NCG020679_COMPLETE FILE - HISTORICAL_20120305

STORMWATER DIVISION CODING SHEET
NCG PERMITS
PERMIT NO. /V C.&0ab �
DOC TYPE Id HISTORICAL FILE
Q MONITORING REPORTS
DOC DATE ❑ (�O Ia (.UO�
YYYYMMDD

Corn fiance Inspection Re art
Permit: rN'CG020679 ffective: 1010 1/15 E iration: 09/30/20 Owner : Shelter Creek Capital LLC
SOC: piration: Facility: Shelter Creek Quarry
County: Pencier 12121 NC Hwy 53 E
Region: VArimington
Buraaw NC 28425
Contact Person: Kyle H McIntyre Title: Phone:
Directions to Facility:
Properly is on the SE side of NIC-53. Apnrox. 3.5 miles SV%' of the NC-53 and NC-50 Intersection_
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification: Phone:
Secondary ORC(s):
On -Site Representativeisj:
Related Permits:
Inspection Date: 02/21/2017 Entry Time: 10:00AM Exit Time: 12 OOPM
Primary Inspector: Elsie C JamesPhone:
(/
Secondary Inspector(s): L '*9
Reason for inspection: Routine Inspection Type
Permit Inspection Type: Mining Ac,Mlies Slormwater Discharge COC
Facility Status: ❑ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
® Storm 11'ater
(Sec attachment summary)
Compliance Evaluation
Page: 1

•
Permit: NIGG020679 Owner - Facility' SnelYer Cree , Capital LLC
Inspection Date: 02121120-17 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Inspection Summary:
The SVYPPP %vas not evaluated at the time of the inspection. A SWPPP needs to be in place on site with all the required
items listed in the Certificate of Coverage. includinc but not limited to the items listed in the Slormv.,ater Pollution
Prevention section of this report.
Page- 2

Permit: 14CG020S79 Owner - Facility: Shelter Cree Capital LLC
Inspection Date: 0212112017 Inspection Type : Comp;iance Evaluation Reason lot Visit: Routine
Analytical Monitoring Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducled its Analytical monitoring? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring irorn Vehicle {viainienance areas? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
Comment:
Permit and Outtalls Yes No NA NE
is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Were all outfalls obsen-ed during the inspection? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
If the facility has representative outfall status, is if properly documented by the Division? IN ❑ ❑ ❑
r~ Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Qualitative Monitoring Yes No NA NE
Has the facility conducted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually? ® ❑ ❑ ❑
Comment:
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Yes No NA NE
Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan?
❑
❑
❑
a Does the Plan include a General Location (USGS) man?
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a "Narrative Description of Practices"?
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a detailed site map including outfall locations and drainage areas?
❑
❑
❑
Does the Plan include a list of significant spills occurring during the past 3 years?
❑
❑
❑
k Has the facility evaluated feasible alternatives to current practices?
❑
❑
❑
# Does the facility provide all necessary secondary containment?
❑
❑
❑
Doos the Plan include a BhIP summary?
❑
❑
❑
Does the Plan include a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP)?
❑
❑
❑
Does the Plan include a Preventative h3aintenance and Good Housekeeping Plan?
❑
❑
❑ M
Does the facility provide and documeni Employee Training?
❑
❑
❑
# Does the Plan include a list of Responsible Party(s)?
U
U
LJ
# Is the Plan reviewed and updated annually?
❑
❑
❑
Does the Plan include a Stormwater Facility Inspection Program?
❑
❑
❑
Has the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan txeen implemented?
❑
❑
❑
Page 3

Permit: N''CG020b79 owner - Facility: Sneter Creek Capital Li
Inspection Date 02/21/2017 Inspection Type : Compliance Evaluation Reason for Visit: Routine
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Yes i NA NE
Comment: A SWPPP was not evaluated at the time of the ins ection. A SV\'PPP needs to be in lace on
site with all the required items_ listed in the Certificate of Coverage. including but not limited to the
items listed above
Page: 4

W,4LToN EAT vEERIN
March 5, 2012
Nat Wilson
NCDENR Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
re: Shelter Creek Lime and Stone, 12121 NC Highway 53 E, Maple Hill, NC 28454
Dear Nat.
This is a letter report presenting groundwater monitoring, and analysis for the referenced
limestone quarry. Attachments include monitoring data, distance-drawdown analysis.
calculations, and Figures.
Background.
The quarry started operation after the Mining Permit was issued on 2/26/2007. Quarry
stripping and pumping began in September of2007. Aquifer tests were performed in May of
2006, prior to permitting and beginning operation. Measurements of pre -pump -test
groundwater levels were used in the distance-drawdown analysis of this report. The quarry
has been maintaining a drawdown of 65 feet at a single pump location for approximately 1 '/z
years to date. Prior to that, the pump was set at a higher level- The present data and analysis
is based on current operating conditions.
The quarry pump is rated at 1,400 gallons per minute. It is currently operated 12 hours per
day, every other day on average. The average pumping rate is 504,000 gallons per day or 360
gallons per minute including times when the pump is not operating -
Data:
Figures 1 & 2 show a number of monitoring wells on the quarry property and neighboring
property. The wells are referred to as deep wells and shallow wells. The deep wells are
installed in the limestone layer averaging approximately 25 feet to 80 feet below ground
surface. The shallow wells are installed in the overburden layer consisting largely of fine
sand from ground surface to an approximate average depth of 25 feet below ground surface.
The depth of the wells and the depth to water in the wells were measured between October
14`s and 19'h, 2011, except for M.W-23. MW-23 was installed in January 2012 to facilitate the
distance-drawdown analysis of this report.
The monitoring well locations, depths and hydrological conditions were used to select 3 wells
to for the distance-drawdown analysis. Well B-7, 0-5, and MW-23 were selected for the
Hydrology Report Letter
.rel: 910-259-4800 PO Box 99S. Burgaw. North Carolina. 28425 Isar: 910-259-1779

FW 4 L TON EA, 0INEERING
analysis. Shallow wells were excluded from the analysis because they are in a semi -confined
layer above the limestone layer where pumping is occurring. Deep wells 0-3, MW-2, and
MW-4 were excluded from the analysis because the water levels in them were all above
ground levels, indicating possible artesian conditions or influence by the quarry's level
spreader discharging water into the wetlands where the wells are located.
The 3 wells were monitored 8 times between IP-712012 and 2/24/2012. Prior data from 0-5
and B-7 was also utilized. Table 1 (attached) shows the results of this monitoring.
Pumping conditions and rates were also recorded at the times of monitoring. On 2/18/2012
the wells were monitored three times, 3-4 hours apart while the pump was off. As previously
mentioned, the only data available to establish pre -pumping groundwater levels was from 0-5
and B-7 on 5/ 1 /2006. M W-23 was installed in January 2012 after the quarry had been
pumping the water down to a depth of 65' for over a year_ Therefore, the pre -pumping depth
to groundwater at the location of M W-23 was calculated by averaging the pre -pumping levels
of 0-5 and MW-7.
Table I shows that the drawdown levels have little variation over a one -month period,
including times when the quarry pump is not operating. Therefore, the drawdown data for
each well was averaged and the standard deviation is shown. The average drawdown was
plotted versus the distance from the quarry pump on semi -logarithmic graph paper (see
attached). The data for MW-23 and B-7 plotted along a straight line, satisfying the Jacob
distance-drawdown method. The data for 0-5 did not fall on the straight line of MW-23 and
B-7. The drawdown was greater in 0-5 than would be predicted by the straight line of MW-
23 and I3-7. A likely explanation for the drawdown in 0-5 is a 4" water well located 325 feet
from 0-5. The well is titled "Holland Well' on Figures 1 & 2. It is 186 feet deep. The well
is on Stephen Holland's property and it is used to maintain water levels in a duck
impoundment and a pond. The amount of water pumped from the well is not known but .Mr.
Holland reports that the well has been used heavily over the past year. It is likely that the
Holland Well is affecting the water level in 0-6 because of the close proximity of the two
wells to each other, the depth of the Holland Well and the amount of water being pumped
from the Holland Well. Therefore, the distance-drawdown plot for 0-6 was prepared, but is
not considered indicative of the distance-drawdown conditions resulting from the quarry
pump.
Figure 1 shows drawdown at various distances from the quarry pump based on the distance-
drawdown plot for MW-23 and B-7. The plot shows zero drawdown at a distance (ro) of
3,000 feet from the quarry pump. The Transmissivity has been calculated to be 1,348. square
feet per day based on this plot_ There is a water supply well and pond an the property of
Davey Watts (12700 Highway. 53 East) that have been claimed to have been affected by the
quarry pumping. That well and pond are approximately 3,500 feet from the quarry. For
informational purposes, an Aerial Photo taken 10/16/2005 has been attached. It shows low
water levels in the Watts pond prior to the beginning of pumping at the quarry.
Hydrology Report Letter
TO: 910-259-4800 PO Box 895, Burgaw, \onh Carolina_ 2842S Fax: [phone]

ALTDN EN WEER -liv
Figure 2 shows drawdown at various distances from the quarry pump based on the distance-
drawdown plot for 0-5. The plot shows zero drawdown at a distance of about 5.100 feet [Tom
the quarry pump. However, as previously discussed, the drawdown data froth 0-5 is
suspected to he unreliable due to the proximity of the I-lo{land Well to 0-5. As such, the plot
has not been used to calculate Transmissivity,
If you have any questions, please call me at 910-259-4800
Sincerely;
SEAL
Mark Walton
N.C. Professional Engineer
Registration No- 15879
Hydrolo&y Report Letter
Tel_ 910-2594800 PO Box 895, Burgaia, Morth Carolina, 28425 Pax: 910-259-1779

Table 1. Shelter Creek Lime & Stone Distance-Drawdown Data
315f2012
Well and D tt troln TOC
Water Depth Below Ground
Drowdown It
Groundwater Elevation
Date
Pumpan f of Olschar a Gailonsllla
B-7 0.5 023
B-7 0-5 MW-23'
B-7 04 AAW-23
B-7 0-5 1 MW-23
COMMENTS
&T E x` •' ' d e. _:
d;1 _Nd'- ..i. flii ��5.'.�.1a+':.
APR � .;4 r "V
.! _
1
.'.';° ..
i
511106
oft
NA
6.46
3,58
NA
3.96
2.28
3,38
NA
NA
NA
12.04
16.72
NA
Before ua be an and before pump test
10M412011
on
I,000,000
6.94
9.1
NA
5,44
7.80
NA
1,48
5152
NA
10.56
11.20
NA
Friday: Quara has been -pumping all week
1/2712012
on
840.000
NA
NA
9.7
NA
NA
6.8667
NA
NA
3,49
NA
NA
10,1333
Frida : Ouar has been pumping all week
2/712012
on
840,000
6.71
9,11
10.24
5.21
7.81
7,4067
1.25
5.53
4.03
10.79
11.19
9,5933
Tuesday; Qua))as been pumping 2da s
2)13t2012
on
924,000
7.08
0.38
10.82
5.59
a.08
7.9867
1.52
5.80
4.61
10.42
10.92
9-0133
Mande : After pumps have been oil a9 weekend
2M 15/2D12
on
1.000,000
7.02
9.33
10.42
5.52
8.03
7.5867
1.56
5.75
4.21
10.48
10.97
9.4133
ThUrsda : aIW PIJ.Piing for 3 days
2r1812D12 9AM
off
NA
7.07
9.3
10.44
5.57
8
7.6067
1.61
5.72
4.23
10.43
11.00
9.3933
Saturday: Ouary closed and no pumping
2 IW012 12PM
011
NA
7.08
9.28
10.45
5.56
7,98
7.6167
1.60
5.70
424
10.44
11.02
9,3833
Saturda : Ouairy. closed and no pumping
2118121312 4PM
ofl
NA
705
9.28
10.42
5.55
7.95
7.5867
1.59
5,70
4,21
10,45
11.02
9.4133
Saturday: Quarry cbsed and no pumping
2/2412012
off
NA
6.88
9.15
10.62
5.38
7.65
7.7867
1.42
5.57
4.41
10.62
11.15 1
9.2133
Friday: Quarry has been pumping all week (Monday ihru
Thurede
Average
1.52
5.66
4.18
Standard Deviation
27 thru 2124 only)
0.138
0.097
0.184
Wafer depth below ground in MW-23 on 511106 is not known because the well didn't exist then, The value of 3.38 feet below ground is an average of the depth below ground for B-7 and 0.5 prior to beginning pumping.
Well Distance from Pump (n)
8-7 1880
43-5 26a0 Moto: 'Hullarrd WCIr is 325 feet Irom 03. Usod to 61 pond and duck impoundment. Heavy use in last year. AL j Uiv :,'CllilE1:11'1 �1
IAW23 2430
Watts' Pond 3.500

Dra,
0
10
20
30
40
M
NO
RA
70
Project; Shelter Creek Lime & Stone
wdown (ft) UIS-7At MC1��R AW U. 0\N IV ��` �^�
Date; 3/2/2012
i
t
1
i
3
.... �.--'...;A
(�a�Sk!�.�
�?
f.��
:.` j.;.,1
. 3 `
..._. 31,
.�°', r�'Tl
a1 a.�c
.. ►��L€�
�...
€.
lie't
...... ..... .....y € ,.i. �„ f.
,. -._. y 3
�.,.;
k 7 .y
....,-. .,..,(. } F g f
.Y i« r. wy..f•I
L
r
I
{
i
E
€
1
.1'-.._.... S F. k
._-.. r F^
... _
I r. -• — _ _ r..}.^ .
.. 1
1
J.
�L
Y
m
ii
�
I.
- i.. �
� Yn { ` .€. E., fiI.�..
.. ..-.., � � -A
I _. .. -..., ..�.. p., I �V i...�.-�,.I
.. ,_..
E �:}�
.,.. .-,.� � <-E..l,•I
5 ., y � Y I
•. ..�._. _ .i ..�,�
i �
.. ....
i I 3 r
., y.
�
r € - 11 3
,..,� ._„s
...•.
....,..».^
_
n— _.
6,.5 1..1
I.e t _._..! ° '
{# f....€_._. %.tI
I t a_^. _ Y-f.i_....__
• .,
f
�_ r.
7'
k _ . _1 g j.: €
I € '
1- f ! € �I
t
1 , !
1
r
` 111
}
. _ %.
.. - •—Y"'• . _ ' _
e
e
s i r
i I
_1.
y
W;n,s ,
0 10 100 1.000 Po nd 10.000 Distance (ft)
C3,500,�
WALTON E.NOINEE.RMI

Vk6l :Zoc)S
all

Soutkem F nv>ironmental Group, Inc.
5315 5out6 Cul6sc load, Suite l- . Wilmington, Nott} Carolina, 2af1 Z
9 i 0.45Z.Z71 1 • Fax: 910A512699 • c&cc e?seg�us
1 February 2012
US Postal Service SEGi Project #: 06-010.01
Ms. Cora Scott
348 Ramsey Road
Jacksonville, NC 28546
Re: Request for Access to 13264 NC Hwy 53, Maple Hill, North Carolina for the Purpose of
Installing and Monitoring a Shallow Water Monitoring Well
Dear Ms. Scott,
With your approval, Southern Environmental Group, Inc. (SEGi) and Shelter Creek Lime & Stone
(SCL&S) met with staff from the Wilmington Regional Office, Division of Water Quality (DWQ),
Surface Water Protection Unit, at the subject property. The site visit was necessary to determine if the
location was appropriate for the placement of a shallow water monitoring well. Criteria for determining
the placement of the well is as follows:
1. The site shall have hydric soils and exhibit wetland characteristics similar to those within the
Cone of Influence (COI), associated with the mine site;
2. The site cannot be located within the COI;
3. The site should not be located within state or federally owned lands;
4. The site should not often be affected by overbank flooding from Holly Shelter Creek; and
5. The site should be easily accessible.
Your site meets all of the criteria.
The need for the reference well is to monitor the hydrology in wetlands that are outside the COI. The limit
of the COI is considered the extent to which the mine could potentially have an affect on ground water.
Thus, anything outside the COI is not expected to be influenced by the mining activity. The reference
well will be installed without any disturbance to the existing vegetation, rootmat or soils. A hand auger
will be used to dig a hole to a depth of approximately 3 to 5 feet below the ground surface. PVC pipe will
be inserted into the hole and will extend above the surface approximately 4 to 5 feet. The data logger will
be housed in the upper portion of the PVC. [nitially, data will be collected weekly but will taper off to
once a month. SEGi anticipates monitoring of the well will last up to 5 years, unless directed by the DWQ
to cease monitoring, at which time the well will be removed.
To assist you in your decision making process, I have included the following exhibits:
1. Reference Location Map
2. Monitoring Well Diagram

Should you agree to assist us in this endeavor, please sign and return the attached forms, in the enclosed
self-addressed envelope, to my office. If you should need further information or have questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me at 910.452.2711 or Ms. Linda Willis (DWQ), at 910.796.7343.
Thank you for your consideration and time taken to assist us with this project.
Sincerely,
Dana Lutheran
SEGi Project Manager
Enclosures (3)
Cc: Linda Willis —SIC DWQ SWP WiRO (electronic mail)

Page 1 of 3
StarNe-vvs
ONLINE
This copy is IV your pefSOMI, noncommercial use only You cm unl.,r preSeMalio" redly cop,os
IV Usuflulort 10 or wslwr, SDerR pr We LhB'RepnntV IV,1 Umt appears
Quarry denies responsibility for receding
water table
By Ken Little
Brgyk. nuneu,sr'Star \'elcsOniinc.ranl
Published: Sunday, February 5 2012 at 5'I8 p-m.
Davey Watts' well is running dry. The resident
of N.C. 53 in Pender County is convinced of the
cause.
Watts, 60, places the blame for a receding water
table in his rural neighborhood squarely on the
Shelter Creek Quarry across the street.
Quarry owners deny the operation has anything to do with Watts' problems, which
also include a dried-up pond on his 36-acre property and a shifting foundation under
his home, where he lives with his 87-year-old mother, Mayo Watts.
The quarry has been cited with two notices of deficiency by the state Department of
Environment and Natural Resources since 2008 in connection with blasting
activities there, but DENR officials say the business is currently in compliance 'with
all regulations.
The dispute with Watts has been bubbling since Shelter Creek Quarry began
operations at 12121 N.C. 53 East, about two miles from Maple Hill and near the Holly
Shelter Game land. A mining permit was first issued for the site in February 2007 by
the N.C. Division of Land Resources, said DENR spokesman Jamie Kritzer.
Watts said his difficulties began soon afterward, although no one paid much
attention to his concerns until recently.
The problems remain unresolved.
"It's been a nightmare, a pure nightmare," Watts said. "They told me at this time
their company does not feel responsible for any of our damages."
Bruce Cameron, vice president of Shelter Creek Capital LLC, said he has met with
Watts and tried to address his concerns.
"We comply with the rules and regidations of NCDENR and water quality and air
quality and the (Army) Corps of Engineers," Cameron said. "We've been in direct
contact with lots of people with NCDENR about this situation, and we have been fully
aboveboard with state and federal regulations."
Watts said DENR officials told him last month "the quarry was leaking the water out
of my land," which includes the property across the street where the family home is
located and another property adjacent to the quarry.
"As of the last inspection conducted by the Land Quality Section staff, the quarry
operation was in compliance with the Mining Act," Kritzer said in an email response
to questions about the business.
Kritzer said Land Quality Section staff met v%ith Watts on Dec. 20 at his home, "but
did not conduct a formal inspection of the mine during that visit."
http://www.stamewsonline.conVarticlel20l20205lARTICLES1120209836?template=printpi... 2/6/2012

Page 2 of 3
According to Watts, the state sent a soil scientist to inspect his property in late Copyright D 2012 StarNewsOnline.com — All
January, and he is awaiting a report that will also be forwarded to Shelter Creek rights reserved. Restricted use only.
Quarry officials. A representative of a private company specializing in foundation
repairs came to his property the same week and said the water table is dropping "and
vibrations from the blasting are making my house settle," Watts said.
Watts said the front door of the 2o-year-old house is out of alignment, the sidewalks
are splitting and his front steps are separating.
The limestone quarry was owned by Stephen Rolland, a former Pender County
commissioner. Ownership was transferred to Shelter Creek Capital LLC in January
2011.
Watts' claims about the depleted water table on his property and negative effects
from the blasting are "not legitimate complaints," Cameron said.
"That has always been our stance until he can prove us otherwise," he said.
According to DENR, the quarry was cited twice in the last 38 months with notices of
deficiency, "which are minor violations of state law in which the Division of Land
Resources calls upon the business to correct the violation within a set period of time,"
Kritzer said. Such notices don't involve fines, he added.
On March 31, 2oi1, the current owners were cited for exceeding the disturbance
limits of their existing mining permit. The mining permit was revised in June 2oi 1
"to accurately reflect site conditions," Kritzer said.
Shelter Creek Quarry "is being dewatered as a matter of site operation," Kritzer said.
WATER ISSUE EXAMINED
The question of groundwater impact was referred to personnel within the state
Division of Water Resources to make a determination, Kritzer said.
Division of Water Resources staff, who review mining applications, have participated
in the review of the Shelter Creek Quarry land quality permits "and are in the process
of reviewing groundwater impacts as a part of that permit," Kritzer said.
Shelter Creek Quarry is on 398 acres, 252 acres of which are permitted for mining.
Quarry owners requested a revision in October eon to the special use permit granted
in 2004 by the Pender County Board of Commissioners, for an expansion of the
mining operation that included "increases to the approved depths for dewatering
activities," according to documents provided to Pender County commissioners.
The "major revision" to the special use permit was withdrawn by the quarry owners
before commissioners could act on the request.
"It wasn't the time to do it," Cameron said.
Rick Benton, outgoing Pender County manager, said in an email communication that
after the new owners applied to the state and county to modify their current permit,
several public hearings were held "and Mr. Watts and others spoke at the hearings
about a variety of negative impacts.
"These impacts were also shared with the state mining staff. The owners pulled the
application for consideration, so no county approvals, or state approvals, to my
knowledge, were granted for the permit modification," Benton said.
At this point, Watts doesn't know where to turn. He said the pump that channeled
water from his well into the house stopped working in December, and promises from
quarry officials to make things right were not fulfilled.
http://www.stamewsonline.corn/articlel2012O2O5lARTICLES1120209836?template=printpi... 2/6/2012

Page 3 of 3
An offer in December by quarry owners to drill a new well on Watts' property was
turned down, Watts said, because the depth the company planned to drill into the
ground was not sufficient to reach the water table.
Watts said he is long past accepting explanations like drought as the cause of the
ongoing problems on his land.
"I think it would be best if they settled with me and gave me a big payment and let me
get out of here," Watts said. "This is my home and I'd love to stay here, but as long as
they have the mine going, I'm going to have problems."
"We're not trying to hurt this guy," Cameron said, "and we're really trying to move
forward."
Metro desk: 343-2389
On Twitter: @StarNewsOnline
http://www.starnewsonline.com/articlel20l2O2O5lARTICLES1120209836?template=printpi... 2/6/2012

0F V11Arf, p Incident Report
a �
Report Number: 201200179
Incident Type: Complaint
On -Site Contact:
Category: Other
First/Mid/Last Name:
Incident Started: 01/23/2012
Company Name:
County: Pender
Phone:
City: Burgaw
Pager/Mobile Phone:
Farm #:
Responsible Party:
Reported By:
Owner: Shelter Creek Capital LLC
First/Mid/Last Name: David Watts
Permit: NCG020679
Company Name:
Facility: Shelter Creek Quarry
Address: 12700 Hwy 53 E
First Name: Kyle
Middle Name: H
City/State/Zip: Maple Hill NC 28454
Last Name: McIntyre
Phone:
Address 12121 NC Hwy 53 E
Pager/Mobile Phone: 1
City/State/Zip: Maple Hill NC 28454
Phone:
Material Category: Estimated City: UOM
DD:MM:SS Decimal
Chemical Name Reportable Qty. lbs. Reportable City. kgs.
Position Method:
Latitude:
Position Accuracy:
Longitude: Position Datum:
Location of Incident: 12700 Highway 53 East
Address: 12700 Hwy 53 E
City/State/Zip Maple Hill NC 28454
Report Created 02/20/12 05:53 PM Page 1

Cause/Observation: Directions:
Quarry causing well, amenity pond and house foundation Take US 40 W to Highway 53 East, make left, travel 112 mile past Shelter
structural problems. Creek Quarry to first residence on the left.
Action Taken: Comments:
DENR representative investigated complaint. Joanne Steenhuis, Appears that mine pit dewatering has impacted irrigation well and
Linda Willis, Vincent Lewis met with Mayo Watts, Davie Watts, ammenity pond on site as the site is within the cone of influence. No
Norma and Jerry Covil and Janet Carroll signs of impacts to neighboring ponds outside the cone of influence due
to any drought effects, therefore drought not expected to be the problem
with Watts pond.
Incident Questions:
Did the Material reach the Surface Water? Unknown
Surface Water Name?
Did the Spill result in a Fish Kill? Unknown
If the Spill was from a storage tank indicate type.
Containment? Unknown
Cleanup Complete? Unknown
Water Supply Wells within 1500ft : Unknown
Event Type
Incident closed
Requested Additional Information
Referred to Regional Office - Primary Contact
Report Entered
Event Date
2012-01-27 03:14:15
Conveyance:
Estimated Number of fish?
(Above Ground or Under Ground)
Groundwater Impacted : Unknown
Due Date Comment
Report Created 02/20/12 05:53 PM Page 2

Report Received
Incident Start
Standard Agencies Notified:
Agency Name
2012-01-23 01:00:00
2012-01-23 12:00:00
Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
Other Agencies Notified:
Agency Name Phone First Name M.I. Last Name Contact Date
DWQ Information:
Report Taken By: Report Entered By: Regional Contact:
Linda Willis Linda Willis Linda Willis
Phone:
Daterrime: 2012-01-23 01:00:00 PM 2012-01-27 03:14:15 PM
Referred Via: Phone
Did DWQ request an additional written report?
If yes, What additional information is needed?
Report Created 02/20/12 05:53 PM Page 3

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Wn-m^ Regional Office
FILE ACCESS RECORD
SECTION DATEMME /0 — 3!— 1 1
NAMEy I LPi� REPRESENTING 1-=
�'honG'
Guidelines for Access: The staff of the Regional Office is dedicated to making public
records in our custody readily available to the public for review and copying_ We also have
the responsibility to the public to safeguard these records and fo carry out our day-to-day
program obligations. Please read carefully the following'before signing the form.
1. Due to the large public demand for file access, we .request that you call -at least a
day in advance to schedule are appointment for file review so you can be
accommodated. Appointments are scheduled between 9;00 a.m. and 100 p.m
Viewing time ends at 4:45 p.m. Anyone arriving without an appointment may
view the files to the extent that time and staff'.supervision are available.
2. You must specify files you want to review by facility name or incident number, as
appropriate. The number of files that you may review at one appointment will be
- limited to five.
3_ You may make copies of a file_when the copier is not in use by the staff and if
time permits_ Cost per col2y is 2.5 cents for ALL copies if ou make more than
25 copies -- there is no charge for 25 or less copies. Payment is to be made by
check, money order, -or cash in the administrative offices.
4. Files must be kept in the order you received them. Files may not be taken from
the office. No briefcases_ large totes, etc. are permitted in the file review area.
To remove, alter; deface, mutilate, or destroy material in public files is a
misdemeanor for which you can be fined up to $500.00.
5. In accordance with GS 25-3-512, a $25.00 processing fee will be charged and
collected for checks on which payment has been refused.
.6. The custcmer must present a photo ID, sign -in, and receive a visitor sticker prior
to reviewing files -
FACILITY NAME COUNTY
1.
2. r
3
4.
Signature/Name of Firm or Business Date Time In Time Out
Please attach business card to form if available

October 31 ", 2011
Mr. Brodley Bennet RECD DEC 0 6 2011
Storm Water Permitting Unit Supervisors
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Bennet,
The third quarter has not produced any increase in water discharge as predicted;
however, the fourth quarter should have larger quantities of water discharged. The
mining plan has increased the size of the quarry and we will naturally have more
water to discharge. We will not, however, come close to the 2,000,000 gallon limit
allowed in our NPDES Permit.
I have checked our property and the NC State game lands adjoining our property
on a daily basis and did not find any sink holes.
I have included PH values, water temperature, the amount of local rain, and the
gallons of water pumped on a weekly basis with this letter. Lastly, attached
herewith is our quarterly report from Environmental Chemists, Inc. As you can see
the results are consistent with previous sampling and are in compliance with State
and Federal laws.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Dorenda
CC: Trent James
Linda Willis
Judy Wehner
12121 NC Hwy 53 East Maple Hill, NC 28454
910-259-0601 * Fax [phone]

Date Pumped
Main Pump Volume to
Horse Shoe Pond
Water
Temperature
Date
Discharged
Rain in
Inches
Discharge Volume From Level
Spreader in Total Gallons
07/01/11
1,287,000
85.3
07/01/11
0.2"
1,092,000
07/02/11
07/02/11
0
07/03/11
960,000
07/03/11
960,000
07/04/11
1,008,000
85.3
07/04/11
0"
960,000
07/05/11
960,000
85.5
07/05/11
0"
816,000
07/06/11
816,000
85.5
07/06/11
0"
816,000
07/07/11
768,000
85.7
07/07/11
0"
768,000
07/08/11
768,000
85.5
07/08/11
0"
768,000
07/09/11
07/09/11
0
07/10/11
864,000
07/10/11
864,000
07/11/11
816,000
85.3
07/11/11
0"
816,000
07/12/11
720,000
85.5
07/12/11
0"
720,000
07/13/11
720,000
85.9
07/13/11
0"
768,000
07/14/11
768,000
85.7
07/14/11
0"
768,000
07/15/11
768,000
85.5
07/15/11
0"
816,000
07/16/11
07/16/11
0
07/17/11
768,000
07/17/11
768,000
07/18/11
864,000
85.7
07/18/11
0"
864,000
07/19/11
816,D00
85.8
07/19/11
0"
816,000
07/20/11
816,000
85.5
07/20/11
0"
816,000
07/21/11
768,000
85.7
07/21/11
0.01"
768,000
07/22/11
768,000
85.7
07/22/11
0"
768,000
07/23/11
07/23/11
0
07/24/11
960,000
07/24/11
1.4"
960,000
07/25/11
1,440,000
85.6
07/25/11
1.2"
1,023,000
07/26/11
960,000
85.6
07/26/11
0.5"
960,000
07/27/11
864,000
85.7
07/27/11
0.1"
816,000
07/28/11
864,000
85.5
07/28/11
0"
864,000
07/29/11
864,000
85.8
07/29/11
0"
864,000
07/30/11
07/30/11
0
07/31/11
960,000
07/31/11
0.2"
960,000

1-Jul
2-Jul
3-Jul
4-Jul
5-Jul
6-Jul
7-Jul
8-Jul
9-Jul
10-Jul
11-Jul
12-Jul
13-Jul
14-Jul
15-Jul
16-Jul
17-Jul
18-Jul
19-Jul
20-Jul
21-Jul
22-Jul
23-Jul
24-Jul
25-Jul
26-Jul
27-Jul
28-jul
29-Jul
30-Jul
31-Jul
9c 90 PO 00
in kD ifl 0 C) CD
C$ co 00 hj -ok M 00
-4
3.
I

Date Pumped
Main Pump Volume to'
Horse Shoe Pond
Water
Temperature
Date
Discharged
Rain in
Inches
Discharge Volume From Level
Spreader in Total Gallons
08/01/11
1,108,000
85.7
08/01/11
0.03"
960,000
08/02/11
960,000
85.5
08/02/11
0"
768,000
08/03/11
864,000
85.6
08/03/11
0"
864,000
08/04/11
864,000
85.2
08/04/11
0.1"
864,000
08/O5/11
816,000
85.2
08/05/11
0"
816,000
08/06/11
0
08/07/11
864,000
08/07/11
1"
864,000
08/08/11
720,000
85.3
08/08/11
0"
720,000
08/09/11
768,000
85.5
08/09/11
0"
768,000
08/10/11
816,000
85.1
08/10/11
0"
816,000
08/11/11
864,000
85.1
08/11/11
0"
864,000
08/12/11
960,000
84.9
08/12/11
2"
960,000
08/13/11
0
08/14/11
816,000
08/14/11
0.5"
816,000
08/15/11
768,000
84.2
08/15/11
0"
768,000
08/16/11
864,000
83.8
08/16/11
0"
864,000
08/17/11
720,000
83.9
08/17/11
0"
720,000
08/18/11
768,000
83.5
08/18/11
2"
768,000
08/19/11
624,000
83.1
08/19/11
0"
624,000
08/20/11
0
08/21/11
960,000
08/21/11
0.91,
960,000
08/22/11
864,000
82.5
08/22/11
0.6"
864,000
08/23/11
768,000
83.1
08/23/11
0"
768,000
08/24/11
768,000
83.5
08/24/11
0.1"
768,000
08/25/11
816,000
82
08/25/11
0.1"
816,000
08/26/11
816,000
81.3
08/26/11
4.5"
816,000
08/27/11
0
08/28/11
1,108,000
08/28/11
1.7"
1,108,000
08/29/11
960,000
79.8
08/29/11
0"
960,000
08/30/11
960,000
77.3
08/30/11
0"
960,000
08/31/11
816,000
75.1
08/31/11
0"
816,000

V
Ql
1-Aug
2-Aug
3-Aug
4-Aug
5-Aug
6-Aug
7-Aug
8-Aug
9-Aug
10-Aug
11-Aug
12-Aug
13-Aug
14-A u g
15-Aug
16-Aug
17-Aug
18-Aug
19-Aug
20-Aug
21-A u g
22-Aug
23-Aug
24-Aug
25-Aug
26-Aug
27-Aug
28-Aug
29-Aug
30-Aug
31-Aug
V
J
J V W p0 0o p0 pp
00 l0 00 M- N W A Ln
f
I
F
r
�
I
i
r
F
I
I
s
I
F
�
i
E
1 j{
I
t
F
r
I
f
ro
2

Water Discharge
Report
Date Pumped
Main Pump Volume to
Horse Shoe Pond
Water
Temperature
Date
Discharged
Rain in
Inches
Discharge Volume From Level
Spreader in Total Gallons
09/01/11
960,000
79.5
09/01/11
0.00
960,000
09/02/11
864,000
79.9
09/02/11
0.00
864,000
09/03/11
09/04/11
09/05/11
768,000
80.5
09/05/11
0.10
768,000
09/06/11
768,000
80.2
09/06/11
0.20
768,000
09/07/11
768,000
79.7
09/07/11
0.50
768,000
09/08/11
960,000
80.1
09/08/11
0.00
960,000
09/09/11
864,000
79.9
09/09/11
0.00
864,000
09/10/11
09/11/11
09/12/11
768,000
79.8
09/12/11
0.00
768,000
09/13/11
864,000
79.7
09/13/11
0.00
864,000
09/14/11
864,000
79.6
09/14/11
0.00
864,000
09/15/11
960,000
79.8
09/15/11
0.00
960,000
09/16/11
768,000
79.4
09/16/11
0.20
768,000
09/17/11
09/18/11
09/19/11
768,000
78.5
09/19/11
0.00
768,000
09/20/11
816,000
78.1
09/20/11
0.60
816,000
09/21/11
864,000
78
09/21/11
0.00
864,000
09/22/11
864,000
77.9
09/22/11
2.70
864,000
09/23/11
960,000
77.5
09/23/11
0.10
960,000
09/24/11
09/25/11
1,440,000
1.20
1,023,000
09/26/11
864,000
77.1
09/26/11
1.00
864,000
09/27/11
960,000
77
09/27/11
0.80
960,000
09/28/11
864,000
773
09/28/11
0.00
864,000
09/29/11
864,000
76.8
09/29/11
0.00
864,000
09/30/11
768,000
76.6
09/30/11
0.30
768,000

9/1/2011
9/2/2011
9/3/2011
9/4/2011
9/5/2011
9/6/2011
9/7/2011
9/8/2011
9/9/2011
9/10/2011
9/11/2011
9/12/2011
9/13/2011
9/14/2011
9/15/2011
9/16/2011
9/17/2011
9/18/2011
9/19/2011
9/20/2011
9/21/2011
9/22/2011
9/23/2011
9/24/2011
9/25/2011
9/26/2011
9/27/2011
9/28/2011
9/29/2011
9/30/2011
V V V V V V V V 00 00 -
N Ql V w lD 00 M NJ
I
j
i
i
E
j
r
/
i
1
[
i
I
I
I
�
I
A
•
z

Alfflj'A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Kyle McIntyre
Shelter Creek Capital, LLC
12121 NC HWY 53E
Maple Hill, NC 28454
Dear Mr. McIntyre
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
October 26, 2011
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Subject: NPDES General Permit NCG020000
Certificate of Coverage NCG020679
Shelter Creek Capitol, LLC
Formerly Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Pender County
Division personnel have reviewed and approved your request to transfer coverage under the General
Pennit, received on January 31, 2011.
Please find enclosed the revised Certificate of Coverage. The terms and conditions contained in the
General Permit remain unchanged and in full effect. This revised Certificate of Coverage is issued under
the requirements of North Carolina General Statutes 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement
between North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
If you have any questions, please contact the Stormwater Penmitting Unit at [phone],
cc: DWQ Central Files
Wilmington Regional Office
Stormwater Permitting Unit
Wetlands and 5tormwater Branch
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury 5t. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 91M07-63001 FAX: 91M07-64941 Customer Service: 1-877-623-6748
Internet: www.ncwaterquafity.org
Sincerely,
ULSIMM
KEN PICKLE
Coleen 1-1. Sullins
1)1: D OCT 2 8 2011
One
No1-th Carolina
;VatufflIly
An Equal Opportunity t Af irmatve Action Employer

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
GENERAL PERMIT NO. NCG020000
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCG020679
STORMWATER DISCHARGES
TIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provision of North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1, other lawful standards
and regulations promulgated and adopted by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
Shelter Creek Capital, LLC
is hereby authorized to discharge storniwater from a facility located at
Shelter Creek Quarry
12121 NC Highway 53E
Maple Hill
Pender County
to receiving waters designated as Holly Shelter Creek, a class C-Sw water, in the Cape Fear River Basin
in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set forth in
Parts 1, II, ID, IV, V and VI of General Permit No. NCG020000 as attached.
This certificate of coverage shall become effective October 27, 2011.
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
Signed this day October 27, 2011.
for Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

{
September 27, 2011
Mr. David Watts
NC Highway 53 East
Maple Hill, NC 28454
Dear Mr. Watts:
Shelter Creek Lime & Stone continues to adamantly deny any allegations that the activity at the
quarry is affecting your well water, or the level of water in your pond. With that said, we are
willing, in an attempt to be a good neighbor, to drill you a 2" well with a submersible pump at
your home, provided you agree to the following terms and conditions.
o Access for our well driller to drill well without any interruptions to a minimum depth of 140`or
to a depth that the driller deems satisfactory with the knowledge that we may mine up to 120'
below MSL. This will certainly be sufficient to give you water at all times.
o Access to both of your wells for the purpose of monitoring the water table of each well with a
minimum of 8 hours' notice prior to our inspection. This means we will be allowed to measure
the water table on your property to avoid the situation for you and Shelter Creek that we find
ourselves in now. We will be unable to monitor the new well because of the submersible pump.
In the future, you will need to back up any allegations against Shelter Creek. Lime and Stone with
empirical data to the point. By signature you agree to the above terms of conditions.
SHELTER CREEK LIME & STONE
Kyle McIntyre
Presi ent
AGREED:
David Watts Date
12121 NC Hwy 53 East Maple Hill, NC 28454
910-259-0601 * Fax [phone]

USPS.com® - Track & Confirm
ieustom`ervice USPS Mobile
Page I of I
Register! Sign In
Quick Tools
Track & Confirm
GET EMAIL UPDAT95 PRINT DETAILS
YOUR LABEL NUMBER
70110470000315933444
Check on Another Item
What's your label (or receipt) number?
LEGAL
Privacy Policy ,
Terms of Use)
FOIA ,
No FEAR Act EEO Data >
GopyrightC 2011 USPS. All Rights Reserved.
Search IJSPS,com or Track Packages
Ship a Package Send Mail Manage Your Mail Shop Business Solutions
SERVICE STATUS OF YOUR ITEM
DATE & TIME
LOCATION
FEATURES
First -Class Mail® Delivered
September 29, 2011, 9:34 am
MAPLE HILL, NC 28454
Expected Delivery By:
September 28, 2011
Certified Mail —
Return Receipt
Return Receipt
Electronic
Notice Left
September 28, 2011, 9:07 am
. MAPLE HILL, NC 28454
Arrival at Unit
September 28, 2011, 8:19 am
MAPLE HILL, NC 28454
Acceptance
September 27, 2011, 12:09
BURGAW, NC 28425
pm
ON USPS.COM
Goveml»ent Services
Buy Stamps $ Shop r
Print a Label with Postage >
Customer Service ,
Site Index >
Find
ON ABOUT.USPS.COM
About USPS Nome >
Newsroom >
Mail Service Updates >
Forms & Publications s
Careers >
OTHER USPS SITES
Business Customer Gateway,
Postal Inspectors)
#nspedlor General,
Postal Explorer>
httn,z//tnnlc TTcnc rnm/an/Tl'ar1,C`nnflrmAr.tlnn artinn A/10001 1

Mar 05 12 10:42a MPI 9102595645 P.1
August 23, 2011
Shelter Creek Capital
1.2121 HwT, 53 bast
1NTaple Hill, 1tiC 28454
MILA,M PLUMBING, INC.
POST OFFICE BOY 817
BLRGA-SX, NoR riI CAROLIN 29425
oc,G G
[phone]
Re: NWork Performed Tuesdav August 161 2011 on your job at 12100 Hwy 53, in Maple Hall.
Complaint: Customer not getting hater from pump. Pump was alread7 pulled when service man atri- ed.
Installed 40 feet of 1 A" drop pipe and new foot halve and installed new well seal.
Pump still not pulling water. Disassembled pump and found impeller melted. Replaced impeller and
pump began pulling, water_
Reason. for problem was not in well but was defective pump impeller.
DaN,id Snow
Service Tech
Jason W. 14Uain License # 19160 Johnny 0. hiilarn, III
[phone] (910) 4-13-5736
03/05/2012 10!A7AM r.lnh N^ Gapyi MnnnI

1529
Milari Plumbing Inc.
Date Type Reference
8/4/2011 Bill 1419
0
Original Amt. Balance qq e
441.00
C8/11/2011
discount Payment
1 441.00
Cheetz Amount 441.00
Bank of America 441.00
0 1111111111111111111 0
609516 (3111) 00879� Re'. 10.1l U

Milam Plumbing, Inc.
P.O. Box 817
Burgaw, N.C. 28425
[phone]
BILL TO
Shelter Creek Capital
12121 Hwy 53 East
Maple Hill, NC 28454
' David Watts
12700 Hwy 53
Maple Hill, NC
DATE
8/4/2011
.JOB ADDRESS
Invoice
INVOICE #
1419
DUE DATE P.O. NUMBER
8/15/2011 4347
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Installed 40 Ft of 114" Drop Pipe to and Foot Valve, New Well Seal to Well. Replaced Defective Pump Inpeller. 441.00
i PLEASE SUBMIT INVOICE # WITH YOUR PAYMENT. THANKS FOR YOU
BUSINESS!!
REC
AUQ 9 5 Mi
a
Total 441.00

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
WIRO Regional Office
FILE ACCESS RECORD
SECTION SWP DATE/TIME
NAME % �` ��)y ' ' ' REPRESENTING
Guidelines for Access: The staff of the Regional Office is dedicated to making public records in our
custody readily available to the public for review and copying. We also have the responsibility to the public
to safeguard these records and to carry out our day-to-day program obligations. Please read carefully the
following before signing the form.
1. Due to the large public demand for file access, we request that you call at least a day in
advance to schedule an appointment for file review so you can be accommodated.
Appointments are scheduled between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Viewing time ends at 4:45
p.m. Anyone arriving without an appointment may view the files to the extent that time and
staff supervision are available.
2. You must specify files you want to review by facility name or incident number, as
appropriate. The number of files that you may review at one appointment will be limited to
five.
3. You may make copies of a file when the copier is not in use by the staff and if time permits.
There is no charge for 25 or less copies.; cost per copy after the initial 25 is 2.5 per copy.
Payment is to be made by check, money order, or cash in the administrative offices.
4. Files must be kept in the order you received them. Files may not be taken from the office.
No briefcases, large totes, etc. are permitted in the file review area. To remove, alter,
deface, mutilate, or destroy material in public files is a misdemeanor for which you can be
fined up to $500.00.
5. In accordance with GS 25-3-512, a $25.00 processing fee will be charged and collected for
checks on which payment has been refused.
6- The customer must present a photo ID, sign -in, and receive a visitor sticker prior to
reviewing files.
FACILITY NAME
1
2
3
4.
5.
1 8 1f
Signature/Name of Firm or Business Date
(Please attach business card to form if available)
# Copes: Amt. Pd:
COUNTY
Time In Time Out

Willis, Linda
From: Willis, Linda
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:55 AM
To: 'Dana Lutheran'
Subject: RE: Shelter Creek Quarry O & M PLan
Da na,
Last 0 & M I had, it looked like we had some outstanding issues, but according to Rick, we have what we need. 5o, good
news, I'm taking this one off my plate.
Thanks!
Linda
From: Dana Lutheran ,[mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 5:14 PM
To: Willis, Linda
Subject: Shelter Creek Quarry O & M PLan
Linda,
The last time we spoke, you mentioned that you weren't sure if you had received the O&M Plan. If you haven't located it
yet, let me know. I may be able to email a copy or have someone from our office drop one by on their way to Lejeune.
Also, once you start reviewing the plan, you will notice that it lacks the hydrological monitoring portion. Rick agreed the
401 hyrdological monitoring report, we have been working on with he and Joanne, would suffice for the NCG020000
requirements.
Dana
SF.Gi
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, NC 28412
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Mobile: 910, 228.1841
1

4
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
3315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office) • 910.452.2899 (fax)
Transmittal Letter
Date: 3 May 2011
To: Ms. Linda Willis
Of: NCDWQ — Surface Water Protection
Attached you will find:*
❑ Proposal ❑ Sketch(es)
❑ JD Package ❑ Report(s)
SBa Project f#: 06-010.01
Client Narm: Shelter Cmek Quarry
NCGozO(Q7G
❑ Permit ❑ Wetland Map ❑ Photo(s)
® Plans ❑ Information Request ❑ Other
Copies
Dated
Description
1
5/2/2011
Shelter Creek Quarry 2011 Operation and Monitoring Plan
"If noted items are NOT attached, Please contact our office.
These are being delivered:
® For your Review/Comment ❑ For your Records ❑ Returned for Correction(s)
❑ Corrected and Returned ❑ For your Signature ❑ As Requested
❑ Other:
By: ® Hand Delivery ❑ Fed -Ex ❑ UPS ❑ Regular Mail ❑Other
Notes:
Linda, please call if you should have any questions or concerns.
laft- 1VS tre and (Typed) Name: a a A!Iutheran
J�G44Y 0 2011
Date: 3 ay 2011

In Accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
General Permit No. NCG020000
Shelter Creek Quarry
Operation & Monitoring Plan
Prepared far:
Shelter Creek Capital, LLC
12121 Hwy 53 East
Maple Hill, NC
Prepared By:
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, NC 28412
2 May 2011

Smelter Creek QuarT-3 O&M Plan
5E.Gi
Table of Contents
Section
Title
Page
1.
Project History................................................................................................
3
11
Existing Site Conditions....................................................................................
3
Ili.
Proposed Construction Projects.................................................................................
4
A.
Relocate Existing Berms..........................................................................
4
B.
Closed Circuit Pond................................................................................
4
C.
New Maintenance Building.......................................................................
4
D.
Extend Existing Closed Circuit Ditch...........................................................
4
E.
New Lab Structure.. . . ........ ......... ........ ........
..............................
4
IV.
Drainage Facilities...........................................................................................
4
V.
Pumping Frequencies.......................................................................................
5
VI.
Fuel Storage...............................................................................................
5
VIl.
Water Canon Usage.........................................................................................
5
VIll.
Discharge Monitoring Reports...........................................................................
5
IX.
Hydrological Monitoring Report........................................................................
5
X.
Conclusion.........................................................................................................
5
Appendix
Assignment Description Page
A Shelter Creek Quarry 10 Year Minable Area Map ......................................................... i
B Original Operation and Monitoring Plan Narrative............................:..............I.............
C Closed Circuit Pond Diagram................................................................................. iii
2

561ter Creek Quarry O&M Dian
1. Project History
Shelter Creek Quarry (SCQ) was started by Mr. Steve Holland (Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC), with the
vision of mining limestone, sand and marl out an approximately 398.0 acre parcel of land adjacent to
Shelter Creek, in Pender County, North Carolina. Initially, Mining Permit No. 41-45 was issued to Shelter
Creek Quarry that approved land disturbing activity within 65.27 acres. This permit is valid until 26
February 2017. In conjunction with the mining permit, SCQ applied for and secured the following
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of the Army authorizations:
Rcgultitory Agency
-..- Permit Type _
Ptrtieit lqm:,
146440ce bate
Ezoiration Date
NC DWQ 401
General Certification
3402
7/26/06
3/18/07
USACE
NWP
39
6/10/06
3/18107
NC DWQ NP1DES
NCG020000
020679
2/28/07
Concurrent
NC DAQ
Small Class Emissions
09551 R00
12/12/08
12/13/13
NC DLR
Mining Permit
71-45
2/26107
2/26/17
Table I Environmental permits issued previousl%
On 17 January 2011, SCQ provided notice to the Division of Land Recourses notification that the project
site has been sold to Shelter Creek Capital, LLC. In accordance with the authorizations listed above, SCQ
is close to reaching the originally permitted land disturbance limits and have begun the process of
modifying and/or renewing the original permits to include land disturbance projected to take place within
the next 10 years (see Appendix A — Shelter Creek Quarry 10 Year Minable Area Map). The following
permits have been secured or are in the process of being secured for the purpose of expanding the existing
mine site:
Regulatory Agency
—..... X, _ s•
i ..,Pei rift Type =
s'_ ""' --... ,. y
r Permit No
'i'^ -uCl . �`" Y.
latiiilt Ice bate `
T ._ •}ii'�': "'� rid'^ "6.
i Eiipiratioia Dtte `
NC DWQ 401
Individual Certification
3849
2/24/11
Concurrent
USACE
Individual Permit
2008-01720
3110/11
3/18161
NC DAQ
Small Class Emissions
09551 R00
Transfer Notification
submitted 3/29/1
12/13/13
DCM
CAMA Consistency
CD1 1-010
2/25/11
Concurrent
NC DLR
Mining Permit
7145
In Progress
I ahle 2 Kn0ronmental permits .status as ofthe date or this report
Due to the increase in mining land disturbance and pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1
and Memorandum of Agreement between North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection Agency,
dated 9 May 1994 (or as subsequently amended), SCQ is required to update the NPDES GCO20000
permit, as well as the Operation and Monitoring (0&M) Plan (see Appendix B) to cover the newly
proposed mining area and any other land disturbing activities and/or changes to the mining operations.
3

561tcr Crcek Quarry O&M Plan
11. Existing Site Conditions
5E-G1
At this time, SCQ has mined approximately 15.45 acres and to a depth of -45 feet mean sea level (MSL).
Existing on the mine site are office quarters and scales, old pole barn, fuel storage areas, crusher, along
with large stockpiles of excavated material (limestone, sand, and mar]). two closed circuit ponds
(horseshoe pond and level spreader lake), a linear, closed circuit ditch, two 10' high earthen berms, a basin
pump station and water level spreader (see Appendix A — Shelter Creek Quarry 10 Year Minable Area
Map for details). SCQ installed and maintained 21 shallow, groundwater monitoring wells (located within
and on adjacent lands, until heavy rains destroyed many of them. These wells are no longer in place. SCQ
submitted a hydrological monitoring plan to the DWQ Wilmington Regional Office and is working with
DWQ staff to finalize the replacement monitoring well locations.
III. Proposed Construction Projects
A. Relocate Existing Berms
The existing 10' berms that run along the northern property boundary were placed in such a way
as to avoid impacts to USACE jurisdictional and DWQ isolated wetlands (an undulated line).
Upon securing the appropriate wetland impact authorizations, SCQ began to straighten the line of
these berms (see Appendix A). Silt fence is in place along the northern toe of the berms, and will
remain until the slopes of the berms are stable, to ensure that no sediment leaves the site during or
after the construction process. In addition, the berms have been hydro -seeded and planted with
long leaf pine.
B. New Closed Circuit Pond
The surface area of the pond is expected to be approximately 15,000 square feet and will be
situated northwest of the horseshoe pond (see Appendix A). The water held in this pond will be
used for washing stone. Runoff from the washing area (Diester) will drain back into the pond,
where fines will settle out and water can be used over and over again, for the same purpose (see
Appendix C — Closed Circuit Pond Diagram). If more water (make-up water) is needed in the
pond, a gale valve that controls the flow of water in the main sump line can direct water into the
closed circuit pond.
C. New Maintenance Building
In the original O&M plan a maintenance building was proposed. However, this structure was
never built. With this modification, SCQ is proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot building
that will be located near the existing old barn (see Appendix A).
D. Extend Existing Closed Circuit Ditch
Upon securing the appropriate wetland impact authorizations, SCQ began to extend the existing,
closed circuited ditch that runs along the western property boundary. This was not completed
during the initial excavation of the feature, as wetland impacts had not been approved. Therefore,
excavation of some sections of the ditch were omitted to avoid unauthorized wetland impacts.
Weir structures will be incorporated to control water levels within the feature.
4

