bottom immediately adjacent to what is how a
haul road over the "current outfall". All of the water which flows into and
out of the wetland eventually makes its way eastward into the existing mined
out area via that outfall. Pollutant sources are generally limited to row crop
land, that marked "O'Briant" and a cotton field in the proposed mine area.
This cotton field will be eliminated when existing cropland is converted into
mining area. Since all of this activity takes place below natural grade, there
should be little if any sediment going off-site. All drainage goes into the
pit where it is either used in a stone washing recycle system or discharged
per their existing NPDES permit.
The wetlands involved are fairly high quality wetlands and of significant
area. However, considering the options expressed in Nigel's narrative, it
seems reasonable to believe the most practical option would be to expand the
limits of the existing pit_ Considering the existing route of the tributary
surface flow (into the pit), it raises the question "what water quality
benefits are being protected?" Obviously the project will decrease the area
available for nutrient removaT, but at the same time, the nutrient source is
being reduced by probably 50%.
Becker Minerals has proposed converting much of the old Senter mine nearby
into a wetlands and open water wildlife habitat. It appears to be a reasonable
mitigation site, though I know there is some concern about the mitigation type
and ratio. Requiring something more than 1:1 would certainly seem reasonable.
I have no idea where tha FRO copy of this application is. Although I knew of
Becker Minerals plans, I didn't know they had actually applied until I got
Eric's fax on Monday.
If you have questions or if I can be of assistance, please advise.

Wetland Location
on pond or lake
on pereamial stream
on intenanittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Adjacent land use '
(within 112 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
' forested/natural vegetation 40, %
j2?,f "culture urbWs an %
impervious surface %
Dominant vegetation
Soil series (1) d ?k ?47-
predominantly organic - humus, muck,
or peat
_ predominantly mineral - nonsandy
_ predominantly sandy
Hydraulic fhctors
steep topogwhy
itched or channelized
-rfoW wetland width 2100 feet
(2)
(3)
Flooding and wetness
?,-- semlpernmendly to permanently
flooded or inundated
_ seasonally flooded or inundated
Z ntermittanly flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)*
ttomland hardwood forest _ Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog&n
Wet flat _ Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest _ Other
---___-?- *the rating em cannot be !EE? Led to salt or brscldsh marshes or stream channels
--------- -- - -r--- ---raam -- n
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and x'10% nonpoint disturbance within 112 mile upstream,
--------_-- u?slope? or radius ?_______-...-------------- -_--? _?-_?_ ?____------

-
N.C. S. R. 2072
OVERBURDEN - l 000 a
o DISPOSAL AREA n a
oc
-
m
m ?
ov o

cj =
-• -v ? D
K Z Gi rn i ?' O m
D N
c° D o ? o 0
n Z 0 n Pj Z
r* /
1 O

D 0

D .?
I

c
\
D

00
;lu
am
m
?z
i
?Z
y
im
C)
n
r?
m
cn 2
aa?
i

z^'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan R Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitas, Deputy Secretary

FROM:
PHONE:
A74
[D EHNF=?L
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: (n

1kF {? -y+wrKw...: r?-r ' r , ?J«rwl ... °,yi `w+"4i•+
)•. + ?t7 ? ? L •..:Y a? ` r ? A1r;t ?t r `t .:? ;, `? ?-t + h 't' , , ?, 7 + A ?t??
i ?r'ti` ?t.,}??r?":ih. r.?' ?i ?) r F s?? d "Kr ?'? 1 ^(? i1 <*'l?t?? + t ? t ? . ?. ,. •y
t n U
v?01
fi `wl 4S 1? _ ,l.? r {y+:: i,? '•k ,:-Z y'"F ?" -
4
Of ?-7
W p F
Z
tti
•? z ' W QrW: ? 1
O
I?j
C3 :9 C,r
4 N U !-
Z O U ` rb U U a
LLJ
a Q S trr p
LY '? ?•' arl ice'
LAJ- F- s "tx .
Lu O <<
Q Q
?- U LtJ U
co LLJ
cn str<<F
Vr 0 ? >
Q / Q rNc.:a
LL-
o w
W ¢ p) ;
x $`
2 ? - vi f 4+
OU A t? y`
2 Q
L.U C)
.. liZ
W°°
1
?`oZ •?•S ? N . +
$"
h ?0 ^ Z +,
o- Al
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Jamesa Hunt, Jr., Govemor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Steven J. Levitasy Deputy Secretary
Alw;-WYV,A
[D EHNR
Ib I? Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
FAX:[phone]
FAX TO: 1 FAX NUMBER: 0 3 -
93r7- (19,gi