Skelter CrecL Quarg OW Plan SE-Gi
E. New Lab and Associated Maintenance Covered Shed
The structure is proposed to be 2,400 square foot. Of this square footage, 300 square feet will be
dedicated to the new lab. This building will be situated just east of the horseshoe pond (see
Appendix A).
IV. Drainage Facilities
There are no changes to the drainage facilities. Aside from the isolated wetland ponds, which were
never installed, the measures and systems, as described in the original O&M Plan (see Appendix B
— Original O&M Narrative), submitted by Mr. Stephen Dorenda, are in place and operating as
intended.
It is the intention of the SCQ to continue mining without allowing the existing pit to fill up, before
starting another. It is not anticipated that the contiguous mining will have an effect on water levels
within the western property boundary ditch, as the feature can be kept hydrated by pumping water
into it at any time and blue gum clay and marl, underlying the ditch, act as a confining layer that
prohibits the ditch from draining.
V. Discharge Monitoring Plan
The increase in the proposed minable area limits will have an insignificant effect on the pumping
frequency for the SCQ. At this time the, SCQ is pumping, on average, approximately 750,000
gallons of water daily. This level may increase slightly, with the expansion of the minable area,
but will not exceed the previously approved 2,000,000 gallons of water per day. The Permittee has
been testing the chemistry of the water within the horseshoe lake and at the level spreader, as
required by the terms and conditions of NCG020000. To date, no abnormal readings have been
recorded, thus remediation has not been necessary.
A field visit, performed by SEGi, confirmed that water being discharged from the level spreader
into the adjacent hardwood bottomland forest is infiltrating into the soil before reaching Holly
Shelter Creek. It does not appear that the discharge of treated stormwater into the 119 acre wetland
feature has had an effect on the wetland community or on the integrity of Holly Shelter Creek.
VI. Fuel Storage
The fuel storage facility was installed per the original mining permit and is operating as intended.
To date, records indicate there have been no "significant spills".
VII. Reporting Requirements
In accordance with the terms and conditions of Part 111, Sections B and C of the NCG020000,
discharge monitoring will be conducted and results furnished to the NC DENR Division of Water
5

5Wtcr CrccL Quarry O&M Plan
Quality Section, Wilmington Regional Office no later than 30 days form the end of each quarterly
monitoring period, along with a duplicate copy to the Central Office, Division of Water Quality.
Reports will be available at the SCQ Main Office for a period of five years from the date of the
report.
VIII. Water Cannon Usage
These mechanisms were determined to not be required and thus were never installed.
1X. Hydrologic Monitoring Plan
SEGi is working with DWQ staff to update the hydrological monitoring plan for the project. On
14 March 2011, SEGi submitted the Hydrological Monitoring Plan, part of the O&M Plan, to Mr.
Rick Shiver, DWQ Regional Supervisor, for his review and comment. On 30 April 2011, SEGi
and the Permittee met with Mr. Shiver and other DENR representatives to discuss concerns the
DWQ had with the Hydrological Monitoring Plan. At this meeting it was suggested that a few of
the monitoring wells be relocated and that the number of wells could be reduced. On 8 April 2011,
SEGi submitted the revised monitoring well location map and supplemental data to Mr. Shiver.
SEGi received a request for additional information (RFAI) from the DWQ, with regard to the new
proposed well location and supplemental information on 15 April 2011, to which SEGi submitted
their response to the RFA1 on 2 May 2011, for their review and comments.
X. Conclusion
In conclusion, based upon the information found within and attached to this report, SEGi and the
Permittee feel the project has continued to be in compliance with all the conditions of the
previously approved Operation and Monitoring plan and hope that the modifications to the plan,
once reviewed, will be approved.
R

.41
5EC31
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office) • 910.452.2899 (fax)
Date: 3 May 2011
REC'D MAY 3 2011
Sly tmract a; oe-olo.o t 7
C bmt Name: Sbeher Crea Quany
Transmittal Letter
To: Ms. Linda Willis
Of: NCDWQ — Surface Water Protection
Attached you will find:*
❑ Proposal ❑ Sketch (es) ❑ Permit ❑ Wetland Map ❑ Photo(s)
❑ JD Package ❑ Report(s) ® Plans ❑ Information Request ❑ Other
Copies Dated Description
1 5/2/2011 Shelter Creek Quarry 2011 Operation and Monitoring Plan
'if noted items are NOT attached, please contact our office.
These are -being delivered:
® For your Review/Comment ❑ For your Records ❑ Returned for Correction(s)
❑ Corrected and Returned ❑ For your Signature ❑ As Requested
❑ Other:
By. ® Hand Deliver)' ❑ Fed -Ex ❑ UPS ❑ Regular Mail
Notes:
Linda, please call if you should have any questions or concerns.
Signature and (Typed) Name: Dan A. Lutheran
Date- -ay 2011
lj
❑ Other

Shelter Creek Capital, LLC
12121 NC HWY 53 East Maple Hilt, NC 28454
910-259-0601 Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
April 28, 2011 EY:
R vl
Mr. Bradley Bennett 02 2011
Storm Water Permitting Unit Supervisor
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Bennett,
Since February, the excess water from the 500 year flood has slowly percolated
into the soil in a great majority of the wetlands on our mining property. As you know, we
are currently working with the local Wilmington Division of Water Quality to establish
new monitoring wells both on and off our mining property.
I continue to check for sink holes during my daily inspections, and can report that
the larger sink hole near our western boundary has been filled per our written protocol
that was sent to Raleigh, and also approved by DOT Engineering at Pender County. I do
not foresee having any further problems with the large sink hole or the three smaller ones
since all of them have been repaired.
I have included our water discharge reports for your perusal, as well as our
outside testing lab results.
Unless we get severe inclement weather in the near future, we should be
pumping under 1,000,000 gallons per day. Our pit area, which stores all of our storm
water, has shown consistent smaller quantities of collected water. As soon as our new
monitoring well plan is approved and established, we will send you the written, collected
data.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen Dorenda
Cc: Linda Willis, Judy Wehner

s
,
6602 Windmill Way a Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (Lab) o [phone](Fax)
710 Bowsertown Road o Manteo, NC 27954
[phone]
ANALYTICAL & CONSULTING
CHEMISTS
NCDENR: DWQ CERTIFICATE #94. DLS CERTIFICATE 437729
Shelter Creek Quarry
Date of Report: Mar 29, 2011
8315 Hwy 53 East
Customer PO #;
Burgaw NC 28425
Report #: 2011-02817
Attention; Steve Holland
Report to: Steve Holland
Project ID;
Lab ID Sample ID; Effluent
Collect Date/Time Matrix Sampled by
11-06926 Site;
3/23/2011 10:00 AM Water Zach Owen
Test
Method Results Date Analyzed
Turbidity
sin 2130 s 6,6 NTU
03/24/201 1
Residue Suspended (TSS)
SM 2540 a 6.5 mg/L
03/23/2011
Residue Settleable (SS)
SM 2540 F <0.1 milL
03/23/2011
Temperature
SM 2550 8 18.7 °C
03/23/2011
pH
SM 4500 H a 7.13 units
03/23/2011
Comment; _,. ' '
Reviewed by:
Ronnri ll• 9f1i 1_Ft7FF'!7

4M
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTS, INC
Sample Collection and Chain of Custod
Sample Tvne: I = Influent. E W Effluent. W Well. ST --Stream. SO =SoiL Ste= Sladee Other:
6602 Windmill way
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
Sample lidentifieation
w
a
Z•
Collection
d
F
o o
U
'
c m
U
s
PRESERVATION
ANALYSIS REQUESTED
z
c
"�
4
x
o
O
w
x
BATE
TIME
TEMP
Effluent quarterly'':
'
w °:
r�
G
TSS,SS,Ti�rbidity
pH(Field): 7,13
C
P
'
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
Collect samples March,. tunc,September, December
Transfer
Relinquished By:
Date/Time
Received By:
Date/Time
I.
2.
I
Temperature when Received J `b�.� Accepted: � e,e ed: Resample Requested:
Received ByyDeelivered By:%(� �� Date: 3 -1 l Time: j,�,GO

Date: 'Z
Analyst
Facility Name: Envirytimetual Chemists.n
Permit #- 94
pH Analysis
Rwfu,aneo Mwh—l- CR1 A9fat N R CM Into
Cal. Time
Calibration Buffer 4.0
Calibration Buffer 10.0
'Check ©Lifer 7,0
Comments
spr+ ouiter cnecks are to be whin t V.1 pH units of the standards true value
Facilit,ISam la location
Time Sam led♦
Time Anal ♦
Temp (°C) is
it It esuit
to- IBuffer Check value
Comment
• ii sample is mcusureu in utreeny in me stretan only time analyzed would be reeorded.
P- Indleates a Ee 9ELMeudcd drift checic. (Use Buffer 7.0) Should be within t 0.1 units of the buffer's true value)
a Document the temperature of the sample at the time of analysis. (Vote: This temperature is not to be used for reporting on the monthly monitoring report.
Calibratlon drift check is recommended when performing analysis at inuitiple sampling tocattoas,
*Ail pill results In pH units (Le., s.u.).
ATC Annual Check Date: _ 311112011 Annual Terperature Sensor Check Date: 311112011 Meter id: 11377
.ATC Annual Check Date:_ 3/10/2011 Annual Temperaturt Sensor Check Date: .-3/10I201I T Meter lid: I lM
ATC Annual Check Date: 3/11,42011Annual Temperature Sensor Check Date:. 3/14/7011 = iVleter L : U9946 ;
ATC Annual Check Date:^ 311W011 Annual Temperature Sensor Check Date. 315/2011 T Mtdsr i"di N. 1-I 1373
Total Residual Chlorine (17170
Rererence Method! Hach I]IR C 1.9-170
Facility/Sample Location
rime Sampled
Time Analyzed
TRC Result
u L
Daily check standard
obtained value u
Comment
TRC check standard obtained true value`210 (acceptance range - 190-220 -_ ug/L) (Should recover within +10% of the
check s(andard's obtained true value)
Annual Verification curve analyzed on _.11f22/2010 Meter DR 2700
Annual Verification curve analyzed on _ 07/13/2010 Meter DR 2800
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Refemice Method: SM 45M O G, 20a Edition, YSI DO 550 A Model
Temperature
°C
Adjusted Air
Calibration a
m
Saturation
1/0
Calibration
Time
FacilityiSample Location
DO reading
mg/L
''rime
Analyzed/Time
Sam led
Comments
A Based on appropriate altitude adjustment
♦ When performing analysis at multiple sampling locatiuus, rr-callbratton(s) should be performed every four hours.
'Analysis time and sampling lime the same. (ideally the sample should be analyzed in -situ).
Temperature Sensor Annual Check Date: 09113 10
Temperature
Reference Method: SM 25M B 20d, Edition
Facility/Sample location Temperature'(: •rime Analyzed!i'ime Sam fed Comments
*AnalysLs time and sampling time the same. (Idea By the sample should be analyzed in -situ}.
Annual Verification Date 9/1312010
Field Notes

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Jan-11
8:0Opm
9:00am
13
-
624,000*
2-Jan-11
8:0Opm
8:00am
12
-
576,000*
3-Jan-11
9:00pm
7:00am
10
8.03/44.5°
480,000*
4-Jan-11
8:00pm
7:00am
11
8.05/44.3°
528,000*
5-Jan-11
8:00pm
7,00am
11
8.06/44.1°
528,000*
6-Jan-11
8.00pm
7:OOAM
11
8.06/44.00
528,000*
7-Jan-11
8:0Opm
7:OOAM
11
8.08/44.0°
528,000*
8-Jan-11
8:00pm
9:0Opm
13
-
624,000*
9-Jan-11
7:00pm
9:00am
14
-
672,000*
10-Jan-11
8:00pm
7:00am
11
8.11/43.9°
528,000*
11-Jan 11
8.0Upm
7:00am
11
8.14/44.00
528,000*
12-Jan-11
8:00pm
7:00am
11
8.16/44.1"
528,000*
13-Jan-11
8:00pm
7:00am
11
8.19/44.4*
528,000*
14-Jan-11
8:00pm
7:00am
11
8.22/44.80
528,000*
15-Jan-11
9:0Opm
8:00am
11
-
528,000*
16-Jan-11
8:00pm
9:00am
13
-
624,000*
17-Jan-11
S:OOpm
7:00am
14
8.27/43.9-
6721000*
18-Jan-11
5:00pm
17
8.25/44.00
816,000*
19-Jan-11
7:00am
5:00pm
10
8.20/44.2°
960,000*
20-Jan-11
7:00am
5:0Opm
10
8.17/44.7°
960,000*
21-Jan-11
7:00am
5:0Opm
10
8.11/44.9°
960,000*
22-Jan-11
6:0opm
-
6
-
576,000*
23-Jan-11
9:00pm
7:00am
10
-
960,000*
24-1an-11
9:00am
9
7.85/45.6°
864,000*
25-Jan-11
7:00am
5:OOpm
10
7.82/45.7'
960,000*
26-Jan-11
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.80/46.0"
960,000*
27-Jan-11
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.84/46.4°
9601000*
28-Jan-11
7:00am
5:OOpm
10
7.89/47.1°
960,000*
29-Jan-11
•9:00am
4:00pm
7
-
672,000*
30-Jan-11
10:OQam
5:00pm
7
-
672,000*
31-Jan-11
7:00am
5:00pm
10
8.03/51.8
960,000*

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Feb-11
7:00AM
5:OOPM
10
8.01/51.7
840,000
2-Feb-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
8.09/52.1
960,000
3-Feb-11
7:OOAM
5.00PM
10
8.15/52.8
960,000
4-Feb-11
7:00AM
5:00PM
10
7.99/54.1
960,000
5-Feb-11
9:OOAM
6:OOPM
9
$64,000
6-Feb-11
9:OOAM
7:OOAM
10
960,000
7-Feb-11
7:OOPM
7:OOAM
12
8.06/52.7
576,000
8-Feb-11
8:0OPM
9:OOAM
13
8,03/52.4
1,248,000
9-Feb-11
7:00PM
6:OOAM
11
8.05/52.6
528,000
10-Feb-11
6:OOPM
7:OOAM
13
8.07/53.1
624,000
11-Feb-11
5:OOPM
7:OOAM
14
8.03/53.4
672,000
12-Feb-11
9:OOAM
6:OOPM
9
864,000
13-Feb-11
9:OOAM
6:OOPM
9
864,000
14-Feb-11
8:OOAM
5:OOPM
9
8.07/53.8
864,000
15-Feb-11
7:OOAM
7:OOPM
12
8.02/53.4
576,000
16-Feb-11
9:OOAM
7:OOPM
10
8.04/54.1
960,000
17-Feb-11
7:OOAM
5:00PM
10
8.03/54.3
960,000
18-Feb-11
8:OOAM
8:OOPM
12
7,98/55.1
576,000
19-Feb-11
9:OOAM
9:0OPM
12
576,000
20-Feb-11
11:00AM
9:00PM
10
960,000
21-Feb-11
6:OOAM
5:OOPM
11
8.14/55.7
528,000
22-Feb-11
8:OOAM
6:OOPM
10
8.06/55.3
960,000
23-Feb-11
7:OOAM
5:00PM
10
8.03/56.1
960,000
24-Feb-11
5:OOPM
7:OOAM
14
8.09/S6.5
672,000
25-Feb-11
12:0013M
11:0OPM
11
8.11/57.3
528,000
26-Feb-11
9:OOAM
5:OOPM
8
768,000
27-Feb-11
8:OOAM
4:OOPM
8
768,000
28-Feb-11
7:OOAM
6:OOPM
11
8,12/57.9
1,056,000

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
8.0/59.1
960,000*
2-Mar-11
9:0OPM
7:OOAM
10
8.1/59.3
960,000*
3-Mar-11
9:0OPM
9:OOAM
12
8.00/59.5
576,000*
4-Mar-11
7:OOAM
6:00 PM
13
7.92/60.1
1,248,000*
5-Mar-11
7:OOPM
7:00 AM
12
576,000*
5-Mar-11
9:00PM
8:OOAM
11
528,000*
7-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
7.90/61
960,000*
8-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:0013M
10
7.91/60
960,000*
9-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:0013M
10
7.80/60.2
576,000*
10-Mar-11
6:OOPM
7:OOAM
13
7.78/61.3
624,000*
11-Mar-11
7.00AM
5:OOPM
10
7.50/61.7
960,000*
12-Mar-11
8:OOPM
8:OOAM
12
576,000*
13-Mar-11
5:OOPM
7:OOAM
14
672,000*
12-Mar-11
9:OOAM
6:00PM
9
7.51/62.1
864,000*
15-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:0OPM
10
7.54/62.5
960,000*
16-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:0OPM
10
7.53/63.0
960,000*
17-Mar-11
8:0OPM
7:OOAM
11
7.52/63.3
528,000*
18-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
7.55/63.5
960,000*
19-Mar-11
8:OOAM
6:OOPM
10
960,000*
20-Mar-11
6:OOPM
7:OOAM
13
624,000*
21-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
7.61/64.1
960,000*
22-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:30PM
10.5
7.50/64
648,000*
23-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
7.51/64.6
960,000*
24-Mar-11
7:00AM
6:OOPM
13
7.48/64.7
624,000*
25-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
7.47/64.7
960,000*
26-Mar-11
7:00PM
7:OOAM
12
576,000*
27-Mar-11
7:OOPM
6:OOAM
11
528,000*
28-Mar-11
9:0OPM
7:OOAM
10
7.50/64.5
960,000*
29-Mar-11
9:0013M
7:OOAM
10
7.51/65.1
960,000*
30-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:0013M
10
7.51/65.0
480,000
31-Mar-11
7:OOAM
5:OOPM
10
7.50/66
960,000

Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite (-
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office) • 910.452.2899 (fax)
� � /.�7,
Date: /2011
To: Ms. Linda Willis
Of: NCDWQ
A"acbgd you will find:"
SEGi Project #: 06-010.01
Client Name: Shelter Creek Quarry
USACOE Action 1i]#:
Transmittal LetterLD
RECEIVED
MAY 022011
BY:
❑ Proposal ❑ Sketch(es) ❑ Permit ❑ Wetland Map ❑ Photo(s)
❑ JD Package ® Report(s) ❑ Plans ❑ Information Request ❑
Other
Copies I Dated I Description
1 4/26/2011 Response to VWQ Request for Additional Information for Shelter Creek Quarry
"If noted items are NOT attached, please contact our office.
Theme a_re_ being delivered:
® For your Review/Comment ® For your Records ❑ Returned for Correction(s)
❑ Corrected and Returned ❑ For your Signature ❑ As Requested
❑ Other:
= By: ® Hand Delivery ❑ Fed -Ex ❑ UPS ❑ Regular Mail ❑ Other
Notes:
Signature and (Typed) Name:
Date:
dv—id S^
d6V U� Jcibetta
4/23/2011

50utkern Environmental Group, Inc.
55 15 South Colle c Road, Suite L - Wi6in5ton, Nortb Carolina 284 1 2
910.452.2711 • Far: 910.452.zs99 • [e-mail]
www.seSvi.us
26 April 2011
Via Hand Delivery
Mr. Rick Shiver
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
127 North Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405-5406
RE: Response to DWQ Request for Additional Information (RFAI) dated April 15, 2011
regarding Supplemental Information to the Shelter Creek Quarry Hydrological Monitoring
Plan
Dear Mr. Shiver:
This letter is in response to the DWQ's RFAI dated April 15, 2011 regarding Supplemental Information
to the Shelter Creek Quarry Hydrological Monitoring Plan.
1. The wetland delineation and the proposed impacts need to be added as an overlay on the
proposed drawing/aerial.
We could not add those items as an overlay. We did, however, add the monitoring well locations
to a copy of the "Milestone Wetland Impact Map" which was included with the IP application to
the Corps. Please see the maps in Appendix A.
The depth of the wells needs to be at least 10'. it was agreed that the wells were not to
penetrate the confining layer. If you have determined that the confining layer is less than
10', please provide the geological data to support your claim.
We took borings at each proposed location using a 9' dutch auger. We did not reach "blue gum
clay" with this auger at any of these locations. We did, however, reach layers of soil which are
known to perch water. Please reference Table 1 and Appendix B — Individual Well Site Details
for specific soil horizon data regarding each proposed well location.
3. Wells need to be kept away from ditches and streams. MW5 looks to be too close to MW4
and should be moved further down the property line nearer to the F, G and H wetlands.
Please refer to the detail sheet for MW4 and 5 in Appendix B for a detailed explanation.
4. The location of well MW4 is too for out; it needs to come closer to the property line.
Please refer to the detail sheet for MW4 in Appendix B for a detailed explanation.

5. At least two wells need to be within the 119 acre wetland that is not to be impacted (one well
should be on the opposite side of the level spreader, somewhere near JJ and KK and one
towards the center).
MW6 and MW7 are both located within the 1 19-acre wetland not to be impacted. MW6 is a well
that was previously known as MW21. It is in the area that is downstream of the level spreader.
This well is installed to a depth of 18 inches. We see no reason to bury it deeper, since it has
proved itself to be wet year round. It will be renamed and we will continue to monitor this well.
No description or data sheet was provided for this well since it is already installed. It's location is
nearly identical in nature to MW7's site. MW7 will be located east of MW6 and just southwest
of wetlands JJ and KK. This general area is inundated by water for a large portion of the year.
No confining layer could be reached at this proposed well location because of a flowing sand
layer encountered at about 4 feet below the surface. We will install a well to a depth of
approximately 4 feet in this location.
6. The DWQ thinks the MW1 and MW2 wells are too far out and need to be closer to the
mine.
Please refer to the detail sheet for MW I and MW2 in Appendix B for descriptions of each
location. These wells are located no farther away than the other well, referencing the attached
maps. We see no reason to locate them closer,
7. The location of MW3 well needs to he moved down closer towards DD and MM.
Please refer to the detaiI sheet for MW3 in Appendix B for a detailed explanation.
8. The construction of these wells will have to meet the criteria as outlined in 15A NCAC 2C.
Please contact Dr. Charlie Stehman of the Aquifer Protection Section (APS) concerning the
construction of these wells. His phone number is 910.796.7218.
We will contact Mr. Stehman to make sure we are following the published criteria.
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Monitoring Well Locations
Depth to
Type of Confining
NWI
Well Name
Lat. /Long.
Confining Layer
Layer
Classification,
feet
M W 1
N 34,6372
5
Sandy clay
Unknown
W 77.7602
MW2
N34,64265
Clay
PF03/4B
w 77.777,7524
MW3
N 34,6406
5
Sandy clay
PFO I C
W 77.7457
M W4
N 34.6317
4
Sandy clay
PFO1C
W 77,7591
MW5
N 34.6307
5
Sandy clay
PFO1/2C
W 77,7539
MW6
N 34,6295
NA
NA
PF04A
W 77.7456
MW7
N 34.6299
NA
NA
PFOI C
W 77.740$
'Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, C ardin et_ aL 1979

Please note that all wells are well within the 6200-foot radius cone of depletion mentioned in the 2007
Operation and Monitoring Plan, page 6, Section 11.0 "Pumping Frequency" for the Shelter Creek Quarry
Project. This monitoring well location data and its accompanying map and wetland data supersede all
other monitoring well data compiled in the past for the Quarry.
At this time we would like to request a site visit with DWQ staff to evaluate the proposed well locations
and obtain the DWQ's concurrence on the locations.
If you need any additional information to complete this request, please do not hesitate to contact myself,
David Syster or Dana Lutheran at (410) 452-271 1.
Sincerely,
50-41�rn Environmental Group, Inc.
( )aA J -klZk�
David Scibetta
Wetland Scientist
Cc: Joanne Steenhuis, NCDWQ, 401 Express Permitting
Linda Willis, NCDWQ, Surface Water Protection
Molly Elwood, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Kyle McIntyre, Shelter Creek Capital, LLC
Attachments: Appendix A - Proposed Monitoring Well Location Maps
Appendix B — Individual Well Site Details
Appendix C - Photographs of Borings at Proposed Well Locations
Appendix D - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Data Forms

MW"2
f F Air •' r 3 ` w a i
Aro
.U-A--+`'i t.-' � 1'SO
w 7 +•.3 'F - ~ice �}_. - F' /4
� ' -" 1 i `r s � fyTVyy1 s # i - � a �"i` �.� ♦ � � � f��1 � ���r _�� � � � V .. � � .F i - �7
At
qLA
f lab
o Nq
w ' iL4', !M'-I'JMUI 4 - - , - Ste'! � �� � ^ _ l kkk[[[ � +�� � f �. .• � ' � � .
sin- •a-!� "1 "tr,a t P-...fr''►' a j, rbr. } _ . i I S'
1 x ,
-1•' 'C'i iE �� ,y•.' � `� �ri�: I �i '+_ �y' � y^'' � r � M1 f S 1 � .•f " rI. _ '„• � - /' `� =i'
X�f` + �- r cfR" �. / air .i •l rF
v-�`'`'P' �f ✓ .�iL!1 -'^,i T iC� �: �` .. F� 7, i «.a: 1 •�,� ��7i1. ��r�' -r• r }
r!x - '��*'4.'•� �• -r 1n Y 1_•: ' „�-.r^ _ :47 ' _� N,'a, _ t K
¢¢ � i� ! �r-�� � ~r , ,� �/+I� '.�• � f,' .y � 1w +i1_ f- �.`y i�•', S 1 �i^ I{'�`. i .�� � 4 d ,L '. - ~ �
Ir
' !
s'�,* � - iti - - t -y --sA Iw !'-r 4 * at,
.,y_• .fin ��,.' ���`1� r[�i �►C r;•{-`"�•�• - ••.7•-w_ 'r - �4.. k �+ .w
'"!'='4. r. ' �
Art, • 1^' r
'�I � : ) .�� ,. N- •• t •.i +" � Ir Ei ..x ••r , _ -. * !f �' - gyp_ i
,+'+.r�' • .� j. ,�,w R• :_ .� �rr�.,•V ,� xr _ ' Pi•lYiia y •° - •_��~ -! ''S r"
•_
q.
. i �� .Y 4 x �_'ru•1^'� �i��� 't T �' � `S: �1' 4 •*y� �� � � � •� 7 Z "� � 7 ,�-. � _ -
_ 1 _ 446
a �fi- :�"'�_ 1 ti:� I - f•} r `'�, • '+ � 1' •. ���,� ��. t - I� �.., >, 1 �'� .� -Y •'t �'�'�� '��T1:+a� 1� �F � Y '��,y ,,;�'�tr - - � .. f
44
je
Old
Ilk
Y.�.• Ay� r.f .r I h_ �yt. 1 e _ �* * •y ' FN
-40
Quarry Boundary
SurveyAF Is
Pender Co. Soil Proposed WellLocations

Monitoring Well 1 (MWI)
This proposed well is in the same general location as a previous shallow groundwater monitoring well of
the same number that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers primarily.
This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to the Quarry. Please see the
attached photos for profile shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is close to the mine site and is a relatively undisturbed
wetland system. It can be characterized as a scrub shrub/flatwoods wetland. This area is interwoven with
small depressional wetlands, flatwoods wetlands, and low upland ridges. There was abundant standing
water within the general vicinity of the well site at time of evaluation. The closest drainage ditch is
approximately 450 feet north of the proposed well location, This side of NC53 adjacent to the mine has
recently undergone a thinning of the pines by the Forest Service_
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chrome
0-8
Muck
10 YR
2
1
8-22
Fine sandy loam
10 YR
2
l
22-62
Fine sandy loam
10 YR
4
2
r7— 62+
Sandy clay loam
10 YR
5
2

Monitoring Well 2 (MW2)
This proposed well is located approximately 400 feel north of the previous location for a shallow
groundwater monitoring well of the same number that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S, Army
Corps of Engineers primarily. This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to
the Quarry. Please see the attached photos for profile shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is located in an area that was never converted into
silviculture, and has the appearance of what can be described as high pocosin wetland. The habitat to the
south towards the mine site is comprised of silvicultural land that is most likely marginal wetland at best,
on account of the network of drainage ditches in this area. There is a drainage ditch approximately 30
feet to the east of the proposed well site. However, the ditch appears to be unmaintained, and is likely
providing little to no drainage influence to the surrounding area. From examination of current aerials, this
appears is the only drainage ditch with this block of habitat. This side of NC53 adjacent to the mine has
recently undergone a thinning of the pines by the Forest Service.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description J
Hue
Value
Chrome
0-10
Mucky fine sandy loam
10 YR
2
1
10-32
Sandy loam
10 YR
3
1
32-59
Sandy loam
10 YR
4
6
1
59+
Clay loam
Gley 1
N

Monitoring Well 3 (MW3)
This proposed well is in the same general location as a previous shallow groundwater monitoring well
referred to as MW6 that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers primarily.
This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to the Quarry. Please see the
attached photos for profile and location shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is a functioning floodplain wetland associated with an
unnamed tributary to Shelter Creek. Per your letter to Mr. Bill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of
Shelter Creek Capital LLC, dated April 15, 2001, you stated that MW3 needs to be moved down closer to
wetlands DID and MM. The topographic position, hydrologic profile, and wetland composition of this
area is almost exactly like the area you are requesting to move towards. We see no reason for this well
site to be relocated.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chrorna j
0-20
Muck
10 YR
2
1
20-61
Mucky sandy loam
10 YR
3
1
61 +
Sandy clay loam
10 YR
6
1

Monitoring !Fell 4 (MW4)
This proposed well is located approximately 1000 feet west of the location of a previous shallow
groundwater monitoring well of the same name that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers primarily. This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to
the Quarry. Please see the attached photos for profile and location shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is a functioning floodplain wetland associated with
Shelter Creek. Per your letter to Mr. Bill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of Shelter Creek Capital LLC,
dated April 15, 2001, you stated that MW4 needs to closer to the property line. The area closer to the
property line and the area where the old MW4 was located have the visual appearance of floodplain.
However, there are noticeable indications of recedence of the soil surface in this area, indicated by a
sunken appearance of the ground surrounding old hardwoods and now -exposed subsurface roots of trees
particularly as you get closer to the property line. This recedence was evident to our firm during the
installation of MW4 during May of 2007, and had probably been occurring for years before this, prior to
any mining activity. This recedence of the surface may come from the rerouting and interception of
surface water by roadside and silvicultural ditches. We feel this well needs to be here because it is the
upper limits of floodplain feeding Shelter Creek, and is still in close proximity to the well, in regards to
the approved 6200 foot radius cone of depletion. We see no reason for this well site to be relocated.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chroma
0-23
Mucky loam
10 YR
2
1
23-46
Fine sandy loam
10 YR
5
2
46+
Sandy clay loam
10 YR
5
1

Monitoring Well 5 (MW5)
This proposed well is located approximately 200 feet south southwest of the location of a previous
shallow groundwater monitoring well named MW3 that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers primarily. This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact
permit to the Quarry. Please see the attached photos for profile and location shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is a functioning lloodplain wetland directly connected
with Shelter Creek. Per your letter to Mr. Bill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of Shelter Creek Capital
LLC, dated April 15, 2001, you stated that MW5 looks to be too close to the proposed MW4 and that it
should be moved further down the property line nearer to the F, G, and H wetlands. We located this well
here because there is a large stretch of upland and/or marginal wetland forest along the property line
directly southwest of the wetlands you reference. We feel there would be no reason to relocate farther
down the property line, ultimately farther away from the current mining activity. Your suggested
relocation would put the site near the old location of MW5 that was used by the Corps. This well showed
near constant wetland hydrology during the duration of the previous monitoring effort. We see no reason
for this well site to be relocated, as it will provide data for an even topographically lower iloodplain
wetland feeding Shelter Creek than the proposed MW4.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chroma
0-8
Mucky loam
10 YR
2
1
8-20
Fine sandy loam
10 YR
2
1
20-58
Fine sandy loam
IOYR
5
1
58+
Sandy clay
10 YR
6
1

Monitoring Well 7 (M W7)
This proposed well is located approximately 800 feet south of wetlands JJ and KK. PIease see the
attached photos for a representative photo of the general vicinity (camera battery died before this site).
The location for this well was selected because it is located in an area requested by you in your letter to
Mr. Bill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of Shelter Creek Capital LLC, dated April 15, 2001, in which
you stated that one should be located on the opposite side of the level spreader, somewhere near wetlands
JJ and KK. This general area is inundated by water for a good portion of the year. No confining layer
could be reached at this proposed well location because of a flowing sand layer encountered at about 4
feet below the surface. We will install a well to a depth of approximately 4 feet in this location.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chromss
0-12
Mucky fine sandy loam
10 YR
2
1
12-47
Fine sand
10 YR
b
1
47+
Fine sand
Gley 1
8
N

:m
MW 1
D.- 3621/MW5 lll'
51eh a1 M[ ♦ 1111111j91[
y I
.e.c�]iw�••w {
5 0.0
c 3a
o sy
G 07
H 1.56 , W,.0
u.�
K 0 s B AB"m
,e o.a� yw III
D..a z7e7/]6+
llolr a XC
MW2
/_-
•.•its
�..n�. � •
of
MW3
�• o a
FF
�+
A•
CG
•IM
•.15
•YY
ll.
•OC
0.i]
w�My puon �iM
c= U")
I �
,,,, . q tow ++aw[ wc, uea a�a••t r[.•n rr[m . na +txs •n G1C+�� � �� �+n b y rb = 7 •q7 A4
3;-.S Zoo - 7Z 0.5k Z.?
2�' .-
al ]ow Y.Z•Ni Yf. uap 1q1 .p.n r16a . ,r]_ ,ac ,!-' T �` 1 - 7051 = S.CrY
Totral = ]}g 72 It
Q 10� �i]W RTwR y4 MAYn . IM.• .tYl. •! .
•-- N ey, � !) f4[4 f�[[•b O• JAfK.CNI NlTWb /1G .fl[IR • ,.4e.i.10 ./_
_ � � _ � M •• �r� s !: TiK OCtM•1 .o +da1Et rRu•n! rfa .RY ... MIyO 1/-
�....•. n mr no.o.to tct].Ycn .r+r• w. rrrm . uri •uwa •Y_
_ ,w.,r U [rn•. .omm •o- wa.1[ea •..a wr.•,w.s . •i.n .oa ,F .•�
�+.�,.�� •1 IvY .van o� .Rwuq r.. rw.r*�oc . ].• .n0 •Y- 'T �'1t�
-.. �IeO 111lL
4. ... r — W.., 6 ywro >
�] H•r
• - ,...�tv~d � �,t.r..]a p•or..cd A. coH • • ^ • 1
�a..nw•.s. wr
I�-Tr CC
". «•- ) srt.n.l Ae�t O•rry LLc WAL7vq Evg& B fq
■. rw»c.,., wre7(tyi6 w.: 61I+Y o6 aw• rF Iu.eb, Rh[wWMa
t .—.
,t L = L,o%, 'vall,� 4vleedby6EG1 t-Z-1-11
* * -T _ -Ls010s-Cd
♦ - Proposed Monitoring Well Location

krit "X`.i „ 1.
'r_I•
ji'n � e s'v � ' ~ � a ' pia �•'
~ + t
rye
Ni
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-1 Soil Profile
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-2 Soil Profile

r
`� p
IL
+ J +
ProfileShelter Creek Quarry MW-3 Soil
kilne••
Fit
44
L �
f sl >
'� � - � J \ �r + ..y � `�'� f \ ff � .c'�: y 3 I s , fP�•3•'q � ����-•<� i
• vi �a. t f
'�.. 1w� Jy`..'rte"S4r'vt rsy= ate' ;F4�jp i
A � W
F 1- Tt
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-3
;�� ♦,•. Imo+- �s N' .� y. � �. � .:�� _ +� .y ,•
Landscape

Shelter Creek Quarry MW-4 Soil Profile
Shelter Creek Quarry MWA Landscape View

71
e L F `•i..+ 1 F�1
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-5 Soil Profile

1� �''! i r + t3 �ti y f � ^T"

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and
Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Project/site: SL11pr CrLetk a4q✓f __ CitylCounty: Aq I -r r- Sampling Date:
Applrcantlow4er: 5 I f'{lt� G-LC State, � Sampling Point:
Ingest Bator{s): _ A t/ 1 a 5 I-i 61+6 SEG Section, Township, Range: NA
Landlurm (hillslope, terrace, etc):_ Local reliel (r-oncaye, convex, none). Con CaA' C- Slope (°! )
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LP IZ T Lal: ry 3qr 072 Long: 69;1 Daturn:
Soil Map Unit Name: �-f 0'i') NWI classification_
Are climatic I hydrologic canditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes —X— No (1I no, explain to Remarks )
Are Vegetation . Soil - or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are -Normal Circumslances' pmsenr7 Yes No
Are Vegetation , Sei) or Hydrology naturally problematic? (Ir needed, explain any answers in Remarks,)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes —Y ^ No is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks'
HYDROLOGY
wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required]
Primary Indicalors Iminmmum at one Is required,
check all that apply)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (At) _
_ _
Aquatic Fauna (813)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
High Water Table (A2) _
Mad Deposits (E15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage pBltems (H10)
Saturation (A.3) _
Hydrogen SulTide Odar (Cl)
Moss Trim tines (BIS)
_ Water Marks (61) _
Oxldlced Rhirospheres along Living Rools (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sed'.menl Deposits (B2) _
Presence al Reduced lion (CA)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ DWI Deposits (55) _
Recent Iron ReduU+on in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saluration Visible anAenal Imagery (C9)
~ Algal Mal or Crust (134)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Pos}tun (D2)
Iron Deposits (85) _
i_
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (05)
_ WalerSlalned Leaves (BB)
_ Sphagnum moss (DB) (t_RA T, U)
Field Observations:
i
iI
Surface Water Present? Yes No
_ D©plfr (inches):
Water Table Presenl7 Yes No_
Depth (inCheS):
Saturation Present) Yes No_
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Pnsent7 Yes X No
includes capillary Erin- e
_
Describe Recorded Date (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if evaflable:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

C
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: rY/ - Aid
A
Absdule Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: Iw 1
0A gover SnCCjes? Status
Number of Dominant Species
�'
1
Thal Are QBL, FACW, or FAC (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant .?
3.
Species Across All Strata- (R)
4.
5,
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are CM. FACW, or FAC: (AA3)
Prevalence Index workshool:
8.
Total % Cover of: Multtnty by'
= Total CoverOBL
species x 1 =
50% of total cover,
20% or total cover.
FACW species x 2 =
Se fin /Shrub tU (Plot size: .3� F )
FAC species x 3 =
rrIILl
1. C�r1I0. fAC[!'itJt'1e�G+ _
pf r W
FACU species x 4 =
2. Ar-er rV.brrt nrn
_� CA !'
liL
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) tB)
+
3. t lit[ir�a
Ylia — - -
4.
Prevalence Index = EVA =
5.
Hydrophyilc Vegetation Indicators.
6,
_ 1 - Re id Test for H
W ydrophytic Vegetation
7. --
_ 2 - Domitiance Test Is >50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index Is 53.0'
�G = Total Cover `
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover. !�
Herb Stratum (Plot size: _ }
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1,
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata;
3,
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7,6 cm) or
4.
more in dameler at breast height (D8H). regardless of
5,
height.
6.
Saptingr5hrub - Woody plants, excluding vines. less
7,
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (1 rn) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous Irron-woody) plants. regardless
8.
f3,
of size. and woody plants Tess than 3.2113 tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greaterthan 316 11 In
10.
11-
height.
12.
= Total Cover
50% oitotal cover:
20% of Taal cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2_
3.
4_
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover;
20°% of Idal cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks:lltobserved, list morphological adaptations below).
T/BT -1
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic end Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
n: (Describe to the depth needed to
Sampling Point: m M/! - Wd-
or or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
finches) Cdor(mois! % Cdor moist % Typer Lot'
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hyddc Soil Indicators: {Applicable In all LRRs, unless olherwtse noted.)
Texture Remarks
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, Ni=Meirix.
Indicators for Problemalic Hydrlc Soils'.
_ Histosd (Al)
_ Pdyvalue Below Surface (SS) (LRR S. T. U) ,_
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) _
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR 5)
_ Block Hislic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) _
Reduced Vertic (F18) (oulsldo MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _
Piedmont Floodplaln Soils [1`19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3) —
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (AB) (LRR P, T. U)
_ Redaxc Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1538)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8) _
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Merl (F10) (LRR U) _
Other (Explain In Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Ail)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P. T)
`Indicators of hydrophyllc vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbrae Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) (LRR O, 5)
Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic,
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Verllc (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (55)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix fS6)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, 5, T, U)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Sell Present? Yes L\ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Allantic and Gutf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and
Gulf Coastal Plain Region j
Pioject(Site.1�t1?Y Cyak a lay r `l City/County, I -C 1- Sampling Date
AppticantlOvmer, 5 1J fe LLC Slate. A, ( Sampling Point, VY�I
Investigatorls). I S17cr Z Section, Township. Range: IVA
Landlorrn (hillslope, lerrace. etc ): 1� i-,.,, 5 Local relief (concave, convex. none►.-7 h.9?.a_ Slope f%) _
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L g IZ T Lai /�/ 3 �, io,, ! Z CO r Long: JAI ]ET, aZ t-i Datum, LvAU3
Soil Map Unit Name: ` M kry i P- - — NWl classification; � $ ___
Are OMASC I hydrologic wnditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes —X— No (11 no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes-4— No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problemallel (It needed explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes Na
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Prtsenf? Yes Ira
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes NO
within a Welland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicalors (minimum of hvo required)
Primary Indicators Irttirtimurn of one is re uirN Check all that apply)
_ Surface Sol cracks (W)
_ Surface waler (Al)
Aquatic Fauna (073)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (8B)
_ High Water Table (A7)
Mair Deposits (1315) (LRA Uj
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A7) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Moss Trim Lines (B56)
_ Water Marks (E1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (133)
,_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (82) _
Presence of Reduced Iron ICd)
_ Crayrtsh Burrows (CO)
_ Drift Deposits (B3)
Recent Iron Reduction in TMed Soils (CS)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery IC9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (Bs.) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (02)
_ Iron Deposits (85) _
Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquilwd (133)
bnmdation Visible on Aerial imagery (1137)
FAC•Neutral Test (DS)
Water-Slained Leaves (69)
_ Sphagnum moss (DO) (LRR T, U)
Field Obsarvations:
Surface Water present? Yes No Depth (inches)
Water Table Present? Yes No_
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes ­& No_
Depth (inches):
Wattand
Hydrology Present? Yes —X— No
includes capillary h-iri e
Describe Recorded Date (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial pholas, previous inspections). If available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gull Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
r
Absolute Dominant Indcalor
_)
Tree 5jratum (Plat size: �II
% Cover Species? �5
,�,
1A rc10ArA l�C7 hiitA��_
LttiS
2,. Act,
�
3,
4
5_
6.
7.
)30 = Total Graver
50%orlotalcover:
20% of total cover. 2�
SarAlngLShrub Stratum (Plot size: �
-b1�1
}
i. aCCi er sk uTr.r rn
_ 7 FA
2. _ttc
4.
5.
6.
7.
rl.
= Total Cover
50:6 of Iotat cover:
20% of total cover.
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
t
2.
3.
4.
5.
b.
7.
8.
9.
lo-
ll.
12.
- Tolei Cover
50810 of total cover: 20% of total cover.
Woody Vine arafum (Plot size'
I. S a ur1� f —� }� F—W
2.
3.
4.
5.
Remarks: fif observed,
1�v - = Total Cover
5045 01 total ewer. 20°% of total corer. Z
hological adaptations below).
Sampling Poinl:M,-Wet
Dominance Test viorksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC' (D (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Specter Across A11 Slrala: (By
Percent of Dominant Species )
That Are OBL, FACW, orFAC: - f M - (AM)
Pro Valence Index workshest:
Total °% Cover od:
Multiply by,
OBL species
x 1 -
FACW species
K 2 -
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
if 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A] (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydtophytic Vegetation InMeators:
t - Rapid Test for Hydrophyllc Vegetation
_ 2 Dominanct Test Is >509.6
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vege(alion' (Explain)
'Indfcators of hydric soil and well and hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Daftnlllons of Four Veneration Strata:
Tree - Woody pients, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more In diameter at breast height (DeH}, regardless of
height.
SaplingfShtub - Woody planl5, excluding vines, less
then 3 In. DBH and greater than 3.28 It (i m) fell.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) pie nts. regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 8 tell.
Woody wine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft In
height.
Hydrophyfic
Vegetation
Presents Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Cult Cossral Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:' fY j�i/2 - wc�
-.�-�-
Profile Descrlplfow (Describeto the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
finches) Color (moist) CA Color Imoist) % Type' Lae Texture Remarks
61v 116
10-18f
'Type: C=Concentration. D=Dep)elion, RM-Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked $_end Grains. 7Localion: PL=Pare Lining, M=Molrix.
Hyddc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hyddc Sr
_ Hislosd (A1)
— Pdyvelue Below Surface (98) (LRR S, T. U)
_ 1 cm Muck (Ag) (LRR 0)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
— Thin Dark Surface (SS) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Hiistie (A3)
— Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Venir (FIB) (nulstde MLRA 159A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ LoamyGfeyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Streti6ed Layers (AS)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (AB) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (FSJ
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
^ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (Ag) (LRR P, T)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Derk Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR 0, P, T)
''Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (Al 6) MMLRA 15DA)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRit P, T, U)
welland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky 9linere( (S1) (LRR O, S)
Delta Ochric (F17);MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sently Gleyed Matrix (S4) _ Reduced Venlc (FIB) (MLRA 1158A, ISOB)
Sandy Redox (S5) _ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix {SS) _ Anomalous Bright Loamy Sofls (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (57) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inehesk
Hyddc SDI] Present? Yes /,( No
US Army Caps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
ProjecVSile: I 1 v lr(C kAYK CitylCounty: c f Sampling [late:
ApplicantlOv,ner: 51,,A(✓, C.,e.k Cwi r .' LL-C State: NL Sampling Point: /l�iN�-_1Net
)✓fir. Zr Seclion, Township, Range: �_
Landform (hill -slope, terrace, etc I: , / ppF�4odQ1A . - Local relief (concave, convex, none): YVbr s- Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): _ LF-T� Lot_ _/j/ 3`�,-4,0 o Long: °/ 27_7-4 -9-- Datum: j
Soil Map Unit Name: 1,f c NWI classification: D
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year7 Yes -1X- No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydro€ogy signifirprl11y disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes -X- No
Are Vegetation Soil er Hydrorogy naturally problematic? (II needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FIND[NGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transacts, important features, etc.
Hydrephytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Aran
Hydric Soil Present? Yes —} ND
Welland Hydrology v Yes /' No within a Wetland? Yes No
y vgy Present.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Primary Indicators Iminimum of one is reeuiredL Check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (All _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
?� High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (BID)
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sutfrde Oder (Cl)
_ Mass Tnm Lines (B16)
Water Marks (61) —
Oxidized Rhizospheres elorrg Living Roofs (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sedimeni DepesIs (132) —
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Crayfish Burrows (Ct3)
_ Drift Depo3il3 (B3) _
Recent Iron Reduclion in Tilled Snits (C5)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mal or Crust (64)
Thin Mucti Surface (C7)
GeilnlnrphiC Position (02)
Iron Deposits (85) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquilard (133)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
_ FAC•Neutral iesl (05)
Water -Stained Leaves (89)
_ Sphagnum moss (DB) (LRR T. U)
fold Observations: �(- -
Surface Water Present? Yes No "� Depth (inchee):
Water Table Present? Yes X No _ Depth (inches):` �/
Saturation Preserlt� Yes � No Depth (inches): ee Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes A NO
(includes capiltery frinoe) T4-
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos. previous Inspections), if avallabW
Remarks.
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic ano Gulf Coastal Plain Reglon - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: IW 3 - we,
Tree
Stratum Rol size: 3� ! I
Absolute �L Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test rwrksheet:
1_
( —
a,, out 1 �
-2
Nvrnbet of Ek—inant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, FAC-
Lks
7 .FAC
or (A)
2.
e ✓
Trial Number of Dorronenl
3.
C%Zi4
Species Across All Strata (B)
a.
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
LA�!
Thai Are OBL. FAM « FAC: (ALB)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheets
7
8,_
jdal % Cover of: Multiply by:
r 4 = Total Cooler
OBL species x 1 =
> n
50°% of total corer: 7 20% or trial cover, 2 a
Few species x 2 =
SelplinalShrub S r I m (Pid size: y
.
FAC styles x 3=
1.
C`1[✓+ it a raCrh, i�lo�o.
�
!FA C WFACU
species x 4 =
2.
Vwrc�niu», eosy+�bpsuw,
ip �
UPL species x 5 =
Column Tolefs: (A) (B)
---�
3,
a
Prevalence index = B1A =
5,
Hydrophyttc Vegetation indicators:
6.
1 • Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7.
2 • Dominance Test is >5^
8
iri
_ 3 • Prevalence Index Is 53.0'
= Total Cover
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' 4Explain)
5" of total cover: _ 20%of total cover.
Herb Stratum1 (Plot size:: )
'Indicators of hydric sell and weitand hydrology must
1
we orti-,.layir'wF r+iC1 +-�_
���-
be present, unless disturbed or problematic,
2.
Deflnitlons of Ft1ur Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7 6 tin) or
4.
more In diameter at breast height (DEH), regardless of
height.
5
6.
Sapling)Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7
than 3In. DBH and grealer than 3.28 It (1 m)1all.
8•
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9.
of size. and woody plants less than 3.28 it tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines grealer than 3 28 it In
10.
11,
height.
12.
X/ = Trial Cover
50°% of tole] cover: 20-1i of (dal cover._
iNoody
Vme Stratum {Plot size-
1,
2.
3.
4.
5
Hydfophytl c
= Total Covet
VegetaUan
50°% of total cover:
20°% of total cover'
ProsenO Yes No
Remarks: (It observed, list morpholog cal adaptations below),
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sarnichng Pant: /01 3 _
Profile description: {Describe to [he depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators,)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(IRchesl —Color fmaist) _ _ %.�
Color fmcisll % Tune !of-
'Texture Remarks
�L1C� � J v�
mud"
r � l I—
'Type: C=Concentration D=De lesion, RM=Reduced Matrix. MS --Masked Sand Grains.
Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix,
Hydric SDII Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRS, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Sa110:
_ Hislosd (A7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (88)(LRR S, T. U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR o)
Hisiic Epipedon IA2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR 5, T. U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black HistiC (A3)
_ Loamy Marky Mineral (F1) (LRR D)
_ Reduced Verlic (FIB) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
i Hydrogen SuMde (A4)
_ LoamyGteyed Matrix (F2)
_ Pledmatl Flcxotafn Sails (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (AS)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
^ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T. U)
_ Redea Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 15301
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Mated at(TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Mari (F10) (LRR U)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 161)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron•Mangenese Messes (F12){LRR O, P,
T) 'Indicalors of hydrophylfc vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P. T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1);LRR O, S)
_,., Della Ochric iF17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Verfle (F18)(MLRA 150A, 1506I
Sandy Redox (S51
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (FIS) (MLRA 149A)
_—
Stripped Matrix (56)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
_— Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, 5, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present] Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gull Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region !
Projectisile Ly �f Cret f y Cilytccwty: &r/t ar Sampling dale. -1 TI-!f 1_
ApplrcantOwner. 5/Ae 14e, FFi_r'[t- �i./ji ! LAC State. (- _/( Sampling Point. ��4-vvcf
Investigators) _PA V t4 S C i Vc 51E[•, ; Section. Township. Range: NA
Landform (hdlstope. terrace. etc). a/ i n Local rebel (concave, convex. none) Scope (%)
Subregion (LRR or MLRAI: L R T LatN3`i . 1e31 _ Lang: W77, ?59) oatum• &4 W3
Soil Map Unit Name: r y r kL9a1{t l tyq rn _ _ — NWI classification: ffo I C
Are climatic ( hydrologic condrlions Ern the site typical We this time of year? Yes -X- Na (of (to. explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are `Normal Circumstances' present') Yes A__ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (II needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transepts, important features, etc.
Hydrophyft Vegetation Present? Yes _� No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Sol! Presents Yes NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
within a Wetland') Yes No
Remarks'
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary
Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required. Check all that apply)„
Swlace Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (At I —
Aquatic Fauna (813)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (P,e)
High Water Table (A2) _
_
Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR V)
Drainage Pattems (1310)
Saturation (A3) T
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor ICI I
Moss Trim Linea (B16)
_ Water Marks f91) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots IC3) _
Dry -Season Watef Table (C,2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Presence of Reduced Iron IC4) _
Crayfish Burrows (CO)
_ Drift Deposits (63) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Met or Crust (64)
Thin Mute Surface (C7) _
Geomorphic Position (D2)
kon Deposits (135) T
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquiiard (03)
Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (B7)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
XWater -Stained Leaves (B9)
_
Sphagnum mass (DB) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes _ No -dX Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No_
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
_ Depth (Inches)',
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ­zy- No
ncxfudes capiltary fi e
Describe Recorded Date (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos, previous inspettions). 0 available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Guff Coastal plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Slrata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: _M
Absolute Dominant Indicator
ufi
Dominance Test warkshaet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: - )
Cover 7 Status
Number of Dominant Species
1
A Gr
_�2z— C?L
That Are DBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
2.
a rs
— �--
Total Number of Dominant
3.
k t Y'H&
Species Act oss AB Strata: tB)
4.
r x
rt�]�
� FAC
$
t
�/
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, rACW, or FAC. LM JAM)
_1..'" f17�
'
Prevalence Index vvorksheat_
7.
8
TdaIU_Cover of: Muftlpfy bY:
ORL species x 1
= Total Cover
50 % of total caner: 20%of Idol covet: �-
FACIN species x 2 =
Se din /Shrub 5lratum (Plot size: �JJ )
FAG species x 3 =
1.
ccr _r�..brurv,
� F C �_
FACU species x 4 =
2
UPL species x 5 =
3
Column Totals: (A) (5)
4.
Prevalence Index = BIA=
5•
Hydrophyllc Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophybc Vegetation
7.
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
8
2� = Total Cover
_ 3 - Prevalence index is s3.0'
he
Problemolic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
500A of total ewer:
20% of Ida cover:
Herb &return {Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wellend hydrology must
1.
be present, unicss disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
3.
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.45 cm) or
4.
more In diameter al breast height (DBH), regardless of
5,
height.
6.
Sapling/Shrub —Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
than 3 in. DSH and preaterthan 3.28fl (1 m) tell.
8.
Herb — All herbaceous (non-w oady) pdertts, regardless
9_
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 A tall.
10.
Woody vine — Alf woody vines greater than 3 26 R in
11.
height_
12.
= Tdal Cover
500%of ataj�cwet:
20%oftole Icover,
Woody
Vine Stratum {Pia size: / Y ��..-• )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophyllc
Vegetation
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of local cc"r:
Prasent? Yes No
Remarks: (It observed, list morpholo4ical adaptations below)
US Army Caps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

r
SOIL
Sampling Point: �A — wed
Piurile Destrlpilon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Mat RedoX Features
(inchesl _Gdar (md51) °A , Color most 96 7 Loci Texture Remarks
—/� xs vp 2j MYIS�cwm -
'T e: (~Concentration. D--Deplellon. RM=•Reduced Matrix, MS -Masked Send Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix_
Hydric Snll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted,)
Indicators for Problemallc Hydric Solls :
_ Histosvl (At)
Polyvalue Below Surface )Se) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) IL RR O)
Histic FAipedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface (fa'9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (AID) (LRR S)
Black Hlslic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (FI) (LRR D)
T Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside All LRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodpla)n Solis (F19) (LRR P, 5, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleled Matrix iF3)
Anomalous Bright I-comy Soils (F20)
i Organic Bodies (AS) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 1530)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, UI
_ Depicted Dark Surtace IF7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
_. Redox Depressions (F9)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TFi2)
I cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Mari IF10) (LRR Ul
_ Other lExplain In Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegelatltn and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 15DA)
Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P. T, U)
Wetland hydrology must be present.
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Della Ochric (F17) IMLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Reduced Verb: (F18) (MLRA 15DA, 1500)
— Sandy Redox (S5)
Piedmortl Floodptain Sails (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (SG)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 1530)
_ Dark Surface (57) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer IIf observed):
Type:
Death (inches):
Hydric Sall Presant? Yes —K No
Remarks:
US Army Carps 0 Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

. , ,
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Praiectisite �IO�tPr Creek Q4wry�Cilyic-ounty. �h.�; 1r Sampling Date 'y t'1 1 I
Appkcantrowner, 5A, 1'Cry Lock 1 niiri I� LLC State. Al(- Sampling point: MY/ `5 wef
Invesligator(s) �Pq t/'id 5<</I _5EG _ Section, Township, Range: A
Landform (fullslope, terrace, etc): 1 1�ocf ��4f /r _ Local reliel (concave, convex, none). %UB rZ� Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRAt L IZ 2 T' Lat , (-3ID Long , is 9 _ Datum AD
Soil Map Unit Name: A 4t Le 6 Y)'1 NW] classification: {CFO ) IZ L
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical toi [his time of year? Yes -X— No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetalion , Suit , or Hydrology *nificarrlly disturbed? Are - Normal Circumstances present? Yes X— No
-
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problernatic? (If needed, explain any answers In Rernarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hyarophylic Vegeiation Present? Yes V No Is the Sampled Area
Hyaric Sall Present') Yes Na
within a Wetland? Yes No
Weiland Hydrology Present? Yes NO
HYDROLOGY
Wettand Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary W-icalors (minimum of two reouiredl
Primary Indicalors (minimum of one i5 required, cheek all that apply) _.
— Surface Sod Crack5 (66)
ASurface Water (A1)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (58)
High water Table (A2)
_ Mart Deposits (916) (LRR u)
Drainage Pattems (B 10)
Saturation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1)
Mos5 Trim Lines (H161
Water Marks (81)
_ Oxidized RhlzoMheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (CB)
_ Drift Deposils (B3)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aenal Imagery (C9)
Algat Mat or Crust (64 )
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
4 Geomorphic Position (02)
f_
_ Iron Deposits (B51
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquilard (D3)
_ Inundation Vmble on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC-Neulral Test (DS)
Water-519ined Leaves (B9)
Sphagnum moos (DB) (LRR T. U)
FFefd Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
y
No _! Depth (inches):
_
Water Table Presenl7 Yes
Saluralion Present*) Yes
No_ Depth (inches):
No_ Depth (inches): 3 G
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No
i2t udes capillary Irvi
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

: 3 I
VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Sampling Point: L' V5 - Wa r
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheat:
Tree 5tralum IP)d size: _-�_ 1 °cxtr ci 7 Stylus_
IJumber of Oonunenl Species
1 QU [ruts n 5faL Thal Are OBE, FACW, or FRC: (Al
2. 15A
Total Number of Dominant
3. r/i !hu S arse I ca�� -� N ,WW Species Across An Strata: � _ - (B)
4, of � P _ N -yeL-
Pettent of Dominant Spades
r
r
C
5, That Are OBL, FACW, a FAC: r �Ca (A/8)
fi
7.
8_
-Taal Cove
50%oltdal corer: �S 20%of tdel cover:$
Sa Iln Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
t. Ace,- >r,1y�u rn
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
Tda! Corer
50 % of total cover: 2+DSS of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size;
1. Ar-U
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
i1.
12.
&„ = Toile3,22 t Cow
50%oftotal cover; � 20%olldelcover.
W Vrnc Stratum (Pid she' � )
1. o ; 12vS18 Y ����V�✓
2. �ier'eA-e,+, i a >� Searr�l 5'1a�L
3.
4.
Prevalence Intlex vrorkshaet:
Total %Cover of: Multiply bv'
08l spec[es x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU Species x 4 r
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence index = B!A =
1 • Rapid Test for Hydrophyllc Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >5M
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Probiematic Hytlrophytic Vegetatiion' (Explain)
'Indicators
ofhydric soil and wetland hydrdogymusl
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Daflnittons of Four Vagetallan Strata:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines. 3 in. (7.6 cot) or
more In diameter at breast height (OBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vases, less
Than 3 in. DOH and greater than 3.78 in(1 m) tali.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size. and woody plants less than 3.29 R tall.
Woody vine -All woody vines greeter Than 3 28 R in
height.
Hydraphytic
5•
Tdal Corer Vegetation
SO°.i oflda! cover: � 20%ofldal carer:
Present? Yes Na
US Army Caps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gut! Coasts! f'!a)n Region - Version 2 0
Prevalence index = B!A =
1 • Rapid Test for Hydrophyllc Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >5M
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ Probiematic Hytlrophytic Vegetatiion' (Explain)
'Indicators
ofhydric soil and wetland hydrdogymusl
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Daflnittons of Four Vagetallan Strata:
Tree -Woody plants, excluding vines. 3 in. (7.6 cot) or
more In diameter at breast height (OBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, excluding vases, less
Than 3 in. DOH and greater than 3.78 in(1 m) tali.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size. and woody plants less than 3.29 R tall.
Woody vine -All woody vines greeter Than 3 28 R in
height.
Hydraphytic
5•
Tdal Corer Vegetation
SO°.i oflda! cover: � 20%ofldal carer:
Present? Yes Na
US Army Caps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gut! Coasts! f'!a)n Region - Version 2 0

6 a % 0
SOIL
Sampling Point: M5—Wd—
P OMS DcscTlptfon: (Describe la IN! depth needed to document trre indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Metrix _
RedoK Features
{inches) Color(moist) % _
Color (moist) % Ty2e La,
Texture Remarks
10-YEZ-11
Muck carr-,
c� z,
Type: C=Concentration. D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrjx.
Hydric Soll Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted,)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ "stosol (At)
_ Potyvelue Below Surface (S8) [LRR S. T. U)
1 cm Muck (AS) (LRR O)
4' Hislic Epipedon (A2)
Thin Durk Surface (59) (LRR 5, T, U)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR 5)
_ Black HWic(A3)
r— L oemy Mucky Mineral I F 1) 1 LR R O)
_ Reduced VenktF18)(outsldoMLRA15DA,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulkle (A4)
Loamy (flayed Matrix (172)
Piedmont Floodplain Says (F19) (LRR P, 5, T)
_ Stratified Layers W)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
^ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
Redox Dark Surface (FB)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P. T. U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
_ Redccr Depressions (F8)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
f cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
Merl (FfD) (LRR U)
other (Explain In Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al1)
Depleted Ochdc (1`11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Iron -Manganese Messes (F12) (LRR 0, P, 7) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (AlG) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR i , T, U)
welland hydrology must be present.
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) (LRR O, S)
Della Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or probtemahc.
_ Sandy C4eyed Matrix (54)
_ Reduced Verde (Fla) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
— Sandy Redcx (SS)
Pledrnast Floodp[aln Soils (F19) (MLRA 146A)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils tF20) JMLRA 149A, 153C, 153R)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (it observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Sall Present? Yes 4No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

1
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlanti
-c
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region f
ProiecUSite: f7 C✓ cr arr CiryrCounty; t f7ill �rr� Sampling Date: ! �I
ApplicantK?wner. 5�'14y" G-eL _ [oy7,Z LL C _ State
�{_� Sampling Point: MW� 11LLe) - w2�
Investiaalor(s) :a", q Su 644I ,�� i Section, Township. Range: 1 w
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): �/14-Verwj-f Local relief (concave, convex,�n(me); _ i1.2 }.JI- Slope (%).
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): E Lai: /V3q r L'Z19 Long:yY ?A., � �.�g_ _ Datum: 1i/i�D�3
Soil Map Unit Name: sic -) BcE-P _ NWI classification; Q
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time al year? Yes /1 No {If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbedI7���""TTT Are'Norma! Circumstances" present? Yes -X- No
Are Vegetation Sail , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, 'important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetalion Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No IS the Sampled Area
Welland Hydrology within a Wetland? Yes No
—
Welland ogy Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary indicators (minimum of two reouired)
PfimaEX IndicMois Iminimum of one is re uired check all that a 1
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (All) _
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface IBB)
_ High Water Table (A3) _,,,
Marl Deposits (IRIS) (LRR U)
_ Drainage patterns fall))
Saturation (A3) _
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (81) —
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Crayfish Burrows (CB)
_
Drift Deposits (83) r
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (09)
_ Algal Mat or Ctust (84) r
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ iron Deposits (B5) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquilard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery tB7)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (DS) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inchosy -
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): S�'tcR ce
Saturation Presenl? Yes No__
._. Depth (inches): �ju Kef
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
indudes capillary hinge)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections). If available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region- Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
A
'Tree Slrplum (Plot size: ' V' J
HWbLM ULU LJO MMer17 1n Q1Ca10F
9h.Cover Sogcit aptus_
1,
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
7,
e,
= Total Cover
50% of Met cover.
20% of total cover:
SeVinci/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: :acpj�1
J
I. err ,r�4ium
2._T�e�vi!:: ,, 'moo
_
Za �_ MCW+
3. �xe 1 e LL rrti of i S>t r G
��^
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover:
J75— 20% oI tdal cover.
Herb Stratum (Pid size:
__L4_
1. C-Lfe
2: �SaL4fwrr,zt Gtfl2kk5
3. _ 'r/�S Otr%nuo _
_ 210 Al_
�e
4.
S.
7.
7.
8.
10,
11.
12.
1'� = Totel Cover
50% of local cover: 770,_ 20% of total cover: Z�
W Vine St !um (Plot size: )
y.
2.
R
to
Sampling Point: Awa—Gar- wit -
Dominance Test workshael:
Number of Dominant Species
Thai Are OBI., FACW. or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant u
Species Across AA Strata: [ (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
Thal Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: -- (A/B)
Prevalence Index wurkstreet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply
OBL species
x t =
FACW species
x 2 -
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals:
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index s B/A =
Hydrvphytfc Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.01
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
I ndicators or hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
he present, unless disturbed or probWematft.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines. 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more In diameter at breast height {DBHJ, regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
then 3 tn. DSH end greater then 3 28 4l (1 m) tail.
Herb -All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of Sue, and woody plants less than 3.28 fl tall.
Woody One - All woody vines greater then 3,28 R In
height.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vapelal[on
50%ofldai cover: 20% of Iola cover: Present'? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal plain Region - Version 2.0

r , ,
SOIL
Sampling Point: /ttW - Wd —
Profile Descripllon: (Describe to the depth heeded to document the IndiCator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
finches) Coto may! eA
Cdor (moislI 9( Type' Lac
Texture Pernalks
1�LLZ L.� dD
F• s ,
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Ge lelion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Send Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Malrix.
Hydrlc Sail Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydrlc Soils':
T Hislosd (All
Pdyvalue Below Surface (58) (LRR S, T, U)
f cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ _ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR 5, T. U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
" Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside M LRA 150A,H)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (AS)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Solis (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (AS) (LRR P. T, U)
_ Redrn( Dark Surface (F6)
tMLRA 1535)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (EAR P. T. U)
^_
_ Depleted Dark Surface (11771
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (FB)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
A 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
^ Mart (1710) (LRR U)
^ Other (Explain In Remarks)
Depleted Below park Surface (Ali)
Depleted Ochric(F11) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) ILRR P, T, U)
welland hyalroiogy must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
Depa Ochtic (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
r_
Reduced Vedic (I'll S) (MLRA 150A, 1508)
Sandy Redox (55)
_ Piedmont Floodplaln Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (SG)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 144A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (ERR P, S. T. U)
Restrictive Layer (If oDserved):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hyddc Sol) Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SEGO
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office) • 910.452.2899 (fax)
Date: 4M/2011
To: Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
Of: NCDWQ
Attached you will find:'
❑ Proposal ❑ Sketch(es)
❑ JD Package ® Report(s)
Other
Transmittal Letter
SECS Project #: 06-010.01
Client Name: Shelter Creek Quarry
USACOE Action HW:
M.
MAY 0 2 2 011
❑ Permit ❑ Wetland Map ❑ Photo(s)
❑ Plans ❑ Information Request ❑
Copies
Dated
Description
1
4/26/2011
Response to DN%IQ Request for Additional Information for Shelter Creek Quarry
These are being delivered:
® For your Review/Comment
❑ Corrected and Returned
❑ Other:
*If noted items are NOT attached, please contact our office.
® For your Records ❑ Returned for Correction(s)
❑ For your Signature ❑ As Requested
By: ® Hand Delivery ❑ Fed -Ex ❑ UPS ❑ Regular Mail ❑ Other
Notes:
Signature and (Typed) Name: avid�Scibetta
vv V V
Date: 4/28/2011

Lem
5outkcrn E-nvironmental Group, Inc.
53 1 5 Snuth Co��ee }�aad, Suite Wilmington, Norti, CaroIina Z64 1 Z
9io.-r z.271 i Fax: 910-45Z.2$99 - ofFiccC�sc
www,5Cgi.us
26 April 2011
Via Hand Delivery
Mr. Rick Shiver
N.C. Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection
127 North Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405-5406
Mar a 2 zolr
RE: Response to DWQ Request for Additional Information (RFAI) dated April 15, 2011
regarding Supplemental information to the Shelter Creek Quarry Hydrological Monitoring
Plan
Dear Mr. Shiver:
This letter is in response to the DWQ's RFAl dated April 15, 2011 regarding Supplemental Information
to the Shelter Creek Quarry Hydrological Monitoring Plan.
1. The wetland delineation and the proposed impacts need to be added as an overlay on the
proposed drawing/serial.
We could not add those items as an overlay. We did, however, add the monitoring well locations
to a copy of the "Milestone Wetland Impact Map" which was included with the IP application to
the Corps. Please see the maps in Appendix A.
The depth of the wells needs to be at least 101. It was agreed that the wells were not to
penetrate the confining layer. If you have determined that the confining layer is less than
10', please provide the geological data to support your claim.
We took borings at each proposed location using a 9' dutch auger. We did not reach "blue gum
clay" with this auger at any of these locations. We did, however, reach layers of soil which are
known to perch water. Please reference Table I and Appendix B — Individual Well Site Details
for specific soil horizon data regarding each proposed well location.
3. Wells need to be kept away from ditches and streams. MW5 looks to be too close to MW4
and should be moved further down the property line nearer to the F, G and H wetlands.
Please refer to the detail sheet for MW4 and 5 in Appendix B for a detailed explanation.
4. The location of well MW4 is too far out; it needs to come closer to the property line.
Please refer to the detail sheet for MW4 in Appendix B for a detailed explanation.

L
5. At least two wells need to be within the 119 acre wetland that is not to be impacted (one well
should be on the opposite side of the level spreader, somewhere near JJ and KK and one
towards the center).
MW6 and MW7 are both located within the l 19-acre wetland not to be impacted. MW6 is a well
that was previously known as MW21. It is in the area that is downstream of the level spreader.
This well is installed to a depth of 18 inches. We see no reason to bury it deeper, since it has
proved itself to be wel year round. 11 will be renamed and we will continue to monitor this well.
No description or data sheet was provided for this well since it is already installed. It's Iocation is
nearly identical in nature to MW7's site. MW7 will be located east of MW6 and just southwest
of wetlands JJ and KK. This general area is inundated by water for a large portion of the year.
No confining layer could be reached at this proposed well location because of a flowing sand
layer encountered at about 4 feet below the surface. We will install a well to a depth of
approximately 4 feet in this location.
6. The DWQ thinks the MW1 and MW2 wells are too far out and need to be closer to the
mine.
Please refer to the detail sheet for MWI and MW2 in Appendix B for descriptions of each
location. These wells are located no farther away than the other well, referencing the attached
maps. We see no reason to locate them closer.
7. The location of MW3 well needs to be moved down closer towards DD and MM.
Please refer to the detail sheet for MW3 in Appendix B for a detailed explanation,
8. The construction of these wells will have to meet the criteria as outlined in 15A NCAC 2C.
Please contact Dr. Charlie Stehman of the Aquifer Protection Section (APS) concerning the
construction of these wells. His phone number is 910.796.72IS.
We will contact Mr. Stehman to make sure we are following the published criteria.
Table l: Summary of Proposed Monitoring Well Locations
Depth to
"t'vpe of Confining
NW1
Well Name
Lat. /Long.
Confining Layer
Classification i
et)Layer
MW I
N 34.6372
5
Sandy clay
Unknown
W 77.7602
MW2
N 34.6426
5
Clay
PF03/413
W 77.7524
MW3
N 34.6406
5
Sandy clay
PFOIC
W 7707457
MW4
N34.6317
4
Sandy clay
PFOIC
W 77,7591
M W 5
N 34.6307
5
Sandy clay
PFO 1 /2C
W 77,7539
MW6
N 34.6295
NA
NA
PF04A
W 77.7456
MW7
N 34.6299
NA
NA
PFOIC
W 77.7408
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwaier Habitats of the united Stares. Cowardin et. al. 1979
2>poo ✓

t_
Please note that all wells are well within the 6200-foot radius cone of depletion mentioned in the 2007
Operation and Monitoring Plan, page 6, Section 11.0 "Pumping Frequency" for the Shelter Creek Quarry
Project. This monitoring well location data and its accompanying map and wetland data supersede all
other monitoring well data compiled in the past for the Quarry.
At this time we would like to request a site visit with DWQ staff to evaluate the proposed well locations
and obtain the DWQ's concurrence on the locations.
If you need any additional information to complete this request, please do not hesitate to contact myself,
David Syster or Dana Lutheran at [phone].
Sincerely.
rn r—nvirOnmental Groin, Inc.
)aAJ
David Scibetta
Wetland Scientist
Cc: Joanne Steenhuis, NCDWQ, 401 Express Permitting
Linda Willis, NCDWQ, Surface Water Protection
Molly Elwood, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Kyle McIntyre, Shelter Creek Capital, LLC
Attachments: Appendix A - Proposed Monitoring Well Location Maps
Appendix B — Individual Well Site Details
Appendix C - Photographs of Borings at Proposed Well Locations
Appendix D - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Data Forms

= Jr t -- _ •" •-q-�•�y� ' • 'c `•r •r 'r - 44 r'yi. �.li. ^ A.^.A
yi. �. i A$� � n''• t�i •�r�� �1 r 4' f _ '�'•.r r '+'e � l
�.Ahkp
ter w.
ff
' - �r� r -, �_. i • `� - - �-�� T r -ti � � x. - � r ..,',r- �µ� � ,s s � F '` r- y - •Y �x s. � -' �'Y ,� � �.��` �� .
14
.., i • a _ i "�.� +0 t f _ —� . 1y'.�_i•s.�r•. t-R.'� f ..1 N i'lri
�- �� .yf '4'••r_. n�.,�Rr r1 ail y %,- s I .� 4 c a Yj • `.; ~� , a!� ` '� t
�� - •� � 4`+t �'`.� ,i * � �` �. +�Y� 6'� �i� • 4 �-� .. •r- �1�- �, � ,�`L �� 4f ��' �'* t �.r -_.tea �w r i+` .� •i'. �� f_�.- �,. .•`. �- .-I� js >A
yp r 7
6 s 5 r~_'�i' ..--r��•',R .y - *.. `s , �q. , =N'i �' �r .x�r ,r t:i' ,�' -.�.
t' _• �. a
x +flow t T i 1 1 x _ r y.F Topmrr►''_ # ' .
IL
Af
7" VgA 4
or
Yk
••�e4 ,,� _- • f.f ��•�� sI�-'` .r- '+i '.` 4 t "� 'S Si *10
f •..a. .r.•i .#'
de 19
AF
AV
Ob
oil 4L
J.
TL . .
bob
01,
11`���-%C + � } ,i``• 4` : �-+i � - + .} .7j ■�} :1, 1.. t'lC.� T �.,4 1� _ ,�. %Y' r
40
iW<•
a. •ems i7L �'.�'. 7'r''4.`�- )• V - �-- r� - max., '�• - � k�,', � ass, r � YF'• �_y��f•yN.' ++ i� } r:.
Quarryky
• • • '•i ` �• +
_ - �� r
— • • Soil fj• • F "' ZIT `- _ �_a•. ��.`,• 'r . r, 4' ��_�', s .. �.
4 � . ►��`}� • � 4 +� . Taft! 44 e
fji�ellk_ .. �' �� Proposed Well Locatic
_.mw _ •'.a �_± Li ....
1

MW2
MW1
L
].d
n
C
C.?4
r
tii
5
L
Oi
) -56 leala•.d
a.1
J
G.11 bawled
K
0 I E Yuaua
'S
MW3
o a
EC
.a
93
C4
KK
• YY
,Aa
0.ec 3.F6 2
T.Lor LdS tlrma
rarm.okian ..na
.ems
vw sr'wE au vaa vm.V.nw ... o�. ra•,acs _/_ ketl ImpociS �,n SVrS = 1-9-1lL
zz,o8 W-
• a +oa.a YKs/ll MG uxefR,a ruan+'+� . ,�L•.qp,!- � S.,- �s 7[l31 - 7PSt = [5-07 h[-
T 3nl
q .voa ws+mo unrax w,r. arracn . ,w.. ,.fare •/-
—� �-,__ m �r nm �l a'N•L C6gq i. w1�[atrw KT�o ..4 w+d . Irsa rgli:./_
_ _ _ ` _ N r nay a 0. ,gym. oenwc •ewarm +cna.m nra w.rw . •. a[ao ./-
wu .a � rmr faaro rcrwry a+i� .ac. area. - .an .o.ra ./_
- .eon.w 4 faaY w10falla •a. Y[f1.Ytl .Iref Mrw apw+� - •�... aqp ./.
� rar• ..+. rra .1 m.r r�P ni 1FK.VCf YNFr MG a+MLK . 7as .nO ♦/- -d' ' �.`
_ aR04Y0
w.✓.wnd s-gec+s PvP'.cd ;+iaia lam"'`' Y�..6 y<p.e � 'rwi,r wpeum.,
wJs+,d i.nw-1a F4per[a �i. LOi,- tdl .r
.iwl 6afN+11mY
F" P t- nra 1 Sf M, I,-k 0-"� f1L WA,n.H EG G
n..acn [.v: f�k7RC:0 C+r: f[S 1V6 lc.Y P .=660 0— F*AW1CMTI hq,s•r. 2La326
L = Lcv„ 'veLUe 4?av IS'A by SEGi I - Z, - I
t 'sk Z = Z6n�iG[j
♦ Proposed Monitoring Well Location

Monitoring Well 1 (M W 1)
This proposed well is in the same general location as a previous shallow groundwater monitoring well of
the same number that was used to provide wetland data to The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers primarily.
This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to the Quarry. Please see the
attached photos for profile shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is close to the mine site and is a relatively undisturbed
wetland system. It can be characterized as a scrub shrub/flatwoods wetland. This area is interwoven with
small depressional wetlands, llatwoods wetlands, and low upland ridges. There was abundant standing
water within the general vicinity of the well site at time of evaluation. The closest drainage ditch is
approximately 450 feet north of the proposed well location. This side of NC53 adjacent to the mine has
recently undergone a thinning of the pines by the Forest Service.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Flue
Value
Chrome
0-8
Muck
10 YR
2
1
8-22
Fine sandy loam
10 YR
2
1
22-62
Fine sandy loam
10 YR
4
2
62+
Sandy clay loam
10 YR
5
2

Monitoring Well 2 (MW2)
This proposed well is located approximately 400 feet north of the previous location for a shallow
groundwater monitoring well of the same number that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers primarily, This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to
the Quarry. Please see the attached photos for profile shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is located in an area that was never converted into
silviculture, and has the appearance of what can be described as high pocosin wetland. The habitat to the
south towards the mine site is comprised of silvicultural land that is most likely marginal wetland at best,
on account of the network of drainage ditches in this area. There is a drainage ditch approximately 30
feet to the east of the proposed well site. However, the ditch appears to be unmaintained, and is likely
providing little to no drainage influence to the surrounding area. From examination of current aerials, this
appears is the only drainage ditch with this block of habitat. This side of NC53 adjacent to the mine has
recently undergone a thinning of the pines by the Forest Service.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chroma
0-10
Mucky fine sandy loam
10 YR
2
1
10-32
Sandy loam
10 YR
3
1
32-59
Sandy loam
t0 YR
4
1
59+
Clay loam
Gley 1
6
N

Monitoring Well 3 (MW3)
This proposed well is in the same general location as a previous shallow groundwater monitoring well
referred to as MW6 that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers primarily.
This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to the Quarry. Please see the
attached photos for profile and location shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is a functioning floodplain wetland associated with an
unnamed tributary to Shelter Creek. Per your letter to Mr. Bill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of
Shelter Creek Capital LLC, dated April 15, 2001, you stated that MW3 needs to be moved down closer to
wetlands DD and MM. The topographic position, hydrologic profile, and wetland composition of this
area is almost exactly like the area you are requesting to move towards. We see no reason for this well
site to be relocated.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chroma
0-20
Muck
10 YR
2
l
20-61
Mucky sandy loam
10 YR
3
l
61 +
Sandy clay Ioam
I0 YR
6
1

Monitoring Well 4 (MW4)
This proposed well is located approximately 1000 feet west of the location of a previous shallow
groundwater monitoring well of the same name that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers primarily. This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact permit to
the Quarry. Please see the attached photos for profile and location shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is a functioning floodplain wetland associated with
Shelter Creek. Per your letter to Mr. Bill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of Shelter Creek Capital LLC,
dated April 15, 2001, you stated that MW4 needs to closer to the property line. The area closer to the
property line and the area where the old MW4 was located have the visual appearance of floodplain.
However, there are noticeable indications of recedence of the soil surface in this area, indicated by a
sunken appearance of the ground surrounding old hardwoods and now -exposed subsurface roots of trees
particularly as you get closer to the property line. This recedence was evident to our firm during the
installation of MW4 during May of 2007, and had probably been occurring for years before this, prior to
any mining activity. This recedence of the surface may come from the rerouting and interception of
surface water by roadside and silvicultural ditches. We feel this well needs to be here because it is the
upper limits of floodplain feeding Shelter Creek, and is still in close proximity to the well, in regards to
the approved 6200 foot radius cone of depletion. We see no reason for this well site to be relocated.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chroma
0-23
Mucky loam
10 YR
2
1
2346
Fine sandy loam
10 YR
5
2
46+
Sandy clay loam
10 YR
5
1

Monitoring Well 5 (MW5)
This proposed well is located approximately 200 feet south southwest of the location of a previous
shallow groundwater monitoring well named MW3 that was used to provide wetland data to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers primarily. This well was abandoned after the Corps issued a wetland impact
permit to the Quarry. Please see the attached photos for profile and location shots.
The location for this well was selected because it is a functioning floodplain wetland directly connected
with Shelter Creek. Per your letter to Mr. Bill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of Shelter Creek Capital
LLC, dated April 15, 2001, you stated that MW5 looks to be too close to the proposed MW4 and that it
should be moved further down the property line nearer to the F, G, and H wetlands. We located this well
here because there is a Iarge stretch of upland and/or marginal wetland forest along the property line
directly southwest of the wetlands you reference. We feel there would be no reason to relocate farther
down the property line, ultimately farther away from the current mining activity. Your suggested
relocation would put the site near the old location of MW5 that was used by the Corps. This well showed
near constant wetland hydrology during the duration of the previous monitoring effort. We see no reason
for this well site to be relocated, as it will provide data for an even topographically lower floodplain
wetland feeding Shelter Creels than the proposed MW4.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chroma
0-8
Mucky loam
10 YR
2
1
8-20
Fine sandy loam
10 YR 2
1 OYR 5
I
20-58
Fine sandy loam
1
58+
Sandy clay
10 YR 6
1

Monitoring Well 7 (MW7)
This proposed well is located approximately 800 feet south of wetlands JJ and KK. Please see the
attached photos for a representative photo of the general vicinity (camera battery died before this site).
The location for this well was selected because it is located in an area requested by you in your letter to
Mr. mill Cameron and Mr. Kyle McIntyre of Shelter Creek Capital LLC, dated April 15, 2001, in which
you stated that one should be located on the opposite side of the level spreader, somewhere near wetlands
JJ and K.K. This general area is inundated by water for a good portion of the year, No confining layer
could be reached at this proposed well location because of a flowing sand layer encountered at about 4
feet below the surface. We will install a well to a depth of approximately 4 feet in this location.
Depth (inches)
Soil Description
Hue
Value
Chroma
0-12
Mucky fine sandy loam
10 YR.
2
1
12-47
Fine sand
10 YR
6
1
47+
Fine sand
Gley 1
8
N

I.
k
'Alt.
• ;i
x
_Y. n�]_ .,` �
40
fff t�
P\r.
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-1 Soil Profile
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-2 Soil Profile

MIA
-
.M' {*
� .._ ..tr s � � 'i 'i► 4 �Y a ._.
its'" 4f3'`
+4 o.r 7►e r
i-� ice•
4-1
40
"' „ y, •. tom^ , �• , ;,� , 1* ♦ .. �� - �; c 1�
a r.�� •. �`/ !l �.r_s.. it /1'� I�. ✓t 4`- 1. s' .•t: 1
ilv
OL
� 14 •sF vim_ 1 ,+il, .+, `'L,1 c-'
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-4 Soil Profile
Shelter Creek Quarry MW4 Landscape View

S �. � `mot � 1 '� j��► �,r�'s .>
77 #+n l� ✓
a• + V ��.r� i' V.s
nri
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-5 Soil Profile
�,`. � `,L ' cam. �. "�. -4�. � � i �'• s � , �f
•''���■
NS
bit,
.
,�
Shelter Creek Quarry MW-5 Landscape View

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and` Gulf Coastal Plain Region
sjy� Project/Site: y CI(I✓ ree� _ Q4r � _ City1counly: �t 0 f Sampling Dale,
ApplicawOwner: 5Aa )' ey rflre l `l-c Stater Sampling Point:
Inveetigator(s): , PAV 1 d S c � 6,46 5 Er7 , Sectlon, Township. Range: NA
Landform (hiltstope, terrace, etc): u o� Local relief (concave, convex, none): Con CO V L Slope (%) 4
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L P F? T Lal: Al 3`% fo3 Z Long: W 5-G. 76j6Z Opium:
Soil Map Unit Name: Ir won NWI classification: 0/1 k-),&t-> h
Are climatic ! hydrologic caroitions on Ine site typical For this time of year? Yes -X- No (it no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes-4-No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes �_ No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes _ x __ NO
Will Ill. a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _ x No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Watfand Hydrvlopy Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauiredl
Primary Indicators trninlmiun of one Is required.
check all that applvl
_ Surface Soll Cracks JB6)
Surface Water (At ) _
Aquatic Fauna (013)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface MS)
High Water Table (A2)
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Pattams (810)
_ Saturation (P3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Moss Trim Lines (010)
_ Water Marks (61) _
Oxidized Rhizaspheres along Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) _
Presence of Reduced Iron (CA)
_,-, Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (83) _
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Sails (C6)
— Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (BA) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Geomorphic Position (02)
_ Iron Deposits (85) r
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Vi3ibie on Aerial Imagery (67)
_ FAC•NeNnl last (05)
_ waterSlatned Leaves (89)
— Sphagnum moss (D9) (LRR T, t1)
Field Observations:
rr
Surface Water Ckasenf? Yes Na
_ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes _ No_
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present') Yes -4— No
_ Depth (Inches):
Wettand Hydrology Present? Yes —L No
(includes caoillary trinoe)
Describe Recorded Dale (stream gauge, monitoring well. aerial photos. previous inspections). if avellable
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. sampling Point: l 4// - ww-
A�
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dornlnanre Test worl,sheet:
Tree ratum (Plot size: !Y )
'K Cover Species? BCUs
pecies r
of Dominant sw
1
That Are OR, FACWmber
FAC: (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
1
Species Across All Strata: (a)
4.
5
Percent of Dominant Spades
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: {AIOI
6,
7
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: _ Multiply by- _
8.
OBE species X i =
= Total Cover
50% oftdal cover:
20% of tdal cower.
FACW species x 2 =
Sapling§Wub
Stratum (Pict size: ! )
_
FAC species : 3 r
1.-
^Fs
C--jr 0 a racrrsl]Aorc.
y y W
FACu species x 4
z
Ar,� r r��irH ►-sir
�� � F'4C
LIPL species x 5 =
Colurnn Totals: (A) (g)
Prevalence index = H/A =
3. �.�.�+12 � u[r'r,�aAW
4.
S.
Hydrophyllc Vegetation Indicators:
6.
_ 1 •Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
7
—
T 2 . Dominance Test Is >50%
&
3 - Prevalence Index Is n.D'
= Total Covert
_ Problematic Hydrophylit Vegetation' (Explain)
50%oftdal coveF.
20% at Idol cover -
Herb Stratum (Plot size: I
Indicators of hyddc soil and wetland hydrotogy must
1.
be present. unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strala:
3.
Tree — Woody plants, excluding vines. 3 in. (7.6 cm), w
4.
more in dameler at breast height (DEH), regardless of
S.
height.
6.
SaplinglShrub — Woody plants, excluding vii►es, less
then 3 in. DSH and greater Than 3.28 ft (1 rn) tall.
7_
B.
Herb — Air herbaceous (non -woody) plants. regardless
9,
of size, and woody ptanis less than 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody vine —All woody vincs greeter than 3.28 ft In
11-
height.
12_
= Total Cover
50% of local cover:
20% of latal cover.
Woody
Yjnt Stratum (Pld size:_ )
1.
2.
3.
5.
Hydrpphytic
= Totat Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of Idol cover:
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (1lobserved. list morphclogice( adaptations below). ` (�
16 �a, i sec f�j i}]l� d ices -� .
US Army Caps of Engineers Allantit and Gull Coaster Plain Region — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: ! ' ` W 1 — WGk
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
finches Cota�tmo�is�t °�
Cdorjjmoist) NO 'Type' Loc'
Remarks
e-18
�i^e�xt�
'T e: C=Concentration. D=De etion. RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Location: PL-Pore L)nin , M=Matrlx.
Hydfic Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis':
_ Hislosol (Al)
— Polyvalue Below Surface (SB)(LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Hisao Epipedon IA2)
— T)tin Dark Surface (S9) (L RR S, i, U)
2 cm Muck (AIO) (LRR S}
_ Stack Hisllc (A31
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (FIB) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplatn Solis (FIB) (LRR V. S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
^_
_ Depleted Matrix IF3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F2O)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F5)
(MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Weml (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
— Redox Depressions (FS)
T Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
X 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
— Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al I)
_ Depleted Ochdc (F11) (MLRA 161)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ lion-Manganew Masses (1712) (LRR O, P,
T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Praine Redox (A15) (MLRA f SOA)
_ Umbric Surface IF 13) )LRR P. T, U)
wetland hydrology rrursl be present.
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, 5)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
_ Sander Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vedic (FIB) (MLRA 150A, 1505)
_ Sandy Redox (55)
— P)edmont Floadplaln Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix W)
— Anomalous Bright LoamySolls (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (ERR P, S, T, U)
Restr)cllve Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydrlc Soil Present] Yes, No
Remarks:
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gull Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.O

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
Projecvsite._.�iPY CrCe(O'(arr`l city/County: &.'Ie Pyi !1_P, J.cr Sampling Date
AopucanVoviner 5 J !)'f'tY L/([ .L. (_ , L 1.. C T State. Sampling Point.
J r�
Investigators► w DR u i SCc 6, Ac 1 , ; Section, Township. Range: A%A
landlorrn (hAslope. terrace. etc): _ '� 1,4 5 T Laical reliiel (Concave, mnves. none) Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)_ L 9 )tT— i — Lot A 3 q, � y 2. L Long. ha4, 7:!�Z y Datum, L _
Soil Mao Unit Name: ni u{tJ i�l� r NWI classification:
Are Climatic I hydrologic condrtions on the site typical for This time of year7 Yea —X— No (II no, explain In Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hyditic Soil Present? Yes No
within a Wetland? Yes Na
Welland HyWofty Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators imiaimumof hyo requiredl
Primary Indicalws (minimum at one is reoiriied.
check all usably) _
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (At)
_ Aquatic Fauna (813)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
— High Water Table (A2)
Mart Deposits (615) {LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (61o)
Saturation (A3)
` Hydrogen Sutride Odor (C 1)
Mass Trim Lines (B16)
_— Watermarks (131)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Rools (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (U)
_ Sediment Deposits (B2)
— Presence of Reduced iron IC4)
Crayresh Burrows (CB)
_ Drift Oep"Is (83)
` Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soil! (CS)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (Cg)
_ Algal Mat W Crust (B4) —
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
GeomorphlC Position (D2)
_ Iron Deposits (B51 —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87)
FAC-Neutral Tess (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9)
_ Sphagnum moss (DO) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surtaee Water Present? Yes — No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes —K— No
-X—
Depth (inches):
Saluralfon Present; Yes No
Depth (inches):
Welland
Hydrofgy Present? Yes —X— No
includes capillary kin e
Describe Recorded Dale (stream gauge. monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available-
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2-4

VEGETATION (Four 51rata) -Ilse scientific names of plants. sampling Point: WL ~ Weft
Absdute Dominant Indicelor
Dnminance Test worksheets
Tree Stratum (Plot Sim
° Speces
Number of Dominant Species r
T r�� 1 A rr.^i�wC
,,,%,,,,,,```oi'''l,,,LS_111
_
That Are 08L, FACW, a FAC: Iv (A)
LLfk_
2. A C e Y Y"➢r LA r"
r
=� C
Total Number of Dominant
3
Species Across All Strata: (B)
4.
5.
Percent of Qominanl Species
IRR
That Are 08L, FACW, or FAC: WB)
6
7.
Prevalence Index woritsheet:
8.
Total "ff Cover of: MUMIR trY7,
130 = Total Cover
OBL species x 1 =
509E of total cover: 20% of total cover: Z(p
FACW species x 2 =
SeollnoSi /Shrub ralum (PI01 size: ��
)
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
z har+iu �l1cr`r
��
UDLspecles x5=
3. f CX C P{i RcGpt
��CW
Column Tolels: IA) (B)
4,
Prevalence Index = StA=
5.
Ftydrophylic Vegetation Indicators;
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic VegNelion
7.
2. Dominance Test is a50%
8.
3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
= Total Cover t
_T
Problemalic Hydrophyfic Vegelation' (Explain)
-'
50% of Iota! cover:
20% of local cover; _�___
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
1_
be present. unless disturbed or problematic.
2.
QaRnfttons of Four Vagetallon Strata;
3.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in, (7.5 cm) or
4.
more In dierneler at breast height (DBH), regardless of
5
height_
6, -
SaplinglShrub -Woody plants, excluding vines, less
7.
then 3 In. D9H and greater then 3.28 fl (1 m) tall.
8.
Herb - AN herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
9,
of size, and woody plants less then 3.28 ft tall.
10.
Woody One - An woody vines greater than 3.28 if In
11.
height.
12.
= Tolul Cover
50% of tonal cover:
20% of I001 cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
2.
3.
4,
5
Tdef Cover
Hydrophytic
Vagelallon
50 % of tote! cover.
20% of total cover.
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps d Engineers Atlanhc and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: Awl -_Wci
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of irldic at 015.1
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moistl 46
Color (mast) °b Type Ltoc'
Texture Remarks
'Type; C=Concentration. D=De lelion. RM=Reduced Matrix. MS=Masked Send Grains.
'Location: PL=Pore Lining. M=Matrix.
Hyddc Sall Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Hislosol (Al)
_ Polywalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S. T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Wpedon (A2)
Thin Dark Surface IS9) (LRR S, T, V)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Hislic (A31
— Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (172)
Piedmont Floodplein Soils (F19) (LRR P, 5, T)
_ Strelifed Layers (A5)
Depleted Matrix (F3l
^_
r Anomalous &fight Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U}
Redox Dark Surface (F5)
(MLRA 11538)
_ S cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (L RR P. T. U)
^ Depleled Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent tr4alerial (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck IA9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions I178)
` Mar (F10) (LRR U)
Very Shellow Dark Surface (TF121
Other iExplain In Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark SUAaoe (Al I I
_ Depleted Ochre (F11) ({MLRA 151)
_ thick Dark Surface (A72)
_ Iron-Vonganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophyiic vegetation and
_ Coasi Prairie Redo. (All 6) (MLRA 150A)
^ Umbric Surface (Ft 3) (LRR P, 7, U)
wetland hydrology muSt be present.
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR 0, S)
_ Della Ochnc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Verilc (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
_^ Sandy Redox (S5)
R Piedmont Floodptain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (SS)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Solis (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, 5, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydrtc Sall Present? Yesz No
Remwks:
...
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region e�
ProjecUSile _ 5'L7GV ((Ct k �UaY✓`j CitylCounly: G l 01" Sampling Dale: I u+ 1
AppficantlOwner: 5-1, [ A(,, GCc- k r' )rJ LLC 5tare: - /�!�r 5ampllng Point: MtN�_We
''!! r
Investigator(s): �xi It � .�ct _ CT7-1. } 5E sj Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc ): g,/p+A i gn Local relief (concave, convex, none!: rve-A-Slope (6)
Subregion (LRR or MLRA) _ ��1 Lev Al YJAP496 Long; W 27_ ig 5 ? Datum: -&Ai
Soil Map Unit Name: G NWII classification: _ EEO
Are cl"unatic 1 hydrologic conddions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes --X- No (11 no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are 'Normal Circumstances' present? Yes -4 No
Are Vegetation Soil , pr Hydrology naturally problematic? (It needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINViNGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, fete.
Hydrophytic Vegetation present? Yes No
IS the Sampled Area
Hydric Soo Present? Yes No
Welland Hydrology Preserd? Yes No within a Welland? Yes - No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two rewired}
Primary Ind tars !minimum of one is required' .!lack all that apple]
_ Surface Soil Cracks (BB)
_ Surface Water (Al) _
Aquatic Fauna (013)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2) —
Marl Deposits (015) (LRR U)
Drainage Patterns (810)
Saturation (A3) —
Hydrogen Suffide Odor (C1)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
_ Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (02) ^
Presence of Reduced Iron (G4)
Crayfish Burrows (Ca)
Drift Deposits (B3) ^
Recerol Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mal or Crust (B4) _
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (132)
Iron Deposits (85) —
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquilard (D3)
Inundation Visible an Aerial imagery (67)
FAC-Neutral Tess IDS)
WaterSlained Leaves (69)
— Sphagnum moss (DB) (LRR T. U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (itrrhea):
Water Table Present? Yes X No
Depth (inches): 3
Saturation Present') Yes � No
Depth (inches): e[
�/
Watland Hydrology Present? Yes /1 No
- —
indudes capillary fringe)
T
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections). It ays1lable:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gull Coastal Plaice Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Tree
1.
Slretum (Plot size: 3)! I
a.wCw S jA 1tf j & )1-
Absolute Uominant Indicator
COVAC scleA?
jawC.LiIX
jaw
2.
ACC r f"
C-
3._
Y fSa1 a9 1CaL
-3� -a-L
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Total Cover
500A of 10101 cover:
;Z0 20% of lotai cover. 2 nn
Sa Iln ret 1Shrub &urn (Plot size: �� I
Cjr) y
1.
r a Lace. ; �lp�a
Fi+4CW
2.
V/wcc'..flun, tnr�n•bosuw+
��
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
fF' = Tdal Cover
50%olldal cover:
Z�-- 20%of total cover. �^
Herb strelumr (Pfd size:
1.�orLl.��rr1/y
Vlftirh�nlG++�.
u
_ To Y pgL
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11,
12.
--'
Total Cover
50% of totat cover: %^ _ 20% of fetal cover
-Woody
Vine Stratum (Plot size; -_ )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(If observed.
50% of total cover:
hdogCal adeplatfons below).
Sampling Point: 41W3-W6�
Dominance Test worHsheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Thal Are OBL, FACW- or FAC (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: /Ay (A/6)
Prevalence Index wotksheet:
TWO %Cover of,
MulliplY bY:
OBL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 = T
FAC species
x 3 =
FA.CU species
x 4 -
VPL species
x 5
Column Totals.
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index = BIA=
1 - Repid Test for Hydrephylle Vegetation
2 - Dam)nence Test Is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is n.0'
T Preblemalic Hydrophyt)c Vegetation' (Explain)
I(ndfcafors of hydric sail and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 In. (7.6 cm) or
more in dameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
SaplingrShtub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
Than 3 in. DSH and greater than 3.28 8 (1 m) tell.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft loll.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater Then 3.28 R In
height.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
Present's
20°,6 of trial cover. � _
Yes-4 No
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: A/3- W
Profile Descrlpllow (Describe to the depth heeded to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Futures
{inches) Cdnr (mdsi) °�
Color (meist) % Twee Loc^
Remarks
�18+
qT�e� `u�r�e
'T e: C=Concentration D=De tenon, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS --Masked Send Grains.
''Location: PL-Pore Lining, M;Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless other W56 noled.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Hisiosd (A1)
_ Pdyvelus Below Surface (SS) (LRR 5, T. u) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
y Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Much fA10) (LRR S)
�[ Bieck Histic (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (FS) (LRR O)
Reduced Venic (F18) (oulslde MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Y Piedmont Floodplaln Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Slralifred Layers tA5)
_ Depleled Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
_ Organic Bodies (AB) (LRR P, T, V)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
_ 5 cm Mucky Minerat (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (1177)
Red Parent Materiel(TF2)
MUCk Presence (AS) (LRR U)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions IF8)
_ Men (F10) (LRR U)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Messes (1`12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicalora of hydrophytic vrgelatlan and
7'
Coast Prairie Redox (AiS) (MLRA 1511A)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problematic.
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Reduced Verde (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redmc (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)(MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (SS)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153Dj
_ Dark Surface (S7) (ERR P, S. T, U)
Restrictive Layer (I1 observed):
Type:
Depth (Inchesp,
Hydric Soil Present? Yes A No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regson - Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and Guulf Coastal Plain Region j
ProlecUSite _ fQ11y CrCtIL 044Y( "} I City/County: I'(�3P![ j71.! I i� t- Sampling Date,
���}}J �_
Applicanvo,emer: Slie 1:&= Iczeckc.�(%i�Le State f Sampling Point, �`7_-Wd-
Investigatar(s) _ a 1J 1 p� 5 G i l��Ttta S�� Section. Township. Range: A1A ,
t.anaform (hlJslope. terrace_ etc) ��"--j 1, n Local teliel lconrave, convex, none) Slope {%)
Subregion (LRA or MLRA): L Q LalA/ I'o f Long'. W73- 959 1 Datum $3
Soil Map Unit tame: ML4(-kAIC1 III R NWIclassification: �] � C �T
Are climatic hydrologic Conditions on the site typical for this time of years Yes _,X__ No (If no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present') Yes -4— No
Are Vegetation Solt or Hydrology naturally problematic? (it needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes �_ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
wlthln a Wetland') Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
5grMdary
Indirators_Lrrjnimum of two recluiredl
Primers Indicators Iminimum of one is requn0_
check all that aII ^
Surface Sol Cracks (86)
Surface Water (AI)
Aquatic Fauna (BI3)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
High Water Table (A?)
_
Marl Deposits (815) (LRR U) —
Drainage Patterns (810)
Salutation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (CI)
Moss Trim Lines (BIB)
_ Water Marks (11317) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _
Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (II _
Presence of Reduced Iron I _
Crayfish Burrows (CB)
_ III Deposila {63) _
Recent Iron Reduclion in Tdied Soils (CS) —
Saturation Yrsblr on Aerial Imagery ((I
Algal Mat or Crust (641 _
Thrn Muck Stirlace (C7)
Geonwrphic Posilien (D2)
hon Deposits fB51 r
Other (Explain In Remarks)
ShallowAquitard (03)
inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Waler-Stained Leaves (59)
_
Sphagnum moss (08) (LRR T. U)
Field Observations:
y
Surface Water Resell? Yes _ No Depth (Jnches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches);
Saturation Present? Yes No
_
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes _Z_ No
mdudes c2ptVm fe e
Deaaibe Recorded Data (stream gauge. monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available:
Remarks. -
US Army Corps 01 Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coe slal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Absolule Dominant Indicator
Tree stretum (Plot size: 3�' S °r Cover ec'e Status
1 d a Sp jam, b�,rAL-3.
4. +t
s _J�6 N/ arG
f
7.
B.
Total Cover
50OA of total cover: _�j� 70% of total cover: �
Se lin (Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 7J W, 1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
7.
B.
�Z W Taal cover
5096 of total saver 20% at total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6,
T.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
509b Dot ota [aver. 20% of total corer:
WoodyYne Stratum (Plot size: / Y )
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrophytic
e Total Cover Vogelation
501h of fatal cover: 20% of Ida( ccer Present?
Remarks:
Sampling Point: M WY-_ V,'+
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (S)
Percent of t7arninant Species
That Are OSL. FACW, or FAC: _ (AIS)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % cover or.
MultioN bv:
OSL spades
x t
FACW species
x 2 -
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UAL species
x 5 =
Column Trials:
(A) {B(
Prevalence Index = B(A=
Hydrophytic Vogetatlon Indicators:
_ 1 - Rapid Tesl to Hydrophytic Vegetabon
2 - Dominance Test is a50%
3 - Prevalence Index Is s3.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wellend hydrology must
be present. unless disturbed or problematic.
our Vaoetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants. excfudtng vines. 3 in. (7.6 cm) a
more in diameter at breast height JOSH). regardless of
height.
Sapting(Shnrb — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DSH and greater than 3.20 n (1 m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous {non -woody) plants, regardless
at size, and woody plants less than 3.28 It tall.
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3 28 ft in
height.
Yes _X No
US Army Caps or Engineers Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region —Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Poinl: ' " f'Y�— we
PioNe Descripilon: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of tndicators.)
Deplh _ Metrix
—Redox Fealures
linchest Color (moist) 46
Color Imoist) % Te, Loci
w
Texture Remarks
'Type: C=-Concentration. D=De etion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Meshed Send G ems.
�Localicn: PL=Pore Unin , M=Matrix.
Hydrlc Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted)
Indicators for Problematic (iydri€ Soils':
_ Histosoi (Al)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S. T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR 01
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Darn Surface (SS) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A$)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (oulside MLRA 160A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplaln Sails (F19) (LRR P, S. T)
Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Red= Dark Sudace IF6)
(M LRA 1538)
5 con Mucky Mineret (A7) (LRR P. T, U)
Depleted Darn Surface (F7)
Red Parent Meledal (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (Fa)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Mart (F10) (LRR Ul
_ Qlher (Explain In Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Depleted Ochric (Fit) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron-Mangenese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Ai6) (MLRA 450A)
T Umbk Surface (F13) (LRR P. T, U)
wetland hydrologymrrd be pre5enl,
_ Sandy Mucky Mfneref (Si) (LRR 4, S) __
Delta Qchnc (f 17) (MLRA 161)
unless distarbed of problemalic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Malnx (S4)
_ Reduced Vedic (F18)(MLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodpiein Sails (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (86)
Anomalous Brghl Loamy Sofls (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
_ Dark Surface ($7) (LRR P, 3, T, U)
Restrictive Layer pf observed):
Type:
Deplh (inches);
Hydrlc Sall Present? Yes —K No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