FROM.
PHONE:
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHEET: ;b I
Fl'I ?Je X11 ,? a cl?:!?
A •T,Y.' N
'T 8

sjj I

3 r

v
O
v ?

-TI
? Rl
t/) C/)

n Rl

0
Z
?n rn
n
0 Z r
N
n; 2

N•C•5'R- 2072
RpN '
/iw 1
O ()
Q C:
D ?
v
l ' Q
O
I M
? a

n
10, 1
`n
Z

J ? y
1F
O
y
n O

J F' I I
? \ I _

1 A
nn
V'

A
1
s
D

Z
?
O D

n r
N
\ z
°
sN
?o

v N
?N
1

RF?E??FG
F?,,RO N ? ?,yy?
i
S - r.
y;
Dw 4
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Susan B. Edwards
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
FROM: Bennett Wynne ,1164v
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Modification Request for Becker Minerals, Inc., Permit No. 43-08,
south of Lillington, Harnett County, North Carolina.
Wildlife Resources Commission staff have reviewed the subject request for a mining
permit modification. A site visit was made on January 22, 1996. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended;
16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.) and the North Carolina Mining Act of 1971 (as amended, 1982; G.S. 74-
76 et seq., 15 NCAC 5).
The applicant is requesting a permit modification allowing granite mining of 61.2 acres of
property in addition to the 284.3 acres currently permitted. The additional property contains 7.8
acres of riparian wetlands, 5.9 acres of which would be lost to mining activities. Timber has been
harvested from the impact area in anticipation of mining activity, but remaining wetlands are high
quality, old growth hardwood bottomlands and provide excellent habitat for a variety of wildlife
species. We observed use of the area by a redtail hawk during our site visit. Mitigation for
wetland loss is proposed at a 1:1 ratio by creating wooded wetlands at a previously mined site 4
miles distant, but within the Upper Little River watershed. The mitigation plan includes planting a
mixture of cypress, tupelo, and buttonbush in areas permanently inundated by water and a
mixture of cypress, tupelo, water oak, willow oak, black gum, green ash, overcup oak, and
swamp chestnut oak in areas of periodic inundation. The wetland creation effort would be
monitored over a 3 year period and replanting would occur if a survival rate of 400 trees per acre
is not achieved. Mine wastewater will be routed through the existing mine's wastewater retention
and treatment system before being discharged into the Upper Little River under an existing
NPDES permit.
As currently proposed, the project would induce the loss of 5.9 acres of high quality
wooded riparian wetlands. Also as proposed, mitigation for this loss may create 5.9 acres of high

quality wooded wetlands over a period of 20-30 years. Due to the time required for created
wetlands to provide habitat quality equal to that of wetlands lost and the uncertain outcome of
longterm wetland creation efforts, our guidelines recommend a 3:1 ratio for this type of
mitigation. Consequently, we recommend that the mitigation ratio be changed from 1:1 to 3:1
and that the mitigation site remain as wooded wetlands in perpetuity. A conservation easement
on the mitigation site preventing tree harvest and other wetland disturbance should ensure the
integrity of the site over time. A desirable alternative to mitigation would be a significant
reduction in up front impacts to wetlands. If mitigation is indeed pursued, we would appreciate
receiving a copy of the monitoring results.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you need to discuss these
comments or need additional assistance, please call me at [phone].
cc: Becker Minerals, Inc.
s:\boatfish\habcon\coast\d4 (beckmine.doc)