WETLA('ND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Atlantic and` Gulf Coastal Plain Region
PiajecUSile �py Gy4 0,49 //� 'l _ City1counly. f f d-C 1' Samplinq Dale. tL_�'i
Applicant/Owner 5/, 14;�y C1r{tk i�LLC r Slate. Sampling Point. MW-5 we+
invesligator(s) PAvid 5, G b-j Section. Town5M1ip, Range; /v A
Lanafarm (h)Islope. terrace, etc )f: ��Jir7jpocT� PAq (, �h Lotal reliel tcbncave, convex, none)) % 2. Slope I%) l`
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): L f. KF�__ fI� LalWg'k. �+3.0 L- �T Long W:F7-. �.3 j Datum, AIAD
Soil Map Unit Name: ^ ���HSIu+ J-ee It)A t2n NWt Gassifr[ation: -pro iIZ C-
Are arnak I hynrologic condilions on the rile typical lnr this time of year? Yes -X- No (I1 no, explain in Remarks )
Are Vegetation . Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are -Norma[ Circumslances' present? Yes -,K- No
Are Vegetation . Soil . or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed, explain any answers In Remarks,)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site chap showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydraphytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
v is the Sampled Ana,?
liytiric Solt Presents Yes � NO
a�rithln a wetland•] Yes No
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
SeconftCy IndicatorAminimum f two uir
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required,
Check all that apply)
surface Sal Cracks (06)
Surface Water (At)
_
Agtatic Fauna (813)
Sparsely Vegelaled Concave Surface (88)
_ High Water Table (A2) _
Marl Deposits (615) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (BIC)
_ Saturation (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C 1)
_ Mass Trim Lines (516)
Water Marks (61) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (133)
Dry -Season Water Table IQ)
Sediment Deposits (62)
Presence of Reduced iron (C4)
_ Crayfish Burrows (Cot
_ Drih Deposits (B3)
Recent Iron ReduClion in Titled Sails (C6)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CS)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Thin Much Surface (C7)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (BS) _
Other (Explain In Remarks)
_ Shallow Aquilard JD31
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery IV)
_11.. FAC-Neutral Test IDS)
Water -Stained Leaves (Bg)
Sphagnum moss (Do) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No �L Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No_
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
_ Depth (inches): CE
Welland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary hinge)
-A—
Des6be Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), it available -
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gull Coastal Plain Region - Version 2 0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Tree $tretum (Plot size: _ �Jl� )
Absolute Dominant Indicator
eF $Decle$') Sietvs-
t.
Querwrs n-grro,
__V_ Y Al;=
2.
w0
:7T-- -FA—
3.
U i"u s a -e 6 C'X .
- 1 V_ N M�JL
4.
A/Y5S01 41RuA,-�I Lo,
_ _ Al
5,
s
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50%oTtotal cover:
4� 20%oftotal cover: S
Sarilincit5hrub Stratum {Plot size:
2.
3.
4.
5.
B.
7,
a.
Total Cover
500A or total cover:
t 5 20-A of tear cover;
tlerb SlratyM (Plc(size:
t.
ACQ►tirii L r(Gl R rAgn`�GHQ
_ _NHL y✓
2.
3,
4.
5.
6,
7.
B.
9,
10.
91
12.
= Total Cover
50 % oT lolal cover: _;�j;_0 20% of total cover. 7/
Woody
Vtne Stratum (Plot size: 3M)
2vs5�Y
1.
5;-4 x Aw,, - ;eL
Fgcw
2, '�fV'C-
nia 5rgn�- M 5
.1.r=_ 1CW_
3
4.
Sampling Point: rM I - we,+ -
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
Tbal Ate OBL, F'ACVl1. a FAC: JA)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across Alt Strala: (f3j
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: ' 00 (NO)
erovarence rnoex worxsnaer,
Total %Cover of:
Multiply by,
OSL species
x 1 =
FACW species
x 2 =
FAC species
x 3 =
FACU species
x 4 =
UPL species
x 5 =
Column Totals
(A) (B)
Prevalence Index - &A - .
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
t - Rapid Test for Hydrophyllc Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test Is �W%
_ 3 - Prevalence index is 53.0'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydnc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 orn) of
more in diameler at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub -Woody plants, exduoirig vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 R (1 m) tall.
Herb - All herbaceous (non•waody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.20 4 tall.
Woody One - All woody vines greater than 3.28 11 In
height.
5. Hydrophyllc
= Total Cover Vegetation
dal cover: Present?
50%oft
1� 20% of total
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
Yes No
US Army Caps of Engineers Atlantic and Gull Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

SOIL. Sampling Point: M_._45—wci-
Profile Descrlptlom (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator Pr confirm the absence of Indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Rom Features
(inchesl Color_(mdstl °eb
Color fmaisff 'A TyRe_ Loc'
Texture Remarks
91e9-
My),,r
�0-/3�
o
'T e: C=Concentration, C=De lelion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Send Grains,
7LOCalion: PL-Pore Lining. M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicalors: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otharvdse noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls':
_ Rstosoi (Al)
_ Poiyvalue Below Surface (SO) (LRR S, T. U) _ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
tislic Epipeden (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 2 cm WCk IA10) jLRR S(
_ Black Histk (A3)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (Ft) (LRR O)
_ Reduced Vertic (F18) (autside MLRA 150A,$)
" Hydrogen Sulfide (AA)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)(LRR P, S, Tl
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loonry Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies,A6) (LRR P, T, U)
— Redox Dark Surface (F6)
(MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7);LRR P. T, U)
_ Deplded Dark Surface (F7)
Red PereM Material (TF2)
_— Muck Presence (AS) (LRR U)
_ Redox Depressions (IFS)
Very Shellaw Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Mad (Ft0) (LRR U)
_
Other (Fxptein In Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al I)
_ Depleted Ochdc (Pi 1) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iran -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, TI 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegelelifln find
_ Coast Prairie Redox (At 6) (MLRA i 50A)
Umbdc Surface (F13) #LRR P, T. U)
weliand hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mrnerel (51) (LRR O, 5)
Delta Ochdc (F17) (MLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problemefic.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Reduced Vertic (F1 B) (MLRA 159A, 1SOB)
_ Sandy Rcdox {S5)
_ Pledmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Stripped Matrix (S5)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S. T. U)
Restrictive Layor (It observed):
Type:
Depth {inches);
Hydric Sall Present? Yes 4No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Enginecis Atlantic and Gull CoaslaI Plain Region -Version 2,0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -- Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region
ProjectiSile: 5hd.17
el- C7"'u L O'gdr'f
City/County: "94' 4—
Sampling Dale: !�
AppliCanV(Dwner^^_ ��� S!►GrJ'��,'
Creek C
[- L C Slale
Sampling Point: MW�E nLk7 - wt +
lnvesSoalor(s): ti/rQ
Su b'WA f S
r Section Township. Range:
Landfarrn (hillslope, lerrace,
etc ): �/14- 1jr4as�s
^ relief {concave, convex, none): ham-
Slope {Yaj.
Subregion (LRR or MLRA)
`vocal
Lat: /y37 . �--92 Long: W q.o
Datum: -AA
Soil Map Unit Name:
a� Q
_ NW p classification: I i-cOAmIf
Are dimalic ! hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes /S No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Sal or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are `Normal Circumstances' present? Yes-4- No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (tf needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Area
Hydrtc Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled d?
Welland Hydrology within a Welland? Yes NO
—
Weigand ogy Preaenl? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary_ lndicalm. tminimum of tw-2 eauiredl
Primary ndicators Iminimurn of one is required'
check all th I
_ Surface Soil Cracks (68)
Surface Water (A1)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B 13)
r Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (Be)
IX
— High Water Table (A2)
— Mart Deposits (B15) (LRR U)
_ Drainage Patterns (810)
— Salutation (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) _
Oxidized Rhixospheres along living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_� Sediment Deposits (B2) —
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
— Crayfish Burrows (CB)
Drift Deposits (EQ)
_ Recent Iron Redue ion in Tilled Soils (C5)
_ Saluration Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mal or Crust (94) _
Thin Muck Surface (G7)
_ Geomorphic l osilion (132)
Iran Deposits (65) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67)
PAC -Neutral Test (D5)
_^ Waler-Stained Leaves (1139)
Sphagnum moss (DB) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations;
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (lnches):
Water Table Present? Yes � No
!� _
Depth (inches): 3X-Folcr•
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches): Su f 't4{
Welland Hydrology
Present? Yes 4 No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Do is (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous Inspections). If available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Allanlic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants
Absolute Dominant fhdcator
Tree MrAlum (P)ot size: Soedes7 Slelus
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: raj. FVd `
Dominance Test workshset:
Number of Dominent Species
Thal Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominenl
Species Across All Strata: q (a)
Percent of Dominant Species
Thal Are OBL. FACW, or FAC: (A/S)
T
Prevalence Index voorkshest:
e.
Toilet % Cover of: Multiply by
-
OBL species x 1 -
= Total Cover
5096 of Idol saver:
20% of trial cover:
FACW species x 2 -
Sapling/Shrub Sratum (Plot size: :3nJ }
FAC species x 3 =
1 e KLigr
C11!'
FACU species x 4=
2. y'r
Z p FAc w4.
UPI. species x 5 =
3.�` -)�1i Krs� d1;5�eG�tir►Z
- ��` % SgL
Cdurnn Totals: (A) (S)
4,
Prevalence Index = 81A =
5.
HydroQhytic Vegetation Indicators:
G.
_ 7 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytk Vegetation
7,
2 - Dominance Test Is >50%
70 = Trial Cover
50% of total cover: ! 5— 20% of total cover
Herb Slretum (Plot size:
1-
2. uK5 �
3.IrP[r
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
e.
10.
11.
12.
- = Tde€ Cover
50% of total carver:_ 200A of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Tote Cover
50•A of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below)
_ - revaence n x s .0
Problemalfc Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
`Indicators of hycinc soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 31n- (7.6 cm) or
mare in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 In. DBH and greeter than 3.28 ft 11 m) loll.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
of Site, and woody plants less than 3.28 R tall.
Woody vine - All woody vines greater Ihan 3,26 R in
height,
Hyd r ophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers
Atlantic and Gulf CoasleI Plain Region - Version 2.0

• . s
SOIL
Sampling Point: N -
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to documenl the Indicator or conflrfn the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color mast U1
Color °.6 TypeT Loc•J
Texture Remarks
.0 1� �y'fLT1 00
'Type: C=Cancentration, D=Deplelion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Send Grains.
kocalion: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted,)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solis':
_ Histosd (Ai)
_ Pdyvalue Wow Surface (58) (LRR S, T. U)
� t cm Muck (A9) (LRR 4)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Thin Dark Surface (SS) ILRR S, T. U)
2 cm Muck (AID) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
_. Reduced Vertic (1`18) (ourtside MLRA 150A,B)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
r Piedmont Floodplain Sills (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
_ Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils {1720)
_ Ofganie Bodies {A5) (LRR P, T. U)
Redox Dark Surface (Ffi)
(MLRA 153S)
_ 5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Muck Presence (AB) (LRR U)
Redox Depressions (FB)
` Very Shaf crw Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (AS) (LRR P, T)
_ Merl (1710) (LRR U)
Other (Expialn in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
_ Depleted Ochric (F1i) (MLRA 151)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P. T) -Indicators of hydrophyUc vegeletim and
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A18) (MLRA 150A)
Umbric Surface (F13) (ERR P, 7, U)
wetland hydrology must be present,
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S►
_ DeRe Ochric (F17) IMLRA 151)
unless disturbed or problemellc.
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54)
Reduced Vedic (F38) JMLRA 150A, 150B)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Piedmont Floodplafn Soils (Fis) (MLRA 149A).
T Stripped Matrix (S6)
_ Anomalous Bright Loamy 5005 (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 15313)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (it observed):
Type:
Depth (Inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Ailenfic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region — Version 2,0

Shelter Creek Capital, LLC
12121 NC HWY 53 East Maple Hill, NC 28454
910-259-0601 Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
February 1, 2011
Mr. Dan Sams
Regional Supervisor Land Quality
North Carolina Division of Land Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405 �J
Dear Mr. Sams,
During a recent meeting with Ms. Linda Willis, I discussed some issues over
the recent 500 year flood that inundated our mining operation with over 1.2 billion
gallons of water. Because of the depth of -the water covering the Highway 53E and the
hydrostatic pressure that ensued, we had some issues with sink holes and subsidence both
on and off of our property. I need to invite your attention to the actions that I have taken
in reporting them to the proper authority. Because you are in the chain of command, I am
sending you the following information.
As I have already reported, the quarry was inundated with over a billion gallons
of water from September 27`h through September 29`h of 2010. There was over 4 feet of
water on Highway 53 E and both ditches on either side of the Highway 53E stayed full
until the end of October. During the month of November, I noted a large hole in our berm
that parallels Highway 53E. Further down our property to the west, I also noted another
sink hole near the western boundary of our property near Highway 53E. During my daily
inspection of the mine, and ditches on Highway 53E, I found new sink holes on the north
side ditch of Highway 53E. Since it was a Saturday afternoon, when I noticed the sink
holes, I was concerned that the holes might migrate under Highway 53E. Consequently, I
called the Highway Patrol and Sheriff's Department and the NCDOT. Within a couple of
hours, the DOT placed lighted barricades on the edge of the road near the sink holes. This
happened on December 13, 2010 and on the following Monday, I contacted the Pender
County District Office to report the incident. The following Wednesday 12/15/10, I met
with (3) engineers from the NCDOT. Mr. Glenn Crews, Pender Co, Mr. Christopher
Kreider, Raleigh NC, and another engineer from Raleigh, unnamed. We had a lengthy
discussion pertaining to the flooding, and to the recent subsidence in the ditches, and on
our property. I agreed to help provide fill material, when and if Mr. Glenn Crews (district
Engineer) deemed it necessary.

As far as our sink hole near the western boundary of our property is concerned, I
plan to fill it in, in the very near future, and it will ultimately be covered with fill
material, and will become a part of the 10' berm that parallels Highway 53E.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen Dorenda
Cc: Linda Willis

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dce Freeman, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resour=
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
1. Please enter the permit number for which the change is requested.
NPDCS Permit
(or)
Certificate of Coverage
rr11
11. Permit status prior to requested chaube.
a.
Permit issued to (company name):
"Ate %tJtC>u'li"
�
b.
Person legally responsible for permit:
Ste„
U ijlztlslna
First
MI Last
Title
Permit Qder
Mailing Address
City
State Zip
gio (asg) oc9d
(qo asq ­amcaQD
Phone
F&K
c.
Facility name (discharge):
4-9akT-- C Ve-JL-
gyp"
d.
Facility address: J Z l 2 t
l at
S
ddress
City
State Zip
e.
Facility contact person:
fasoi g'M c I '-A sb
(at to } �a,G,,l -p �-11
First / MI / Last
Phone
11I. Please provide the following for the requested a nge (revised permit).
a. Request for change is a result of: Change in ownership of the facility
❑ Name change of the facility or owner
If other please explain:
b. Permit issued to (company name): 6zITew Grrtk Cqw rw l L LG _
P
r, prson IP re =3ible for permit: ^ ky le, _ jV T'
R First MI Last
Title
JAB! 3 1 2011 , z 1 Al
[M rG
,,,, Permit Holtler Maifi g Address
�VAL1TY `
EMT SOURCE BRANCH IV), t�l1 w 41e- 1t
City State Zip
di10 055 -06dJ
Phone E-mail Address
d. Facility name (discharge): She J 1P,, G rya (L ( v(►r l+
c. Facility address-. I z l Z! N• G- /I j t way, s 3 E
Addr •s
t /YG 2
City state Zip
f. Facility contact person: VuIe, � Ael- �t!�
First MI Last r—
(910) og-017i -
Phone E-mail Address
Revised 812008

PERMIT NAMEIOWNERSHIP CHANGE FORM
Page 2 of 2
IV. Permit contact information (if different from [lie person legally responsible for the permit)
Penn it contact: S4 4sbo.—
First MI Last
Title
Mailing Address
City State Zip
Phone F inail Address
V. Will the permitted facility continue to conduct the same industrial activities conducted prior
to this ownership or name change?
[ Yes
❑ No (please explain)
VI Required Items: THIS APPLICATION WILL BE RETURNED UNPROCESSED IF ITEMS
ARE INCOMPLETE OR NUSSING:
❑ This completed application is required for both name change and/or ownership change
requests.
❑ Legal documentation of the transfer of ownership (such as relevant pages of a contract deed,
or a bill of sale) is required for an ownership change request. Articles of incorporation are
not sufficient for an ownership change.
.....................................................................................................................
The certifications below must be completed and signed by both the permit holder prior to the change, and
the new applicant in the case of an ownership change request. For a name change request, the signed
Applicant's Certification is sufficient.
PERMI'I"I'EF CERTIFICATION (Permit holder prior to ownership change):
1, S '1°^ tt Waat this application for a name/ownership change has been reviewed and is accurate and
complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that if all required parts of this application are not
completed and that if all required supporting information is not included, this application package will be
returned as incomplete.
stie, I er eek u r L C
Signature Stephen C. Holland Date
AP LICANTT CERTIFICATION
I, atte'st`fhat fs application for a name/ownership change has been reviewed and is accurate and
complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that if all required parts of this application are not
completed and that if all required supporting information is not included, this application package will be
returned as incomplete.
Shelkeq- Crdek
3-011 7 aN1
`Signature 6 Date
PLEASE SEND THE COMPLETE APPLICATION PACKAGE TO:
Division of Water Quality
Surface Water Protection Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Revised 7008

•r i— RY;,�,s
5sL—.
1.
�l�TV'iG5

02)

135
: :.5
'VOO
i
� LA- --W�
-Z

-r L FL ej
VIN%S-01�
LTiP-- %tj
'D6LM4040- WC- Fk W\-
VkLvy� Cl- 0.—
b \ 'Y" 'r e © -ko -
\vl
Lw-- 81 (C6 (a (.
16
C"Lcj<- d2,ou�

a

a4�u
z; ?8
CJ-
c4—'R>

f f
i^(.�fa�w:
t .,._
�r. ,P
Yvy�i `.
♦
�_,
�
k� . ,

4s: l
Al
�st1110,
isi
v 14
_ 5
SAYS
ram•.. ��r`�.t:�t'a

t •'.��A •�yk1Y
6i
Vol l
'' I1

_per-�S*.t ��-..��+^sro
ee
F:r�'- y-
;i��:7 �
r'�,�.,r
� r
.,
_�_z.
1
�',
}"♦Z �
�S_ `F�r a _''}'�
�:'+��� �.'..y`�.
�r�
* ,y Si
�°-C t
.^�
r�._ y�
i�
Jig 1`
,.^�
•
y
��qS�.i-.
k�

C-F r4)j-t,( JO
LO
a.
�p
L4
`j
k fern I "t-t-0
f�ur-lk-
C-ck.- Q
Lr a

ui `ae try'__'-`: `a-'�''�'.
s e� $
� • :r,Y¢.' '� a xa`_'�.:
s , ? s r it �,.

' Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
11/02/10
Mr. Bradley Bennett LNovStorm Water Permitting Unit Supervisor
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Bennett,
I have enclosed my quarterly water discharge reports along with the water analysis data
collected by Environmental Chemist, Inc.
Because of the record breaking rainfall on September 27, 28, and 29th the quarry was
flooded. The confines of the walls of the quarry had roughly 1.2 billion gallons of water that we had
to pump on October BLh through the 2911, of October. We pumped night and day for 21 days with 6
pumps.
At the present time we are pumping 1.5 million gallons of water daily and within a week, I
feel we will drop back to 1,000,000 gallons per day. All of the wetlands on the mining property are
covered with water.
Respectfully submitted,
"Xf�- Ao-inr4'leek
Stephen Dorenda
Cc: Ms. Judy Wehner
Ms. Linda Willis

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
_
DATE PUMPED ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL / TEMP
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.78186.1
864,000
2-Jul-10 7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.79/86.3
768,000
3-Jul-10 n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
4-Jul-10 3:00pm
n/a
9
n/a
864,000
5-Jul-10 n/a
10:00am
10
n/a
960,000
6-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.78/85.8
864,000
7-Jul-10 8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.75/85.7
768,000
8-Jul-10 6:00am
4:00pm
10
7.77/85.2
960,000
9-Jul-10 6:00am
3:00pm
9
7.79/84.7
8641000
10-Jul-10 4:00pm
n/a
8
n/a
768,000
11-1ul-10 n/a
10:00am
10
n/a
960,000
12-Jul-10 6:00am
3:00pm
9
7.80/83.8
864,000
13-Jul-10 6:00am
2:00pm
8
7,81/83.3
768,000
14-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7,82/83.2
864,000
15-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.82/83.3
864,000
16-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.81/83.0
864,000
17-Jul-10 5:OOpm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
18-Jul-10 n/a
10:00am
10
n/a
960,000
19-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.83/83.2
864,000
20-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7,85/83-3
864,000
21-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.84/83.5
864,000
22-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.84/83.7
864,000
23-Jul-10 8:00am
3:00pm
7
7,85/83.8
672,000
24-Jul-10 2:00pm
n/a
10
n/a
960,000
25-Jul-10 n/a
9:00am
9
n/a
864,000
26-Jul-10 7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.88/84.0
768,000
27-Jul-10 7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.87/84.0
864,000
28-Jul-10 7.00am
4:00pm
9
7.89/84.3
864,000
29-Jul-10 8:00am
5:0opm
9
7,89/84.3
864,000
30-1ul-10 7:00am I
4:00pm
9
7.90/84.4
864,000
31-Jul-10 5:00pm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000

PH GRAPH
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmoommmmommmmmoam
mmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
..
..............................
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
iivivimmmeimmmmm'aommmim0ommmmmo

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL / TEMP
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Aug-10
n/a
10:00am
10
n/a
960,000
2-A6g-10
7:00am
12:0opm
S
7.91/84.5
480,000
3-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.91/84.4
964,000
4-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
1 7.93/84.3
864,000
5-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.94/84.4
864,000
6-Aug-10
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.94/84.5
768,000
7-Aug-10
5:00pm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
8-Aug-10
n/a
10:00am
10
n/a
960,000
9-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.95/84.4
864,000
10-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.96/84.2
864,000
11-Aug-10
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.96/84.0
768,000
12-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.95/83.9
864,000
13-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.95183.8
864,000
14-Aug-10
6:00pm
n/a
6
n/a
576,000
15-Aug-10
n/a
9:00am
9
n/a
864,000
16-Aug-10
8:00am
3:00pm
7
7.94/84.5
672,000
17-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.94/84.4
864,000
18-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.93/84.3
864,000
19-Rug-10
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.92/84.2
960,000
20-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.92/84.2
864,000
21-Aug-10
5.0opm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
22-Aug-10
n/a
9:00am
9
n/a
864,000
23-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.90/83.8
864,000
24-Aug-10
7:00am
4.00pm
9
7.90/84.0
864,000
25-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.91/83.9
864,000
26-Aug-10
7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.93/83.5
768,000
27-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.95/83.0
864,000
28-Aug-10
6:00pm
n/a
6
n/a
576,000
29-Aug-10
n/a
8:00am
8
n/a
768,000
30-Aug-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.93/85.9
864,000
31-ALg-10 I 7:00am 4:00pm 1 9 1 7.93/85.7 1 864,000

Environmental Chemists, Inc.
6602 Windmill Way * Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] (Lab) * [phone] (Fax)
710 Rowsertown Road * Manteo, NC 27954
[phone]
NCD! NR: DWQ CERTIFICATE 994. DE5 CERTIFICATE #37729
Shelter Creek Quarry Date of Report: Sep 30, 2010
8315 Hwy 53 East Customer PO #:
Burgaw NC 28425 Report #: 2010-09621
Attention: Report to:
Project ID:
Lab ID Sample ID: Effluent Collect Daterrime Matrix Sampled by
10-24058 Site: 9/22/2010 10:25 AM Water- Zach Owen
Test Method Results Date Analyzed
Turbidity SM 2130 6 3.9 NTU 09/23/2010
Residue Suspended (TSS) SM 2540 a 3.9 mg/L 0912712010
Residue Settleable (SS) SM 2540 F <0.1 ml/L 0912312010
Comment: r
Reviewed by: 1 `'� ^ C�Cc. �� �<
Report #:: 2010-09621 Page 1 of 1

Client: Shelter Creek
Collected By: Z'g
I
i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTS, INC
Samvle Collection and Chain of Custodv
Y. LLC Att: Steve Holland 8315 Hwy 53 East Bureaw, NC 2842
6602 Windmill Way
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone]
Fax [phone](
;enort No! IC) _ 1(9r
aam ie i e: 1 = 4nliUenI E = L+ iumeni w =weii a 1 =dream av =aoii aL= aiva
a V�ner:
c w Collection
Sample Identification m g
jrja
DATE TIME TEMP
"
F"
6.
o
U
u
9 o e
o c. V
U
P iRESERVATION
d c x o w ANALYSIS REQUESTED
C +� z x
z
Effluent quarterly LGy�$�Q
r°Z
�•
G
G
TSS,SS,Turbidity
pH(Field):
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
r
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
C
P
G
G
Collect samples March, June,September, December 1
Transfer
Relinquished By:
Date/Time Received By:
Date/Time
1.
2:
Temperature wta, niv.: �-t, � � Accepted: ��" eje ted: xesample tcequesrea: _
Delivered By: Received B Date: -?Rio Time.- Z OO

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL / TEMP
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.93/85.6
864,000
2-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.92/85.5
864,000
3-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.92/85.3
864,000
4-Sep-10
7:00pm
n/a
5
n/a
480,000
5-Sep-10
7:00pm
8:00am
13
n/a
624,000*
6-Sep-10
7:00pm
9:00am
14
n/a
672,000*
7-Sep-10
n/a
7:00am
7
7.90/83.6
672,000
8-Sep-10
&00am
4:00pm
8
7.90183.5
768,000
9-Sep-10
7:00am
12:00pm
5
7,89/83.3
480,000
10-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.88/83.1
864,000
11-Sep-10
6:00pm
n/a
6
n/a
576,000
12-Sep-10
n/a
9:00am
9
n/a
864,000
13-Sep-10
7:00am
3:00pm
8
7,85/81.3
768,000
14-Sep-10
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.85/80.9
768,000
15-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.84/80.2
864,000
16-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.84/79.6
864,000
17-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.83/79.1
864,000
18-Sep-10
7:00am
3:00pm
8
n/a
768,000
19-Sep-10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
20-Sep-10
7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.81/78.4
768,000
21-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.80/78.3
864,000
22-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.79/78.1
864,000
23-Sep-10
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.79/77.9
960,000
24-Sep-10
7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.78/77.9
768,000
25-Sep-10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
26-Sep-10
5:00pm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
27-Sep-10
n/a
5:00pm
17
7.79/75.9
816,000*
28-5ep-10
7:00am
5:OOpm
10
7,78/75.7
960,000
29-Sep-10
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.77/75.5
864,000
30-Sep-10
9:00am
n/a
15
n/a
1,000,000
*ran at idle 48,000 gph

PH GRAPH
Sep-10
9.0
8.9
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
4�c?
is -^ e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 14 15 1A 17 1R 1G 7fl 71 77 71 7d ']4 7r 777 '7Q 102n j '
IIMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm
Immmmmmmmroimm�n_mmmmolmmmmmmmm�
Immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmormrimmrmim
Immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
lmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmomm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
immmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
i
-

SE.G10
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office) - 910.452.2899 (fax)
Transmittal Letter
Date: 22 October 2009
To: Ms. Linda Willis
Of: DWQ - SWP
Attached you will find:"
SEGi Project #: 06-010.01
Client Name: Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
USACOE Action ID#: SAW-2008-1720
Rzcj�:'r'� �
0 C T 2 3 2009
BY:
❑ Proposal ❑ Sketch(es) ❑ IP Application ❑ Signed Wetland Map ❑ Photo(s)
❑ JD Package ❑ Report(s) ❑ Plans ® Information Requested ❑ Other
Copies
Dated
Description
1
13 October 2009
Response to Agencies RFAI and accompanying attachments.
These are being delivered:
® For your Review/Comment
❑ Corrected and Returned
❑ Other:
*If noted items are NOT attached, please contact our office.
❑ For your Records ❑ Returned for Correction(s)
❑ For your Signature ❑ As Requested
By: ® Hand Delivery ❑ Fed -Ex ❑ UPS ❑ Regular Mail ❑ Other
Notes:
Linda,
For various reasons, the attached document does not provide a clearly defined path as to how the Applicant proposes to address
mitigation. However, it is it is SEGi's sincere hope that other concerns have been addressed and the mitigation component of the permit
will fall into place within a short period of time. Thank you for you time and understanding. We look forward to hearing from you.
SignatuTadped) Name: Dana Lutheran
fln©� a p�0 Date: 22009

5kcItcr CrcA Quarto IF M 14(-v,- ,, ]p( 1---Yo:> 5 E-6 I
The Nationwide Permit was signed by Ms. Lillette Granade on 10 June 2006. A corresponding
General Water Quality Certification 3402 (Project No. 060943) was issued on 26 July 2006 by Ms.
Joanne Steenhuis (Attachment 5). Currently, the perimeter of Phase 1 A circumvents marginal wetland
pockets. This is not the most efficient quarry configuration, as valuable limestone may be left in the
ground. Said limestone would be attainable with a less convoluted footprint. Impacts requested for
Phase l A, associated with this Individual Permit request, would be to expand the currently permitted
footprint, so that the mine edges would match the setback requirements. Current proposed wetland
impacts for the expansion of this phase are referred to as A, B, C, and D (Attachment 6), and total
approximately 17.7 acres.
The pump water collection system has been developed as part of Phase IA, and is currently in
operation. The pump water collection system pumps water to the Horseshoe Pond, where the water's
chemistry and clarity are tested. If necessary, additives will be dispersed in the water as remediation.
The water then discharges into the Level Spreader Pond, where the water level is regulated by triple
gate valves. If necessary, the water quality can be inspected in this reservoir. The water is then
released through the valves to the large central wetland system. The plan for this system can be found
in the Hydrology Monitoring Plan (Attachment 7).
The second phase of the mining operation would be Phase ]IA. Wetland impacts associated with this
phase, which is found to the east of existing entrance road, were authorized under the same permit as
Phase ]A. Again, the original mining footprint was designed to circumvent most marginal wetland
areas. The applicant would like to alter the existing footprint, so that the revised footprint would match
the required setbacks. This would grant the quarry operators to access additional limestone, and is the
same scenario as Phase IA, described supra. It is anticipated that Phases IA and IB, as currently
permitted, would be mined out in 12 to 14 years (See Attachment 1). The proposed wetland impacts
associated with the expansion of Phase HA are labeled as AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE, and total
approximately 12.18 acres.
The third phase, IB, is found to the south of IA. No part of IB has been authorized to date, and wetland
impacts in this phase include those to areas E, F, G, and H. The proposed impacts for Phase IB total
approximately 4.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The mine operators would prefer to commence

•
5outkern Environmental Group, Inc.
55 1 5 5Quth C-11-9e }load, Suite E • WilmingSton, Nortk Carolina 2841 2
910.452.2711 • rax: 91o.452.2899 • of{[e-mail]
www.segl.us
13 October 2009
Hand Delivery
Mr. Ronnie Smith
US Army Corps of Engineers — Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Response to Agencies' RFAI for Shelter Creek Quarry
DWQ Project #: 08-1555
USACE AID #: SAW-2008-01720
Dear Mr. Smith,
[S GI Project #: 06-010.01]
Rp,cl � -�=o
o c r 2 s 2009
BY:
This correspondence is a response to your letters dated l l February 2009 and 23 March 2009, as well as
comments received by your office during the 11 December 2008 scoping meeting, where the Corps provided2
comments on Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC's request for Department of Army authorization to impact 44.84
acres_ of 404 jurisdictional wetlands Rather than provide individual responses to each of the commenting
agencies, SEGi has attempted, within this letter, to address concerns received from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 and Surface Water Protection (SWP) units, the North Carolina
Wildlife Commission (NCWRC), as well as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Section I: Comments received from Mr. Ronnie Smith, US Army Corps of Engineers, dated 11
February 2009:
1. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed work
`is the least environmentally damaging,(practicable alternative., Please provide additional information
regarding off -site alternatives. The application states that it is not practicable to move the operation to
another site because of the associated start up costs. Please explain the start up costs in detail anda
explain how it would not be practicable to mine off -site. oW Win!
e
� f
When evaluation a project to determine if it is (�e
least environmentally damaging, practiable
alternative, the overall purpose of a projecf should be established first, then a list of alternative sites,
� lyre
meeting the project's purpose, would be evaluated. However, this sequential evaluation must occur in
-A�
reverse with this project, as Mr. Holland (herein also referred to as the "Applicant", "Owner", or
"Mine Operator") owned the property for a period of time prior to his knowing of the commercial,
14QA. - u.1ad� �soLL i �cxA �L -
�

Pale Z of l
value of the property, specifically relating to its rock and mineral content. In fact, Mr. Holland made
his first purchase of 38 acres, in 1993, for $600 per acre, which is where he resides today. Later, in
2000, Mr. Holland purchased the 359 acres adjacent to his residence, for S1100 per acre, where he
intended to open up a hunting club. It wasn't until September 2002 that Mr. Holland discovered there
was minable material on the property. This occurred during a hunting session, when a friend, who
was a contractor, asked Mr. Holland if he was interested in exploring the property for minable rock.
Once it was determined there was long-term, quality resources available, the Applicant geared the end
result of the project toward providing the surrounding five counties (Onslow, New Hanover, Duplin,
Pender, and Brunswick Counties) with a freshwater reservoir. — tV TH611 Kr-"-YO Th'45 PC/"o �S
lfirip A'G�j'? AutUl/u6j NZ 6 QuT
lT S TRtIY / rv= a 15 7'p � G� �Pi`1'L!t�tJ�S
1� In a0dition to t ie fact that the A�licant currently owns an active mine site and has available minable
lands adjacent to the mine, there are other economic hardships to relocating the quarry to another site.
First, land prices in eastern North Carolina have risen sharply over the last 10 years. SEGi consulted
Mr. Richard Gatsby, owner of ACUMEN Real Estate, in Wilmington, North Carolina, for current Qy
property prices in the vicinity of the existing quarry. According to Mr. Gatsby, land prices in this area
range between $8000 to $12000 per acre, for property with good soils. Based on these prices, 359 /A
acres of uplands would cost approximately 4.3 million dollars. Add the value of knowing minerals
�} exist on the property and the cost doubles to 8.6 million dollars. Second, finding land that fits the
fip needs of a quarry is the toughest part of the mining business. According to Business North Carolina,
"Quarries compete furiously for sites close to big highways, with the right zoning, right neighbors and
right rock."' The current quarry location contains all these attributes, as well as the necessary
infrastructure, such as: 480 volt electric; technologically advanced sump water disposal system;
otable water; acceleration and deceleration lanes; fully functional crushing plant; and an
} administrative office. For these reasons, moving the plant to another location is an economically
impracticable alternative. A55u rW J N(:RnE Ead/ N bi T-6 W j �
Lk i" 7#-c 6,"`r) at5 359 0 "e-5.
Another off -site alternative would be operating numerous mining sites and trucking the material to a
central processing center. This would be cost prohibitive and more environmentally damaging for the
follovling reasons:
I . The cost of prospecting for additional land is expensive. These costs may include but are not
limited to: access and easement acquisition, geological evaluation, which includes core drilling,
at approximately $10,000 per hole. For a quarryof this size, about 20 holes would be required
for a total of $200,000;
2. Each site would require permitting for local, state and national standards pertaining to mining
,�+Lp techniques and environmental concerns. To date, Shelter Creek Quarry has spent in excess of
$480,000 in environmental consulting alone;
3. Each site would require a pump station with discharge points for mine water, in order to keep the
J
45 _ a h • 1 Martin, Edward. "Solid as a Rock: How does a small, family owned quarry company compete with giant corporations? it's
the pits." Business North Carolina (1999).

Page 5 of 1 9.
5E-Gi
pit area from flooding; Multiple discharge points will increase the likelyhood of an
environmental impact in relation to the dewatering and or discharge. This cost of in excess of
$350,000;
4. Numerous monitoring wells, at a cost of $800 per well, would need to be installed to monitor the
extent of the cone of depletion-,
�} 5. Numerous sites would mean numerous cones of depletion, which could potentially affect many
private wells and adjacent wetlands;
6. Each site would require proper berms and fencing for safety and security, high voltage electricity
lines and utilities which would add thousands of dollars in expense;
7. Every site location would require acceleration and deceleration lanes for truck traffic. At the time
the Applicant installed the lanes at the current mine the cost was $280,000.00; and
V) J,,p 8. Each truck hauls 20 tons of material per day. The existing crusher crushes 850 tons
4. per hour, for 10 hours per day, during a four day work week (Monday thru Thursday.) A fleet of
425 trucks, with special rock boxes, would have to make 4 trips each, per day to keep the
crushing plant at the main mine site productive. This would add more truck traffic to the NC
State Highway system and would, subsequently contribute to greater levels of carbon dioxide
being emitted into the atmosphere.
In summary, based on the information provided above, the project as proposed is the lust
environmenta damaging, nracXicahle altPrnat�V wH Ai ? ys'�Cv$s and tee,/�..,�.
2. Please provide more detailed information concerning the upland, no action alternatives. In the
application, you state that the utilization of drills to extract the resource is slow and would preclude the
marketability. Please explain why drilling would preclude marketability and compare the extraction
times and costs between drilling and the proposed excavation.
Limiting mining activities to uplands only is not economically practicable. First, the limestone, marl,
and sand, that are intended to be mined, are covered with overburden. Most of the overburden
consists of clay, sandy soil, and sometimes a combination of marl, sand, and rock. This material must
be stored as close as possible to the mineable area, since under the reclamation plan, this overburden
will be placed back into the pit area, from where it was removed. The discharged overburden would
need o be stored in wetlands adjacent to the pit. Second, open pit mining is the process of extracting
material from the ground by digging. Most open pits are designed in a step -like structure, with each
s
tep (sometimes called a ledge or a bench) dug deeper into the earth to reach the area to be mined. It
sphysically impossible to dig around each wetland complex, while maintaining the functionality of
the systems. In addition, this alternative precludes the Applicant from achieving the stated purpose of
the project, as tons of valuable rock and minerals would be left in the ground, making this not only a
logistically impracticable, but also an economically impracticable alternative.
wA�Ili
The first bmittal of the Individual Permit Application's Supplemental Information should not }lave
y ��
,� `,� Clio

Page 4 of 19
SE-Gi
addressed drilling at all. Please disregard this alternative. Drilling for the material only occurs during
the exploration phase of mining or when preparing for blasting. To SEGi's and Shelter Creek Quarry's
Vice President of Operations', Mr. Stephen Dorenda, knowledge, drilling for material is not a practice
used when mining for limestone.
3. Please justify why mining only the uplands is not a practicable alternative. The application states that
there is not enough space bettyen—the wetlands to install a mining area. Please provide further
explanation as to why it is not economically or ogistically practicable to avoid all wetland impacts. For
instance, can roads be constructed around or cross wetlands to access and mine the uplands? Why do
the pits need to connect? � ` WC A o� T
The proposed impacts to wetlands are not associated with the facilitation of roads. Thus, rerouting access
roads to the pits will not avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. T y NqI WH-9-r-
�mR`��lLriyr �S
As stated in part 1 of this section, the no impact alternative would not me e Applicants stated purpose,
which is to extract all the minable material within the mining limits. f the mine Ewa-s�to—be structed
entirely in uplands, tons of minable rock and minerals would remain in the ground. `Th-s would be due to Ao_�,
the benches and banks associated with the pit faces adjacent to each wetland. It is also evident in this �4rwi�
situation that overburden will have to be handled multiple times, as it wauld..not_be able to be
j sidecast in the vicinity of the wetland pocketsy The handling of the overburden, and possibly the k
Itiple times vastly increases the cost of obtaining the rock, as does the need for multiple sump pumps to
accommodate each pit and many more trucks. Additionally, it is believed the mining activity would have a
W kh �udraining effect on the remaining/wetland, which would remove the functionality of these resources. r
{�� a�Dv�" 5-�a�►�-�' � Ocr�-�/ur�.►" ram^- t,��¢%.cLe ��� �'�y,,��`P.�S
In summary, the loss of minable aggregate, the increase in material handling costs, as well as the fact that
the remaining wetlands would not maintain their function, renders mining entirely in uplands an
impracticable alternative. ? 7 ?
4. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation be provided for all unavoidable
adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been employed
Please provide a revised mitigation proposal, The compensatory mitigation proposal, as described in
the application is not acceptable because it does not adequately replace the functions of the wetlands
proposed for the impacts. We recommend that you consider a restoration component along with the
enhancement and preservation of the on -site and off -site wetlands.
-� 4-0 b�
Mitigation Rule_ Background Information: -
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a
regulation known as the "Mitigation Rule." 73 Fed. Reg. 19594 (April 10, 2008). The rule establishes one

ra-ge 5 of 19 5LGi
set of standards for all mitigation required under the Clean Water Act's Section 404 regulatory program. It
consolidates previous guidance documents, ranks the permissible compensation mechanisms in order of
preference (first, mitigation banks; second, in -lieu fee programs; and third, permittee-responsible
mitigation) and provides that all of these compensation options must include a mitigation plan with a
uniform, required set of components.
Standardized reporting criteria will help the Corps evaluate compliance and success of all mitigation
methods used to offset impacts to jurisdictional waters. This is accomplished by addressing the "Twelve
Fundamental Components of Mitigation." The rule describes the type and level of information the Corps
must consider under any of the mitigation options. All mitigation plans must incorporate the applicable
components. The 12 fundamental components are: Objectives; Site selection; Site protection instrument;
Baseline information; Determination of credits; Mitigation work plan; Maintenance plan; Performance
standards; Monitoring requirements; Long term management plan; Adaptive management plan; Financial
assurances; and other information.
�� �rvrr ? �lroar
Shelter Creek Quarry Mitigation Proposal:
The proposed mitigation plan for the Shelter Creek Quarry has been developed to offset permanent and
temporal losses of 10.24 acres of riparian and 37.2 acres or non -riparian wetlands and their functions that
may result due to the proposed mining activities. Mitigation is being proposed in order to protect
resources and water quality found in the immediate drainage area, specifically Holly Shelter Creek and the
Northeast Cape Fear River Basin. Based on site evaluations and discussions with you, permittee
responsible mitigation is not an option on this site. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is being offered
through payment to a private mitigation bank, the NCEEP, or permittee responsible restoration, to take
place off -site.
The compensatory mitigation proposal is based on the following impacts (acres):
Swamp Forest hnpacts = 7.46
Bottomland Hardwood Impacts = 13.38 *Riparian = 10.24
Pocosin Impacts = 5.9 *Non -riparian = 37.20
Wet Flat Impacts = 9.07
Freshwater_Marsh Impacts = 1.2
Cypress Wetland Impacts = 10.44
Total Wetland Impacts = 47.45
Twelve Components of Mitigation:
• PAYMENT TO EBX OR NCEEP
Pursuant to the Army Corps of Engineer's rules regarding compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic

Page 6 of I g 5 r-G i
functions, baseline information regarding the impact sites, as well as the determination of credits, will be
the only two of the twelve components of mitigation discussed with regard to these two options. (Note:
Should permittee responsible mitigation be the preferred method, a thorough mitigation proposal will be
submitted).
Baseline Information:
Swamp forest systems are found along rivers in backswamps, slough and oxbows and along blackwater
streams. They are typically seasonally to semi -permanently flooded to depths of up to several feet. Soils
are organic or fine -textured mineral soil. These areas usually do not consist of a shrub or herb layer.
Thus, the main species in these systems consist of bald cypress (Taxodium distichium), water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica), and red maple (Ater rubrum).
Bottomland hardwood systems are typically found along medium to large stream and rivers. These areas
typically display mucky soils in the Coastal Plain, due to overbank flooding events depositions of silts and
clays, and are irregularly or seasonally flooded. In the Coastal Plain, the main canopy is made up of red
maple (Ater rubrum), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). The understory typically consist of Coastal dog
hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) and Ti-Ti (Cyrilla racemiflora).
Freshwater marshes are deep depressions and natural lakes in the Coastal Plain or in reservoirs or beaver
ponds throughout the state. They are semi -permanently inundated or flooded and soils are generally not
mapped but often have sands, silts and clays deposited by streams or lakes. The Dominant canopy specie
is the black willow (Salix nigra), while shrubs such as buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Cypress swamp wetland systems have characteristics include all of those listed for the swamp forest
systems. However, as the name suggests, the dominant species in this system is the cypress tree
(Cupressus sempervirens).
Wet flat systems cover much of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and are sustained by rainfall, which
is due to the low gradient in these areas. They are seasonally saturated or inundated by a high or perched
water table. During the summer, the water table may be three or more feet below the surface. Soils are
typically made up of mineral or slightly organic soils. The dominate plant species making up the
overstory are lobloily pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Ater rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica va. Biflora), while the understory will typically exhibit species such as
horsesuger (Symplocos tinctoria), hollies and gallberries (Ilex spp.).
Pocosins are like wet flats, in that they are sustained by rainfall and are seasonally saturated or inundated
by a high or perched water table. However, the soils are typically organic or mineral soils with organic
surface layers. Dominate overstory plant species consist of pond pine (Pinus serotina), sweet bay

Page 7 of 19
SE.Gi
(Magnolia virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and red bay (Persea borbonia). Understory plants
species consist of fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), the hollies and the gallberries (Ilex, ssp.), Ti-Ti (Cyrilla
racemiflora), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia).
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS: The restoration -to -impact ratio was determined by considering
the functional values of the wetland features proposed to be impacted. Values are associated with
the different wetland types based on factors such as location, human population pressure and the
size of the resource. With this project, the current mining activity serves to replace the human
population pressure as a factor. The table below lists the values the types of wetlands found within
the project limits are likely to provide:
Wetland Type
:? :
Wet Flat
X
X
Pocosin
X
Swamp Forest/Cypress Swamp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Freshwater Marshes
X
X
X
X
X
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 1. Relative Values for Wetland Types'
The value of riparian wetlands for water quality, by preventing nutrients and sediment from entering
streams, has been shown by many research efforts' Due to the location of the swamp forest,
bottomland hardwood forest and cypress swamp in the landscape of this project, these wetlands are
considered riparian and have the greatest opportunity to contribute to the water quality of Shelter
Creek and subsequently the Northeast Cape Fear River river basin. Recognizing the vital importance
of these resources to the watershed, the Applicant has agreed to a 2:1 restoration -to -impact ratio for
n� these features. Conversely, the pososin and wet flat complexes on this site act more like isolated
de recessional wetlands, which do not contribute the samc h drologic and/or ecologic values as riparian
-� wetland, and are proposed to be mitigated a "a 0.5:1 ratio. The remaining freshwater marshes,
important for wildlife habitat, water storage and groundwater recharge, are proposed to be mitigated
at a 1:1 restoration -to -impact ratio. The following table summarizes the proposed restoration -to -
impact ratios and the acreages associated with each:
2 Information retrieved from, A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division
of Environmental Management, January 1996.
31-owrance et al. 1983; Jacobs and Gilliam 1985; Correll and Weller 1989; Groffman et al. 1991; Daniels and Gilliam 1996

Page 8 of 19
5E-Gi
Type of Restoration
Impacts Acreage
Proposed Restoration Acreage
Ratio
Riparian
10.25
20.5
2.1
Low Value Non -riparian Wetlands
2.7
1.35
0.5:1
Non -riparian Wetlands
34.0
34.0
1:1
Total
47.45
55.85
1.2:1
Table 2: Shelter Creek Quarry Proposed Restoration -to Impact Table.
In summary, in conjunction with the Applicant's efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to the
functionally valuable cypress swamp located in the middle of the property, as well as the wetland
complexes located within the abutting NC Gamelands, the Applicant proposes to make payment to the
EBX or NCEEP or conduct off -site wetland restoration based on the table above. SEGi believes the
proposed mitigation plan will guarantee that the functions lost, due to the mining activity, will be
restored to the greatest extent practicable.
,-- do � Q,µ. ter, �- /e 'v
Section I1: Comments received from th ps during the 11 December 2008 meeting:
1. The Individual Permit needs to establish the purpose and need,
Purpose: The purpose of tfiis project is to mine mineral resources, to meet current market demand of the
local area, while protecting and preserving the highest quality wetlands and streams on the property.
Need: Development in eastern North Carolina has increased over the last 2 decades at a pace not recently
experienced. This increase in development has surpassed the supply of rock mined from local quarries. In
order to off -set the short fall, additional rock has been shipped in from outside the region, resulting in
significantly higher costs and increased fossil fuel consumption, as well as additional operation costs for
ready -mix producers, which was discussed in the original Supplemental Document, page 18. When granite
is used in concrete mixers, it quickly destroys the mixing apparatus. When limestone is used in place of
granite, the damage to the mixing apparatus is significantly reduced, and replacements are required at less
frequent. Thus reducing the operational cost for ready -mix companies and subsequently the cost of
material to consumers.
It is important to recognize that agricultural lime is not produced anywhere in the state of North Carolina,
other than at the Shelter Creek Quarry. Shelter Creek Quarry is the only licensed manufacturer of.Ag lime
in all 100 counties. This is due to the large amount of marl found on the property. In the mining process,
it is not until the overbuy en has BeciTremovei before the stored materials are encountered. At Shelter
Creek Quarry, the first mineral happens to be marl. Marl by definition is part calcium carbonate and part
clay. There is 20 million tons of marl on this property, and based on the mine's use of innovative processes
to turn it into agricultural lime, the marl is removed and taken to a specific area of the property and stored.
From storage, it is taken to screening plants and then turned into agricultural lime. As mentioned
previously, Shelter Creek Quarry is the only licensed producer of Ag lime in the state of North Carolina.
rt4

Page 9 of 19
SE-6i
The eastern counties of North Carolina used hundreds of thousands of tons of Ag lime per year, most of
which must be brought in from West Virginia, Tennessee, or South Carolina. Every ounce of Ag lime
produced by Shelter Creek Quarry is sold immediately. Thus, plans are in effect to increase Ag lime
production at the mine site. To put it into perspective, farmers in eastern North Carolina can purchase Ag
lime from Shelter Creek Quarry for $20.00 less than other producers. This saving is then passed on to the
consumer.
2. Demonstrate why permitting as a single and complete permit, rather than phased, is the most
economically, least environmentally damaging alternative. is5 hp
6 o -tee- a,)& AYp1 c x+�- I i s �
There are several reasons why permitting the project as single and complete, rather than phased, is the
most economically, least environmentally damaging alternative. First, there is no guarantee that
rcgulators or regulations will not change. The cost of having new people review the project is
extremely costly and time prohibitive. The potential for environmental regulations to change is high.
jCh�an es in environmental policy and/or regulations could preclude the project from oming to
to
Second, t e roost per acre of mitigation is increasing. Since 2005, the North Carolina Ecos tem,
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has increased the cost of an acre of non -riparian wetland mitigation
credit from $12,276/acre to $45,752/acre and riparian wetland mitigation from $24,552/acre to
$63,414/acre. Mitigation cost is an important part of the economic feasibility of the project.
Third, the mitigation being offered by the Applicant will take place in advance or concurrently with
the proposed impacts. Thus, this should eliminate any temporal losses of function due to the mining
activities and may provide a surplus of wetlands, and their associated functions, in the river basin.
Fourth, Phase I and Phase II f the mining plan allows the operation to control water levels through the�,�-- e'er
closed circuit system, as well as through the level spreader system. It would be extremely difficult to Sk�
control water levels and water flow if the mine were forced to alternate from one side to the other, in
order to mine the property. Currentl ,all surface, ground and a uifer water is directed to e . r
station, where it can be controlled. Without this capability,it would not be possible to maintain thew
p _<P�,�}�
amount of water being supplied to the existing on -site and off -site wetlands, thus keeping them
hydrated in times of drought and reducing hydrology during times of more than average precipitation
Fifth, by using benching techniques, marl, sand, and the limestone are mined at one time. All of thisvLA
benching has to be coordinated with the sales of each product. Because sales are always difficult toGez_* @,--.,
predict and in the case of Ag lime, which is seasonal, mining it in phases is mandatory. Storage of C_11� .
finished products outside of the pit area is limited. How much of any product is produced determines,
to a degree, by how much storage is available.

Page lOof Iy
5FIC-31
And lastly, according to Mr. Dorenda, technology which would remove the need to impact wetlands is
not anticipated to evolve.
3. Explain how systematic phasing to mine is more economically feasible.
Whether it is sand, marl, or limestone, the material is found in layers at different depths and, as
mentioned before, must be mined in benches. To move around in the quarry property, in order to mine
a single product, is not feasible, as well as costly. For this reason, benches are created in open pit
mining and the minerals are exposed and mined in a systematic order of layers. The operation can only
produce a product as it mines and the desired product is exposed. Sometimes the availability of a
single product must wait until sales of other products occur or a storage area for those products
becomes available. Shelter Creek Quarry produces eight products and timely sales of these products is
important. When products don't sell, they must be stored and moved to another location in the mine.
Trucking becomes an exacting feature of mining, not only in providing raw material to the main
primary crusher, but also in storing excess sized stone that is not selling quickly enough. It is
extremely important not to double or triple handle sized stone if at all possible. First, because there is
a .50 cent fee per ton associated with each time the stone is handled, and second because each time the
stone is moved it is possible, through attrition, to change the specs of the product. This can result in
the product being undesirable by the market.
Shelter Creek Quarry crushes about 850 tons of rock per hour, or 1.75 million tons per year. If the
mine were to eliminate the phasing aspect of the project, it would need to double the size of the
excavator and add two additional trucks. To do this would increase the production cost by .75 cents
per ton, or an annual increase of approximately 1.3 million dollars in production cost. Increasing the
cost of production increases the cost of the product, which may not allow the plant to be competitive
with other plants. Therefore, non-systematic mining is neither economically nor logistically
practicable.
4. Better illustrate avoidance and minimization efforts
As discussed in the original application, the Applicant has worked diligently to avoid the most
functional wetlands on -site, namely the highly valued swamp forest located along Shelter Creek, and
the large, 119.2-acre bottomland hardwood forest, found directly in the center of the southeastern
portion of the property. In this area a large deposit of limestone approximately 4.3 million tons of
minable rock, sand and lime, can be found, but are not being mined.
Additionally, innovative measures were utilized to ensure that wetlands on the adjacent North Carolina
Gamelands and -those -wetlands found within he mine pi per- wilLnot-be-affected_by the mining
activities.VWater in the discharge system originates from the mine it, not from precipitation events. A
�4� um volume of mi ton ga ons per day may be pumped from the mine pits. However, the mine,
t.
V) �'

Page I 1 of 3 J
5E-6i
on average only pumps about 1 million gallons a day. The water is pumped from the mine pit to the
Horseshoe Pond, where chemical testing occurs to ensure the water is not contaminated. It is then
pumped to the Level Spreader Pond. At the release point on the level spreader discharge system, the
mine operator installed a triple gate valve system, which is used to control the volume of water being
released into the bottomland hardwood wetland. Closed ditches along the eastern and western property
lines have been excavated and filled with water. This has created a hydraulic barrier and has ensured
the wetlands will not be drained. The large wetland complexes on the southeastern side of the property,
and along Holly Shelter Creek, will be protected via the discharge system. This system ensures that,
even during periods of drought, the hydrology is maintained to the wetland features on the North
Carolina Gamelands and within the Shelter Creek Quarry property limits. Monitoring well data
indicates that the system is working as proposed and impacts to wetlands, due to the mining activities
that have taken place thus far, have not occurred. Please feel free to contact Ms. Linda Willis, should
you have questions relating to the DWQs' position on the effectiveness of the closed dewatering
system.
Due to the fact that the proposed mine has been designed to avoid the most functionally valuable
wetlands and provides for measures to ensure the health of the remaining on- and off -site wetlands, it is
the Applicant's sincere belief that avoidance and minimization efforts have been incorporated into the
plan to the maximum extent practicable.
1. Demonstrate why original Nationwide Permit (NWP) did not include the rest of the mine.
As stated previously, it was not Mr. Holland's intention to mine the property when he purchased the
land. As it has been demonstrated within this correspondence, the cost of starting a mining operation is
extremely expensive. For a mine of this size, it takes approximately 20 million dollars in start up costs.
With that said, small time, independent operations, such as the Shelter Creek Quarry, must rely on
banks to back them to get started. However, it is typical that all local, state and federal permits be
secured prior to lending institutions releasing funds. Thus, Mr. Holland applied for the Nationwide
Permit to fill the ditches, in order to facilitate the berms that were required as part of the mining permit.
This provided Mr. Holland the cash flow to purchase trucks, the rock crusher, and other necessary
equipment necessary to begin mining, which, in turn, provided the cash flow to move forward with
obtaining the necessary permits for the rest of the project.
Section III: Comments received from Ms. Linda Willis, Wilmington District DWO Surface Water
Protection, dated 12 November 2008:
The proposed mine expansion may require modifications to their existing operation and monitoring
plan. DWQ SWPS has received some monitoring well results for 20 shallow monitoring wells That data
was provided to the Central Office on 713112008. DWQ, WIRO inspected the mine site in September.
DWQ sent a letter requesting that Mr. Holland andlor his consultant (Mr. Dorenda) contact the office to

Page 12 of 1 g S E-6 i
discuss the monitoring well data. To date, no response from either have been received. Before this office
can concur with an expansion, a meeting is needed to discuss why all monitoring wells (all supposedly
installed in wetlands) are not showing some hydrology indicative of wetlands. Furthermore, the
Wilmington Regional Office has recently received two complaints from local residents concerning
impacts to their drinking wells. Before the Division can consider the request to expand the mine and
impact additional wetlands, several issues pertaining to the operation and monitoring plan need to be
resolved. It would be beneficial if the USA COE would meet with DWQ and Holland Shelter Quarry
permittee to discuss the implications of the shallow monitoring well data as well as the proposed wetland
impacts.
As a result of the 5 June 2009 on -site meeting with the USACE, DWQ, SWP, WRC and others, where
auger pulls indicated that the water table was within 12" to 18" of the surface, the data was re-
evaluated. It was determined that an error had occurred in the calculations. Since that time, the
corrected monitoring well data has been furnished to the DWQ SWP Unit (refer to addendum
Attachment 11). The neighbors complaining about their drinking water no longer have complaints.
The first complainant has sold his property to Mr. Holland. The second complainant had a faulty water
softener and Mr. Holland paid to make it functional. To SEGi's knowledge, all complaints have been
addressed.
Shelter Creek Quarry has had monitoring wells in place, both on and off the mining property, prior to
any physical mining of the site. Some of the wells are on NC State Gamelands, which adjoin the
mining property, and others are in known wetlands within the project boundaries. Test results over the
past three years show that the wetlands have remained hydrated and have not been detrimentally
affected (see Attached Monitoring Well Data). As discussed previously, one of the main reasons for this
success is due, in large part, to the closed circuiting of the pumped water and the long canal of water on
the western boundary of the mining property. To our knowledge, there are no indication that wetlands
have been negatively affected since the mining operations began. In fact, the shallow wells, as well as
deeper wells, indicate that the water table has increased somewhat, even during periods of drought.
Quarterly reports on approximately 32 wells, on and off of the mining property, along with PH and
suspended solids reports have been submitted to the DWQ SWP Unit for their review and comment. At
this time SEGi nor the Applicant has received comments from the DWQ SWP Unit. Please feel free to
contact Linda Willis, should you have questions regarding the submitted data.
Section IV: Comment received from Ms. Joanne Steenhuis Wilmington District DWO 401 Wetlands
Unit, dated 12 November 2008:
1. The IP application dated 10113108 requests 46.92 acres of wetland impacts, the map labeled
Attachment 6 shows the total wetland impact area as approximately 33.46 acres. The map identified as
enclosure ##42 has a chart that shows 47.45 acres of approximate wetland impact. Please state the correct

Page 13 of ! J
SE.Gi
amount of wetlands proposed for impact and correct all the maps and written descriptions so they are
consistent. Please identify which wetlands have been identified as isolated and include them in the
calculated wetland impacts and narrative for the State.
The correct area of wetlands to be impacted is as follows:
404 Jurisdictional Wetlands 47.45 acres (1,953,230.4 SF)
401 Isolated Wetlands 2.61 acres (113,691.6.0 SF)
Total Wetland Impacts 47.45 acres (2,066,922.0 SF)
Attached you will find the Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet, which has been prepared
to accurately detail total proposed wetland impacts, both 404 and 401, as well as provide information
on the classification of each impact, what phase they are to take place, etc. (refer to addendum
Attachment 10).
2. Please show on an overall map, the wetlands to be impacted and in what phases and also identify the
required 50' undisturbed buffer by the Land Quality Section form the property line andlor wetlands.
Please refer to the revised site plan (Attachment 6) and to the Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact
Spreadsheet (addendum Attachment 10).
3. The maps indicate there will be a proposed `future" ditch on the northwestern side of the property
(Phase IA). There are wetlands shown to abut this property line. Please indicate how this proposed ditch
will not impact/drain additional wetlands off -site?
The ditch has been installed and water is continuously pumped into the feature, which ensures that it
will not have a draining effect on adjacent off -site wetlands. This has been demonstrated with the
shallow water monitoring well data that has been included with this correspondence.
4. There are on -site and off -site wetland monitoring wells. Please show the previously collected data and
provide a summary of these finding.
As a result of the 5 June 2009 on -site meeting with the DWQ, SWP, WRC and others, where auger
pulls indicated that the water table was within 12" to IS" of the surface, the data was re-evaluated. It
was determined that an error in the calculation had occurred. The error was corrected and the data
recalculated (see attached). In summary, the corrected data reinforces the existing conditions evaluated
during that site visit and also indicates that the mining activity has not a draining effect on wetlands
outside the project limits or within the cone of depletion.
5. The proposed compensatory mitigation does not meet the requirements describe in 15A NCAC

Page 14 of 19 5r-Gi
2H.0506(h) (1)-(7). Please give a detailed compensatory mitigation plan that will meet the State's
requirements. If there is on -site restoration/creation proposed, please detail what will be required to
accomplish this, the planting plan and the monitoring plan will also be required.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)(7):
Wetland mitigation shall be conducted based on the following ratios (acres mitigated to acres loss);
4:1, for wetlands locate within 150 feet of the mean high water line or normal water level of any per-
ennial or intermittent water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United
States Geological Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographical map; 2:1, for wetlands located
between 150 feet and 1,000 feet from the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial
or intermittent water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United States Geo-
logical Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographical map; and 1:1, for all other wetlands.
These ratios only apply to wetland restoration. None of the wetland impacts associated with this project
fall within 150 linear feet of the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial or intermit-
tent water body (refer to the revised Attachment 6). Therefor, mitigation required by the US Army
Corps of Engineers shall be considered to constitute the mitigation required by the DWQs' certification.
6. In the narrative accompanying the IP application on page 14/27 states "that Phases IA and IIB, as
permitted would be mined out in 12-14 years': Please clarify if this would be Phase IA and IIA.
This has been corrected (see revised Supplemental Document, pg 14).
7. A really good overall site plan identifying the wetlands (isolated and jurisdictional), which wetlands
will be impacted in each phase, monitoring well locations, buffer limits, etc. would be beneficial to this
reviewer.
See the revised Attachment 6, as well as the Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet
(Addendum Attachment 10).
Section V: Comments received from Ms. Molly Elwood, NCWRC, dated 24 November 2008:
1. The NCWRC is concerned with the potential impacts to important wetlands form the cone of
depression. Dewatering these areas of wetlands could impact areas off -site, particularly on state
managed lands that are regularly used by the public. Holly Shelter Game Lands and Angola Bay Game
Lands are managed far game species, timber, as well as for important species such as the red -cockaded
woodpecker. Information provided in reference to the monitoring wells is minimal with the document.
To reduce NCWRC's concern for the potential loss of adjacent wetlands, please provide more
information as to the location of additional monitoring wells that will be installed, their associated
depths, along with when they will be installed for each of the phases. Information collected form the

Page 15 of 19 SE-Gi
current monitoring wells should also be provided to indicate how the current mining activities have not
affected surrounding wetlandsfrom dewatering.
Ms. Molly Elwood, WRC Southeast Permit Coordinator, attended the 5 June 2009 site visit. At that
time, and with the submittal of the corrected monitoring well data, it is believed the Applicant has
successfully demonstrated that dewatering of the wetlands on the Holly Shelter Game Lands and Angola
Bay Game Lands has not taken place. For more information regarding the dewatering of wetlands,
please refer to Section V, above.
2. We request more information as to how the amount of water entering Holly Shelter Creek would not
have a significant, adverse impact upon the in -stream flow, water temperature, or otherwise alter the in -
stream habitat.
No water from the site is being directly discharged into Holly Shelter Creek.
3. We recommend that the application provide a mitigation plan to clearly explain the proposed wetlands
to be created. This plan should include a map for the proposed location for these wetlands, the acreage
for the created wetlands, how they will be created, and the types of native vegetation that will be used.
Along with this information, we request that the plan also provide an explanation as to how the wetlands
will be monitored to ensure they are functioning wetlands, and how they will be functional in such a way
that they appropriately mitigate for the proposed impacts. Due to the amount of impacts proposed, we
recommend that other alternatives be explored. The purchase of wetlands through a direct land
acquisition could potentially increase connectivity of wetlands and waterways in the area, at the same
time as providing open space and public use benefits
As discussed previously in Section 1, Part 4, of this letter, mitigation will be in the form of restoration
through an approved wetland mitigation bank, the NCEEP, or permittee responsible mitigation.
4. Maps provided should be modified to consistently depict jurisdictional wetlands as well as the isolated
wetlands on site and their associated acreages
See revised Attachment 6.
S. The document provided does not address possible infrastructure related to the expansion of the mine.
Please provide additional information in reference to any needs for additional on -site storage or
processing facilities, and any potential road or rail systems that may be needed.
No additional infrastructure is anticipated with the expansion of the mine.
6. The NCWRC recommends that a 100 ft buffer be maintained from streams to minimize secondary

Page 3 6 of 19
cumulative impacts
SE-Gi
The project does not propose land disturbance within 100 feet of any stream, river, or lake (see revised
Attachment 6).
Section VI: Comments received from Mr. Pete Benjamin, US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated 18
November 2008-
1. Plans for preventing long-term, adverse impacts to wetlands to be preserved adjacent to the mined area
and the operation and maintenance of any equipment needed to maintain the natural hydrology of these
wetlands;
As discussed previously, long-term adverse affects to wetlands will not take place. The implementation
and use of the close circuit dewatering system will operate until all mining activities have ceased and the
pits have filled with water, at which time the concern for dewatering wetlands will not longer exist.
2. The acres of each wetland type that would be permanently impacted by the mining operation;
See addendum Attachment 10 (Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet).
3. A detailed plan for compensatory wetland mitigation for the 44.84 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
expected to be eliminated by the mining operation. Since wetland losses include forested wetlands that
would take decades to become fully functional, mitigation entirely through restoration should be done at
a two -to -one ratio, an overall requirement of 89.69 acres.
For comments 3 though 8, please see response to Section 1I, DWQ - 401 Wetlands Unit's Concerns, #5.
4. If compensatory mitigation entirely by restoration is not proposed, the plan should include, at a
minimum, 44.84 acres of in -kind restoration through: (1) on site mitigation; (2) purchase from a
commercial mitigation bank; or, (3) payment to the NC EEP.
5. After the minimal restoration component, other components may consist of additional restoration,
establishment (creation), enhancement, and/or permanent preservation. As a secondary component, the
proposed 119.2 acres of preservation, at a five -to -one ratio, would provide 23.84 acres, or 26.6%
(23.84189.68), of the overall mitigation requirement.
6. The remaining mitigation requirement, 21 acres, may consist of either 21 acres of additional
restoration (1:1 ratio), 63 acres of establishment (3:1 ratio), or 105 acres of preservation.
7. The abandoned mine pits and/or the freshwater reservoir should not be considered mitigation

Page 17 of 19
SE-Gi
wetlands. Similarly, the littoral fringes of mine pits should not qualify as established wetlands due to the
unnatural fluctuations in hydrology and the poor support far the wooded wetlands loss; and,
8. The location of each mitigation site should be shown on a map along with the type of compensation at
each site; the wetland community that occupies, or would ultimately occupy, each site; the entity that
would protect and maintain each site, and funding that would ensure long-term stewardship and
protection of each site.
It is SEGi's sincere hope that the information found within and attached to this correspondence will address
the Corps' concerns, as well as those outlined in the letters received from the commenting agencies,
regarding the proposed project. The Applicant intends to have a clear However, should additional
information be necessary, please feel free to contact either myself or David Syster at 910.452.2711.
Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dana A. Lutheran
Project Manager
Enclosure (3)
cc: Ms. Joanne Steenhuis — Wilmington District 401 Wetlands Unit
Ms. Linda Willis — Wilmington District Surface Water Protection
Ms. Molly Elwood — NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Mr. Pete Benjamin — US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Stephen Rynas — NC DCM, Federal Consistency Coordinator
Stephen Dorenda — Shelter Creek Quarry, Vice President of Operations

Soutke.rn r_nvironmental Group, Inc.
5 j 1 5 South Colkgc Road, Suite F • Wilmington, Nortk Carolina 2841 2
910.452.271 1 • 1'ax: 910.452.2899 • office@5egi.u5
www.segi.us
13 October 2009
Hand Delivery
[SEGI Project #: 06-010.01]
Mr. Ronnie Smith
US Army Corps of Engineers — Regulatory Division
69 Darlington Avenue O
Wilmington, NC 28403
r
�009 .b
Re: Response to Agencies' RFAI for Shelter Creek Quarry
DWQ Project #: 08-1555
USACE AID #: SAW-2008-01720 \
Dear Mr. Smith,
This correspondence is a response to your letters dated 11 February 2009 and 23 March 2009, as well as
comments received by your office during the 11 December 2008 scoping meeting, where the Corps provided
comments on Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC's request for Department of Army authorization to impact 44.84
acres of 404 jurisdictional wetlands. Rather than provide individual responses to each of the commenting
agencies, SEGi has attempted, within this letter, to address concerns received from the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 and Surface Water Protection (SWP) units, the North Carolina
Wildlife Commission (NCWRC), as well as the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
Section 1: Comments received from Mr. Ronnie Smith, US Army Corps of Engineers, dated 11
February 2009:
1. Permits far work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed work
is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please provide additional information
regarding off -site alternatives. The application states that it is not practicable to move the operation to
another site because of the associated start up costs. Please explain the start up costs in detail and
explain how it would not be practicable to mine off -site.
When evaluation a project to determine if it is the least environmentally damaging, practicable
alternative, the overall purpose of a project should be established first, then a list of alternative sites,
meeting the project's purpose, would be evaluated. However, this sequential evaluation must occur in
reverse with this project, as Mr. Holland (herein also referred to as the "Applicant", "Owner", or
"Mine Operator") owned the property for a period of time prior to his knowing of the commercial

Page 2 of 19
Sr-Gi
value of the property, specifically relating to its rock and mineral content. In fact, Mr. Holland made
his first purchase of 38 acres, in 1993, for $600 per acre, which is where he resides today. Later, in
2000, Mr. Holland purchased the 359 acres adjacent to his residence, for $1100 per acre, where he
intended to open up a hunting club. It wasn't until September 2002 that Mr. Holland discovered there
was minable material on the property. This occurred during a hunting session, when a friend, who
was a contractor, asked Mr. Holland if he was interested in exploring the property for minable rock.
Once it was determined there was long-term, quality resources available, the Applicant geared the end
result of the project toward providing the surrounding five counties (Onslow, New Hanover, Duplin,
Pender, and Brunswick Counties) with a freshwater reservoir.
In addition to the fact that the Applicant currently owns an active mine site and has available minable
lands adjacent to the mine, there are other economic hardships to relocating the quarry to another site.
First, land prices in eastern North Carolina have risen sharply over the last 10 years. SEGi consulted
Mr. Richard Gatsby, owner of ACUMEN Real Estate, in Wilmington, North Carolina, for current
property prices in the vicinity of the existing quarry. According to Mr. Gatsby, land prices in this area
range between $8000 to $12000 per acre, for property with good soils. Based on these prices, 359
acres of uplands would cost approximately 4.3 million dollars. Add the value of knowing minerals
exist on the property and the cost doubles to 8.6 million dollars. Second, finding land that fits the
needs of a quarry is the toughest part of the mining business. According to Business North Carolina,
"Quarries compete furiously for sites close to big highways, with the right zoning, right neighbors and
right rock."' The current quarry location contains all these attributes, as well as the necessary
infrastructure, such as: 480 volt electric; technologically advanced sump water disposal system;
potable water; acceleration and deceleration lanes; fully functional crushing plant; and an
administrative office. For these reasons, moving the plant to another location is an economically
impracticable alternative.
Another off -site alternative would be operating numerous mining sites and trucking the material to a
central processing center. This would be cost prohibitive and more environmentally damaging for the
following reasons:
1. The cost of prospecting for additional land is expensive. These costs may include but are not
limited to: access and easement acquisition, geological evaluation, which includes core drilling,
at approximately $10,000 per hole. For a quarry of this size, about 20 holes would be required
for a total of $200,000;
2. Each site would require permitting for local, state and national standards pertaining to mining
techniques and environmental concerns. To date, Shelter Creek Quarry has spent in excess of
$480,000 in environmental consulting alone;
3. Each site would require a pump station with discharge points for mine water, in order to keep the
I Martin, Edward. "Solid as a Rock: How does a small, family owned quarry company compete with giant corporations? It's
the pits." Business North Carolina (1999).

Page 5 of 19
SE..Gi
pit area from flooding; Multiple discharge points will increase the likelyhood of an
environmental impact in relation to the dewatering and or discharge. This cost of in excess of
$350,000;
4. Numerous monitoring wells, at a cost of $800 per well, would need to be installed to monitor the
extent of the cone of depletion;
5. Numerous sites would mean numerous cones of depletion, which could potentially affect many
private wells and adjacent wetlands;
6. Each site would require proper berms and fencing for safety and security, high voltage electricity
lines and utilities which would add thousands of dollars in expense;
7. Every site location would require acceleration and deceleration lanes for truck traffic. At the time
the Applicant installed the lanes at the current mine the cost was $280,000.00; and
8. Each truck hauls 20 tons of material per day. The existing crusher crushes 850 tons
9. per hour, for 10 hours per day, during a four day work week (Monday thru Thursday.) A fleet of
425 trucks, with special rock boxes, would have to make 4 trips each, per day to keep the
crushing plant at the main mine site productive. This would add more truck traffic to the NC
State Highway system and would, subsequently contribute to greater levels of carbon dioxide
being emitted into the atmosphere.
In summary, based on the information provided above, the project as proposed is the least
environmentally damaging, practicable alternative.
2. Please provide more detailed information concerning the upland, no action alternatives. In the
application, you state that the utilization of drills to extract the resource is slow and would preclude the
marketability. Please explain why drilling would preclude marketability and compare the extraction
times and costs between drilling and the proposed excavation.
Limiting mining activities to uplands only is not economically practicable. First, the limestone, marl,
and sand, that are intended to be mined, are covered with overburden. Most of the overburden
consists of clay, sandy soil, and sometimes a combination of marl, sand, and rock. This material must
be stored as close as possible to the mineable area, since under the reclamation plan, this overburden
will be placed back into the pit area, from where it was removed. The discharged overburden would
need to be stored in wetlands adjacent to the pit. Second, open pit mining is the process of extracting
material from the ground by digging. Most open pits are designed in a step -like structure, with each
step (sometimes called a ledge or a bench) dug deeper into the earth to reach the area to be mined. It
is physically impossible to dig around each wetland complex, while maintaining the functionality of
the systems. In addition, this alternative precludes the Applicant from achieving the stated purpose of
the project, as tons of valuable rock and minerals would be left in the ground, making this not only a
logistically impracticable, but also an economically impracticable alternative.
The first submittal of the Individual Permit Application's Supplemental Information should not have

J'agc + of 19
addressed drilling at all. Please disregard this alternative. Drilling for the material only occurs during
the exploration phase of mining or when preparing for blasting. To SEGi's and Shelter Creek Quarry's
Vice President of Operations', Mr. Stephen Dorenda, knowledge, drilling for material is not a practice
used when mining for limestone.
3. Please justify why mining only the uplands is not a practicable alternative. The application states that
there is not enough space between the wetlands to install a mining area. Please provide further
explanation as to why it is not economically or logistically practicable to avoid all wetland impacts For
instance, can roads be constructed around or across wetlands to access and mine the uplands? Why do
the pits need to connect?
The proposed impacts to wetlands are not associated with the facilitation of roads. Thus, rerouting access
roads to the pits will not avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands.
As stated in part 1 of this section, the no impact alternative would not meet the Applicant's stated purpose,
which is to extract all the minable material within the mining limits. If the mine was to be constructed
entirely in uplands, tons of minable rock and minerals would remain in the ground. This would be due to
the benches and banks associated with the pit faces adjacent to each wetland. It is also evident in this
situation that overburden will likely have to be handled multiple times, as it would not be able to be
sidecast in the vicinity of the wetland pockets. The handling of the overburden, and possibly the rock,
multiple times vastly increases the cost of obtaining the rock, as does the need for multiple sump pumps to
accommodate each pit and many more trucks. Additionally, it is believed the mining activity would have a
draining effect on the remaining wetland, which would remove the functionality of these resources.
In summary, the loss of minable aggregate, the increase in material handling costs, as well as the fact that
the remaining wetlands would not maintain their function, renders mining entirely in uplands an
impracticable alternative.
4. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation be provided for all unavoidable
adverse Impacts remaining after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been employed.
Please provide a revised mitigation proposat The compensatory mitigation proposal, as described in
the application is not acceptable because it does not adequately replace the functions of the wetlands
proposed for the impacts. We recommend that you consider a restoration component along with the
enhancement and preservation of the on -site and off site wetlands.
Miti ation Rule Back round Information:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a
regulation known as the "Mitigation Rule." 73 Fed. Reg. 19594 (April 10, 2008). The rule establishes one

Page 5 of 1.9 5r.G1
set of standards for all mitigation required under the Clean Water Act's Section 404 regulatory program. It
consolidates previous guidance documents, ranks the permissible compensation mechanisms in order of
preference (first, mitigation banks; second, in -lieu fee programs; and third, permittee-responsible
mitigation) and provides that all of these compensation options must include a mitigation plan with a
uniform, required set of components.
Standardized reporting criteria will help the Corps evaluate compliance and success of all mitigation
methods used to offset impacts to jurisdictional waters. This is accomplished by addressing the "Twelve
Fundamental Components of Mitigation." The rule describes the type and level of information the Corps
must consider under any of the mitigation options. All mitigation plans must incorporate the applicable
components. The 12 fundamental components are: Objectives; Site selection; Site protection instrument;
Baseline information; Determination of credits; Mitigation work plan; Maintenance plan; Performance
standards; Monitoring requirements; Long term management plan; Adaptive management plan; Financial
assurances; and other information.
Shelter Creek Quarry Mitigation Proposal:
The proposed mitigation plan for the Shelter Creek Quarry has been developed to offset permanent and
temporal losses of 10.24 acres of riparian and 37.2 acres or non -riparian wetlands and their functions that
may result due to the proposed mining activities. Mitigation is being proposed in order to protect
resources and water quality found in the immediate drainage area, specifically Holly Shelter Creek and the
Northeast Cape Fear River Basin. Based on site evaluations and discussions with you, permittee
responsible mitigation is not an option on this site. Therefore, compensatory mitigation is being offered
through payment to a private mitigation bank, the NCEEP, or permittee responsible restoration, to take
place off -site.
The compensatory mitigation proposal is based on the following impacts (acres):
Swamp Forest Impacts = 7.46
Bottomland Hardwood Impacts = 13.38 *Riparian = 10.24
Pocosin Impacts = 5.9 *Non -riparian = 37.20
Wet Flat Impacts = 9.07
Freshwater Marsh Impacts — 1.2
Cypress Wetland Impacts = 10.44
Total Wetland Impacts = 47.45
Twelve Components of Mitigation:
• PAYMENT TO EBX OR NCEEP
Pursuant to the Army Corps of Engineer's rules regarding compensatory mitigation for losses of aquatic

Page 6 of 19 SF-Gi
functions, baseline information regarding the impact sites, as well as the determination of credits, will be
the only two of the twelve components of mitigation discussed with regard to these two options. (Note:
Should permittee responsible mitigation be the preferred method, a thorough mitigation proposal will be
submitted).
• Baseline Information:
Swamp forest systems are found along rivers in backswamps, slough and oxbows and along blackwater
streams. They are typically seasonally to semi -permanently flooded to depths of up to several feet. Soils
are organic or fine -textured mineral soil. These areas usually do not consist of a shrub or herb layer.
Thus, the main species in these systems consist of bald cypress (Taxodium distichium), water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica), and red maple (Ater rubrum).
Bottomland hardwood systems are typically found along medium to large stream and rivers. These areas
typically display mucky soils in the Coastal Plain, due to overbank flooding events depositions of silts and
clays, and are irregularly or seasonally flooded. In the Coastal Plain, the main canopy is made up of red
maple (Acer rubrum), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). The understory typically consist of Coastal dog
hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia) and Ti-Ti (Cyrilla racemiflora).
Freshwater marshes are deep depressions and natural lakes in the Coastal Plain or in reservoirs or beaver
ponds throughout the state. They are semi -permanently inundated or flooded and soils are generally not
mapped but often have sands, silts and clays deposited by streams or lakes. The Dominant canopy specie
is the black willow (Salix nigra), while shrubs such as buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), swamp rose (Rosa palustris), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Cypress swamp wetland systems have characteristics include all of those listed for the swamp forest
systems. However, as the name suggests, the dominant species in this system is the cypress tree
(Cupressus sempervirens).
Wet flat systems cover much of the Coastal Plain of North Carolina and are sustained by rainfall, which
is due to the low gradient in these areas. They are seasonally saturated or inundated by a high or perched
water table. During the summer, the water table may be three or more feet below the surface. Soils are
typically made up of mineral or slightly organic soils. The dominate plant species making up the
overstory are loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica va. Biflora), while the understory will typically exhibit species such as
horsesuger (Symplocos tinctoria), hollies and gallberries (Ilex spp.).
Pocosins are like wet flats, in that they are sustained by rainfall and are seasonally saturated or inundated
by a high or perched water table. However, the soils are typically organic or mineral soils with organic
surface layers. Dominate overstory plant species consist of pond pine (Pinus serotina), sweet bay

Fag,-7of I
5E-G1
(Magnolia virginiana), ioblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and red bay (Persea borbonia). Understory plants
species consist of fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), the hollies and the gallberries (Ilex, ssp.), Ti-Ti (Cyrilla
racemifl'ora), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia).
DETERMINATION OF CREDITS: The restoration -to -impact ratio was determined by considering
the functional values of the wetland features proposed to be impacted. Values are associated with
the different wetland types based on factors such as location, human population pressure and the
size of the resource. With this project, the current mining activity serves to replace the human
population pressure as a factor. The table below lists the values the types of wetlands found within
the project limits are likely to provide:
'type
=
o
" �
'0 �
�
�
Wetland
o
c r-
�
E
3 0
0-0
0 5
m
3r
� �
Q
�
c
�
,�¢
¢z
a
Wet Flat
X
X
Pocosin
X
Swamp Forest/Cypress Swamp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Freshwater Marshes
X
X
X
X
X
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 1. Relative Values for Wetland Types'
The value of riparian wetlands for water quality, by preventing nutrients and sediment from entering
streams, has been shown by many research efforts' Due to the location of the swamp forest,
Bottomland hardwood forest and cypress swamp in the landscape of this project, these wetlands are
considered riparian and have the greatest opportunity to contribute to the water quality of Shelter
Creek and subsequently the Northeast Cape Fear River river basin. Recognizing the vital importance
of these resources to the watershed, the Applicant has agreed to a 2:1 restoration -to -impact ratio for
these features. Conversely, the pososin and wet flat complexes on this site act more like isolated
depressional wetlands, which do not contribute the same hydrologic and/or ecologic values as riparian
wetland, and are proposed to be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio. The remaining freshwater marshes,
important for wildlife habitat, water storage and groundwater recharge, are proposed to be mitigated
at a 1:1 restoration -to -impact ratio. The following table summarizes the proposed restoration -to -
impact ratios and the acreages associated with each:
2 Information retrieved from, A Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division
of Environmental Management, January 1996.
3Lowrance et al. 1983; Jacobs and Gilliam 1985; Correll and Weller 1989; Groffman et al. 1991; Daniels and Gilliam 1996

Page 8 of i 9
Sr_Gi
Type of Restoration
Impacts Acreage
Proposed Restoration Acreage
Ratio
Riparian
10.25
20.5
2:1
Low Value Non -riparian Wetlands
2.7
1.35
0.5:1
Non -riparian Wetlands
34.0
34.0
1:1
Total
47.45
55.85
1.2:1
Table 2: Shelter Creek Quarry Proposed Restoration -to Impact Table.
In summary, in conjunction with the Applicant's efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to the
functionally valuable cypress swamp located in the middle of the property, as well as the wetland
complexes located within the abutting NC Gamelands, the Applicant proposes to make payment to the
EBX or NCEEP or conduct off -site wetland restoration based on the table above. SEGi believes the
proposed mitigation plan will guarantee that the functions lost, due to the mining activity, will be
restored to the greatest extent practicable.
Section [I: Comments received from the Corps during the 11 December 2008 meeting:
1. The .Individual Permit needs to establish the purpose and need.
Purpose: The purpose of this project is to mine mineral resources, to meet current market demand of the
local area, while protecting and preserving the highest quality wetlands and streams on the property.
Need: Development in eastern North Carolina has increased over the last 2 decades at a pace not recently
experienced. This increase in development has surpassed the supply of rock mined from local quarries. In
order to offset the short fall, additional rock has been shipped in from outside the region, resulting in
significantly higher costs and increased fossil fuel consumption, as well as additional operation costs for
ready -mix producers, which was discussed in the original Supplemental Document, page 18. When granite
is used in concrete mixers, it quickly destroys the mixing apparatus. When limestone is used in place of
granite, the damage to the mixing apparatus is significantly reduced, and replacements are required at less
frequent. Thus reducing the operational cost for ready -mix companies and subsequently the cost of
material to consumers.
It is important to recognize that agricultural lime is not produced anywhere in the state of North Carolina,
other than at the Shelter Creek Quarry. Shelter Creek Quarry is the only licensed manufacturer of Ag lime
in all 100 counties. This is due to the large amount of marl found on the property. In the mining process,
it is not until the overburden has been removed before the stored materials are encountered. At Shelter
Creek Quarry, the first mineral happens to be mar]. Marl by definition is part calcium carbonate and part
clay. There is 20 million tons of marl on this property, and based on the mine's use of innovative processes
to turn it into agricultural lime, the marl is removed and taken to a specific area of the property and stored.
From storage, it is taken to screening plants and then turned into agricultural lime. As mentioned
previously, Shelter Creek Quarry is the only licensed producer of Ag lime in the state of North Carolina.

Page 9 of 19
5EGi
The eastern counties of North Carolina used hundreds of thousands of tons of Ag lime per year, most of
which must be brought in from West Virginia, Tennessee, or South Carolina. Every ounce of Ag lime
produced by Shelter Creek Quarry is sold immediately. Thus, plans are in effect to increase Ag lime
production at the mine site. To put it into perspective, farmers in eastern North Carolina can purchase Ag
lime from Shelter Creek Quarry for $20.00 less than other producers. This saving is then passed on to the
consumer.
2. Demonstrate why permitting as a single and complete permit, rather than phased, is the most
economically, least environmentally damaging alternative.
There are several reasons why permitting the project as single and complete, rather than phased, is the
most economically, least environmentally damaging alternative. First, there is no guarantee that
regulators or regulations will not change. The cost of having new people review the project is
extremely costly and time prohibitive. The potential for environmental regulations to change is high.
Changes in environmental policy and/or regulations could preclude the project from coming to
fruition.
Second, the cost per acre of mitigation is increasing. Since 2005, the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has increased the cost of an acre of non -riparian wetland mitigation
credit from $12,276/acre to $45,752/acre and riparian wetland mitigation from $24,552/acre to
$63,414/acre. Mitigation cost is an important part of the economic feasibility of the project.
Third, the mitigation being offered by the Applicant will take place in advance or concurrently with
the proposed impacts. Thus, this should eliminate any temporal losses of function due to the mining
activities and may provide a surplus of wetlands, and their associated functions, in the river basin.
Fourth, Phase I and Phase II of the mining plan allows the operation to control water levels through the
closed circuit system, as well as through the level spreader system. It would be extremely difficult to
control water levels and water flow if the mine were forced to alternate from one side to the other, in
order to mine the property. Currently, all surface, ground and aquifer water is directed to the pump
station, where it can be controlled. Without this capability, it would not be possible to maintain the
amount of water being supplied to the existing on -site and off -site wetlands, thus keeping them
hydrated in times of drought and reducing hydrology during times of more than average precipitation.
Fifth, by using benching techniques, marl, sand, and the limestone are mined at one time. All of this
benching has to be coordinated with the sales of each product. Because sales are always difficult to
predict and in the case of Ag lime, which is seasonal, mining it in phases is mandatory. Storage of
finished products outside of the pit area is limited. How much of any product is produced determines,
to a degree, by how much storage is available.

Page 10 of ! 9
And lastly, according to Mr. Dorenda, technology which would remove the need to impact wetlands is
not anticipated to evolve.
3. Explain how systematic phasing to mine is more economically feasible.
Whether it is sand, marl, or limestone, the material is found in layers at different depths and, as
mentioned before, must be mined in benches. To move around in the quarry property, in order to mine
a single product, is not feasible, as well as costly. For this reason, benches are created in open pit
mining and the minerals are exposed and mined in a systematic order of layers. The operation can only
produce a product as it mines and the desired product is exposed. Sometimes the availability of a
single product must wait until sales of other products occur or a storage area for those products
becomes available. Shelter Creek Quarry produces eight products and timely sales of these products is
important. When products don't sell, they must be stored and moved to another location in the mine.
Trucking becomes an exacting feature of mining, not only in providing raw material to the main
primary crusher, but also in storing excess sized stone that is not selling quickly enough. It is
extremely important not to double or triple handle sized stone if at all possible. First, because there is
a .50 cent fee per ton associated with each time the stone is handled, and second because each time the
stone is moved it is possible, through attrition, to change the specs of the product. This can result in
the product being undesirable by the market.
Shelter Creek Quarry crushes about 850 tons of rock per hour, or 1.75 million tons per year. If the
mine were to eliminate the phasing aspect of the project, it would need to double the size of the
excavator and add two additional trucks. To do this would increase the production cost by .75 cents
per ton, or an annual increase of approximately 1.3 million dollars in production cost. Increasing the
cost of production increases the cost of the product, which may not allow the plant to be competitive
with other plants. Therefore, non-systematic mining is neither economically nor logistically
practicable.
4. Better illustrate avoidance and minimization efforts.
As discussed in the original application, the Applicant has worked diligently to avoid the most
functional wetlands on -site, namely the highly valued swamp forest located along Shelter Creek, and
the large, 119.2-acre bottomland hardwood forest, found directly in the center of the southeastern
portion of the property. In this area a large deposit of limestone approximately 4.3 million tons of
minable rock, sand and lime, can be found, but are not being mined.
Additionally, innovative measures were utilized to ensure that wetlands on the adjacent North Carolina
Gamelands and those wetlands found within the mine property will not be affected by the mining
activities. Water in the discharge system originates from the mine pit, not from precipitation events. A
maximum volume of 2 million gallons per day may be pumped from the mine pits. However, the mine,

Page 1 1 of 19
Sr-G
on average only pumps about 1 million gallons a day. The water is pumped from the mine pit to the
Horseshoe Pond, where chemical testing occurs to ensure the water is not contaminated. It is then
pumped to the Level Spreader Pond. At the release point on the level spreader discharge system, the
mine operator installed a triple gate valve system, which is used to control the volume of water being
released into the bottomland hardwood wetland. Closed ditches along the eastern and western property
lines have been excavated and filled with water. This has created a hydraulic barrier and has ensured
the wetlands will not be drained. The large wetland complexes on the southeastern side of the property,
and along Holly Shelter Creek, will be protected via the discharge system. This system ensures that,
even during periods of drought, the hydrology is maintained to the wetland features on the North
Carolina Gamelands and within the Shelter Creek Quarry property limits. Monitoring well data
indicates that the system is working as proposed and impacts to wetlands, due to the mining activities
that have taken place thus far, have not occurred. Please feel free to contact Ms. Linda Willis, should
you have questions relating to the DWQs' position on the effectiveness of the closed dewatering
system.
Due to the fact that the proposed mine has been designed to avoid the most functionally valuable
wetlands and provides for measures to ensure the health of the remaining on- and off -site wetlands, it is
the Applicant's sincere belief that avoidance and minimization efforts have been incorporated into the
plan to the maximum extent practicable.
1. Demonstrate why original Nationwide Permit (NWP) did not include the rest of the mine.
As stated previously, it was not Mr. Holland's intention to mine the property when he purchased the
land. As it has been demonstrated within this correspondence, the cost of starting a mining operation is
extremely expensive. For a mine of this size, it takes approximately 20 million dollars in start up costs.
With that said, small time, independent operations, such as the Shelter Creek Quarry, must rely on
banks to back them to get started. However, it is typical that all local, state and federal permits be
secured prior to lending institutions releasing funds. Thus, Mr. Holland applied for the Nationwide
Permit to fill the ditches, in order to facilitate the berms that were required as part of the mining permit.
This provided Mr. Holland the cash flow to purchase trucks, the rock crusher, and other necessary
equipment necessary to begin mining, which, in turn, provided the cash flow to move forward with
obtaining the necessary permits for the rest of the project.
Section III: Comments received from Ms. Linda Willis Wilmin ton District DW Surface Water
Protection, dated 12 November 2008:
The proposed mine expansion may require modifications to their existing operation and monitoring
plan. DWQ SWPS has received some monitoring well results for 20 shallow monitoring wells. That data
was provided to the Central Office on 713112008. DWQ, WIRO inspected the mine site in September.
DWQ sent a letter requesting that Mr. Holland and/or his consultant (Mr. Dorenda) contact the office to

Page 12 of 19 5EGI
discuss the monitoring well data. To date, no response from either have been received. Before this office
can concur with an expansion, a meeting is needed to discuss why all monitoring wells (all supposedly
installed in wetlands) are not showing some hydrology indicative of wetlands Furthermore, the
Wilmington Regional Office has recently received two complaints from local residents concerning
impacts to their drinking wells. Before the Division can consider the request to expand the mine and
impact additional wetlands, several issues pertaining to the operation and monitoring plan need to be
resolved. It would be beneficial if the USACOE would meet with DWQ and Holland Shelter Quarry
permittee to discuss the implications of the shallow monitoring well data as well as the proposed wetland
impacts
As a result of the 5 June 2009 on -site meeting with the USACE, DWQ, SWP, WRC and others, where
auger pulls indicated that the water table was within 12" to 18" of the surface, the data was re-
evaluated. It was determined that an error had occurred in the calculations. Since that time, the
corrected monitoring well data has been furnished to the DWQ SWP Unit (refer to addendum
Attachment 11). The neighbors complaining about their drinking water no longer have complaints.
The first complainant has sold his property to Mr. Holland. The second complainant had a faulty water
softener and Mr. Holland paid to make it functional. To SEGi's knowledge, all complaints have been
addressed.
Shelter Creek Quarry has had monitoring wells in place, both on and off the mining property, prior to
any physical mining of the site. Some of the wells are on NC State Gamelands, which adjoin the
mining property, and others are in known wetlands within the project boundaries. Test results over the
past three years show that the wetlands have remained hydrated and have not been detrimentally
affected (see Attached Monitoring Well Data). As discussed previously, one of the main reasons for this
success is due, in large part, to the closed circuiting of the pumped water and the long canal of water on
the western boundary of the mining property. To our knowledge, there are no indication that wetlands
have been negatively affected since the mining operations began. In fact, the shallow wells, as well as
deeper wells, indicate that the water table has increased somewhat, even during periods of drought.
Quarterly reports on approximately 32 wells, on and off of the mining property, along with PH and
suspended solids reports have been submitted to the DWQ SWP Unit for their review and comment. At
this time SEGi nor the Applicant has received comments from the DWQ SWP Unit. Please feel free to
contact Linda Willis, should you have questions regarding the submitted data.
Section IV: Comment received from Ms. Joanne Steenhuis, Wilmington District DWO 401 Wetlands
Unit, dated 12 November 2008:
1. The IP application dated 10113108 requests 46.92 acres of wetland impacts, the map labeled
Attachment 6 shows the total wetland impact area as approximately 33.46 acres The map identified as
enclosure #42 has a chart that shows 47.45 acres of approximate wetland impact. Please state the correct

Fage 15 of 19
Sr.G
amount of wetlands proposed for impact and correct all the maps and written descriptions so they are
consistent Please identify which wetlands have been identified as isolated and include them in the
calculated wetland impacts and narrative for the State.
The correct area of wetlands to be impacted is as follows:
404 Jurisdictional Wetlands 47.45 acres (1,953,230.4 SF)
401 Isolated Wetlands 2.61 acres (113,691.6.0 SF)
Total Wetland Impacts 47.45 acres (2,066,922.0 SF).
Attached you will find the Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet, which has been prepared
to accurately detail total proposed wetland impacts, both 404 and 401, as well as provide information
on the classification of each impact, what phase they are to take place, etc. (refer to addendum
Attachment 10).
2. Please show on an overall map, the wetlands to be impacted and in what phases and also identify the
required 50' undisturbed buffer by the Land Quality Section form the property line andlor wetlands.
Please refer to the revised site plan (Attachment 6) and to the Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact
Spreadsheet (addendum Attachment 10).
3. The maps indicate there will be a proposed `future" ditch on the northwestern side of the property
(Phase IA). There are wetlands shown to abut this property line. Please indicate how this proposed ditch
will not impact/drain additional wetlands off -site?
The ditch has been installed and water is continuously pumped into the feature, which ensures that it
will not have a draining effect on adjacent off -site wetlands. This has been demonstrated with the
shallow water monitoring well data that has been included with this correspondence.
4. There are on -site and off -site wetland monitoring wells. Please show the previously collected data and
provide a summary of these finding.
As a result of the 5 June 2009 on -site meeting with the DWQ, SWP, WRC and others, where auger
pulls indicated that the water table was within 12" to 18" of the surface, the data was re-evaluated. It
was determined that an error in the calculation had occurred. The error was corrected and the data
recalculated (see attached). In summary, the corrected data reinforces the existing conditions evaluated
during that site visit and also indicates that the mining activity has not a draining effect on wetlands
outside the project limits or within the cone of depletion.
5. The proposed compensatory mitigation does not meet the requirements describe in 15A NCAC

Page 14 of 19 S E-G
2H.0506(h) M-(7). Please give a detailed compensatory mitigation plan that will meet the State's
requirements. If there is on -site restorationlereation proposed, please detail what will be required to
accomplish this, the planting plan and the monitoring plan will also be required.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h)(7):
Wetland mitigation shall be conducted based on the following ratios (acres mitigated to acres loss);
4:1, for wetlands locate within 150 feet of the mean high water line or normal water level of any per-
ennial or intermittent water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United
States Geological Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographical map; 2:1, for wetlands located
between 150 feet and 1,000 feet from the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial
or intermittent water body as shown by the most recently published version of the United States Geo-
logical Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographical map; and 1:1, for all other wetlands.
These ratios only apply to wetland restoration. None of the wetland impacts associated with this project
fall within 150 linear feet of the mean high water line or normal water level of any perennial or intermit-
tent water body (refer to the revised Attachment 6). Therefor, mitigation required by the US Army
Corps of Engineers shall be considered to constitute the mitigation required by the DWQs' certification.
6. In the narrative accompanying the IP application on page 14127 states "that Phases IA and IIB, as
permitted would be mined out in 12-14 years'. Please clarify if this would be Phase IA and HA.
This has been corrected (see revised Supplemental Document, pg 14).
7. A really good overall site plan identifying the wetlands (isolated and jurisdictional), which wetlands
will be impacted in each phase, monitoring well locations, buffer limits, etc. would be beneficial to this
reviewer.
See the revised Attachment 6, as well as the Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet
(Addendum Attachment 10).
Section V: Comments received from Ms. Molly Elwood, NCWRC, dated 24 November 2008:
1. The NCWRC is concerned with the potential impacts to important wetlands form the cone of
depression. Dewatering these areas of wetlands could impact areas off -site, particularly on state
managed lands that are regularly used by the public. Holly Shelter Game Lands and Angola Bay Game
Lands are managed for game species, timber, as well as for important species such as the red -cockaded
woodpecker. Information provided in reference to the monitoring wells is minimal with the document.
To reduce NCWRC's concern for the potential loss of adjacent wetlands, please provide more
information as to the location of additional monitoring wells that will be installed, their associated
depths, along with when they will be installed for each of the phases Information collected form the

Page 15 of IF SE-6i
current monitoring wells should also be provided to indicate how the current mining activities have not
affected surrounding wetlands from dewatering.
Ms. Molly Elwood, WRC Southeast Permit Coordinator, attended the 5 June 2009 site visit. At that
time, and with the submittal of the corrected monitoring well data, it is believed the Applicant has
successfully demonstrated that dewatering of the wetlands on the Holly Shelter Game Lands and Angola
Bay Game Lands has not taken place. For more information regarding the dewatering of wetlands,
please refer to Section V, above.
2. We request more information as to how the amount of water entering Holly Shelter Creek would not
have a significant, adverse impact upon the in -stream flow, water temperature, or otherwise alter the in -
stream habitat.
No water from the site is being directly discharged into Holly Shelter Creek.
3. We recommend that the application provide a mitigation plan to clearly explain the proposed wetlands
to be created. This plan should include a map for the proposed location for these wetlands, the acreage
for the created wetlands, how they will be created, and the types of native vegetation that will be used.
Along with this information, we request that the plan also provide an explanation as to how the wetlands
will be monitored to ensure they are functioning wetlands, and how they will be functional in such a way
that they appropriately mitigate for the proposed impacts. Due to the amount of impacts proposed, we
recommend that other alternatives be explored. The purchase of wetlands through a direct land
acquisition could potentially increase connectivity of wetlands and waterways in the area, at the same
time as providing open space and public use benefits.
As discussed previously in Section 1, Part 4, of this letter, mitigation will be in the form of restoration
through an approved wetland mitigation bank, the NCEEP, or permittee responsible mitigation.
4. Maps provided should be modified to consistently depict jurisdictional wetlands as well as the isolated
wetlands on site and their associated acreages.
See revised Attachment 6.
5. The document provided does not address possible infrastructure related to the expansion of the mine.
Please provide additional information in reference to any needs for additional on -site storage or
processing facilities, and any potential road or rail systems that may be needed.
No additional infrastructure is anticipated with the expansion of the mine.
6. The NCWRC recommends that a 100 ft. buffer be maintained from streams to minimize secondary

Page 16 of 19
cumulative impacts
SE-Gi
The project does not propose land disturbance within 100 feet of any stream, river, or lake (see revised
Attachment 6).
Section VL Comments received from Mr. Pete Benjamin, US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated 18
November 2008:
1. Plans for preventing long-term, adverse impacts to wetlands to be preserved adjacent to the mined area
and the operation and maintenance of any equipment needed to maintain the natural hydrology of these
wetlands;
As discussed previously, long-term adverse affects to wetlands will not take place. The implementation
and use of the close circuit dewatering system will operate until all mining activities have ceased and the
pits have filled with water, at which time the concern for dewatering wetlands will not longer exist.
2. The acres of each wetland type that would be permanently impacted by the mining operation;
See addendum Attachment 10 (Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet).
3. A detailed plan for compensatory wetland mitigation for the 44.84 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
expected to be eliminated by the mining operation. Since wetland losses include forested wetlands that
would take decades to become fully functional, mitigation entirely through restoration should be done at
a two -to -one ratio, an overall requirement of 89.69 acres.
For comments 3 though 8, please see response to Section II, DWQ - 401 Wetlands Unit's Concerns, #5.
4. If compensatory mitigation entirely by restoration is not proposed, the plan should include, at a
minimum, 44.84 acres of in -kind restoration through: (1) on site mitigation; (2) purchase from a
commercial mitigation bank; or, (3) payment to the NC EEP.
S. After the minimal restoration component, other components may consist of additional restoration,
establishment (creation), enhancement, andlor permanent preservation. As a secondary component, the
proposed 119.2 acres of preservation, at a five -to -one ratio, would provide 23.84 acres, or 26.6%
(23.84189.68), of the overall mitigation requirement.
6. The remaining mitigation requirement, 21 acres, may consist of either 21 acres of additional
restoration (1:1 ratio), 63 acres of establishment (3:1 ratio), or 105 acres of preservation.
7. The abandoned mine pits andlor the freshwater reservoir should not be considered mitigation

''age 17 of 19 S r-G i
wetlands Similarly, the littoral fringes of mine pits should not qualify as established wetlands due to the
unnatural.Jluctuations in hydrology and the poor support for the wooded wetlands loss; and,
8. The location of each mitigation site should be shown on a map along with the type of compensation at
each site; the wetland community that occupies, or would ultimately occupy, each site; the entity that
would protect and maintain each site, and funding that would ensure long-term stewardship and
protection of each site.
It is SEGi's sincere hope that the information found within and attached to this correspondence will address
the Corps' concerns, as well as those outlined in the letters received from the commenting agencies,
regarding the proposed project. The Applicant intends to have a clear However, should additional
information be necessary, please feel free to contact either myself or David Syster at 910.452.2711.
Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Dana A. Lutheran
Project Manager
Enclosure (3)
cc: Ms. Joanne Steenhuis — Wilmington District 401 Wetlands Unit
Ms. Linda Willis — Wilmington District Surface Water Protection
Ms. Molly Elwood — NC Wildlife Resource Commission
Mr. Pete Benjamin — US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. Stephen Rynas — NC DCM, Federal Consistency Coordinator
Stephen Dorenda — Shelter Creek Quarry, Vice President of Operations

Shelter QreeL Quarry IF 1 `C �y V. . lb l 1 �IOG> 5 �
The Nationwide Permit was signed by Ms. Lillette Granade on 10 June 2006. A corresponding
General Water Quality Certification 3402 (Project No. 060943) was issued on 26 July 2006 by Ms.
Joanne Steenhuis (Attachment 5). Currently, the perimeter of Phase I A circumvents marginal wetland
pockets. This is not the most efficient quarry configuration, as valuable limestone may be left in the
ground. Said limestone would be attainable with a less convoluted footprint. Impacts requested for
Phase I A, associated with this Individual Permit request, would be to expand the currently permitted
footprint, so that the mine edges would match the setback requirements. Current proposed wetland
impacts for the expansion of this phase are referred to as A, B, C, and D (Attachment 6), and total
approximately 17.7 acres.
The pump water collection system has been developed as part of Phase IA, and is currently in
operation. The pump water collection system pumps water to the Horseshoe Pond, where the water's
chemistry and clarity are tested. If necessary, additives will be dispersed in the water as remediation.
The water then discharges into the Level Spreader Pond, where the water level is regulated by triple
gate valves. If necessary, the water quality can be inspected in this reservoir. The water is then
released through the valves to the large central wetland system. The plan for this system can be found
in the Hydrology Monitoring Plan (Attachment 7).
The second phase of the mining operation would be Phase IIA. Wetland impacts associated with this
phase, which is found to the east of existing entrance road, were authorized under the same permit as
Phase IA. Again, the original mining footprint was designed to circumvent most marginal wetland
areas. The applicant would like to alter the existing footprint, so that the revised footprint would match
the required setbacks. This would grant the quarry operators to access additional limestone, and is the
same scenario as Phase IA, described supra. It is anticipated that Phases IA and 19, as currently
permitted, would be mined out in 12 to 14 years (See Attachment 1). The proposed wetland impacts
associated with the expansion of Phase IIA are labeled as AA, BB, CC, DD, and EE, and total
approximately 12. I8 acres.
The third phase, IB, is found to the south of IA. No part of IB has been authorized to date, and wetland
impacts in this phase include those to areas E, F, G, and H. The proposed impacts for Phase IB total
approximately 4.4 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The mine operators would prefer to commence

Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet
WETLAND
AREA _
A
SIZE (AC)
�7.2
SIZE (SF)
TYPE
NOW
RIPARIAN
RIPARIAN
VALUE
PHASE
404 WET
401 WET
404 MIT
401 BAIT
313,632.0
Swamp Forest
♦
lA
♦
o
B
0.8
34,848.0
Wet Flat
♦
L
IA
'
C
3.8
165,528.0
Wet Flat
♦
IA
♦
o
D
5.9
257,004.0
Pocosin
♦
1A
♦
o
E
0.24
10,454.4
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
1B
♦
o
F
1.4
60,984.0
Wet Flat
♦
1B
♦
o
G
0.7
30,492.0
Wet Flat
♦
L
113
H
1.56
67,953.6
Wet Flat
♦
113
♦
0
1
0.5
21,780.0
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
IB
J
0.11
4,791.6
Wet Flat
♦
[A
♦
❑
K
0.16
6,969.6
Wet Fiat
♦
IA
♦
0
AA
1.2
52,272.0
Freshwater Marsh
♦
L
IlA
BB
0.54
23,522.4
Wet Flat
♦
11A
♦
❑
CC
0.24
10,454.4
CXpress Swamp
♦
11A
DD
4,9
213,444.0
Cypress Swamp
♦
11A
♦
o
EF
5.3
230,868.0
Cypress Swamp
♦
11A
♦
o
FF
3A
148,104.0
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
♦
1113
♦
o
GG
1.48
64,468.8
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
IIB
♦
o
HH
1.75
76,230.0
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
1113
♦
o
11
0.31
13,503.6
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
.
IIB
♦
o
11
0.24
10,454A
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
JIB
♦
o
KK
2.12
92,347.2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
.
1IB
♦
o
LL
1.48
64,468.8
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
IIB
♦
o
MM
1.86
81,021.61
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
RB
♦
o
NN
0.11
4791.6
Swamp Forest
+
11B
♦
o
00
0.12
5,227.2
Swamp Forest
■
LIB
►
o
PP
0.03
1,306.E
Swamp Forest
.
11B
♦
e
TOTAL
47.45
2,066,922.0
37.21
10.24
2.7
44.94
2.61
42.14
2.61
SF
1,620,867.6
446,054.4
117,612.0
1,953,230A
113,691.6
1,835,618.4
113691.E
Page 1

Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet
WETLAND TYPE
ACRES
Swamp Forest
7.46
130ttornland Hardwood Forest
13.38
P000sin
5.9
Wet Flat
9.07
Freshwater Marsh
1.2
GXpress Swamp
10.44
TOTAL
47.45
Page 2
PHASE IA 17.97
PHASE IR
4.4
PHASE UA
12.18
PHASE UB
12.9
TOTAL
47A5

P� chfneu+ I D 6 Q4-du r,- #11gOq
Shelter Creek Qua" Wetland Impact Spreadsheet
WETI.AND
AREA
SIZE (AC)
SIZE (SF)
TYPE
NON -
RIPARIAN
RIPARIAN
VALUE
PHASE
404 WET
401 WET
404 MIT
401 MIT
A
7.2
313,632.0
Swamp Forest
•
lA
♦
o
B
0.8
34,848.0
Wet Flat
♦
L
fA
C
3.8
165,528.0
Wet Flat
♦
IA
♦
o
D
5.9
257,004.0
Pocosin
♦
IA
♦
o
E
0.24
10,454.4
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
IB
♦
o
F
1.4
60,984.0
Wet Flat
♦
IB
♦
o
G
0.7
30,492.0
Wet Flat
♦
L
IB
H
1.56
67,953,6
Wet Flat
♦
I B
♦
n
1
0.5
21,780.0
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
1B
♦
o
J
0,11
4,791.6
Wet Flat
♦
IA
♦
p
K
0.16
6,969.6
Wet Flat
•
]A
♦
p
AA
1.2
52,272.0
Freshwater Marsh
♦
L
IIA
BB
0,54
23,522.4
Wet Flat
•
IIA
•
0
CC
0,24
10,454.4
Cypress Swamp
♦
IIA
♦
4
DID
4.9
213,444.0
Cypress Swamp
♦
IIA
♦
o
EE
5.3
230,868.0
Cypress Swamp
♦
ITA
♦
o
FF
3.4
148,1D4.0
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
♦
]IB
♦
o
GG
1.48
64,468.8
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
IIB
♦
n
HH
1.75
76,230.0
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
JIB
♦
o
11
0.31
13,503.6
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
JIB
♦
o
11
0.24
10,454.4
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
JIB
♦
o
KK
2.12
92,347.2
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
JIB
♦
o
ILL
1.48
64,468.8
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
JIB
►
o
MM
1.86
81,021.6
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
•
IIB
♦
6'
NN
0.11
4791.6
Swamp Forest
•
JIB
♦
o
00
0.12
5,227.2
Swamp Forest
•,
IIA
♦
0
PP
0.03
1.306.8
Swamp Forest
•
11B
♦
n
TOTAL
41.46
2,066,922.01
37.21
10.24
2.7
44.84
2.61
42.14
2.61
SF
1,620,867.6
446,064.4
117,612.0
1,963,230.4
113,691.6
1,836,618.4
113691.6
Page 1

Shelter Creek Ouarry Wetland Impact Spreadsheet
WETLAND TYPE
ACRES
Swamp Forest
7.46
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
13.38
Pocosin
5,9
Wet Flat
9.G7
Freshwater Marsh
1.2
.Cypress Swamp
1 D.44
TOTAL
47,45
Page 2
PHASE IA 17.97
PHASE 1B
4.4
PHASEIIA
12.18
PHASE ITS
12.9
TOTAL
47.45

Willis, Linda
From:
David Scibetta [[e-mail])
Sent:
Monday, September 14, 2009 10:39 AM
To:
Linda Willis
Cc:
David A. Syster; Dana Lutheran
Subject:
Shelter Creek Quarry shallow water monitoring well data explanation
Hi Linda,
I will attempt to explain what happened with the monitoring well data. The discrepancy issue with the well
graphs stemmed from an improper calculation of the raw well data in the spreadsheet used to generate the
graphs. That is, the raw number that the well generates once per day, was improperly converted in the
spreadsheet. I had initially thought that the raw number was in inches whereas it was actually in feet.
For instance, a reading of "0.73" indicates the water surface is 0.73 FEET above the bottom of the pipe
I had converted that number by multiplying it by 12 (INCHES), and then subtract the result from 18 INCHES,
the depth the well is in the ground.
So, this is what the calculation looked like in the spreadsheet: 0.73-18 = -17.27 inches below the soil surface.
The new calculation looks like this: (0.73* 12)-18= -9.24 inches.
As I said, when I spoke to you, I would have caught the discrepancy earlier had I been the one in the field
downloading the wells, but the clients wanted to do this themselves. We've made it a policy now that whether
we download them every time or not we will conduct an inspection of the wells periodically to ensure they are
reading accurately and that the data are being properly converted into graphs.
I hope this information has proved to be helpful in understanding the errors in the well graphs. Please let me
know if you have any questions or need additional information.
Thanks and have a good day,
David Scibetta
CJ�
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office)
910.452.2899 (facsimile)
910.443.0476 (mobile)
[e-mail]

Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
July 17, 2009
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Storm Water Permitting Unit Supervisor
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Mr. Bennett,
IM
JUL 2 1 2009
I have submitted herewith our quarterly water discharge reports, water analysis reports
conducted by Environmental Chemist, Inc., and a letter from Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
who analyze our monitoring well data. As you can see, our well data has been corrected from May
11, 2007 through July, 2009. All of this data has been corrected and it does show that we have not
affected the wetlands surrounding our mineable acreage.
We are planning to have five of our wells repaired that were in dry areas from the onset of
our monitoring in May of 2007. The engineer from Southern Environmental Group, Inc., who
analyzes the well data, has redone all of the well data since it was in error. Any questions pertaining
to his new analysis can be -directed to him at 910.443.0476.
Our water quality remains stable and so does the water quantity. I do not see anything that
shows any changes that are noteworthy.
i drove the entire boundary -of our mining site to look for possible sink holes, and did not
find any.
I would be happy to answer any questions and will address comments should you have any.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Dorenda
/cc: Ms. Linda Willis

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Apr-09
5:00pm
n/a
7
7.79/62.2
672,000
2-Apr-09
n/a
4:00pm
16
7.72/62.8
1,000,000
3-Apr-09
7:00am
12:00pm
5
7.67/63.6
1,000,000
4-Apr-09
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
16,000
5-Apr-09
6.00pm
n/a
6
n/a
576,000
6-Apr-09
n/a
12:00pm
12
7.73/62.8
1,000,000
7-Apr-09
7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.78/62.0
920,000
8-Apr-09
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.80/61.4
768,000
9-Apr-09
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.79/61.8
864,000
10-Apr-09
9:00am
1:OOpm
4
n/a
384,000
11-Apr-09
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
12-Apr-09
5:00pm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
13-Apr-09
n/a
9:00am
9
7.73/62.9
864,000
14-Apr-09
8:00am
5:OOpm
9
7,72/63.2
864,000
15-Apr-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.72/63.8
960,000
16-Apr-09
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.70/64.3
768,000
17-Apr-09
10:00am
5:00pm
7
7.69/64.7
672,000
18-Apr-09
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
19-Apr-09
5:OOpm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
20-Apr-09
n/a
9:00am
9
7.65/66.0
864,000
21-Apr-09
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.64/66.4
768,000
22-Apr-09
8:00am
5:00pm
9
7.66/66.5
864,000
23-Apr-09
8:00am
5:00pm
9
7.70/66.3
864,000
24-Apr-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.72/66.2
960,000
25-Apr-09
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
26-Apr-09
6:00pm
n/a
6
n/a
576,000
27-Apr-09
n/a
10:00am
10
7.70/70.7
960,000
28-Apr-09
9:00am
5:00pm
8
7.72/72.0
768,000
29-Apr-09
8:00am
2:00pm
6
7.73/72.4
576,000

PH GRAPH
Apr-09
9.0
8.9
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.4
;ate °-.-
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 79 30 --
iii
............................
m

I
PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-May-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.75/73.1
960,000
2-May-09
10:00am
2:00pm
4
n/a
384,000
3-May-09
5:OOpm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
4-May-09
n/a
10:00am
10
7.79/73.7
960,000
5-May-09
9:00am
4:00pm
7
7.80/74.0
672,000
6-May-09
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7.82/74.2
768,000
7-May-09
12:00pm
4:00pm
4
7.83/74.8
384,000
8-May-09
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.82/74.6
864,000
9-May-09
8:00am
12:00pm
4
n/a
384,000
10-May-09
8:00pm
n/a
4
n/a
384,000
11-May-09
n/a
10:00am
10
7.79/73.5
960,000
12-May-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.80/73.1
960,000
13-May-09
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7,81/72.8
864,000
14-May-09
8:00am
4:00pm
8
7,81/72.7
768,000
15-May-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7,80/72.7
960,000
16-May-09
8:00am
1:OOpm
5
n/a
480,000
17-May-09
6:00pm
n/a
6
n/a
576,000
18-May-09
n/a
10:00am
10
7,86/69.3
960,000
19-May-09
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7,88/68.8
864,000
20-May-09
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.85/69.2
864,000
21-May-09
7:00am
2:00pm
7
7.79/68.6
672,000
22-May-09
9:00am
3:00pm
6
7.78/69.2
576,000
23-May-09
5:00pm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
24-May-09
7:00pm
9:00am
14
n/a
1,000,000
25-May-09
8:00pm
9:00am
13
n/a
1,000,000
26-May-09
n/a
9:00am
9
7.70/74.8
1,000,000
27-May-09
7:00am
12:00pm
5
7.74/75.3
936,000
28-May-09
7:00am
2:00pm
7
7.76/76.1
672,000
29-May-09
7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.75/76.8
768,000
30-May-09
9:00am
1:00pm
4
n/a
384,000
31-May-09 I
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

PH GRAPH
9.0
j
a

PUMP ON / OFF LOG
DATE PUMPED
TIME PUMP ON
TIME PUMP OFF
TOTAL HOURS
PH LEVEL
LEVEL SPREADER
DISCHARGE QUANTITY
1-Jun-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.53/79.6
960,000
2-Jun-09
7:OOam
5:00pm
10
7,50/81.0
960,000
3-Jun-09
8:00am
5:00pm
9
7.49/81.8
864,000
4-Jun-09
8:40am
S:OOpm
9
7.50/82.0
864,000
5-Jun-09
7:00am
4:00pm
9
7.52/82.2
864,000
6-Jun-09
9:00am
3:00pm
6
n/a
576,000
7-Jun-09
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
nla
8-Jun-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.50/81.8
960,000
9-Jun-09
9:00am
5:00pm
8
7.49/81.7
768,000
10-Jun-09
7:00am
S:Oopm
10
7.47/81.5
960,000
11-Jun-09
7:00am
4:OOpm
9
7.47/81.2
864,000
12-Jun-09
8:00am
4:OOpm
8
7.45/81.6
768,000
13-Jun-09
8:00am
5:00pm
9
n/a
864,000
14-Jun-09
10:00am
5:OOpm
7
n/a
672,000
15-Jun-09
7:00am
3:00pm
8
7.42/80.4
768,000
16-Jun-09
8:00am
4:OOpm
8
7.42/80.2
768,000
17-Jun-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.41/80.3
960,000
18-Jun-09
8:00am
3:OOpm
7
7.42/81.6
672,000
19-Jun-09
8:00am
4:OOpm
8
7.43/82.2
768,000
20-Jun-09
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
21-Jun-09
5:00pm
n/a
7
n/a
672,000
22-Jun-09
n/a
10:00a
10
7.49/82.8
960,000
23-Jun-09
7.00am
3:00pm
8
7.46/82.2
768,000
24-Jun-09
8:00am
5:00pm
9
7.45/81.7
864,000
25-Jun-09
7:00am
5:00pm
10
7.47/81.2
960,000
26-Jun-09
9:00am
4:00pm
7
7.48/80.6
672,000
27-Jun-09
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
28-Jun-09
8:00pm
n/a
4
n/a
384,000
29-Jun-09
n/a
10:OOam
10
7.58/81.7
960,000
30-Jun-09
8:00am
3:00pm
7
7.53/82.3
672,000

PH GRAPH
Jun-06 11
21
31
41
51
61
71
:
91
101
111
121
131
14
15f
•
ttmrimtttittm
ir■
ommmttimtommadmt!
!rlilirlitiilrtiiitriirttiittii
iiilriit���■t�■rttrrrrtittt�t�itr■�rtt�t
:.
!llritiltrtitiitiritititiriiitt�
■rrr�r�rr�rr�it�r�tir■�rir��rllrttittitr�■
•
ttit�t�t�t�r�r�rttt�itit�t��■■rtat�iros�tt�■tt
lR•�tr�•�■trttiir�rrtr�rirr�tt�rtrrllt�t�t
rlirrriir!!it'!rrllrtiirttiirtti
••tiritriiitirriiiiittirriiriiiii.
•
�i�■�r■��rr■■■t��rtir�t�t�■�t�titttttttttttt
•
t�irtti�■ttiiittilt�t�iitiiitii�
• -
itiiti�ti�r�irt■rtit�itrrtt�■�ir�t�r■��rtt
t�it�ttttrti!lrrtitiiiittiliiit'
t■�ittr�ritrtts�i�rr�■�i�t�r�■�■��i■r�ir■�itt�
t�t�■��rt��rr
■�rir��r�r�r■t�■■rrit���■■��■�■i■�tt

f . 1%
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office) • 910.452.2899 (fax)
Date: 6/15/09
To: Joanne Steenhuis
Of: DENR
Attached you will find:*
❑ Proposal ❑ Sketch(es)
❑ JD Packages ❑ Report(s)
SEQ Pruject #: 0"10.01
Olent Name: Steve Holland
USACDE Actlon ID#:
Transmittal Letter
❑ Permit ❑ Wetland Map ❑ Photo(s)
❑ Plans ❑ Information Request ® Other
Copies I Dated I Description I
I1 I CD of CORRECTED Shelter Quarry Well Data Graphs I
'If noted items are NOT attached, please contact our office.
These are being delivered:
© For your Review/Comment ❑ For your Records ❑ Returned for Correction(s)
❑ Corrected and Returned ❑ For your Signature ❑ As Requested
❑ Other:
By: © Hand Delivery ❑ Fed -Ex ❑ UPS ❑ Regular Mail ❑ Other
Notes:
Attached is a disc containing corrected graphs for the shallow Shelter Quarry wells, Let this data
preceed all other. Dispose of previous well data graphs.
Signature and (Typed) Name:
Date:
© vtd cibett
6/15/09

• Page 1 of I
sheltercreekquarry2hughes.net
From: "David Scibetta" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, ,tune 15, 2009 9:15 AM
Attach: Shelter Quarry Corrected Well Graphs 5-11-07 to Present.pdf
Subject: CORRECTED Well data graphs
Steve D.:
I have redone all the well data from the start of measuring. This set of graphs shall replace any and all
well graphs you have received up to this point. Dispose of all others, as they are invalid and incorrect.
Some interesting trends. Let me know if you have questions.
David Scibetta
SEGO
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711 (office)
910.452.2899 (facsimile)
910.443.0476 (mobile)
dscibetta@,)segi.us
7/17/2009

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009.
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW10
Location: 34.63436' N 77.75434' W
Observations
Vegetation (including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Pond cypress (Taxodium ascenclans), OBL
Sweet gum (Liguidamhar styraciflua), FAC+
Wax myrtle (Morelia cerifera), FAC+
Groundsel tree (Baccharis halindfolia), FAC
Black willow (Salix nigra), OBL
Panic grass (Panicum spp.), Varies
Lizard's tail (Saururus cernims), OBL
Hvdrolw-tic observations:
No indicators of surficial hydrology were observed within the vicinity of the well.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage 1D: MWll
Location: 34.63607° N 77.75427- W
Observations
Ve etation(including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Panic grass (Panicum spp.), Varies
Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) FACU
Beak rush (Rhyncospora spp) FAC or wetter
Dog -fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) FACU
Hvdrologic observations:
No indicators of surficial hydrology were observed within the vicinity of the well.
Other observations:
Site recently bushhogged.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage 1D: MW12
Location: 34.63378° N 77.75272' W
Observations
VeetatiOn (includingg NWI_region 2 indicator status):
Pond cypress (Taxodhon ascendans), OBL
Red Maple (Ater rubrum), FAC
Loblolly pine (Phum taeda), FAC
Royal fern (Osmunda regalis), OBL
Flvdrologic observations:
Some evidence of recent ponding was observed within the vicinity of the well.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW13
Location: 34.63738° N 77.75053° W
bservatio7
Vegetation kincluding N WI rein 2 indicator status .
Groundsel tree (Baccharis halinfifolia), FAC
Panic grass (Panicunr spp.), Varies
Beak rush (Rhyncospora spp) FAC or wetter
Switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea), FACW
Soft rush (Juncus effurus), FACW
Hydrologic_olservations:
No indicators of surficial hydrology were observed within the vicinity of the well.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW14
Location: 34.637140 N 77.747660 W
Observations
Ve etation including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendans), OBL
Red Maple (Ater rttbrum), FAC
Swamp gum (Nvssa aquatica), OBL
Black willow (Salix nigrct), OBL
Red bay (Persea palustris), FACW
Titi (Cyrilla racetuiflora), FACW
Virginia chain fern (Waadwardia virginiona), OBL
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), OBL
Hydrologic observations:
No indicators of surficial hydrology were observed within the vicinity of the well.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MWIS
Location: _34.63714° N 77.747621 W
Observations
Vegetation(including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Red Maple (Ater rubrum), FAC
Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciva), FAC+
Red bay (Perseapalustris), FACW
Titi (Cyrilla racem flora), FACW
Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginiana), OBL
Laurel -leaved greenbriar (.Smilax laurifolia), FACW+
Hvdrolo ig c observations:
No indicators of surficial hydrology were observed within the vicinity of the well.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW16
Location: 3.4.63568" N 77.745250 W
Obscry tions
Vegetation (including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), OBL
Red Maple (Ater rubrum), FAC
Buttonbush (Cephlanthus occidentalis), OBL
Black willow (Salix nigra), OBL
Beak rush (Rhyncospora spp) FAC or wetter
Creeping ludwigia (Ludivigia repen.r), OBL
Cone -cup Spikerush (Pleocharis tuberculosttnt), FACW+
Mermaid weed (Prose)pinaca pectinata), OBL
Hvdrologic observations:
There was ponding at and around the monitoring Nvell, approximately 4 inches in depth.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW17
Location: 4 34° N 77.75063* W
Observations
Vegetation (including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendans), OBL
Red Maple (Acer rubninj), FAC
Black willow (Salix nigra), OBL
Beak rush (Rhyncospora spp) FAC or wetter
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), OBL
Switch cane (tlrundinaria gigantea), FACW
Soft rush (Juncos effusus), FACW
Hydrologic observations:
There was ponding at and around the monitoring well, approximately 2 inches in depth.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Peader Co., NC Sample Date: 29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW18
Location: 34.62910' N 77.74996' W
Observations
Ve,,ctalion (including NWI region 2 indicator_StatusJ:
3 species of Beat: rush (RhyncoV)ora spp), FAC or wetter
Carolina primrose-ivillow (Ludwigia bonariensis), FACW+
Sugarcane plurnegrass (Sacchrum gigantiunt), FACW
Soft rush (Juncos effiisus), FAC W
Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), OBL
Hvdrologic observations:
There was ponding at and around the monitoring well, approximately 5 inches in depth.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW19
Location: 34.628070 N 77.748880 W
Observations
Vegetation (includinp, NWI region 2 indicator status):
2 species of Beak rush (Rhyncospora spp), FAC or wetter
Soft rush (Juncus effusus), FACW
Woolgrass (Scirpus cvperinus), OBL
Cone -cup Spikerush (Eleocharis luberculosunt), FACW+
Cattail, (Typhu lalifolia), OBL
Hydrologic observations:
There was ponding near the monitoring well, approximately 2 inches in depth.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW20
Location: 34.62818° N 77.74779' W
Observations
Vegetation (including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Pond cypress (Ta-sodium ascendans), OBL
Red Maple (Acer rubrum), FAC
Loblolly pine (Pinu.s taeda), FAC
TItI (Cyrilla racemiflora), FACW
Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), OBL
Soft rush (Juncus effiuus), FACW
Virginia chain fern (Woochvardia virginiana), OBL
Laurel -leaved greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia), FACW+
Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), Varies
Hydrologic observations:
There was ponding at and around the monitoring well, approximately 3 inches in depth.

Shelter Creek Quarry, NC 53, Pender Co., NC Sample Date: 5-29-2009
Vegetative Composition at Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Well Sites
Gage ID: MW21
Location: 34.629340 N 77,745550 W
Observations
Vegetation(including NWI region 2 indicator status):
Pond cypress (Taxodium ascendans), OBL
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), FACW
Black willow (Salix nigra), OBL
Buttonbush (Cephlahthus occidentalis), OBL
Cattail, (Typha latifolia), OBL
Lizard's tail (Sauritrus cernuus), OBL
3 different Caric sedges (Carex spp.), FAC or wetter
Hydrologic _observations:
There was ponding at and around the monitoring well, approximately 5 inches in depth. Tile water was
actively and visibly sheet flowing through the entire area.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
f PO BOX 1890
I _ WILMINGTON NC 28402-1890
r
March 23, 2009
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2008-1720 FMICEIV-7
MAR 2 6 200
BY:
Mr. Steve Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 N.C. Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
Dear Mr. Holland:
Reference your May 16, 2008 application for Department of the Army authorization to
discharge fill material into 44.84 acres of wetlands for the expansion of an existing limestone
quarry located off of N.C. Highway 53, northeast of Burgaw, Pender County, North Carolina.
On February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures
to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with Clean Water Act Section
404(b) (1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands
through the selection of the least damaging, practicable alternative; second, taking appropriate
and practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensation for
remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us to process
your application, in compliance with the MOA, we request that you provide the following
additional information:
1. Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the
proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Please
provide additional information regarding off -site alternatives. The application states
that it is not practicable to move the operation to another site because of the associated
start up costs. Please explain the start up costs in detail and explain how it would not
be practicable to mine off -site.
2. Please provide more detailed information concerning the upland, no -action
alternatives. In the application, you state that the utilization of drills to extract the
resource is slow and would preclude the marketability. Please explain why drilling
would preclude marketability and compare the extraction times and costs between
drilling and the proposed excavation.
3. Please justify why mining only the upland areas is not a practicable alternative. The
application states that there is not enough space between the wetlands to install a

-2-
mining area. Please provide further explanation as to why it is not economically or
logistically practicable to avoid all wetland impacts. For instance, can roads be
constructed around or across the wetlands to access and mine the uplands? Why do the
pits need to connect?
4. The MOA requires that appropriate and practicable mitigation be provided for all
unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been employed. Please provide a revised mitigation proposal. The
compensatory mitigation proposal, as described in the application is not acceptable
because it does not adequately replace the functions of the wetlands proposed for
impacted. We recommend that you consider a restoration component along with the
enhancement and preservation of the on -site and off -site wetlands.
Please provide revised plans to reflect any and all changes to the proposed project. The
aforementioned, requested information is essential to the expeditious processing of your
application and should be forwarded to us within two (2) weeks of your receipt of this letter. If
you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ronnie Smith
Regulatory Specialist
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Copies Furnished:
Mr. James Taylor
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Drive, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
Ms. Becky Fox
Wetlands Regulatory Section —Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789

-3-
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
Ms. Joanne Steenhuis
Division of Water Quality
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Ms. Linda Willis
V; D' ision of Water Quality
.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Mr. Howard Hall
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
WIRO Regional Office
7,6 CP7y FILE ACCESS RECORD
SECTION DATE/TIME 01"' f'�'
NAME _ �"� REPRESENTING
7F-5 4a 3�
Guidelines for Access: The staff of the Regional Office is dedicated to making public records in
our custody readily available to the public for review and copying_ We also have the responsibility
to the public to safeguard these records and to carry out our dav-to-dav program obligations.
Please read carefully the following before signing the form.
1. Due to the large public demand for file access, we request that you call at least a day in
advance to schedule an appointment for file review so you can be accommodated.
Appointments are scheduled between 9.00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Viewing time ends at 4.45
p.m. Anyone arriving without an appointment may view the files to the extent that time and
staff supervision are available.
2. You must specify files you want to review by facility name or incident number, as
appropriate. The number of files that you may review at one appointment will be limited to
five.
3. You may make copies of a file when the copier is not in use by the staff and if time permits.
Cost per copy is 2.5 cents for ALL copies if you make more than 25_copies* there is no
charge for 25 or less copies. Payment is to be made by check, money order, or cash in the
administrative offices.
4. • Files must be kept in the order you received them. Files may not be taken from the office.
No briefcases, large totes, etc. are permitted in the file review area. To remove, alter,
deface, mutilate, or destroy material in public files is a misdemeanor for which you can be
fined up to $500.00_
5. In accordance with GS 25-3-512, a $25.00 processing fee will be charged and collected for
checks on which payment has been refused.
6. The customer must present a photo ID, sign -in, and receive a visitor sticker prior to
reviewing files.
FACILITY NAME COUNTY
3.
4.
5. n
oil 1 a � G' . ro7 _, cx�
Signature/Name of Firm or siness Date Time In Time Out
(Please attach business card to form if available)
# Copes: Amt. Pd-.
qZ) }�S J

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr, Secretary
North Carolina Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources
Coreen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Memorandum
Date: November 12, 2008
To: Ronnie Smith, USACOE, Wilmington Office
From: Linda Willis, Environmental Engineer 1, .DWQ, SWPS, Wilmington Regional Office
Through: Ed Beck, Regional Supervisor, DWQ, SWPS, Wilmington Regional Office (WiRO)
Subject: Shelter Creek Quarry
Request for Mine Expansion & 46.92 Acres of Wetland Impacts
The proposed mine expansion may require significant modifications to their existing operation
and monitoring plan. DWQ SWPS has received some monitoring well results for 20 shallow
monitoring wells. That data was provided to the Central Office on 7/31 /2008, DWQ, WiRO
inspected the mine site in September. DWQ sent a Ietter requesting that Mr. Holland and/or his
consultant (Mr. Dorenda) contact the office to discuss the monitoring well data. To date, no
response from either have been received. Before this office can concur with an expansion, a
meeting is needed to discuss why all 20 monitoring wells (all supposedly installed in wetlands)
are not showing some hydrology indicative of wetlands. Furthermore, the Wilmington Regional
Office has recently received two complaints from local residents concerning impacts to their
drinking wells. Before the Division can consider the request to expand the mine and impact
additional wetlands, several issues pertaining to the operation and monitoring plan need to be
resolved. It would be beneficial if the USACOE would meet with DWQ and Holland Shelter
Quarry permittee to discuss the implications of the shallow monitoring well data as well as the
proposed wetland impacts.
CC: Stormwater Pennitting Unit, Central Office, Attn: Bethany Georgoulias
Wetland Unit, Central Office, Ian McMillan
i`o � Carolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
]nternec wt.ucwaterquality g Creation: 512 N. Salisbury Si. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone].623-6746
IAn Equal OpportunitylAf iirmative Aelion Employer — 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

OF WAT6c19
O "C
IMernorandum
To: Ronnie Smith
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
From: Joanne Steenhuis, Senior Environmental Specialist 31 S
Through: Ed Beck, Regional Supervisor, DWQ, SWPS, Wilmington Regional Office (WlRO)
Date: November 12, 2008
SUBJECT: Shelter Creek Quarry Mine Expansion
Colleen H_ Sullins Director
Division of water Quality
This Office has reviewed the mine expansion application for an individual Permit (IP) for additional wetland
impacts. We have the following concerns:
I ) The 1P application dated 10/13/08 requests 46.92 acres of wetland impacts, the map labeled as
Attachment 6 shows the total wetland impact area as approximately 33.46 acres. The map identified as
enclosure # 42 has a chart that shows 47.45 acres of approximate wetland impact. Please state the correct
amount of wetlands proposed for impact and correct all the maps and written descriptions so they are
consistent. Please identify which wetlands have been identified as isolated and include them in the
calculated wetland impacts and narrative for the State.
2) Please show on an overall map, the wetlands to be impacted and in what phases and also identify the
required 50 foot undisturbed buffer by the Land Quality Section from the property line and/or wetlands.
3) The maps indicate there will be a proposed "future" ditch on the northwestern side of the property (Phase
]A). There are wetlands shown to abut this property line. Please indicate how this proposed ditch will
not impact/drain additional wetlands offsite.
4) There are onsite and offsite wetland monitoring wells. Please show the previously collected data and
provide a summary of these findings.
5) The proposed compensatory mitigation does not meet the requirements described in 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h) (1)-(7). Please give a detailed compensatory mitigation plan that will meet the State's
requirements. If there is onsite restoration/creation proposed, please detail what will be required to
accomplish this, the planting plan and the monitoring plan that will also be required.
6) In the narrative accompanying the IP application on page 14/27 states "that Phases IA and IIB, as
permitted would be mined out in 12 to 14 years". Please clarify if this should be Phase ]A and IIA.
7) A really good overall site plan identifying the wetlands (isolated vs jurisdictional), which wetlands will be
impacted in each phase, monitoring well locations, buffer limits etc. would be beneficial to this reviewer.
cc: 401 Wetland Unit — ]an McMillan
W-RO
�on�Nc
Carolina
Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Qualiry 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington. NC 28405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Wilmington Regional Office Internet: www.newaterqualil}-.org Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled190%Post Consumer Paper

W ATEI
w' -
{j 9.
Michael F. Easley. Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretar3•
North Carolina Department Of Hnvironment and Natural Resources
October 7, 2008
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Mr. Steve Holland
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, NC 28425
Coleen 1-1. Sullins Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: NPDES Compliance Inspection Report
Holland Shelter Quarry
NPDES Permit NCG020679
Pender County
Dear Mr. Holland:
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality conducted an inspection of the Holland Shelter Quarry on
August 28, 2008. This inspection was conducted to verify that the facility is operating in compliance with the
conditions and limitations specified in NPDES Permit No. NCG020679,
A review of the analytical monitoring data shows the discharge is of excellent quality. A review of the
monitoring well data is being conducted. Please provide a map showing the well locations, identifying each well
by number (corresponding to the graphical data submitted to the Central Office). Please identify on the map,
each well's depths. The Division was, informed during the inspection that a USACOE representative was planning
to visit the site to re-evaluate the prior identified wetlands conducted by Lillette Granade (,tune 2006). Please
provide the Division with the outcome of that site visit.
The Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan BMP Controls Inspection and Maintenance requires that the
BMP structures (such as silt fencing) must be inspected at least once every seven calendar days and within 24
hours after any storm event that results in a discharge. If your consultant is proposing the use of a closed loop
recycle system, no authorization to construct is required, however if the system discharges wastewater to the
settling basin(s) for discharge, an authorization to construct must be sought through the Stormwater Permitting
Unit.
Please have your consultant, (Steve Dorenda) contact me at the office to discuss the monitoring well
data. Should you have any questions concerning the inspection or this correspondence, please contact me at
910-796-7343.
Sincerely,
4VZ��
Linda Willis
Environmental Engineer I
Surface Water Protection Section
Wilmington Regional Office
cc: DWQIRaleigh Central Files
NPDES General Permit Inspection Files (NCG020 Holland Shelter Pender County)
NPS Assistance and Compliance Oversight/Raleigh
NoSthCaroliva
J1 aiura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 29405 Phone [phone] Customer Service
lntemet: wvu-.ncwaterquality.org Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Permit: NCG020679
SOC:
County: Pender
Region: Wilmington
Compliance Inspection Report
Effective: 02/28/07 Expiration: 12/31/09 Owner: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC
Effective: Expiration: Facility: Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 Hwy 53 E
Burgaw NC 28425
Contact Person: Stephen C Holland Title: Phone:
Directions to Facility:
Property if on the SE side of NC-53. Approx. 3.5 miles SW of the NC-53 and NC-50 Inersection.
System Classifications:
Primary ORC: Certification:
Secondary ORCSs):
On -Site Representative(s):
Related Permits:
Phone:
Inspection Date: 08/28/2008 Entry Time: 10:00 AM Exit Time: 02:30 PM
Primary Inspector: Linda Willis Phone: [phone]
Secondary Inspector(s):
Jennifer Jones Phone:
Reason for Inspection: Routine Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Permit Inspection Type: Mining Activities Stormwater Discharge COC
Facility Status: ■ Compliant ❑ Not Compliant
Question Areas:
■ Storm Water
(See attachment summary)
Page: 1

f : ' 0
Permit: NCG020679 Owner - Facility: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC
Inspection Date: 08128/2008
Inspection Summary:
Qualitative Monitoring
Inspection Type: Compliance Evaluation
Has the facility conduCted its Qualitative Monitoring semi-annually?
Reason for Visit: Routine
Comment: Qualitative Monitoring is required semi annually from each discharge
point, The site is graded to maintain stormwater within the mine site boundary and is
discharged from a level spreader. During the inspection, the discharge was clear, free
of foam, oil sheen, floating solids, etc. You should have conducted the qualitative
monitoring at the same time of the analytical monitoring (May 22, 08). If you have that
information, please forward to Linda Willis. Second one shall be conducted between
September - November time frame.
Analytical Monitoring
Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring?
# Has the facility conducted its Analytical monitoring from Vehicle Maintenance areas?
Comment: May 22, 2008. Discharge started April 2008.
Permit and Outfalls
# Is a copy of the Permit and the Certificate of Coverage available at the site?
# Were all outfalls observed during the inspection?
# If the facility has representative outfail status, is it properly documented by the Division?
# Has the facility evaluated all illicit (non stormwater) discharges?
Comment: The illicit stormwater discharge certification has to be present in the
stormwater pollution prevention plan. A stormwater pollution prevention plan is required
and should be available for review by the Division. This plan must be completed within
one year of receiving the NPDES permit. The NPDES permit was issued on Feb 28,
2007.
Yes No NA NE
rn❑❑■
Vn Aln KJA MF
■ ❑ ❑ ❑
Yes No NA NE
■❑n❑
Page: 2

0 0a WA]F9oG
6
Michael r. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Dcparimcnt of Environment and natural Resources
February 19, 2007
Mr. Stephen Holland
CIO Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 S. College Road Suite E
Wilmington, NC 28412
Dear Mr. Holland,
Subject: O & M Plan
Shelter Creek Quarry Site
.Alan W, Klimek, P.li- Director
Division or Water Quality
The Division received and reviewed the O & M plan for the proposed limestone quarry known as Shelter
Creek Quarry Site. The O & M plan satisfies the itemized list of issues identified in the correspondence sent on
June 12, 2006 from Mrs. Bethany Georgoulias (Environmental Engineer in the General Permitting Unit).
Ms. Angie Pennock (Senior Consultant) with Southern Environmental Group, Inc. was asked to include
the following in the O & M Plan:
Dewatering will cease it immediate, effective measures are unsuccessful in resolving any
notable wetland impacts and will resume upon Authorization by the Division.
Should any chemical additions be deemed necessary to improve the quality of the
wastewater, both the chemicals and the delivery system will require prior approval by the
Division of Water Quality before implementation.
If effluent limitations are exceeded, immediate notification to the Wilmington Regional Office
Surface Water Protection Section is required. The discharge will be discontinued until the
exceedance can be resolved.
Ms. Judy Wehner was notified that the O & M plan was approved by the regional office. Ms. Wehner was
asked to include the following in the language of the mining permit (where appropriate):
1 . No unauthorized impacts to wetlands can occur, Mine dewatering will cease if immediate and
effective measures are unsuccessful in resolving the impacts. Dewatering can only resume
when authorized by the Division of Water Quality.
2. A finalized O & M plan must be received and the measures identified within the plan
implemented before dewatering activities can occur.
An email was sent to Bradley Sennett (Supervisor for the NPDES Stormwater Permitting Unit) to inform
them that the O & M plan was approved by the region and that the NPDES NCG020000 Certificate of Coverage
could be issued at will.
Sincerely,
Linda Willis
Environmental Engineer
Surface Water Protection Section
Division of Water Quality
Cc,,NCG020 Pender
NPDES Stormwater Permitting Unit Attn: Bradley Bennett
No hCarotina
,117alurally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 127 Cardinal Drivc Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Phonc [phone] Customer Scrvicc
Internet: ��ww.ncwalerq—uqlity01,9 Fax [phone] )-977-023-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled110% Past Consumer Paper

i
5outkern F.-nvironmental Ciroup, Inc.
Environmental, Development & Conservation AJvisors
Transmittal Skeet
ate. January. I p, 2007
(S .
an
Of: NC Division of Water Qpality
CC: Mr. Steve l—Tolland,
Mr. ,Steve Dorenda
rile
[5f Gi Froject 006-0 10.011
Ke: rroposed Kesolution. Mitigation for Wetland Impacts for the Clinton WastcwaterTrcatrrtent Flant
❑ Urgent 0 f=oryourrcview/ records ❑ Please r-omrncnt ❑ Tease rcply/ call 0. Complete and return
j nave enclosed a copy of tine H- )Jrology Monitoring (Plan for Adjacent Wetlands. Jf there is any additional
information that you ne[d, plcasc give me a call. i hope you- arc having a nice day.
Sinccrciy,
Anpgic rennoA
SSG
j) 15 S. [oll..gc Koad ,juite r
Wllniington, Nortk Carolirna zs+12
wwwzcgi.us
From Ej c jest of:
A-gic rcnnac4
k 0.+5 z.z7 1 1 (Officr)
910, (ma6ilc)
Ana. icroscj-us
NOTICE
This message is intendedonly for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This document may contain information that
is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure tender applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or
the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended Tedpient, You are hereby notified that any dissemination,

50utkern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South Colicgc Road, 5uitc r_ • Wilmington, North Carolina 2841 2
910.+52,271 1 - rax: 910.452.2$99 - [e-mail]
www.5cP1.u5
January 19, 2007
Hand Delivery
Ms. Noelle Lutheran
Division of Water Quality
Wilmington District
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Re: Shelter Creek Quarry Site [SEGi Pro.ject #06-010.0€1
Burgaw, Pender County
Proposed Limestone Quarry
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
Mr. Holland has retained Southern Environmental Group, Inc. (SEGi) to assist him in procuring
the necessary permits to construct a limestone quarry on his.property. The site is located at
12121 NC Highway 53, east of Burgaw, Pender County, North Carolina.
There are three primary concerns that were identified at our meeting on 7 December 2006. These
were how the adjacent wetlands would be monitored for potential drainage impacts, a
contingency plan for any drainage influence, and how the discharge of pumped water to the
adjoining wetlands might effect those areas,
The hydrology monitoring plan centers on the installation of shallow groundwater wells and the
procurement of data from these wells. Rainfall data will be collected on -site. A contingency
plan has been developed to address any potential effects from the mining operation on adjacent
wetlands. Please see the attached Hydrology Monitoring Plan for the particulars.
There is a large wetland area that is located to the southeast of the proposed mine site. The
wetland is a bottomland hardwood forest located adjacent to Holly Shelter Creek. The seasonal
high water table is located '/Z to 1 foot below the surface and this area is frequently flooded
during and after heavy rainfall events. The current application calls for the discharge of water
pumped from the mine to a lake. It will then travel through a three -gate level spreader to the

SEGO
adjoining land and then into the jurisdictional wetlands. Please review the attached Discharge
Monitoring Plan.
Sincerely,
Angie Pennock
Senior Consultant
cc: Mr. Steve Holland
Mr. Steve Dorcnda
Enclosures: Hydrology Monitoring Plan and Associated Attachments

HYDROLOGY MONITORING PLAN FOR ADJACENT WETLANDS
The proposed Holland Quarry Project is located near wetlands in the Holly Shelter Creek and Northeast
Cape Fear River systems. This system is found in southeastern North Carolina.
Wetlands are found on the proposed quarry tract and on adjacent properties. Adjacent property owners
include the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and Mr. Stephen Holland. There
are approximately 24.4 acres of wetlands within the project boundaries of the proposed quarry, Phase
IA, and an additional 119.2 acres +/- on the property outside or Phase IA. These are composed of
pocosm, headwater, bottomland hardwood forest, and swamp forest type wetlands adjacent to Holly
Shelter Creek and its tributaries. No impacts are proposed in the streams. Pocosins are freshwater
ecosystems characterized by broadleaved evergreen shrubs, low trees and high organic content soils.
The water table is typically high and these areas may experience periods of inundation. Headwater
forests are highly diverse wetlands that develop in the upper parts of drainage basins where streams
first begin to form. Hydrology from rainfall and surface runoff is sufficient to support wetland
vegetation, but not sufficient to form a stream channel. Bottomland hardwood forests are found along
the floodplains of medium to large streams; Holly Shelter Crcck in this case. Swamp forests, systems
found where there is frequent flooding, are most corrimonly vegetated with cypress, water tupelo, and
swamp tupelo and are located along the floodplains of large streams.
Mr. Holland is dedicated to preserving the environmental integrity of those areas that are located
outside the footprint of the quarry and attendant facilities. To insure that there are no drainage impacts
in the wetlands located within the potential cone of depletion, we are proposing the installation of
shallow groundwater monitoring wells. Twenty-one wells will be installed in those locations indicated
on the attached maps (Attachment A) in wetlands located on the mine property (13) and on the adjacent
properties (8). The attached wetland data sheets and pictures provide a reference description of each
well site located on the adjacent properties (Attachment B). No data sheets are provided for the
wetlands within the quarry property as these area
have been signed off by the US Army Corps of
Engineers.
The monitoring wells will be installer] per the
Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program
technical note entitled "Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands" dated July 2000.
The primary points from this document are as
follows:
• It is recommended that 15-inch wells be
used to monitor for wetland hydrology.
• Automatic recording wells should be used
to record water depths.
• Bentonite should be used in the space
between the riser and the ground surface.
• Sand should be packed around the well
screen.
The figure to the right is taken from the attached
technical note for well installation (Attachment
C).
Vented Cap
Monitoring Well
i
Mixture
me
•�q"
i
a
RJser
Well Screen
z
Sand Pack

Well data and rainfall will be recorded daily. The numbers will be downloaded and plotted on bar
graphs for each well site showing the daily rainfall data and the recorded depth of the water table. The
30% and 70% of average rainfall lines (per WETS) and the 12-inch depth line for the water table will
be included. This information will be submitted monthly with a brief description of the results and
discussion of the findings. A significant drop in the water table as compared to data collected prior to
the excavation of the quarry pit and pumping will be considered a potential impact and remedial actions
will be implemented.
We plan to install the monitoring wells as so as authorization for this work has been received.
Proposed Prevention and Remedial Actions
With the monthly analysis and submission of hydrology monitoring, any potential problems will be
found quickly and remedial actions can be implemented before permanent damage is done to any of the
wetlands neighboring the proposed quarry. Mr. Holland and Mr. Dorenda have devised a set of
measures that will be used to prevent drainage of the wetlands and rehydration of the wetlands if it is
deemed necessary. These include a closed ditch on the western side of the; quarry property and water
cannons that can be used to disperse water into the on -site wetlands. As a last resort, pumping at the
mine site would be stopped while a resolution was agreed upon.
The ditch line will be 4,115 feet long and 3 feet deep with 2:1 side slopes. It will be kept full of water
at all times via a pump from the ponds denoted on the maps attached to the Operation and Monitoring
Plan (O and M Plan, previously submitted) to act as a hydraulic barrier protecting the wetlands on the
North Carolina State Gamelands from any potential drainage effects from the mine site. Total capacity
for the ditch is 738,725 gallons. A graphic representation of how the water in the ditch will function as
a hydraulic barrier and the calculations used to construct. the plot can be found in Attachment D.
On -site wetlands will be protected by a series of water cannons. These water cannons are actually high
volume springer heads mounded on poles. The annual average rainfall amount for this area, per Mr.
Dorenda, is 116.9 inches. Based on -this number, approximately 8817 gallons of rainfall per day fall on
each acre of wetland. This volume will be pumped on each wetland area on no rain days through the
water cannons from the ponds denoted on the maps attached to the O and M Plan. Rainfall on
preceding days and forecasted rain amounts will be taken into consideration when pumping volumes
are determined each day. According to the calculations in the O and M Plan, the necessary volumes
per acre can be pumped from the ponds in less than 3 hours each day. The volume pumped from each
sprinkler head per unit of time can be adjusted to prevent erosion within the wetland areas.
DISCHARGE MONITORING PLAN
The proposed maximum volume that can be pumped from the quarry in a given day is 2 million
gallons. Given this and that all this volume would pass through the Horseshoe Pond and Level
Spreader Pond to the receiving wetland, approximately 119.2 acres, there would be 16,778 gallons of
water discharged on each acre of the wetland in a day. This is between 1.5 and 2 times the average
amount of rainfall that would fall on that same acre each day. This situation is very unlikely.
However, in the event that the volumes being pumped from the quarry and discharged from the ponds
were to reach this level, pumping could be ceased and the three gate valves on the Level Spreader Pond
could be closed. This would eliminate all discharges to the wetland. A more likely scenario for the
initial years of the mine is a maximum discharge of 500,000 gallons per day. This would result in 4194
gallons on each acre of wetlands per day. This is less than half the volume delivered by rainfall..

Please refer to Attachment E for the calculations associated with the information.
fn either event, it is unlikely that the maximum volume being pumped from the pit will ever be
discharged to this wetland system due to the following:
• Surface evaporation from the ponds
• Removal of water from this system to fill the ponds used to hydrate other wetlands on the site
• Removal of water from this system to fill the 4100 linear feet of ditch along the western
property boundary
The wetland area that would receive the water is a bottomland hardwood forest located adjacent to
Holly Shelter Creek. This type of wetland is typically very saturated and can withstand periods of
inundation. It is anticipated that the wetland will handle the discharge through infiltration. It is
unlikely that the discharged water will have a significant effect on the nature of this community nor
will it have a significant effect on the integrity of Holly Shelter Creels.
The chemistry of the water that would be released will be tested in accordance with the terms of the
permit NCG020000 as described in Section 16.0 of the O and M PIan. Samples will be taken from the
Horseshoe Pond. Noncompliances will be reported orally as soon as they are detected and any
necessary remediation can take place in the Horseshoe Pond and/or Level Spreader Pond. Remediation
may include cessation of pumping and closing the gate valves, addition of any chemical necessary to
bring the retease'water back into compliance, and addition of structures or substances to remove
turbidity. Given these measures, it is unlikely that the chemical characteristics of the receiving wetland
will be altered.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Species surveys: Please see Attachment 1~
The cone of depletion has been been determined and approved. Please see Attachment G (You should
already have the maps that this document refers to, but, if you do not, please give me a call.)
Native grasses will be used for stabilization. on the berms and the pond edges (Attachment G, Section
8).
Fifty foot buffers are proposed between all wetlands and the mine. There are no proposed impacts
within 100 feet of any perennial stream including Holly Shelter Creels.
No isolated wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project.
Mitigation was not required by either the US Army Corps of Engineers or the NC Division of Water
Quality for the proposed impacts, 0.102 acres of jurisdictional Waters of the US.
At this time, the applicant is unsure of any future projects. Cumulative and secondary impact
assessments will likely be required and provided if any additional projects are proposed at this site.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Monitoring Well Location Maps
Attachment B Wetland Data Forms for the Off site Monitoring Well Locations
Attachment C Installing Monitoring TVells/Piezon:eleis in Wetlands, ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
Attachment D Closed -End Ditch Calculations
Attachment E Horseshoe Pond and Level Spreader Pond Discharge Calculations
Attachment F Wildlife and Plant Survey
Attachment G Narrative of the Proposed Operation and Monitoring Plan

ProjectlSite: Holland Quarry -
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
DATA FORM
Routine Wetiand Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Investigator: Angie Pennock
Southern environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
JEG�
Date:
1211212006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6417 ON #
Longitude-. 77.7529 °W Il
I Do normal circumstances exist on the site? 0 Yes ❑ No I Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes El No Transect ID: NCWRC, west side of ,
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes 0 No access road located 0.5 mile west of
(Explain below if needed): quarry site entrace
E Plot ID: Well Site 1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum_ Indicator Dominant Plant -Species
Stratum �M Indicator
Sonia tucidca —­
_
SHRUB
~TREE
_FACW
-
_
Pintes tueda
Persea borboida
I. TREE
FAC
FACW
_.�---.--------
_
h---.--.._
Percentage of plants that
are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
—
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
El Aerial photographs
❑ Other
No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 1.0 (in)
Depth to saturated sail: 0.0 (in)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑ Inundated
© Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
❑. Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil survey data
Z FAC-neutral test
_ . ❑other (explain in remarks)

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) : Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Humaquepts
Profile Descrintion
Drainage Class: Very Poorly Drained
Field observations confirm mapped type•?❑ Yes 0 No
Depth
inches
A)
r� Horizon
._..
Matrix color
(Munsell.morst
� )
Mottle colors
(Munsell moist)
Mottle
abundancelcontrast_
_ Texture, concretions, _
w structure, etc.
_
0-2
O
10 YR 2l1
Sandy Muck
�242+�
A�
! 10 YR 211 -
r
— -
ry w�
Sand with anlc coati— A
_.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ Suliidic Odor
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Reducing Conditions
_— ❑ G. leyed or Low•Chroma matrix
Remarks:
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑x High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ..tip Yes ❑ No� _ Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ❑x Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? 9 Yes ❑ No O Yes []No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetiand as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
No photographs were taken at this site.

Project/Site: Holland Quarry -
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Investigator: Angie Pennock
15outkem r nvironmental Group, Inc
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)?
Is the area a potential problem area?
(Explain below if needed):
VEGETATION
Date:
12112/2006
County:
Pender
j State:
NC
jj Latitude:
34.6372 °N
Longitude: 77.7607 °W
® Yes ❑ NoCommunity ID. Wetland —
❑ Yes 0 Na Transect ID: NCWRC at the end of
❑ Yes No the access road (overgrown) across
from the entrance to the quarry site
Plot ID: Well Site 2
Dominant Plant Species .___ Stratum lndica_tor Dominant Plant Species
Sal- e niga- ._ ._ SHRUB OBL
Gar inns caraliniana TREE _ FAC
Persea barbania — - - TREE ^ FACW,^
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
Stratum
m _
Indicator
Indicator
7
T
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
ED No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 3.0 (in)
Depth to saturated soil. 0.0 (in)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑ Inundated
Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in we
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels
0 Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil survey data
UO FAG -neutral test
4_ ❑ Other (explain ,in remark

ti
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: Very Poorly Drained
(Series and Phase.) : Norville muck
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T is Ha la uods Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes Q No
Y ( 9 R)� YR� p 4 ,
Profile I
Depth
(Inches
0-3
3-12+
A
Matrix color
n (Munsell mois
�L 10 YR 2/1'
1 Mottle colors Mottle Texture, concretions,
(Munsell moist)_ ab_undancelcontrast_ _structure, etc. —
_. Muck-- -----
__...,_.�.,�..._. Mucky Sand `_- ____....
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Gloved or Low-Chroma matrix
Remarks:
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑= High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Sails
El Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Other lexuiain in remarks}
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? -- --'- Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point — —_ -
Hydric soils present? ©Yes ❑ Na
within a wetland?
Wetiand hydrology present? ❑x Yes ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
No photographs were taken at this site.

DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1967 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Holland Quarry - - --Investigator: Angie Pennock
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells ' Sout�em E_nvironmental Group, Inc
a
Project fl: 06-010.01 5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
Applicant/owner: Steve Holland 910.452.2711
SEGO
Dane:
1211212006
County:
Pander
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6309 ON
Longitude: 77.7535 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? O Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes © No Transect ID: NCWRC, west side of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes 0 No the quarry site
(Explain below if needed): Plot ID: Well Site 3
VEGETATION
Planta'nant Species _
Stratum
Indicator
Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
rYys .ry1vd�
i
�
Ta.yodirrnt disdichows
TREE
- T�Dominant
OBL
I
' A'
Ilex coriacea
SHRUB
FACW
-----•--------___._...,..-_..w_,,._.....�....,---•----•--
--.__._M-.�_._..
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: N/A (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
Remarks
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑ Inundated
x❑ Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
❑ Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil survey data
Q FAC-neutral test
__ - ❑ Other (explain in remarks).

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Well Drained
(Series and Phase): Baymeade fine sand
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Arenic Hapludults
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ©No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
_
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
inches
Horizon
_JMunseil moistjj�
Mansell moist
abundancelcontrast
structure, etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
} Muck
1-12+
A
10 YR 211
Mucky Sand
_
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
—
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
© High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gle ed or Law-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No Q Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

' DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site. Holland Quarry —
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner. Steve Holland
Investigator: Angie Pennock
5outkem rnvironmcntal [group, Inc
5315 South College Road,Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
Date:
12112/2006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6327 ON
Longitude: 77.7558 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? d Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes 0 No Transect ID: NCWRC, west side of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes © No the quarry site
(Explain below if needed): . Plot ID: Well Site 4
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum— Indicator Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
_ Indicator _
Nyssa
! Tt2IvI�
013L
.sylvadca _
Taxodiurri disficlirrrrr
T
TREE____[
OBL.
Ilex coriacea
SHRUB
I FACW
Percentage of plants that are OgL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
5
Y
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators _ ..
Primary indicators:
❑ Inundated
© Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
❑ Water stained leaves 1
❑ Local soil survey data
© FAC-neutral test
__❑ Otherjexplain in remarks)— `_

,.. —.. . ..._.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
(Series and Phase) : Mucicalee loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T is Fluva uents
Y ( S P?� YP� �
Field observations confirm mapped type? Yes No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
_
Mottle
v Texture, concretions, _
inches
Horizon
(M.unsell moist}
__(Munsell moist)
abundancelcontrast..
structure, etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1-12+
A
10 YR 211.
+ W
_
Mucky Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content In Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
El Sulfldlc Odor
❑ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
11Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions.
13 Listed on NationallLocal Hydric Soils List
® Gle ed or Law-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes 0 No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? © Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? ®Yes ❑ No © Yes Q No
l Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
k Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
SEGO
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Holland Quarry — y Investigator: Angie Pennock _
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells 5outkern E_nvironmental Group, InC.
I
Project #: 06-01:0.01 5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
Applicant/owner: Steve Holland 910.452.2711
Date:
1211212006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6269 ON
Longitude: 77.7483 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? 9 Yes ❑ No : Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes 9 No Transect ID: NCWRC, west side of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes 0 No the quarry site
(Explain below if needed): Plot ID: Well Site 5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
iYyssa sylvatica__ _._
Taxadium disrichnin
_ Stratum Indicator
_._ I TREE__.,__l OBL_.._—..--#—.,-_---_--
TREE I OBL
Dominant Plant Species _Stratum }Indicator
flex cori¢cea -- -- -
SHRUB
FAC W
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ other
No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: N/A (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
Remarks: . �µ - ---- ----- ----
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑° Inundated
0 Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
❑ Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil survey data
FAC-neutral test
❑ Other explain in remarks) — _

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Well Drained
(Series and Phase) : Baymeade fine sand
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Arenic Hapludults
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ©Na
Profile Description _
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
inches '
Horizon
Munsell moist
Munseli moist),_—
abu_ndancelcontrast
structure etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1-12+
A
10 YR 211
Mucky Sand
_
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on NationallLocal Hydric Soils List
❑ Gle ed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:
..... , ......._..—..._._. _ ....
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? 0 Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? 21 Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? © Yes ❑ No © Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual. J
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

Project/Site: Holland Quarry -
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
- DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Investigator: Angie Pennock
5out6crn E_nvironmentai Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes ❑ No
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes I No
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes No
(Explain below if needed):
VEGETATION
SEGO
Date:
1211212006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6402 °N
Longitude: 77.7458 °W
Community ID: Wetland _ _ —
Transect ID: Holland Farm,.
northeast side of the quarry site near
NC 53
Plot ID: Well Site 6
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species -Stratum
Indicator
Nyssa sy_Ivatica,
Taxodium distichuni
I= TREE
OBL
OBL
_ -
-_
_
1
f
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial, photographs
❑ Other
No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
,
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑ Inundated
21 Saturated in upper 12"
9 Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
0 Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil survey data
0 FAC-neutral test
D Other (explain in remarks)

SOILS
Map Unit Name.
Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
(series and Phase) ; Muckalee loam
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ®No
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents
Profile Description
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors
Mottle Texture, concretions,
inches Horizon Munsell moist (Munsell moist)
abundancelcontrast structure, etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1-10
A,
14 YR 2N
Mucky Sandy loam
10-12+
Ax
10 YR 2/7
�
_
Sand with organic coating
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Suifidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleved or Low-Chroma matrix. _
❑ Other (explain in remarks) _
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? © Yes []No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No © Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth In the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES
Photo of well site.

DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
SEGO
Project/Site: Holland Quarry —
Investigator: Angle Pennock
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Date: 12112/2006
Wells
,5outkem E-nvironmental Group, Inc.
County: Pender
Project #: 06-010-01
5315 South College Road, Suite E
State: NC
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
Latitude: 34.6403 ON
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland I
910.452.2711
Longitude: 77.7414 °W
9
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? d Yes ❑ No
Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes i] No
Transect ID: Holland Farm, east
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes Q No
side of the quarry site, on the far side
below if needed):
of the island near Holly Shelter Creek
�(Explain
�
Plot ID: Well Site 7�`_
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Persea borborxia -�
-
,SHRUB
—I
_
FACW
Pinus weda
Smitar laura olio __.._..-..
TREE
VINE__._I,.
FAC
FAC}V+
Lyons lrrcirta _-_-,
SHRUB _
f: FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAG-)
100%
Remarks:.
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
EE No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 4.0 (in)
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑ Inundated
© Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns In we
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels
❑ Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil, survey data
© FAC-neutral test
❑ Other (explain in remarl

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
(Series and phase) : Muckalee loam
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ®No
Taxonomy (Subgroup). T is Fluva uents
Y ( 9 p}= YP� q
Profile Description
Depth m Matrix color Mottle colors
Mottle Texture, concretions,
inches Horizon Munsell moist- Munsell moist
abundancelcontrast structure, etc.
0-4
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1-12+
A
I 10 YR 412
_
Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
❑ Aqulc Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:
L
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? N Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? N Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

Project/Site: Holland Quarry -
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
s Investigator: Angie Pennock
Southern Unvironmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)?
Is the area a potential problem area?
(Explain below if needed):
VEGETATION
SEGO
Date:
12/1212006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6327 ON
Longitude: 77.7392 °W
0 Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
❑ Yes 0 No Transect ID: Holland Farm,
❑ Yes 0 No southeast side of the quarry site
Plot ID: Well Site B
Dominant Plant Species _ Stratum _ Indicator
~Persea borbania SHRUB. I FACN_
Dominant Pla Species„
_ Stratum Indicator
�W
Pima taeda
TREE
FAC--
^
Ssulaxlauri alia
Lyonia lucida -
T
_
VINE
i SHRUB
FACW+
FACW_�—
_
Ilex coriacea_Y
-- -
SHRUB _..
FACW�_.
LPercentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding
FAC-)
Remarks:
-100%
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
© No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Depth to free water in pit: NIA (in)
Depth to saturated soil: 4.0 (in)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑ Inundated
0 Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
❑ Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil survey data
0 FAC-neutral test
❑ Other ex lain in remarks)___ r

SOILS
Map Unit Name . Drainage Class: Poorly Brained
(Series and Phase) : Muckalee loam
Taxonomy(Subgroup): T is Fluva vents Field observations confirm mapped type?C1 Yes © No
� 9 p)� YP� q
r Profile Description _
Depth Matrix color, Mottle colors - Mottle Texture, concretions,
i
{inches) Horizon j Munsel[ moist (Munsell moist)_ �abundancelcontrast —�_ structure, etc.
0-1 O 10 YR 211 Muck
1-12+ A 10 YR 412 ! i_._.._.,..__.�-_--- L-.� saner Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
El Histosol
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Reducing Conditions
_ Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
Remarks: M
Wetland Determination
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Organic Streaking In Sandy Soils
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Listed on NationallLocal' Hydric Soils List
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Hydrophytic vegetation present? [@ Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? © Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? 0 Yes ❑ No d Yes ❑ No
~Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES: No photographs were taken of this site.

Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program
ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Installing Monitoring Wells/
Piezometers in Wetlands
PURPOSE. Wetland scientists frequently need quantitative information about shallow ground-
water regimes near wetland boundaries and in adjacent uplands. Monitoring wells and piezometers
are some of the easiest means of determining depth and movement of water tables within and
imrnediately below the soil profile. Most of the literature on monitoring wells and piezometers,
however, deals with installation to depths greater than needed for wetland regulatory purposes.
This. revision of the original 1993 technical note reflects increased experience gained over several
monitoring years from around the nation in the USDA MRCS Wet Soils Monitoring project
(lrftpJiwuw.statlab.iastate.edu/soilsInssc/globhorne-Marl#pi•aject9) and other wetland research ef-
forts.' Significant changes from the original version include:
• Recommending that 15-in. wells be used to test whether the hydrologic regime meets the
criteria for wetland hydrology.
• Listing documentation needs.
• EIiminating well points except with commercially manufactured, automatic recording
wells.
• Recommending that a bentonite be used rather than grout in the annular space around the
riser and at the ground surface.
• Using filter fabric when installation under water prevents use of a sand pack.
• Stating explicitly that these procedures are not applicable to soils with low bulk strength
and lateral water flow, such as mucks or peats. If the bentonite seal and sand pack might
interfere with monitoring objectives, procedures described by Cherry et at, (1983) should
be considered.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring wells and piezometers are perforated pipes set vertically in the
ground to intercept the groundwater passively (Figure 1).
Monitoring wells have perforations extending from just below the ground surface to the
bottom of the pipe. Water levels inside the pipe result from the integrated water pressures
along the entire length of perforations.
Piezometers are perforated only at the bottom of the pipe. They are usually installed with
an impermeable bentonite seal above the perforated zone so water cannot flow down the
outside of the pipe. Water levels inside the pipe result from the water pressure over the
narrow zone of perforation at the bottom of the pipe.
The methods described herein do not apply to water -sampling studies. Researchers needing to sample water
from wells should refer to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1990), American Society for Testing and Materials
(1990); and Cherry et al. (1983).

EROC TN-WRAC'-00-02
July 2000
Vented Cap
Mixture
2.
Soil Backfill
i
\J�
Well Scruen
�.
2-
l \
Sand Pack
y
Figure 1.' Schematic diagram of installed monitoring well and piezometer. A. Shallow monitoring well.
B. Piezometer
Water levels in slotted pipes do not necessarily equate with the actual water table in the undisturbed
soil. Instead, water levels in slotted pipes result from water pressures at the instrument:soil
interface. Consequently, slotted pipes of different lengths can have differing water levels, despite
the fact that they intercept the same body of groundwater. This distinction can be significant if the
body of groundwater is moving upward or downward. If the body of water is moving upward, as
in artesian flow, water pressures are greater at depth and decrease closer to the groundwater surface.
Consequently, water levels will be higher in deep pipes than in shallow ones (Figure 2A).
Conversely, in systems where water moves downward, water levels are lower in deep pipes and
higher in shallow ones (Figure 213).
Recent work in Illinois has shown that differences between water levels in 12- and 30-in.-long wells
are on the order of centimeters rather than decimeters or millimeters,( and that these differences are
more pronounced in sails that have been disturbed. Such differences can be significant for wetland
delineation studies at the wetland boundary. See Table I for an example of water levels in 15- and
30-in. wells near the wetland boundary where water is flowing downwards.
1 Personal Communication, July 2000, James J. Miner, Geologist, Illinois Slate Geological Survey, Champaign,
IL.
2

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Figure 2. Example of water levels in piezometers. A. Water tables rising from below (artesian or
discharge system). B. Water tables dropping from above (recharge system)
Table 1
Example of Water Well Readings in Shallow and Deep Wells with Downward Water Plow
Depth of Slotted Screen
Water Level Inside Instrument
Above Critical Depth for Wetland Hydrology?
15-in. well
11 in.
Yes
3Nn. well
13 in.
No
These two wells are probably measuring hydrostatic pressures in the same body of groundwater.
The net flow is downward. Assume that the data from either of these two wells were used alone to
assess whether wetland hydrology criteria were met. Using the deep well, the evaluator would have
to tally the data as being below the 12-in. threshold for wetland hydrology; using the shallow well,
however, the evaluator would have to tally the data as being above the 12-in. threshold. The 2-in.
(5-cm) difference is within the range of actual differences found in the field.
In borderline situations such as this, 15-in. wells should be included in the study design unless
differences between readings in shallow and deep wells are smaller than the precision of data
interpretation. In Table 1, the shallow wells are redundant to the deep wells if water levels are
interpreted with a precision off- 2 in. However, if water levels are interpreted with greater precision,
the shallow wells provide important additional information.
SELECTING INSTRUMENTATION: It is vital to define study objectives before buying and
installing instruments in order to avoid gathering unnecessary or meaningless data. Common study
purposes are wetland dcterinination, wetland delineation, determination of whether a wetland is a
recharge or discharge system, and determination of water flow paths in the landscape.

E=RDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Wetland Determination. When determining whether criteria for wetland hydrology or hydric
soils are met at a point on the landscape, there are usually three objectives. Table 2 summarizes
the instruments required for three different scenarios.
Table 2
Water Table Monitoring Objectives and Instrumentation for Three Scenarios of Perching
Instrument
Scenario 2: Shallow
Scenario 1_ Degree of
Water 'table Perched
Perching Uncertain;
within Depth of
Scenario 3: Shallow,
Discharge or Recharge
Monitoring
Static Water Table or
Systems
(e.g., soils.wlclay
Water Flow is Lateral
(e.g., most wetland
textures throughout or
(e.g., tidal marsh or
Objective
fringes)
clay -rich horizons)
flow -through wetland)
Objective 1: Determine
15-in. well
15-in. well
Well to greatest depth of
timing, duration, and
interest, usually less than
frequency that water
48 in.
tables are shallower than
Threshold depths for
wetland criteria
Objective 2; Determine
Well to greatest depth of
Well to top of perching
Well to greatest depth of
timing, duration, and
interest; install well to top
zone
interest, usually less than
frequency that water
of perching layer if
48 in.
tables are near threshold
perching is proven
depths for wetland criteria
Objective 3: Determine
Well to greatest depth of
Piezometers within and
Well to greatest depth of
timing, duration, and
interest, usually less than
below impermeable layer
interest, usually less than
frequency that water
48 in.; per Scenario 2 if
48 in.
tables are considerably
perching is proven
deeper than critical depths
Summary of instruments
15-in. well and deep well
15-in, well and
One deep well; if soil is
piezometers in and below
unconsolidated, consider
perching zone
methods of Cherry et al.
(1983)
For Scenario 1. (Table 2), both 15-in. and deep wells should be installed unless local experience
indicates that the shallow ones provide no additional information. The financial stakes of most
regulatory investigations will usually be much greater than the very small additional investment of
time and money needed to install, read, and maintain the shorter wells. If it is documented that a
single deep instrument will meet all three objectives (Table 2), the shallower instruments can be
dispensed with, it may not be necessary to install both shallow and deep wells at every monitoring
station around a wetland. The number and depths of deep and shallow wells should be determined
beforehand by all parties involved in the project to avoid later contention.
When installing very shallow monitoring wells, be aware of their physical instability. Shallow
wells may need to be reinstalled more frequently than deeper ones.
4

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Wetland Delineation. To identify the location of the boundary between wetlands and non -wet-
lands, install sets of instruments along transacts perpendicular to the expected wetland boundary.
The same combinations of instruments that were recommended for wetland determination should
be installed at each point along the transect. Shallow wells can be dispensed with in obvious
wetlands and in obvious non -wetlands, but usually they are necessary close to the wetland boundary.
Recharge Versus Discharge Determination. Sets of piezometers at different depths are
needed to determine direction of water flow (upward or downward) at any point in a wetland (Fig-
ure 2). The exact depths of piezometers will vary from site to site, depending on stratigraphy and
topographic position. In soils with large differences in permeability, piezometers should be placed
on top of, within, and below suspected perching layers to test whether the suspect layers actually
impede water flow. Unusually permeable layers, such as sand lenses, should always be instru-
mented.
Determine Water Flow Paths in a Landscape. Sets of piezometers are located both up- and
down -gradient along suspected water flow paths (Warne and Smith 1995).
CONSTRUCTION OF PIEZOMETERS AND SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS
Well Stock. Shallow monitoring instruments should be made from commercially manufactured
well stock. Schedule 40, 1-in.-diam PVC pipe is -recommended. This diameter pipe allows sufficient
room for sampling while minimizing sampling volume and size of bentonite seal in the bore hole.
Larger diameter pipes can be substituted when needed, as with automated samplers.
Well Screen. Use 0.010-in.-wide slots and 20-40 sand (see section on sand pack below). For
shallow wells, the slotted screen should extend from approximately half a foot below the ground
surface down to the bottom of the well (Figure IA). For piezometers, the well screen is usually the
bottom d in. of the pipe (Figure t $).
One problem with use of commercial well screen for very shallow monitoring wells and piezometers
is that there often is a length of unslotted pipe and joint or threads below the screen. In shallow
monitoring situations this extra length often must be extended into an underlying soil horizon that
should be left undisturbed. In combination with a commercial well point, this extra length also
provides a reservoir where water can remain trapped after the outside groundwater has dropped,
making readings difficult to interpret during water table drawdown. To avoid these problems, cut
commercial well screen to the desired length within the slotted portion of the pipe (Miner and Simon
1.997). Glue a PVC cap at the bottom of the screen and drill a small vent hole in the bottom cap
(Figure 3).
Riser. The riser is the unslotted PVC pipe that extends from the top of the well screen to above
the ground surface (Figure 1). The riser should extend far enough above ground to allow easy access
but not so high that the leverage of normal handling will break below -ground seals. Nine to twelve
inches is usually sufficient. A greater length of riser above the ground may be needed on sites that
are inundated regularly or where automatic recording devices are used.
5

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
A
B
Internals
Threads
..
Screen
•::,...
---------------------------
Ven# Hole
Figure 3. Modified commercial well screen. A. Commercial well screen with threads at both top and
bottom, B. Screen after sawing lower threader[ portion of pipe off and closing with vended.
PVC plug
Well Cap. Well caps protect wells from contamination and rainfall. Caps need to be attached
loosely enough that they can be removed withoutjostling the riser. Well caps can be constructed
from PVC pipe as shown in Figure 4- The homemade cap can be attached to the riser by drilling a
hole through both the cap and the riser and connecting the two with a wire loch pin. Well caps
should be made of materials that will not deteriorate in sunlight or frost.
A common problem with commercially made well caps (threaded or unthreaded) is that the cap
may seize to the riser and require rough handling to remove. This is likely to brew the seal between
the riser and the ground, especially in shallow wells. if commercially made well caps are used,
they should be modified to prevent such snug fits. All caps should be vented to allow equilibration
of air pressure inside and outside of the riser.

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
2 " PCV Cap
Glue Together
WfPVC Glue
2 " PVC Pipe
LO
Figure 4. Homemade cap made from oversize PVC piping
Well Point. Commercial PVC well points are not needed if the bottom of the screen is capped. A
PVC cap glued on the bottom of the slotted portion of the screen keeps out sand and has the
advantage of being shorter than most commercial well points (Figure 3).
Sand Pack. Sand is placed around the slotted interval to filter out silts and clays (Figure 1). Silica
sand is available from water -well supply houses in uniformly graded sizes. Sand that passes a
20-mesh screen and is retained by a 40-mesh screen (20-40 sand) is recommended with 0.010-in.
well screen; finer sized 40-60 grade sand is appropriate for use with 0.006-in. screen. The finer sand
and screen should be used to pack instruments in dispersive soilswith silt and fine silt loam textures.
The sand pack may need to be dispensed with in permanently saturated soils that have little strength,
such as peats or mucks. The methods of Cherry et al. (1983) should be used in such situations.
Sand packs and bentonite simply slough down the sides of the pipe and into the surrounding muck
In such soils.]
Bentonite Sealant. Bentonite is a clay that absorbs large quantities of water and swells when
wetted. It is used in well installation to form a tight seal around the riser to prevent water from
running down the pipe to the well screen. With this protective plug, only groundwater enters the
slotted well screen.
Personnal Communication, 2000, D. L. Sigel, Syracuse University.

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Four inches of bentonite are placed around the riser immediately below the ground surface when
installing either monitoring wells or piezometers-(Figures I A and 1 B). This 4-in: ring of bentonite
rests directly on top of the sand pack around the well screen for monitoring wells, and rests on top
of the backfill of soil tamped into the annular space of the auger hole for piezometers. The top of
the bentonite plug should be shaped to slope away from the riser so that water will run away from
the pipe rather than pond around it at the ground surface.
A minimum of 12 in. of bentonite clay is placed around piezometers above the sand filter as a sealant
(Figure 1B). This prevents water flow along the sides of the pipe from the ground surface and
through channels leading to the pipe_ It is critical that piezometers have an effective bentonite seal
above the sand pack in layered or structured soils.
Bentonite is available from well -drilling supply companies in either powder, chip, or pellet form.
Chips or pellets are easier to use in the field than powder. They can be dropped directly down the
annular space above the sand filter and gently tamped into place. if this zone is already saturated
with water, the chips will absorb water in place, swell tight, and seal off the sand filter from the
annular space above. If the bentonite chips are dropped into a dry annular space, they should be
packed dry and water should be added down the annular space so the clay can swell shut.
Cracks are inevitable in clayey soils with high shrink -swell activity. In these soils three piezometers
should be installed as replicates for each depth of instrumentation. If readings are questionable,
move some yards away from the instrument site, auger to the depth in question, and evaluate whether
free water is present at the depth of the well screen.
Filter Socks. Filter socks are tubes of finely meshed fabric that can be slipped over the screened
end of a well to filter out silt and clay particles. They are not necessary if a sand pack is used and
the pipe is capped at the bottom. Filter socks are recommended only when it is impractical to install
a sand pack, such as in permanently saturated organic soils. Filter socks are available from
engineering and water -well supply houses.
INSTALLATION OF SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS AND PIEZOMETERS
Soil Profile Description. The soil profile must be described and evaluated before installation
of an instrument in order to identify strata that can alter vertical and horizontal water flows. Profile
descriptions should include horizon depths and information about texture, induration, bulk density,
redoximorphic features, and roots, so that significant differences in permeability can be inferred
(Figure 5). Once potential aquitard horizons have been identified in the soil, appropriate lengths
and depths of well screen can be determined. The importance of onsite soil characterization to
determine the appropriate well depths cannot be overemphasized.
Several soil characteristics may indicate that vertical water flow is impeded and that perched water
tables exist. Features to watch for include the following:
• Sudden change from many roots to few or no roots.
• Sudden change in sand or clay content.
• Sudden change in ease of excavation.

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Soil FeaturesUsed to Ide tify Horizons with Different Permeabilities
Horizon Depths
Matru Catar
Texture
Redorimorphic Features
Structure
Consistence
Mduratlon
none. weak. strop
Floors
+ Soil Survey Division Staff (1993).
Figure 5. Sample soil characterization form
• Sudden change in water content, such as presence of saturated soil horizons immediately
above soil horizons that are dry or barely moist.
• Redoximorphic features at any of the distinct boundaries listed above.
Installation of Shallow Monitoring Wells (Figure 1A).
L. Auger a hole in the ground with a 3-in. bucket auger to a depth approximately 2 in.
deeper than the bottom of the well. Be sure the auger hole is vertical.
2. Scarify the sides of the auger hole if it was smeared during augering.
3. PIace 2 in. of silica sand in the bottom of the hole.
4. Insert the well into the hole but not through the sand
5. Pour and gently tamp more of the same sand in the annular space around the screen and
2 in. above the screen.
6. Pour and gently tamp bentonite above the sand to the ground surface. Shape the surface
of this plug so that water will not pond around the riser.
7. Form a mound of a soil bentonite mixture at the top of the ground around the base of
the riser to direct surface water flow away from the pipe.
Piexometers. Installation of a piezometer entails the same steps as above, with the modifications
that 12 in. of bentonite are placed above the sand pack and water is added to expand the clay and
form a seal (Figure 113). Backfill and tamp soil into the auger hole from the top of the bentonite
plug to within 4 in. of the soil surface. Place a second plug of bentonite at the ground surface per.
Instruction 6 immediately above.
Equipment. Equipment needs vary with depth and diameter of instruments to be installed. This
list of equipment is sufficient to install monitoring wells and standard piezometers to IO ft or
shallower.
Bucket auger 2 in. wider than the OD of the pipe being installed
Auger extensions
9

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Pipe wrenches for auger extensions
Color book and soil description forms
Piezometer or well
Water level reading device (see below)
Tamping tool (0. 5- in. -thick lath works well to 4 fl; 0.5-in.-diam metal pipe for greater
depths)
Bentonite chips
Commercial grade silica sand
Steel tape long enough to measure deepest hole
Paint marker to label pipes
Hand pump to pump water from well and check for clogging
Survey equipment of sufficient accuracy to measure elevations required for study purposes
Checking for Clogged Pipes. After the pipe has been installed, either pump the well dry and
monitor how quickly water levels return to the pre -pumped level; or if the pipe is dry, fill it with
water and monitor rate of outflow. Water levels in wells should return at approximately the same
rate as they would in freshly dug holes without any pipe. If water levels do not return to pre -pumped
levels, pull the instrument out and determine why it is plugged. This test should be performed every
few months throughout the study, because wells can plug due to bacterial growth as well as slumping
of dispersive soil.
Elevations. Most methods of determining water levels in pipes entail measurement from the top
of the riser to the water surface in the pipe. Therefore, a correction must be made for the difference
between riser elevation and ground elevation. If study objectives require comparing water levels in
different pipes, then relative elevations of pipes also need to be surveyed in.
Record the height of the riser above the ground surface at the time of installation and every few
months thereafter. Pipes tend to move upward during cycles of wetting and drying. If marking the
side of the pipe for future reference, use a paint marker; paint lasts longer than permanent (narking
ink.
Foot Traffic from Study Personnel. Microtopography and shallow soil properties can be
altered in wetlands when foot paths are worn into the ground during the wet season. This can even
puddle the soil around a shallow well if it is visited numerous times when saturated. It may be
necessary to install boardwalks between instruments at long -terra study sites.
Concrete Pads. Some localities require that monitoring wells be installed with concrete pads to
protect drinking water sources from surface runoff. Local regulations should be observed at all sites.
Concrete pads should not be used with shallow monitoring wells because pads of the required size
probably interfere with water infiltration into the soil immediately around the shallow well.
Vandalism. Vandalism often cannot be avoided. Three approaches to the problem are (1) to hide
the wells, (2) to armor them, or (3) to post them with identifying signs. All three approaches have
worked in different communities. Pipes cannot be protected in all situations. Extra wells, installation
equipment, and accessories should be brought along on monitoring trips so that vandalized
instruments can be replaced.
10

FRDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
READING WATER LEVELS: Water levels can be read with a steel measuring tape marked with
a water-soluble marker. The only equipment needed is the tape, marker, and a rag to wipe the tape
dry after each reading. Height of riser above the ground surface should be noted every time the
instrument is read because pipes may move as much as 3 in. in a season.
One commonly used device (pair of wires, battery, open electric junction, and light or meter) is an
open electric circuit that is completed when the junction makes contact with water. If using such a
device, be aware that flexible wire will give a less accurate measurement than a rigid tape. Do not
read water IeveIs with a dowel stick because of the large displacement of the volume of the dowel.
Frequency of reading will depend on study purposes and rate of water table fluctuation. Water levels
should be checked weekly or more often during the season of high water tables. More frequent
readings may be needed in flashy systems, such as sandy floodplains of small streams or tidal areas.
For long-term studies it usually suffices to collect data every other week during most of the year
and every week to every day during water table rise or drawdown.
Automatic recording devices record water levels with down -well transducers or capacitance -based
sensors. These cost much more than manually read instruments but may be necessary for some
studies. Because automatic devices may be reused for several projects, cost estimates should be
prorated over their expected life rather than assigned only to one study. Automatic recorders may
be less expensive than travel costs and salaries if study objectives require frequent readings at remote
sites. The credibility of monitoring results is enhanced by the high frequency of readings allowed
by automatic wells. Automatic water -level recorders should be checked every few months and
recalibrated as necessary.
Documentation. The form in Figure 6 solicits information necessary to document study design
in most wetland regulatory situations. Figure 7 can be used when reading water levels manually.
Figure 8 provides one possible format for reporting water levels, soil profile, growing season dates,
and precipitation data in one graph. An effort should be made to acquire precipitation data from
nearby weather stations and interpret the data with respect to long-term ranges of normal (Sprecher
and Warne 2000).
POINTS OF CONTACT: For additional information, contact Steven W. Sprecher, USACE
Detroit District, South Bend Field Office, 2422 Viridian Drive, Suite 101, South Bend, IN 46628
(219-232-1952) or the Manager of the Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program, Dr. Russell F.
Theriot (601-634-2733, [e-mail]). This technical note should be cited as follows:
Sprecher, S. W. (2000). "Installing monitoring wells/piezometers in wetlands," WRAP
Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02), U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. wtvit,.wes.ari;ry.r?ril/ellvi,i-ap
11

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Installation Data Sheet
Project Name Alpha Protect _ Date of Installation 9/9/99
Project Location Beta Place Personnel J Doe.
Well Identification Code A-15 J 8ioe
Attach map of project, showing well locations and significant topographic and hydrologic features.
As appropriate, attach map of well site, showing locations and groundelevations of all instruments and
microlopographic features of significance, with respect to reference datum.
Type of Instrument
Source of instrument 1 well stock Acme Well Company
Material of well stock Schedule 40 PVC Diameter of pipe. 1 inch
Slot size a 010 inch Slot spacing 0.5
inch
Kind of well cap homemade PVC w/vent Kind of end plug i-nlua, vented
Nature of Installation Materials
Nature of packing sand 20-40 silica Kind of bentonite chins
Nature of backfillbentonitefsod mix Depth of backfill 6 in to -ground surface_ _
Was bentonite installed below groundwater depth at installation? NA
Was water added to bentonite for expansion? NA
Method of measuring water levels in instrument steel tape and soluble marker__
Flow was instrument checked for clogging after installation? Water poured down well and drainage
monitored. No water standing in well after 20 minutes.
rnstrument Diaerarn Soil Characteristics
riser + 9"
Texture
Structure
Roots
Consis-
Redox Features
lance
0"
silt loam
strong
many
very
none
bemlonfla
9011 a "
granular
medium
friable
backfill
slotted...
silt loam
weak
common
friable
2.5Y511 matrix
SClBR �
sub -angular
common Fe -
blocky
concentrations
1$
sand pack ;;r.;
17'
1s"
silty clay
moderate
few fine
very
lOYR 411
3 _ .
loam
blocky
firm
matrix
many Fe-
concentradons
& depletions
36 "
silty clay
weak
very
IOYR 511
loam
sub -angular
firm
matrix
blocky
common Fe -
concentrations
& depletions
Show depths (heights) of soil horizons, riser, screen, sand pack, bentonite, backfill, mound, etc.
A. Example filled out
Figure 6. Sample installation data form (Continued)
12

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
Installation Data Sheet
Project Name Dale of Installation
Project Location Personnel
Well Identification Code
Attach map of project, showing wall locations and significant topographic and hydrologic features.
Attach map of well site, showing locations and ground elevations of all instruments and microtopographic
features of significance, with respect to reference datum.
Type of Instrument
Source of instrument 1 well stock
Material of well stock
Slot size
Diameter of pipe _
Slot spacing
Kind of well cap find of well point ! end plug
Nature of Installation Materials
Nature of packing sand Kind of bentonite
Nature of backfill Depth of backfill
Was bentonite installed below groundwater depth at installation?
Was water added to bentonite for expansion?
Method of measuring water levels in instrument
How was instrument checked for clogging after installation?
Instrument diagram
Soil Characteristics
Texture
Structure
Roots
Consis-
fence
Redox
Features
Show depths (heights) of soil horizons, riser, screen, sand pack, bentonite, backfill, etc.
B. Blank master
Figure 6. (Concluded)
13

J
A
Water Level Record
Project Name
Well ID Code
Date / Time Height of Riser Depth to Water Water Level Comments (pipe checked for clogging? pipe checked for moverneat?
Above Ground From Top of Riser Below Ground vandalism? well cap missing? raining? etc,
Figure 7. Sampte water level record
�- rn
N (}
O
O --4
O ZZ
C
0
0
0

Ln
MonitoringWell Record Columbus OH Area Wetland Site
Project name: Cdumbus ON E3 Range of Normal Pradptlatlan: Columbus Airport. Franldin County OH WETS Table
General larailon: 9 Monthly Proclpitagon "Totals from Columbus Airport WS Stawn n
Franklin County, ON Ill Daily Predpilotlon from Columbus Nrpotl WS Station 1 1
Well name/number. 3
Year, 1997
Number of years of recWd: 3.5
.. m
frequency of water kaval tead[ngs: �
Twice dotty
3
Otganlzalion responsible for watat 8
Pavel readings;_
E
a
Local Consulting Frim
Pesaipbon of well:
Auromatad waU. 2-10 PVC. —43" uaep
Pf slofled throUghoUr, wffh
sand pack in onnutus and
banronilo scat of sudaca
Sell Description:
Eldean Slit Laam
Groan
AP: Silt foam
i;ca'
«� Lsval
A! Slit,
9A:-" y loam
0
4
N Y
au: Clay loam
n
etr. Cfey roam
BC:Graveil
day loam
�F;:=�'•,
�::•����t.
Bandy
A. Example filled out
1997
r y _
^—r — 30-Day RoWng Tote)
1 fi R
J4 lyj I C� Yy i ai3� 1 lYf l
tt
3 �3 ate, a
c i i t er l yM t 5 iy�Yil45
-
��I . _ _—V, i.� -j.. •.. •Le: pio
. - +a iw -S Ti �l~'a'.. iGkS rN_ f -Y
5, �'a�..
:
t I
I I
`. f jf
!
� i
i
1
t
I
i
g
.Ian 1-el) Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
i Growing Season -- I
Figure 8. Sample graph for reporting water levels (Continued)
-!M

I
Monitoring Well Record
Projed namo:
General locallon;
Well name/rumber.
yelm— --
Numter DI years of record:
Frequency of water levrl readnf;s:
Onjanization responcittle for waier
level roadIngs:
Vesctlptkm of well:—
M-- Range of Nara! Pmdpitmdon
0 ManLhlyPrDdplia4lonToLels
d Dally Precipitation
1
Sal! OeacrlpUon:
Ground
La%ml
ra
2
3
B. Blank master
Figure S. (Concluded)
Jan Feb Mar Apr MaY Jun Jui Aug Sep Oct Nov ' Dec
— Growing Season —

ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02
July 2000
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1990). "Standard practice for design and installation of ground water
monitoring wells in aquifers," Designation: D5092-90, Philadelphia, PA.
Cherry, J. A., Gillham, R. W., Anderson, E. G., and Johnson, P. E. (1983). "Migration of contaminants in groundwater
at a landfill: A case study: 2. Groundwater monitoring devises," J. of Hydrology 63, 31-49.
r
Miner, J. J., and Simon, S. D. (1997). "A simplified soil -zone monitoring well," Restoration and Management Notes
15(2), 156-I60.
Sprecher, S. W., and Warne, A. G_ (2000)_ "Accessing and using meteorological data to evaluate wetland hydrology,"
ERDC/El. TR-WRAP-00-I, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Warne, A. G., and Smith, L. H. (1995). "Framework for wetland systems management. Earth resources perspective,"
WRP Technical Report WRP-SM-12, U.S_ Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1990). "Monitor well installation at hazardous and toxic waste sites," Engineer
Circular 1 l 10-7-1(FR), Washington, DC.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aller, L., Bennett, T. W., Hackett, G., Petty, R. J., Lehr, J. H., Sedoris, H., and Nielsen, D. M. (1990). Handbook of
suggested practices for the design and installation of ground -water monitoring wells. National Water Well
Association, Dublin, OH,
Driscoll, F. (1986). Ground water and wells. Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN.
Gamble, E. E., and Calhoun, T. E. (1979). "Methods of installing piezometers for soil moisture investigations,"
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, unpublished technical note.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1975). "Manual of water well construction practices," Office of Water
Supply, EPA-570/9-75-001.
NOTE: The contents of this technical note are not to be used for advertising, publication,
or promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorse-
ment or approval of the use of such products.
17

D 2,
I
� . F
5
7ry
1,
t Y
i 4
J. I:
:7
........ .. .
J
L A-
W,4j-,7-orNr
-R
EA, E JjVG
GIWS

C O LO RADO STATE OU DIM&
RECHARGE RATE
_ .833 FT/DAY
AAOOEL
TRANSMISSIVITY
= 640 SQ.FT/DAY
SPECIFIC YIELD
= .22
BEGINNING TIME
= 180 DAYS
FINAL TIME
= 180 DAYS
TIME INCREMENT
= 180 DAYS
TIME OF CUT OFF
= 180 DAYS
BEGINNING DISTANCE
= 0 FT
FINAL DISTANCE
= 500 FT
DISTANCE INCREMENT
= 25 FT
DEPTH
= 2 FT
WIDTH
= 14 FT
LENGTH
= 14 FT
ANGLE
= 0 DEGREES
TIME
DISTANCE
HEIGHT
(DAYS)
(FT)
(FT)
180.000
0.000
0.220
180.000
25.000
0.153
180.000
50.000
0.125
180.000
75.000
0.108
180.000
100.000
0.097
180.000
125.000
0.088
180.000
150.000
0.081
180,000
175.000
0.074
180.000
200.000
0.069
180.000
225.000
0.065
1.80.000
2150.000
0.060
180.000
275.000
0.057
180.000
300.000
0.053
180.000
325.000
0.050
180.000
350.000
0.047
180.000
375.000
0.045
180.000
400.000
0.042
180.000
425.000
0.040
160.000
450.000
0.038
180.000
475.000
0.036
180.000
500.000
0.034
RKvj
Io%3U/��

2'
3'
'
500'
Ground
Ditch
HORIZONTAL SCALE 1" n TOO'
Water Table
After 180 Days
Original Water Table
500'
Figufe Project Title,
rai:�AE sc•' E , _ SHELTER CREEK QUARRY
Dale: 10f30106 Scale: SEE AT LEFT
MOUNDING ANALYSIS PLOT
YY MTOM E'vGN E INC
Project N: 200328

Sur�Ce �ta
1.18 ACRE; +/�
Love-) Spreode_r
Pond .. o
i OiAL = 4,00 ACRES /—
POND = 2.44 ACRES -/_
VOLUME = 1,725,137 C.F.
(1{,904,024 GAL-)
L-1
va�U�5
NnA7 f .,
4 ,Tti i % 1L-
17
9(2,J
Wpic. Cl z ^ 13.E
G.ouna CL = IC'
pry USG �opo �— 1_
- -
ill5(_J a✓3e R cL� 160,
m a mk�l; o g0.11ar�s
i n a5o, ooa -5oo�ctx� guliuns�
s}Q�vot
MAKrmu01
lS(�,? a(2fe5
ct
�aCrc�
010 a la�cl ld a�j �rom
��fQCi��1oj-lorl IS

}anuary 19, 2006
Pete Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Re: Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC Mining Application Wildlife and Plant Survey
Dear Mr. Benjamin,
A complete site survey was done by Adrian L. 1\400n on January I9, 2006, The components
of the survey consisted of Red Cockaded Woodpecker habitat evaluation and a biological
assessment with an emphasis on the federally protected endangered plant species, rough -
leaved loosestrife (Lysimaclurr crpe:rrrIegfbliei), American chaffseed (.Schivalbe it arnuriccrrrcr),
and Cooley's meadowme (7halierlruna cooleyi).
According to Henry, 1999, Hooper et al; 1980, USFWS I992a, Walters 1990, the preferred
habitat ofthe Red -cockaded Woodpecker (Yicoidfes horeali.v) is open, part. -like pine stands
with little undergrowth. The RCW prefers long lea(pine but is also iound populating in
loblolly, slash., pond, and sometimes virginia pine_ Live trees 30+ years old are -used for
(orage habitat and 60+ years old trees are used (or roosting and nesting habitats. The
dominant tree species present on the proposed mining sites and adjacent areas were 15-25
year old loblolly pines due to past agricultural and timber practices. Most stands on the
property have been burned for wildlife management (mainly quail), but currently the
undergrowth is thick in the majority of die stands due to the limited success of the burns
and/or the regular rotations: Though the RCW does populate loblolly pine stands it requires
more open forage habitat than was present. on anti adjacent to the ruining sites. The site was
surveyed for the preferred size (?, 10" dbh) of pines and evidence of cavity nesting. The
dominant trees were not of the preferred age for habitat or forage for the Red -cockaded
Woodpecker. There was no witnessed presence or evidence ofthe bird species on the day of
the survey.
The mine site and adjacent areas on the property are classified as mixed Upland fine, Wet
Pine l:latwoods, and pocosins_ Lysimachia asperuleafolia generally occurs in edges between
longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins (Barr), 1980), on moist to seasonably saturated
sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. 'rhe edge grass -shrub plant communities
on the site were the .Frain focus of the evaluation. Road maintenance and past agricultural
practices have eliminated much ofthe open edges required by the plant. No evidence of the
plant was found in the mining area or adjacent land.
Tel: 910-259AF-00 PO Box 995, lhli guiv, Noilh C.InAirta, 2K-125 lean: 910-259-1779

Schwtzlha (nnerictimi is found in open, moist pine flatwoods, fire maintained savannas, and
transition areas between peaty wetlands and dry sandy soils. These characteristics are similar
to rougli-leaved loosestrife habitat but the American chaffseed needs a more open liabitat
because it is not tolerant of dark shades. The areas on the site that would be candidates for
populations ol'this plant generally are not maintained well enough to host the species. During
the survey of these areas, no plant was found that met the description, more than likely due to
the thickness of the shrub edges.
777alictru n cooloyi occurs in moist to wet bogs and savannas most often along Creplow lines,
roadside ditches, woodland clearings, and powerline rights -of -way, and need some type of
disturbance to maintain its open habitat. The typical habitat that this plant is found in exists
on the property of the mine site but, as stated previously, has been altered due to current and
past agricultural/timber practices. No specimens were found during the survey ol'the sites.
The types of disturbances needed for the species of plants to thrive,do occur due to
management for wildlife on the site and property. The majority of the mining sites are
currently or have been in agriculture, eliminating optimal conditions for the endangered plant
species, even in the areas where these species generally populate.
Based on the site survey of the mining site and the areas impacted by the proposed mining
activities, the Red -cockaded Woodpecker does not inhabit the area and does not use it for
foraging habitat. The plant species as stated previously were not sited during this survey.
References:
Barry, J. M. 1980. Natural vegetation ol'South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press,
Columbia_ 214 pp.
Mathews, T. D., F. W. Stapor, Jr., C. R. Richter, J_ W. ]Vliglarese, M. D. McKenzie, and. L. A,
Barclay, eds. 1980. Ecological characterization'of the sea island coastal region of South
Carolina and Georgia. U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/=10. Vol. 1. 212 pp.
Henry, 1989, Hooper et al_ 1980, USFWS 1992a, Walters 1990.
Any specific facts not sited were taken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website under
the Endangered Species lint; and also the South Carolina Wildlife Federation website.
10-259- 900 110 Box 995, fi irgaw; i`lorli Carolinn, 28,425 F3N: 910-259-1779

W'A TON ENGINEE, RING -----
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 910-259-4800.
Sincerely,
/ '-ve
Adrian L. Moon
Bachelor of Science (1996)
School of Natural Resources -Ecosystem Assessment
North Carolina State University
Tel: [phone] PO Box 895, Burgaw, Nurlh Carolina, 28425 Pax: 910-259-1779

In Accordance with General Permit No. NCG 020000
Operation and Monitoring Plan
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC.
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, Pender County, NC
Prepared by:
Stephen Dorenda
VP Operations
Shelter Creel: Quarry, LLC

1_0 Background
Once the State Mining Permit and the NPDES Permit have been issued to Shelter Creek
Quarry, LLC, several projects will have to be completed before any mining activity commences.
All of these projects are shown on the Phase I A-72.5 acre map entitled NPDES MAP and an
additional map titled NPDES Supplemental Wetland Man (La). First and foremost is the
construction of the Speed -Up and Slow -Down lanes at the entrance to the mine site.
2.0 Proiect List Prior to Minim
3=0 Speed -Up and Slow -Down Lane Construction
All of the necessary plans have been submitted to and approved by the NC State DOT for
construction. Bids have been received and are ready to be awarded. Once the construction
begins, additional material will be added to the main entrance road from the speed-up and slow-
down area to the entire length of the main entrance road and finally terminating at the level
spreader lake. The road will be raised from 19.7 MSL to approximately 23.0 MSL. This
elevation will prevail the entire length of the main road and will be widened and asphalted to the
office and scale area shown on the enclosed reap. The road will be ditched on either side and all
storm water from the east side of the road will be sent by pipe to the west side of the road, and
will ultimately be sent to the main sump area in the quarry as depicted on the enclosed map.
This same road will circle the level spreader lake and will continue west towards the
maintenance building at the same 23.0 MSL height. This height will be maintained for the. entire
35.0 + acre mine site to prevent storm water from ever entering or leaving the actual mining area.
The berm depicted on the enclosed map will also continue down the property line to intercept the
same 23.0 MSL elevation at the maintenance building. This elevation was chosen because in the
recent 500 year flood, water never rose above the maintenance building elevation!
4.0 Horseshoe Lake Remodeiine
The horseshoe lake will be deepened to an average depth of 20' and the walls will be
sloped at a 3-1 grade and grassed. It will be clear of all trees and brush and will have a road
circling it at a 23.0 MSL elevation. A floating pump station will be built and located in the
southwest comer of the horseshoe. This pump will transfer main pit sump water to the level
spreader lake. This lake can store 300,000 gallons of water and will be capable of withstanding
flood waters that occurred during the recent 500 year flood. The lake will cover approximately
1.2 acres and the water elevation will be held at a nominal 14' elevation.
550 Construction of the Level Spreader Lake
The level spreader lake will be built simultaneously with the two previously mentioned
Page 2

projects. The level spreader lake will be quite unique for several reasons. It will cover
approximately 4.0 acres with 2.5 acres of water in it. It will hold approximately 12,000,000
gallons of water and can withstand a 100 year, 24 hour storm (10" rain in 24.hours) very easily.
It is unique because it will have a 200' long discharge manifold that can be adjusted for rate of
flow by closing or opening three separate gate valves. These gate valves control the amount of
water to be discharged by the manifold. Another unique feature is that it will be built directly on
top of the crustaceous limestone, which will allow some of the contained water to close -circuit to
the main pump station from which it came. Lastly, the actual discharge will occur on the mining
property prior to it's migration to the wetland. All of the design data and other necessary
information have been included with this plan. (Enclosure 1) This design meets or exceeds the
guidelines established by Dr. Van Der Wiele of N.C. Division of Water (duality
6.0 Strippin2 of Overburden
As soon as both of the lakes are completed, a stripping program to remove the overburden
will commence. The initial stripping will occur to the west of the main entrance road, into the
quarry and will be approximately 400' x 750' and will remove 200,000 cubic yards of
overburden. The map shows how storm water will be trapped and sent to the main sump area by
both ditching and grading as depicted on the map.
6.1.a Overburden Uses:
6.I.2.1 It will be used to build all of the berms shown on the enclosed reap as well as
protection berms for haul roads as demanded by MSHA Rules.
6.1.a.2 It will be used to widen roads and heighten the main road into the quarry as well
as to build new roads around the horseshoe lake, level spreader lake and a berm
from the level spreader lake to the maintenance building.
6.1.a.3 Excess overburden will be stored on the east side of the main entrance road shown
on the enclosed map. Although this material will ultimately be placed in the
bottom of the mined -out pit area, it will be temporarily stored and encapsulated by
a berm and silt fencing as shown on the map.
6.1.a.4 As the overburden is being removed, collected storm water wilt be sent from a
submersible pump and plastic pipe to the horseshoe lake. This pump will be
located in the designated sinking cut area to be drilled and blasted where the
permanent pump station will be located. Ali overburden in this area must be
removed before drilling and blasting commences. As soon as the fixed sump area
is established by removal of the rock that was blasted, an immediate drilling and
blasting program will develop the two benches shown in the map legend. At this
time, a small portable crusher will be used to crush rock for all of the roads to be
heightened and widened. This crusher will only make one size of finished product
Page 3

(base material) and does not use water for cleaning of the rock.
770 Rack Crushing. Plant Construction
The portable rock crushing plant and portable generating plant will begin to be set-up in
the area shown on the reap, slightly southwest of the pump station. The plant will have all
equipment at 23.0 MSL or higher to prevent flood damage. It is all portable equipment and can
be moved easily, if so desired. Although permanent electricity will be provided by Four County
Co -Op, a back-up generator will be installed and wired series -in -parallel since Shelter Creek
Quarry will be buying interruptible service. The entire plant will be built by an outside
contractor and delivered pre -built to the mine site.
8.00 Ongoing Construction Projects
8.a.1 Chainlink fence construction on berms will begin as soon as berms are finished.
8.a.2 Berms will be sowed and planted with native grasses.
8.a.3 Wash water pond will be constructed near crushing plant. It will be a totally
close -circuited pond.
8.a.4 Construct office building and scales on the main entrance road.
8.2.5 Begin construction of a 30' x 75` addition the maintenance building on. the
southern end of the current building.
8.a.6 Construct a 4,115 foot closed ended ditch down the west side of the quarry
property as depicted on the attached N-PDES Supplemental Wetland Map (La)
This ditch will be kept filled with water provided by two ponds shown on the
same map, and will not be allowed to become dry. This ditch and the parallel
ditches on Highway 53 will provide a hydraulic barrier to N.C. State Gamelands.
8.a.7 Asphalt the main entrance roads and install automatic gates to the fencing along
the main entrance road.
8.a.8 Continue to berm all isolated wetlands as stripping continues. Berms will be
sowed and planted with native grasses and silt fencing as necessary.
8.a.9 Build ponds For water cannon use in areas shown on the map. Outside walls of
ponds will be sowed and planted with native grasses and silt fencing will be used
as necessary Construction data can be found in the legend section of enclosures
(3) and (9).
Page 4

990 Water Monitoring and Test Wells
Since May, 2005, there has been an ongoing monitoring of six (6) wells that were placed
in the main wetland area of the mine. Three (3) of the wells are shallow (15 feet deep) and the
three (3) other wells are deep (80 feet deep).
Initially, test results were conducted on a monthly basis since there was no mining
activity on the property. With the recommendation to increase monitoring on a weekly basis
from Ms. Linda Willis, I began to collect water heights from these and other wells from August
08, 2006 to the present time. See Enclosure (7), Monitoring Well Data for 13 wells. Well
locations are shown on the two (2) enclosed maps. Enclosure (8) and (9).
The results to date from the monitoring of these thirteen (13) wells have supported the
initial findings of the three (3) pump down wells used in our cone of depletion studies. That is to
say that the data collected to date shows that the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands was not
significantly influenced from dewatering activity elsewhere on the mining site.
It has been my experience in mining coastal limestone that the hydrology of the large
wetlands are more likely influenced from lateral groundwater flow in the upper surficial aquifer
towards the mine wall as the mine advances.
For these aforementioned reasons, a level spreader pond, ditching, and pond construction
to provide water for water cannon use have all been incorporated in this mining plan to prevent
loss of water in the overburden areas of the wetlands.
10.0 Drainage Facilities
Any storm water that goes to the pit area will be pumped from a central pumping station
as depicted on the NPDES Map. All other ditches that are on the property will still be used as
well. No new open ended ditches are expected to be needed. The ditches and sump area deliver
natural and storm water to the man-made lake for discharge. It will be discharged evenly into the
wetlands from this lake. No sump pump water will be directly pumped off the mining site. The
submitted cross sections show that the sump settling pump basin will be approximately 100 ft. x
300 ft., and it will have the deepest mined area in the quarry at - 58 ft_ MSL. The actual water
level will automatically be controlled by mercury switches, and will only pump water down to a
nominal - 45 ft_ MSL. This is necessary since non -turbid water is desired for pumping. Also,
this will be the first chance that suspended solids can be removed before any pumping sends
water to the first settling pond. The sump also provides a huge retention area in case of
inclement conditions. All storm water and ditch water is sent to the main sump area by grading
or ditches during extended ruining operations. See the flow charge arrows on the NPDES Map.
Enclosure (8).
Page 5

11.0 Pumping Fre uenc
Initially, quantities of water will be smaller at first due to the size of the open pit. The
quantities of water will naturally become larger as the mine expands which causes the aquifer to
expand. At first, the aquifer will give up more gallons of water per hour since this water
represents storage water found in the aquifer. However, as the aquifer grows, the water will have
to migrate further in order to get to the pump station, and the flow will tend to stabilize to a lesser
flow rate.
Pumping periods will be controlled at the pump station by mercury switches and a
pumping log will be maintained on a daily basis. Although the float -mounted pump can deliver
1400 gallons per minute, it is estimated that the pump station will not operate but a short period
every hour during operating hours. After operating hours, the pump will remain idle. Although
the pump can send up to 2 million gallons of water per day to the level spreader, it is not going to
pump more than 250,000 - 500,000 gallons per day for the first two to three years. This is simply
because of the size of the aquifer in the retention ponds and the need to refill all of the water and
the 4100' ditch. This mining plan is only for 72.5 acres, and it will be mined in two phases of 36
acres each. When the first 36 acres is totally mined, water and wetlands should no longer be an
issues since the 36 acres will be allowed to fill with water. It will take approximately 6-7 years
to mine the 36 acre tract.
Since quantities of water to be pumped are all hypothetical and are attempted to be
proven with theoretical formulas, 1 have concluded that our initial pumping will produce 250,000
- 500,000 gallons of water per day once the sinking cut has been made. Naturally, as the mine
area increases in size, so too will the aquifer increase in size. Thus, Mr. Walton's testing shows
at the end of a 6-7 year period, we will have 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 gallons of water to be
pumped daily. This has been concurred by the N.C. State Hydrologist also. See enclosure (10).
The Come of Depletion has also been agreed upon to be 6200'. (Enclosure 9a)
A log book listing all wells will be kept in the VP Operation's -office with all collected
and reported data from weekly inspections. Site checks for sink holes or any other abnormalities
at the mine site will be done daily and all findings will be recorded with time and date of such
findings.
12.0 Isolated; Wetland Buffer
Maps that have been submitted and the map currently submitted show a minimum 50'
buffer away from all wetlands to the edge of the mine. The wetlands are not in the buffer and all
isolated wetlands will be monitored by monitoring wells located in each wetland's boundary.
Provisions have been delineated to keep these areas wet. See #7 of this document.
Also, there will be a 211 slope to the rock in the quarry from the outline footprint of the
isolated wetland. Thus, for a 15 foot of overburden in an isolated wetland, the actual mining
Page 6

distance from the wetland would be 80 feet and not 50 feet.
13.0 Isolated Wetland Ponds
The ponds holding water for the isolated wetlands will have float mounted pumps with
manifolds capable of running (3) water cannons at one time. The water cannons can spray 75
gallons/minute or 4,500 gallons/hour.
Based on the previous example given, an average isolated wetland would need 12,670
gallons of water pumped on non -rainy days. With a water cannon delivering 4,500 gallons per
hour, it would take 2.82 hours to spray 12,670 gallons onto an average wetland.
14.0 Maintenance Area and Fuel Storaae
The submitted map shows a maintenance building slightly NW of the horseshoe wetland
adjacent to the level spreader pond. An additional 30' x 75' or 2,250 ft.' building addition will be
added to the southern end of the current building. This area will be with a covered roof and
concrete floor. General preventative maintenance will be conducted in this area by an outside
contractor who will provide grease and oil on his service truck. The floor area will consist of a 2
block high concrete walled area on top of 6" of concrete. The open end will have a 7" silent
policeman made of concrete which will be attached to the concrete floor. This floor area and
blocks, along with the silent policeman provides 42 yds.' of contained concrete storage for spills.
30. x 75 x .5' _ 27 = 42 yds' and 42' x 201.974 = 8,483 gallons of liquid storage. The floor will
have (2) drains located at 25' intervals in the concrete floor and connected to a 4' x 6' sump area
outside of the building by PVC pipe. The actual sump area will be covered with a removable
roof to prevent from inclement weather. Bags of "Oil Dri" will be provided on both sides of the
maintenance area and would be sprinkled over wet areas. The absorbed material would be swept
into a pile and then transferred to a 55 gallon barrel to be sent to an environmentally appropriate
dump site.
NOTE: 500 year flood did not reach the maintenance building floor in September, 1999. As far
as bulk storage of diesel fuel, a 10,000 gallon steel tank will be located along the SE corner of the
maintenance building with a built-in secondary containment tank. All maintenance will be
provided by an outside contractor where the mining equipment is purchased. This maintenance
will be conducted by the vendor's employees with the vendor's maintenance truck.
15.0 Discharge Monitoring
Discharge monitoring and reporting will be performed as specified in Table 1. If the
effluent limitations are greater than specified in Table 2, the monitoring frequency will be
modified to monthly monitoring of the effluents.
Page 7

16.0 Monitoring Reports
Discharge monitoring results in accordance with the terms of this permit, NCG020000,
shall be submitted no later than 30 days from the end of the monitoring period. Duplicate signed
copies of all reports required shall be submitted to the NC DENR Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section, ATTENTION: Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.
Shelter Creek Mining will report orally any noncompliance within 24 hours after Shelter
Creek Mining becomes aware of the noncompliance.
Table 1. Monitoring Requirements for Mine Dewatering
777- �Z:-,.=_?Sa
pfe =
,r:Sampie _
DiacfiareWCtiaracderistics
Urarts _-- _
-.F//pp//���1( -
.;=y"��f-, =
:LraczrNor
pH
S.U.
Quartedy
Grab
E
Settleable Solids
M14
-Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids
mgA
Quarterly
Grab
E
Turbidity
NTU
Quadedy
Grab
E or U,D
Total Flow
MG
Quarterly
-
E
able 2. Effluent Limitations for Process Wastewater and Mine
Dewaterin
r-r:: i•tii,'y.i'.-c-1'r
p=harge Cmr_adejr Cs.: ~ . - - . -- -- -
-'-=,Dischame Li_ nuabons
_
' - -
Mornh Avez4a .-
- D ai Maximum
:eltleable Solids
0.1 mlll
0.2 mlA
otal Sus nded Solids industrial Sand Mining)
25M
45nigA
H Range
-
6,0 - 9.0
urbidit Freshwater non -trout streams
-
50 NTU
irbid Non -trout fakes and saftwaters
-
25 NTU
irbidrt (Trout Waters)
-
10 NTU-
Page 8

17.0 Water Cannon Use in Isolated Wetlands
As far as ]seeping the isolated wetlands wet with water cannons, the following formula shows
how much water in necessary to equal the normal precipitation based on the thirty year average
rainfall amounts:
inches of rain x sq. ft. x 7.48 = (x) gallons
Using 116.9" of rain/year (30 year average) for this area, I can calculate the number of gallons
per no rain days that would have to have water sprayed by the water cannons to the isolated
wetlands. Average size of isolated wetland = 1.437 acres 1.437 acres = 62,595 R.'
Example:
116.9 x 62,595.72 ft.' = 609,786 ft.'
12
609,786 ft.' x 7.48 gallons = 4,561,202.4 gallons/year
4,561,202 gallons/year = 380,100 gallons/month
12 months
380,100 gallons/month - 12,670 gallons/day per avg. wetland
30 days/month
12,670 gallons/day x 17 isolated wetlands = 215,390 gallons/day
19 dry days/month x 215,390 gallons/day = 4,092, 4 10/month
Page 9

r
1 DATA FORM! NL.6,02.O
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Holland Quarry - Investigator: Angie Pennock
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells Southern E-nvironmental GrouP, Inc.
Project #. 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
SEG
Date:
12M 2/2006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6417 ON
Longitude: 77.7529 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? © Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes © No Transect ID• NCWRC, west side of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes 0 No access road located 0.5 mile west of
(Explain below if needed): quarry site entrace
Plot ID: Well Site 1
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Lyonia lucida
SHRUB
FACW
Pinus taeda
TREE
FAC
Persea borbonia
TREE
FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks: /
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describes
ElStream, lake or tide
❑ Aerial photographfi
❑ Other
© No Recorded Data Avail -
Field Observations:
Depth of surface we
Depth to free water,I
Depth to saturated sou:
Remarks:
ogy Indicators
, licators:
ed
ed in upper 12"
narks
!= ies
ant Deposits
ge patterns in wetlands
)y Indicators
red root channels in upper 12"
i stained leaves
i soil survey data
Lai r-r,--neutral test
j ❑ Other texnfain in remarks)

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Very Poorly Drained
(Series and Phase) : Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T is Huma ue is
Y( 9 p}� Yp� q p
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ©No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
_(inches
Horizon
(Munsell moist)
(Munsell moist
abundancelcontrast
structure, etc.
0-2
O
10 YR 2M
Sandy Muck
2-12+
A
10 YR 211
Sand with organic coating
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ❑X Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? © Yes ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual_ I
NOTES:
No photographs were taken at this site.

Project/Site: Holland Quarry —
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Investigator: Angie Pennock
Southern Environmental Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
Date:
1211212006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6372 ON
Longitude: 77.7607 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: NCWRC, at the end of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No the access road (overgrown) across
(Explain below if needed): from the entrance to the quarry site
Plot ID: Well Site 2
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Salix ni a
SHRUB
OBL
Ca inns carnliniana
TREE
FAC
J
Persea borbonia
TREE
FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Other
0 No Recorded Data Available.
Field Observations:
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Depth to free water in pit: 3.0 (in)
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators:
❑ Inundated
® Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Secondary Indicators
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
® Water stained leaves
❑ Local soil survey data
0 FAC-neutral test
❑ Other (explain in remarks)

Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Very Poorly Drained
(Series and Phase) : Murville muck
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T is Ha la uods
Y { 9 p)� YP P �
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ®No
Profile Descri tion
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
jnchesL
Horizon
Munsell moist
(Munsell moist)
abundancelcontrast
structure, etc.
0-3
O
10 YR 211
Muck
3-12+
A
10 YR 211
Mucky Sand
Hydric Soil Indicators. (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
© High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? © Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? ❑X Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
No photographs were taken at this site_

Project/Site: Holland Quarry —
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project fit: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Investigator: Angie Pennock
5out6em E_nvironmental Group, Inc.
6315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
SEG
Date:
1211212006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6309 ON
Longitude: 77.7535 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? © Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes ® No Transect ID: NCWRC, west side of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No the quarry site
(Explain below if needed): Plot ID: Well Site 3
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Nyssasvivatica
TREE
OBL
Taxadium d4tichum
TREE
OBI..,
Ilex coriacea
SHRUB
FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBI_, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYUKUL.UUT
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
Primary Indicators:
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Inundated
❑ Other
® Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
© No Recorded Data Available.
❑ Drift lines
Field Observations:
❑ Sediment Deposits
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Secondary Indicators
Depth to Free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
❑ Water stained leaves
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
❑ Local soil survey data
FAC-neutral test
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Well Drained
(Series and Phase) : 8aymeade fine sand
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Arenic Hapludults
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ®No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
inches
Horizon
Mansell moist
Munsell moist
abundancelcontrast
structure, etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1.12+
A
10 YR 211
Mucky Sand
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes [:]No within a wettand?
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No 0 Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Holland Quarry — Investigator: Angie Pennock
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells jouthcrn Envirorimcntal Group, Inc.
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicant/owner: Steve Holland
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
SEGO
Date:
12/12/2006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6327 °N
Longitude: 77.7558 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? © Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturber! (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes © No Transect ID: NCWRC, west side of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes 0 No the quarry site
(Explain below if needed): Plot ID: Well Site 4
VF(%FTOT1nN
Dominant Plant Species
Nyssa svfvadca
Stratum
TREE
Indicator Dominant Plant SRecles _ Stratum _ Indicator
OBL
Taxodium disdehum
TREE
OBL
Ilex coriacea
SHRUB
FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
Primary Indicators:
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Inundated
El Other
© Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
© No Recorded Data Available.
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Secondary Indicators
Depth to free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
El Water stained leaves
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
❑ Local soil survey data
® FAC-neutral test
❑ Other fexalain in remarksl
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
(Series and Phase) : Muckafee foam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents
Field observations confirm mapped type 7❑ Yes ®No
Profile Description
Depth Matrix color Mottle colors
Mottle Texture, concretions,
inches Horizon Munseil moist Munsell moist
abundance/contrast structure. etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1-12+
A
10 YR 211
Mucky Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Suffldic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
r , Gleyed or Low-Chroma_matrix _ _
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? 0 Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? 0 Yes ❑ No 9 Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual,
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Holland Quarry — Investigator: Angie Pennock T
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells Soutkcm environmental GrouPInc.
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
SEGO
Date:
12/12/2006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6269 ON
Longitude: 77,7483 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes © No Transect ID: NCWRC, west side of
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes © No the quarry site
(Explain below if needed): Plot ID: Well Site 5
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant 5 ecies
Stratum
Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
N ssa s Ivatica
TREE
OBL
Taxodium distichum
TREE
OBL
Bev coriacea
SE RCB
FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑ Stream, take or tide gage
Primary indicators:
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Inundated
❑ Other
® Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
® No Recorded Data Available.
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Secondary Indicators
Depth to free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
El Water stained leaves
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
❑ Local soil survey data
® FAC-neutral test
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Well Drained
(Series and Phase) : Baymeade fine sand
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Arenic Hapludults
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
inches
Horizon
Munsell moist)
Munsell moist
abundancelcontrast
structure, etc. _
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1-12+
A
10 YR 211
Mucky Sand
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Carps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

Project/Site: Holland Quarry —
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #. 06-010.01
Applicantlowner: Steve Holland
DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Investigator: Angie Pennock
5outbcrn Environmental Group, lnc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
SEGO
Date:
12(12/2006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6402 °N
Longitude: 77.7458 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? ® Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes © No Transect ID: Holland Farm,
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ❑x No northeast side of the quarry site near
(Explain below if needed): NC 53
Plot ID: Well Site 6
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator _ Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
N ssa sytvaden
TREE
OBL
Taxodium disdchum
TREE
OBL
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
Primary Indicators:
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Inundated
❑ Other
© Saturated in upper 12"
® Water marks
© No Recorded Data Available.
❑ Drift lines
❑ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations:
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Depth of surface water: N/A (in)
Secondary Indicators
Depth to free water in pit: 2.0 (in)
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
© Water stained leaves
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
❑ Local soil survey data
© FAC-neutral test
I
❑ Other (explain in remarksi
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
(Series and Phase) : Muckalee loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T is Fluva uents
y ( 9 iP1� Yp� 4
Field observations confirm mapped type?0 Yes ®No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
(inches)
Horizon
Munsell moist
Munsell moist
abundance/contrast
structure, etc.
0-1
0
10 YR 2/1
Muck
1-10
At
10 YR 211
Mucky Sandy Loam
10-12+
A2
10 YR 211
Sand with organic coating
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
® High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Ayuic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain In remarks
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
Photo of well site.

DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
ProjectlSite: Holland Quarry— Investigator: Angie Pennock
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells Southern r nvironmental Group, Inc.
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicantiowner: Steve Holland
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
EG
S
Date:
12/12/2006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6403 °N
Longitude: 77.7414 *W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? © Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes © No Transect ID: Holland Farm, east
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ©No side of the quarry site, on the far side
(Explain below if needed): of the island near Holly Shelter Creek
Plot ID: Well Site 7
VFGFTATIaN
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator Dominant Plant Species
Stratum Indicator
Persea borbonia
SHRUB
FACW
Pinus taeda
TREE
FAC
Smilax laurifolia
VINE
FACW+
L onia lucida
SHRUB
FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑ Stream, lake or tide gage
Primary Indicators:
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Inundated
❑ Other
© Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
© No Recorded Data Available.
❑ Drift lines
El Deposits
Field Observations:
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Secondary Indicators
Depth to free water in pit: 4.0 (in)
❑ Oxidized root channels In upper 12"
El water stained leaves
Depth to saturated soil: 0.0 (in)
❑ Local soil survey data
® FAC-neutral test
❑ Other (exQlain in remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: Poorly Drained
(Series and Phase) : Muckalee loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes ®No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
inches
Horizon
Munsell moist
Munsell moist
abundancelcontrast
structure, etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
142+
A
10 YR 412
_
Sandy Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ Histosol
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other explain in remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? ® Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? ® Yes ❑ No ® Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES:
Photo of weli site.

Project/Site: Holland Quarry —
Adjacent Properties for Monitoring
Wells
Project #: 06-010.01
Applicant/owner: Steve Holland
DATA FORM
Routine Wetland Determination
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Investigator: Angie Pennock
5outkcrn F nvironmcntal Group, Inc.
5315 South College Road, Suite E
Wilmington, North Carolina 28412
910.452.2711
SEG
Date:
12/12/2006
County:
Pender
State:
NC
Latitude:
34.6327 °N
Longitude: 77.7392 °W
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? © Yes ❑ No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? ❑ Yes © No Transect ID: Holland Farm,
Is the area a potential problem area? ❑ Yes ® No southeast side of the quarry site
(Explain below if needed): Plot ID: Well Site 8
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species
Stratum
Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Persea barbonia
SHRUB
FACW
Pinus taeda
TREE
FAC
Smilax lam . olia
I VINE
FACW+
Lyonia hicida
SHRUB
FACW
Ilex coriaeea
SHRUB
FACW
Percentage of plants that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-) 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
❑ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators
❑ Stream, fake or tide gage
Primary Indicators:
❑ Aerial photographs
❑ Inundated
❑ Other
Saturated in upper 12"
❑ Water marks
® No Recorded Data Available.
❑ Drift lines
El Deposits
Field Observations:
❑ Drainage patterns in wetlands
Depth of surface water: NIA (in)
Secondary Indicators
Depth to free water in pit: NIA (in)
❑ Oxidized root channels in upper 12"
El Water stained leaves
Depth to saturated soil: 4.0 (in)
❑ Local soil survey data
9 FAC-neutral test
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
Drainage Class: poorly Drained
(Series and Phase): Mucka[ee loam
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents
Field observations confirm mapped type?❑ Yes 0 No
Profile Description
Depth
Matrix color
Mottle colors
Mottle
Texture, concretions,
inches
Horizon
(Munsell moist)
abundancekontrast
structure etc.
0-1
O
10 YR 211
Muck
1-12+
A
10 YR 4/2
Sand Loam
I
I
Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply)
❑ H€stoso€
❑ Mg or Fe Concretions
❑ Histic Epipedon
❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils
❑ Sulfidic Odor
❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
❑ Aquic Moisture Regime
❑ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
❑ Reducing Conditions
❑ Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List
© Gleyed or Low-Chroma matrix
❑ Other (explain in remarks)
Remarks:
Wetiand Determination
Hydrophytic vegetation present? 9 Yes ❑ No Is the sampling point
Hydric soils present? ® Yes ❑ No within a wetland?
Wetland hydrology present? x❑ Yes ❑ No © Yes ❑ No
Remarks: The site described above is a wetland as defined by the criteria set forth in the Corps of Engineers' 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual.
NOTES: No photographs were taken of this site.

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
November 3, 2006
Mr. Stephen Dorenda
Vice President of Operations
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 Hwy 53 East
Burgaw, NC 28425
Mr. Dorenda,
Per your letter dated October 1, 2006 and our phone conversation on October 25, 2006, I have
reviewed and discussed your company's request to install and monitor shallow monitoring wells
on Holly'Shelter and Angola Bay Game Lands with our professional staff.
Furthermore, I have contacted Division of Water Quality personnel and discussed some of the
conditions that Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC must comply with to obtain a mining permit. One
major requirement involves the monitoring the impacts de -watering may have on adjacent WRC
wetlands. Tn order to determine potential impacts, Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC must provide data
collected through shallow monitoring wells. Monitoring water levels within the upper 12 inches
of the surface will help assess impacts and insure that wetland integrity is not violated.
Per verbal information provided by you by phone, 10 shallow (5' deep, 2" diameter) monitoring
wells are proposed to be installed on adjacent game lands. Four (4) wells are proposed north of
NC 53 on Angola Bay, while six (6) wells are proposed on Holly Shelter. Wells would be placed
approximately 20 feet inside the game land boundary and would be monitored weekly during the
entire de -watering period of mining (10-12 years). All monitoring would be conducted by
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC employees and confined to non -hunting days.
Based upon information provided and discussion with DWQ and WRC staff, I recommend that a
Special Use Permit be issued. The Special Use Permit will contain specific requirements that
your company must comply with in order to install and monitor these wells. The Special Use
Permit is attached to this letter.
Mailing Address: 1701 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1701
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]

PAGE 2 OCOTOBER 25, 2006
If you have any questions concerning the Special Use Permit, please do not hesitate to give me a
call.
Sincerely,
Tommy K. Hughes
Supervising Wildlife Biologist- Coastal Region
252-514-4738- Office
252-670-9929- Cell

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7003 050D 0002 7858 05D2
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 27614
September 1, 2006
RE: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC Mine
Pender County — Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Holland:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
We have reviewed the additional information dated July 25, 2006 you submitted for the
referenced mine site. However, the following information is needed to continue processing
your application:
The information requested in the June 19, 2006 fetter from Mr. Francis M. Nevils, Jr
must be submitted.
A reasonable estimate of the water withdrawal amounts from the mine
dewatering activities. According to the Division of Water Resources (DWR), the
equation used (Thiem's equation), is not appropriate to calculate the radius of
influence when draw down occurs below the top of the confined aquifer. Also,
incorrect pit depth has been used. An equation that measures the drawdown
under transient flow conditions is more appropriate. In addition, the parameters
of the East Coast Limestone quarry operation must be compared to the proposed
operation, in order to use the information. When DWR modeled the radius of
influence using the transmissivity provided and storage confinement, a 7,700 foot
radius was obtained at a rate of 2mpd for 30 days of pumping with a draw down
of 53 feet. Other site specific factors may reduce this estimate. Using the 7,700
foot radius would provide a conservative estimate.
2. A determination of the areas both on -site and off -site that will be imaacted from
the dewatering_and that will need protection. No determination -has been,- a
provided.
S E P 0 7 Z006
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 I FAX: 919=7.1'5-8801
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
A, � Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

Certified Mail
Mr. Holland
Page 2
3. Number of monitoring well and locations. No monitoring wells have been
provided.
4. A copy of the pumping and monitoring Ian developed for the Division of Water
QuaiitV. This has not been provided. f°
5. A revised mining plan, if needed, based on the pumping and monitorin plan
including any additional monitoring wells.
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed
above have been fully addressed. In addition, please note the Land Quality Section may
request additional information, not included in this letter, as the mining application review
progresses.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward four (4) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 513.0013, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days
from the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are
unable to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information,
in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline can not be met and request that
an extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made
to grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's
files at the end of the 180-day period.
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as
possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.

Certified Mail
Mr. Holland
Page 3
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerejy,
4tJd h A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, PE
Ms. Noelle Lutheran — DWQ Wilmington

WA L TON E-A GIATERIN
July 26, 2006
Mr. Francis M. Nevils, Jr. P.E.
Section Chief
Land Quality Section
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
RE: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC Mine, Pender County, Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Nevils,
This letter is in response to Item 1 of your letter dated June 19, 2006 to Mr. Stephen Holland.
I have attached theoretical calculations predicting the water withdrawal amounts from the
mine dewatering activities.
The calculations predict a withdrawal rate of about 2 million gallons per day at the time when
the first mine area has been fully mined to an area of 35 acres (at which time dewatering will
cease permanently in the first mine area.)
The calculations were performed using Transmissivity determined from the pump test data
previously submitted. Please note that the Transmissivity value is 1,944 square feet per day
versus 2,333 square feet per day determined in the pump test data analysis. An error was
discovered in plotting the distance of observation well B-6 from the pump test well on the
pump test data analysis. When plotted correctly, the Transmissivity is 1,944 square feet per
day (see corrected plot of Distance vs Drawdown.)
Also, note that the predicted radius of influence from the pump test data is 2,722 feet, whereas
the predicted radius of influence when the mine is 35 acres is 5,280 feet. This is because the
pump test flow was 100 gallons per minute and the pumped well was 4" diameter.
It is very important to know that the predicted flow of 2 million gallons per day is higher than
the actual flow will be when the mine reaches 35 acres in size. The actual flow will be less
because the aquifer Transmissivity will decrease over time as the limestone aquifer is
dewatered. The actual final flow is expected to be between 1 million gallons per day and 1.5
million gallons per day based on experience and based on the fact that East Coast Limestone
was reportedly pumping 1 million gallons per day when their mine dewatering area was 250
acres and their depth was 60 feet below ground surface. East Coast Limestone is 2 miles East
of the Shelter Creek Quarry site on Highway 53.
Response to Nevus 072606
Tel: [phone] PO Box 895, Burgaw, North Carolina, 28425 Fax: [phone]

OV
WA L TON EAl GINEERIN
Also, the dewatering flow from Shelter Creek Quarry will be much less than the ultimate
predicted flow at the commencement of mining. The flow will increase as the mine
dewatering area increases.
If you have any questions, please call me at 910-259-4800.
Sincerely,
R. Mark Walton
NC Professional Engineer
License # 16879
Response to Nevils 072606
Tel: [phone] PO Box 895, Burgaw, North Carolina, 28425 Fax: [phone]

,Mr. Stepheii Hollan 4.
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
July 25, 2006
Mr. Floyd Williams
Chief Mining Specialist
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC, 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Williams,
Per our recent telephone conversation on July 24, 2006,1 am submitting herewith some facts as stated
by local residents, private land owners, and state employees as it pertains to sink holes and water pumping over
a 25 year period.
I first contacted Mr. Bobby Goodson, past owner of East Coast Limestone who stated that he mined
within 25 feet of highway 53 and pumped 1,200,000 gallons of water daily with his mining operation. He
finiher stated that he never saw a sink hole on his mining property, on highway 53, or never received a
complaint of a sink hole from any of the land owners surrounding his mine.
I then contacted state employee Mr. Ray Knowles (Road Maintenance Supervisor-NCDOT) who was
responsible for right of ways, ditches and general maintenance for Pender County and surrounding areas. Never
during his 25 year tenure as supervisor did Mr. Knowles hear of or personally see any sink holes or other
problems from the mining operation on highway 53.
I later spoke to Mr. Hagen Blake of the NC Forest Service who stated that they never had a problem in
the Maple Hill area or Angola Bay as it pertained to sink holes or other excessive pumping problems.
Next I visited Mr. Willis Sholar, Dwight Sholar and Joe Sholar who own Sholar Farms and Fertilizer.
They have farmed the area around East Coast Limestone for approximately 30 years and have actually planted
and farmed my land for the past five years. They have: farmed the surrounding area with corn and soy beans for
the past 30 years. My farm has been planted with corn for the past 10 years and they have fertilized and farmed
it during this period of time as well. They stated that they have never seen sink holes within approximately 10
miles of this mine and never had crop problems because of dewatering at the East Coast Limestone nine.
I then went to Mr. David Watts' home who is the adjoining landowner to my farm and discussed this
same issue of sink holes and water problems. He stated that he never had any water problems as it might relate
to dewatering nor has he ever seen sink holes in this area.
Because of all the concerns over sink holes and possible dewatering of wetlands and adjoining property,
I have also included my following comments:
* Since quantities of water to be pumped are all hypothetical and are attempted to be proven with
theoretical formulas, I have included some interesting data comparing cones of depletion. As we

know, some individuals tend to use deductive reasoning as it pertains to proposed pumping
quantities and sink holes.
Example. Sink holes have been found in crustaceous limestone; consequently, all crustaceous limestone has
sink holes. Certain mining operations at Rocky Point and Castle Hayne pump large quantities of water,
consequently; all proposed mining operations in this area will pump large quantities of water.
I have included a map titled Cone of repletion for two different mine sites. This map shows cones of
depletion of 8,000 feet, and rater my attempting to quote more deductive reasoning for these two sites; I wish to
produce some empirical reasoning as follows:
EAST COAST LM ESTONE COMPANY was in business for 25 years and produced the following factual
information:
1. They mined 250 acres of land north and northwest of Highway 53,
2. They mined within 25 feet of Highway 53.
3. They never pumped over 1.2 million gallons of water per day. That occurred in the last five
years of operation. They pumped far less water per day in the previous 20 years.
4. They never had any sink holes show up in their area of mining, in or on any farmland adjoining
the property, nor on Highway 53.
5. Farmers who were contacted that planted corn and soybeans in the area surrounding the urine
stated that they never saw sink holes.
6. Farmers in the surrounding area never complained that the mine dewatered their property to the
extent that farming was affected.
7. The over -lapping cones of depletion shown on the map prove that both mine sites have an area
of exacting conditions.
8. The sedimentary rock found at Shelter Creek has the same type of cap rock that was found at
East Coast Limestone, because actual pump down test showed very small vertical movement of
the water in the over -burden. The deep wells showed the greatest amount of vertical depletion
of water.
9. Empirical proof delineated above shows that water depletion in over -burden will be at a
minimum and sink holes will not become a problem with Shelter Creek Mining begins its
operation.

SHELTER CREEK QUARRY, L.L.C.
OPERATION AND MONITORING PLAN
BACKGROUND
The need for aggregate stone in the Pender, New Hanover, and Brunswick County
areas of Southeastern North Carolina is currently in a critical state. Certain sizes of
aggregate material are currently being sold on an allocation basis. The recent building
boom and construction demands have forced mining companies to ship aggregate
materials by rail at a cost of approximately $10.00 per ton, which has caused prices to
escalate to an average selling price of over $18.00 per ton.
Unfortunately, the natural way that crustaceous limestone is found in relatively
narrow layers causes mining companies to use vast acres of property in order to produce
quantities capable of satisfying the demand. The current demand for these three counties
exceeds three million tons of aggregate, and there is only one mine capable of satisfying
one-third of the demand.
Southeastern North Carolina has placed strict restrictions on mining in these
counties, and the population boom has left very few large tracts of land that can qualify
for mining permits. Wetlands occur naturally in these areas, and large tracts of land just
naturally have wetlands intertwined with dry land. The current open pit mine operating
in Pender County has impacted over 30 acres of wetlands, and is having difficulty
producing 1,000,000 tons per year of aggregate.
It is important to recognize that the proposed Shelter Creek Quarry is necessary
and beneficial to the growth demands being placed on this three county area, as well as
all of the road construction demands for maintenance and by-pass construction. The
Shelter Creek Mining Company has approximately 50,000,000 tons of aggregate reserves
in an extremely rural setting, and will only impact approximately 25 acres of wetlands
over a 50 year period of mining. It will suffice to say that the quality of life for a Pender
County resident will only be affected in a positive manner. The new jobs that this mine
will produce are too numerous to mention.
Shelter Creek Quarry will produce 1,000,000 tons of aggregate per year and will
need 50,000 truckloads per year to deliver to job sites. Imagine for a second how many
more trucks and drivers will be needed. The taxes derived from the purchase of
$8,000,000 worth of mining equipment and $3,000,000 in additional on the road trucks
and concrete equipment, as well as all of the employees necessary to operate this
equipment, will be a welcomed source of revenue to Pender County.
Current demands for drinking water and water for household use from coastal
communities in these three county areas have grown at a geometric rate. Natural coastal
aquifers are being or have been depleted from their underground source. As Shelter
Creek is mined, it will be able to provide millions and millions of gallons of water to
these communities, since the mining plans call for this site to turn into a reservoir once

the aggregate is mined. This water will be available for hundreds of years to come for
human consumption.
The most unique feature of the Shelter Creek Mining Plan is the fact that all water
that leaves the open pit area will never be pumped directly into any stream, creek, or
river. Although a maximum of 500,000 gallons of water could be pumped per day in the
first 2 years, a large portion of it will go through the 100 plus acre wetland that will stay
pristine and undisturbed because of the unique level spreader that will allow the water to
go directly into the wetland without disturbing it. Also, 9 monitoring wells have already
been installed and the water levels will be checked as necessary on a daily, weekly, and
monthly basis when deemed necessary. At the current time, they are being monitored on
a weekly basis. If other wells are needed, they will be installed!
Shelter Creek Mining Company is a must for Pender and surrounding counties
because human and industrial growth has placed increasing demands on aggregate
production!
MINING OPERATIONS
Description of Activities — Open pit mining will be conducted using a sinking
cut, once overburden has been removed. Explosives will be used to establish the working
faces, but an attempt to dig the material without further use of explosives will be
attempted. The reasons that explosives would not be used are economic in nature, but
beneficial to everyone. If the rock is capable of being mined with only excavators, more
sellable stone can be made and the cost per ton would be reduced. A horizontal heading
will be established after a sinking has been shot and emptied. Consequently, if
explosives are used, the primary crusher will be located in the pit and charged with a
rubber -tired wheel loader. Material will then be sent to the fmish plant for further
crushing and sizing by conveyor. Stockpiles of the finished material will be stored at the
finish plant. The finish plant will move to the east side of the main road when mining is
completed on the first 36 acre tract. Reclamation will be ongoing and completed when
the stone is removed. The time frame will be 6-7 years.
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Any storm water that goes to the pit area will be pumped from a central pumping
station as depicted on the NPDES Map. All other ditches that are on the property will
still be used as well. No new ditches are expected to be needed. The ditches and sump
area deliver natural and storm water to the man-made lake for discharge. It will be
discharged evenly into the wetlands. No sump pump water will be directly pumped off
the mining site. The submitted cross sections show that the sump settling pump basin
will be approximately 100 ft. x 300 ft., and it will have the deepest mined area in the
quarry at —58 ft. MSL. The actual water level will automatically be controlled by
mercury switches, and will only pump water down to a nominal —45 ft. MSL. This is

necessary since non -turbid water is desired for pumping. Also, this will be the first
chance that suspended solids can be removed before any pumping sends water to the first
settling pond. The sump also provides a huge retention area in case of inclement
conditions. All storm water and ditch water is sent to the main sump area by grading or
ditches during extended mining operations. See the flow chart arrows on the NPDES
Map.
PUMPING FREQUENCY
Initially, quantities of water will be smaller at first due to the size of the open pit.
The quantities of water will naturally become larger as the mine expands which causes
the aquifer to expand. At first, the aquifer will give up more gallons of water per hour
since this water represents storage water found in the aquifer. However, as the aquifer
grows, the water will have to migrate further in order to get to the pump station, and the
flow will tend to stabilize to a lesser flow rate.
Pumping periods will be controlled at the pump station by mercury switches and a
pumping log will be maintained on a daily basis. Although the float -mounted pump can
deliver 1400 gallons per minute, it is estimated that the pump station will not operate but
a short period every hour during operating hours. After operating hours, the pump will
remain idle_ Although the pump can send up to 2 million gallons of water per day to the
level spreader, it is not going to pump more than 250,000 — 500,000 gallons per day for
the first two to three years,, This is simply because of the size of the aquifer. This mining
plan is only for 72.5 acres, and it will be mined in two phases of 36 acres each. When the
first 36 acres is totally mined, water and wetlands should no longer be an issue since the
36 acres will be allowed to fill with water. It will take approximately 6-7 years to mine
the 36 acre tract.
Since quantities of water to be pumped are all hypothetical and are attempted to
be proven with theoretical formulas, I have concluded that our initial pumping will
produce 250,000 - 500,000 gallons of water per day once the sinking cut has been made.
Naturally, as the mine area increases in size, so too will the aquifer increase in size.
Thus, Mr. Walton's testing shows at the end o'f a 6-7 year period, we will have 1,000,000
to 1,500,000 gallons of water to be pumped daily.
HYDROLOGY MONITORING
There are currently 9 monitoring wells reporting data and 4 more proposed when
actual mining commences. Monitoring designs of the shallow wells and deep wells are
enclosed as Figures 1 and 2. All pipes from these wells extend 3-4 feet above ground
elevation and are easily seen. They are also flagged. Monitoring will stay on a weekly
frequency until such time that the results no longer change dramatically.

The monitoring wells located near the isolated wetlands will show the success or
failure of adding too much, too little, or the right amount of water to keep the wetlands'
water table stable. Based on actual recorded results, water supplemented by water
cannons to these wetlands will be increased, decreased, or stopped based on actual
weather conditions.�I invite your attention to the'fact that % of all water pumped from 1
the main sump area will"be recycled_ That amount(can be increased or decreased based
on factual information derived from the monitoring wells. The ponds holding water for
the isolated wetlands will have float mounted pumps with single manifolds capable of
running three water cannons at one time. The water cannons can spray 75 gallons per
minute or 4500 gallons per hour of pond water.
A rain gauge will be located on a post at the northeast corner of the maintenance
building. Inspections and recordings will be conducted and all data will be recorded in
the same pumping log book that is used for monitoring wells. Rain gauge data will be
compiled daily.
MONITORING REPORTS
Discharge monitoring results in accordance with the terms of this permit,
NCG020000, shall be submitted no later than 30 days from the end of the monitoring
period. Duplicate signed copies of all reports required shall be submitted to the NC
DESNR Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, ATTENTION Central Files,
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617. Shelter Creek will
report orally any non-compliance within 24 hours after Shelter Creek Mining becomes
aware of the non-compliance.
Table I. Monitoring Requirements for Mine Dewatering
::..: .............
�iSC11 aige ......::::::::
....... ...i��tciea�sttes ................II�ntts.....
.........................
>..
...........meas�rrxnent .....-..,
..:.....:.....
.......................... . ueQc v...:,... _ :.;•
:.....
........... c ..:_.::::::::::
::.:::-::;:,...............
:�
...... .
p ....
�fic�tiori s,
PH
S.U.
Quarterly
Grab
E
Settleable Solids
riti/1
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids
mg/1
Quarterly
Grab
E
Turbidity
NTU
Quarterly
Grab
F rn U,-D
Total Flow
MG
I Quarterly
-
E
Table 2. Effluent Limitations for Process Wastewater and Mine Dewatering
PW
.
n....-..... - :.... .. , ..........._......,
P100.1 ..
limo
Settleable Solids
0.1 mIA
0.2 mUl
Total Suspended Solids (Industrial Sand Mining)
25 mg/1
45 mg/l
pH Flange
-
6.0 - 9.0
Turbidity (Freshwater non -trout streams)
-
50 NTU
Turbidity (Non -trout lakes and saltwaters)
-
25 NTU
Turbidity (Trout waters)
110 NTU

MAINTENANCE AREA
The submitted NPDES Map shows a maintenance building slightly NW of the
horseshoe pond adjacent to the level spreader pond. An additional 30 by 75 ft., or 2,250
square foot, building addtion will be added to the southern end of the current building.
This new area will have a covered roof and a concrete floor. General preventive
maintenance will be conducted in this area by an outside contractor who will provide all
grease and necessary oil with his service truck_ The floor of this new area will consist of
a two block high wall on top of 6 inches of a concrete floor. The open end of this
maintenance area will have a 7 inch concrete silent policeman attached to the concrete
floor. The total floor area along with the silent policeman provides 42 cubic yards of
contained concrete storage in case of spills.
30x75x.5
27 = 42 cubic yards
42 x 201.974 = 8,483 gallons of storage
The floor will have 2 drains located at 25 ft. intervals in the concrete floor and
connected to a 4x6 ft. sump area located outside of the building by PVC pipe. The actual
sump area will be covered with a removable roof to prevent the stored material from
inclement weather.
Bags of Oil Dri will be provided on both sides of the maintenance building area
and will sprinkled over small wet areas. The absorbed material would be swept into a
pile and then transferred a 55 gallon barrel to be environmentally sealed and sent to an
appropriate dump site_
NOTE!! The recent 500 year flood did not reach the maintenance building floor in
September 1999.
EXCESSIVE OVERBURDEN
The NPDES Map depicts an overburden stockpile area that is located east of the
main entrance road near Highway 53. This temporary stockpile is surrounded to the
north by a 50 ft. berm, to the west by a ditch line, and is totally surrounded by a silt fence
as shown in the legend of this map. Flow arrows show the graded area moving water to
the west which will ultimately go into a ditch that will carry any storm water to the main
sump area. This material will not leave the confines of the mining property.

70TAL = 4.00 A
POND = 2.44 A+
VOLUME = 1.72
(12,904

SHELTER CREEK QUARRY NPDES DATA
Table of Contents
1. Level Spreader (Design calculations)
2. National Climatic Data Center (Means, Averages, & Normals)
3. Water Cannon Information (answer 47)
4. Cone of Depletion Pump Down Data (Walton Engineering)
5. Deep Well (Monitoring) Construction Figure # 1
6. Shallow Well (Monitoring) Construction Figure #2
7. Main Wetland Monitoring Well Data (May 2005 — July 2006)
8. New NPDES Map

Shelter Creek Quarry
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
July 15, 2006
Subject: NPDES Stormwater General Permit
Additional Information Request
NCG020679 Application
Dear Ms. Georgoulias,
Below is the additional information you requested per your letter dated June 12, 2006.
Question 1: The application indicates three (3) types of discharge (Stormwater, mine dewatering,
and process wastewater overflow). Are all of these waters discharged from one point -at the level
spreader? (O&M)
Answer 1 : The application indicates (2) types of discharge (Stormwater and mine dewatering). The
process wastewater does not exist since this is a dosed circuited wash water system. Current
NPDES map (72.5 acres) shows "surface water flows" and "pump station" discharge to the level
spreader by way of the Horseshoe pond which is used for secondary settling.
Question 2: Please rovide design specifications and calculations for the level spreader and water
cannons. (OW) f e c_J�
Answer 2: The design specifications and calculations have been provided and attested by Mr. Mario �o-r
Walton of Walton Engineering. The water cannons will provide 75gpm of water to the isolatedkou
wetland areas that will be monitored on a weekly basis with shallow wells. Ponds depicted on i r�
NPDES map show locations of same. A central manifold system with gate valves will allow water to
be spread by the water cannons based on average rainfall, since isolated wetlands do not have a
source supply of water. See engineering calculations (Table of Contents #3).
Question 3: The narrative states the level spreader will not discharge directly into the wetland;
however, the retention pond map shows the level spreader discharging to wetlands. Please clearly, �l
address this discrepancy. (OW) --- cJs a.
Answer 3: The level spreader shows a 200' manifold paralleling the retention pond and in fact
discharging a level stream of water onto mineable prty. Ultimately this water will migrate to the
wetlands, but is not directly discharging onto wetlands depicted on the map. The whole point of this
discussion is to show that there is no single small area of discharge into the wetlands (single point
discharge by pipe). The water leaving the mining property into the wetlands will be a fraction of an
inch of water along a 200' strip of land. t Zo ! rn-i Fr. r. L rero p - —
QuestiorzThe radius of influence calculation provided is based on a steady-state radial flow
equation. What assumptions were used for determining this radius of influence around the mining
site? Please submit any available monitoring well data that support assumptions. Please clearly
detail in your written response these assumptions are justified at this mine site. (You should include
in your response all appropriate calculations and copies of relevant citations.) Please address the
discrepancies between the submittal of the second radius of influence calculation vs. the ' first
�• • W

submitted, and their discrepancy with the calculation performed by the Land Quality Section utilizing
the data you provided with your second calculation. Once the zone of influence is determined,
identify the wetlands in the impact area and locate additional monitoring wells (if needed)
accordingly. (O&M)
Answer 4: See enclosed pump down data submitted by Walton Engineering.
Quesdor The narrative describes a "cone of depletion" from the initial quarry pond that covers "an
1600' area. Contrary to the statement on page 5, this value is not mentioned earlier in the narrative.
Where does this value come from, and how was it determined or calculated? What are the
assumptions? The 1800' cone of depletion refers only to the impacts the initial quarry pond will
impose_ Please provide the cone of depletion caused by the proposed Phase I mine pit Identify all
areas on site and off site that will be impacted by the dewatering activities. Determine whether
additional monitoring wells would be required if impacts will occur in areas outside the present
monitoring well locations. (O&M)
Answer 5: See enclosed pump down data submitted by Walton Engineering. W
Question 6: lease provide data or other information about how seasonal changes in the water
a e to the wetlands and their jurisdictional status have been evaluated. (O&M)
Answer 6: It is a known fact that water tables north of the equator raise from winter to spring and
lower from summer to fall. However, there are (6) wells in the wetlands area (shown on NPDES
map) that have been monitored through a 15 month period. See attached monitoring well data
(Table of contents #7). let L�, Z T CkaSLi m- - Y"51 . , cg eke# P� -- 0'_L� 3 k'_V%_O Q
Quesfio" The narrafive indicates the wetlands will be protected through the use of ponds, water
cannons, and a level spreader, but there are no calculations or models to support this claim. Please
provide additional technical information and calculations to support that these techniques will protect
e surrounding hydrology. The narrative (page2) suggests for every 12 square feet of wetland, 1
gallon of water will be dispersed. At what rate is this discharge being propaseci? (O&M)
� 5D' F ' An7: The necessary calculations on the level spreader have been s nt in with prior
po submissions of data; however, I am sending that information again (See Table of Contents #1). As
for keeping the isolated wetlands wet with water cannons, the following formula shows how much
Chi water is necessary to equal the normal precipitation based on the thirty year average rainfall
V-f- amounts:
(Also see Table of Contents #2)
Inches of rain � X sq ft X 7.48 = (x) gallons
Using 116.9" of raintyear (30 year average) for this area, I can calculate the number of gallons per no
rain days that would be necessary to have water sprayed by the water cannons to the isolated
wetlands. Average size of the isolated wetlands is 1.437 acres which is 62,595.72 ft2
Example: 116.9 . 12 X 62,595.72 ft' = 609,876 ft'
609,786 ft3 X 7.48 gallons = 4,561,202.4 gallons per year
4,561,202.4 gallons/year _ 12 Months = 380,100 gallons per month
380,100 gallons/month . 30 days/month = 12,670 gallons per day per average wetlan

12,670 gallons/day X 17 isolated wetlands 215,390 gallons/day
19 dry days/month X 215,390 gallons/day = 4,092,410 /month
Main sump area pump 500,000gallons/day X 30 days = 15,000,000 gallons per month g
15,000,000 gallonstmonth - 4,092,410 = 10,907,590 gallons to main wetland per month
Level Spreader will only spread: 500,000 gallons/day-215,390 gallons/day or 284,610 gallons daily
L--=? 15mIrrA .
ff is significant to note that 27% of all water that leaves the main pumping station will be closed
circuited to keep the isolated wetlands pristine.
The IKW area of wetland receiving the proposed 500,000 gallons of water per day to be pumped
from t % main sump area to the level spreader is 116 acres or 5,052,960 W. However, because the
isolated wetlands will be receiving 73% of this total, the main wetland will only have an average of
315,000 gallons per day. Consequently, 1 gallon of water will have 5,052,960 fF/315,000 or 16.001"
area of wetland to percolate through.
The ponds holding water for the isolated wetlands will have float mounted pumps with manifolds
capable of running (3) water cannons at one time. The water cannons can spray 75 gallons per
minute or 4500 gallons per hour.
Based on the previous example given an average isolated wetland would need 12,670 gallons of
water pumped -on -non -rainy -days. With water cannon delivering 4500 gallons per hour, it would take
2 hours to spray 12,670 gallons nto an average wetland. A-%o .- �
Question S: Please dearly in Icate the amount of buffer to be established around the mine footprint
edge and the respective wetland edges. Are the wetlands located within this buffer and will they be
drained from the hydraulic gradient change and pumping of the mine?
Answer 8: Maps that have been submitted and the map currently submitted show a minimum 50'
buffer away from all wetlands to the edge of the mine. The wetlands are not in the buffer and all
isolated wetlands will be monitored by monitoring wells located in each wetland's general area. .
Provisions have been delineated to keep these area wet. (See #7 of this document.)
Question 9: ease provide wetland monitoring plan such that data may be collected to insure that {
of
we an s proposed to be avoided are adequately monitored
a) Wetland Monitoring Plan. The wetland monitoring plan should include a map indication
Epp the landscape position of all wetlands, ditches, proposed well placement, borrow
areas, stormwater controls, the mine footprint and frequency of wetland physical
monitoring (efforts to periodically reaffirm the presence of the jurisdictional wetland line
and soils), well data collection, well inspections and maintenance, data analysis, and
%j reporting. This plan should also include clear details on a monitoring plan schedule.
The monitoring of the wetland and all existing monitoring wells should begin
immediately if these data have not been collected.
.Answer a: Wetland Monitoring Plan: The primary largest wetland area has (6) monitoring wells that
have been inspected over a 15 month period. See enclosed data sheet on each well (See Table of
Contents #7). The submitted maps shows landscape position and acreage of all wetlands, current or
proposed ditches, actual well placements as well as proposed, borrow (stripping) areas, Stormwater
controls, mine footprint throughout the 72.5 acres, and actual data from (6) constructed wells shown
in the wetlands and overburden storage area (temporary). During normal daily operations, an

inspection of the mining area is mandatory, and during this pre -start-up inspection, the VP of
Operations or a designated foreman will conduct the following inspections.
1) On a weekly basis until a norm is established -measure all monitoring wells and
record heights from top of pipe.
2) Once pumping has commenced, inspect and record heights of water in the
main wetland area weekly instead of monthly. Also, general conditions of wells
will be noted.
3) A log book listing all wells will be kept in the VP or Operations office with all
collected and reported data from inspections. Site checks for sink holes or any
other abnormalities will be done daily and all findings recorded with time and
date of such listings.
b) Well Placement. The placement of wells should be placed within the mine site property
boundary and within the cone of depression (you must explain how many wells will be
installed, their locations and provide details on installation, data loggers and depths,
etc.)
Answer b: Well Placement: The current submitted reap shows the location of all current wells and
proposed shallow wells. Details of the actual construction of both deep and shallow wells are
attached. (See Table of contents #5 & #6). Initially, an electronic dip meter will be used to measure _
water depths manually_
`-- PM W q, 5, It 1 fl I YWAJ , le +" `,,�
of OP� ) Monitoring. Monitoring results prior to mine site operation will be a requirement ?'
S lly, once e monitoring wells locations are approved monitoring must occur
�. pecnc�a th
prior to the time of construction and through the duration of time the site is being
mined, and for 5 years after the mining efforts have been completed unless otherwise
approved in writing by NCDWQ. Please include a monitoring plan response.
Answer c: Monitoring: Data from the main wetland area over a 15 month period is attached for (6)
wells. All other proposed monitoring wells will be constructed prior to making the initial sinking cut
and pumping of any water. All wells will be monitored weekly until some normal standards are
established_ See (A) 1, 2 &3_
d) Well Maintenance Plan. Wells must be properly installed and properly maintained
throughout the active life of the mine, through reclamation efforts, and for 5 years after
Me Division of Land Resources releases the site and determines Holland Shelter mine
site has been reclaimed unless otherwise approved in writing by NCDWQ. Please
include well maintenance plan with your response.
Answer d: Well Maintenance Plan: The projected numbers of wells is a total of 14. Six have been in
operation for 13 months and 3 have been in operation for 3 months. The other 5 shallow wells are
proposed. It must be remembered that after the first 30-40 acres west of the roadway separating the
mining area has been mined, it will be immediately reclaimed and allowed to fill with water. Thus
reclamation will be completed in approximately 6 to 7 years and water will become much less of an
issue. Ail wells will be monitored on a monthly basis after reclamation with results recorded as stated
and A-3. The new mining area to the east of the roadway will stay on weekly well monitoring
inspections. After both sides of the 72.5 acres have been mined, all the monitoring wells will be
inspected and data collected for the remaining (5) years after reclamation efforts are finished.
e) Physical. Monitoring. Physical monitoring of wetlands for instability, erosion, sloughing,
subsidence, collapse, newly formed sinkholes and/or removal of the hydrology of
wetlands is also required. This monitoring, may be accomplished by inspection of the

wetland areas while conduction well maintenance efforts. Provide a physical
monitoring plan with your response. (O&M)
Answer • Physical Monitoring: See A, 1, 2 & 3. As stated previously, all the wells will be checked
e y until a norm is established or six months has transpired. After a (6) month period the wells will
be checked monthly since comparison data will have been recorded and analyzed. After one year of �
mining, the wells will be checked quarterly unless previous results deem it necessary to monitor
more frequently.
�g fj Please dearly explain how you propose to analyze these monitoring data to determine
i whether the wetland hydrology is removed or being maintained. If monitoring results
indicate impacts to the avoided wetlands, please explain how these impacts may be
abated. You must provide on your site map, the location of a permanent on site rain
gauge. Monitoring data and proper maintenance of the rain gauge must be provided.
(O&M)
Answer f: Since water is available to replenish wetlands, the monitoring wells located near these
areas will show the success or failure of adding too much, too little, or the right amount to keep the 3
wetland water table stable. Based on future recorded results, water supplemented to these wetlands
can be increased, decreased or stopped based on actual weather conditions provided by nature. l
invite you attention to the fact that 27% of all water pumped from the main sump area will be
recycled. That amount can be increased or decreased based on factual information derived from the
monitoring wells. A rain gauge will be located on a post at the NE comer of the maintenance building U"'
and along side of Boring Hole (B-4). Inspections and recordings will be conducted and maintained in
the log book discussed in A-3.
g) 1 lease provide more detail about groundwater monitoring strategies that will be used
to demonstrate the effect of pumping, and -what -type of pumping regime will be
necessary to reduce impacts to wetlands. More -extensive pumpin to - ata should bed
included. This and the information in the two aforementioned bulleted items should be
part of a comprehensive Operation and Monitoring (O&M) plan, which requires
approval by the Division (as specified in NPDES permit NCGO2000) before issuance.
Answer g: MARK WALTON
h) The 72.5 acre mining site is estimated to produce 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) of
water. The only reference to how this value was obtained was that the estimate had
�CP
50i° been 500,000 gallons when the original plan was for a mine over twice as large.
Please provide calculations to support the 250,000 gpd estimate. (O&M)
Answer h: MARK WALTON `
i) The application indicates process wastewater overflow will be discharged in addition to
mine dewatering (Question 7), and that overflows will occur during rain events
exceeding the 10-year event (Question 15.c.); however, there are no detail about any
closed400p recycle system that has the potential to overflow. Will there be a recycle
system that has the potential to overflow. Will there be a recycle system for any
wastewater? (if so, plans, specifications, and design calculations must be submitted
for approval.) (O&M)
Answer t: This statement is not true. Process wastewater has always been depicted as being close -
circuited water for washing stone. It never touches the ground except in the make-up pond area
which has more storage capacity than what is needed for a 100 year 24 hour storm. The map shows

exact design and features that prevent this wash water from mixing with any other collected or
pumped water. Prior submitted maps and the enclosed map show necessary specifications and
storage capacity_ This pond can easily contain a 100 year 24 hour storm (10"I24hrs).
j) What size storm event have the settling ponds and retention pond been designed for?
(For example, Me 10-year, 24 hour event) Please provide calculations to support that
these ponds will be able to hold run-off from the design storm, as well as the mining
operation process wastewater pumped there. Is this the only place where Stormwater
�\ will discharge from this site? (OW)
Answer is The primary sinking cut to begin mining will be 200'X600'X70' or 155,555.55 yd3 with a
total storage capacity of 31,418,176 gallons of ter A-ii­-600,00Q�0�b
e entire hod. However, a smaller area
in the floor of this sinking cut will be �OD'X300'X2f_storage.This represents
x `/7 fi1,1 'I , 2844:0 gallons of water"storage. Consequently, the smaller sump area will be kept 5' below the
. lfioorlevel-fdr storage at-all-times:This leaves a storage capacity of 302,961 gallons on a day to day
basis. This main sinking cut, however, can fill to capacity and thus under the worst possible
Oconditions can hold 31,000,000+ gallons since the pump station floats and there is not a need to
pump during indement conditions if one does not wish to pump.
k) Maintenance areas and bulk fuel storage areas are not indicated on the site map.
Please how where these areas will be. What secondary containment will be provided?
(BMP)
Answer k: The submitted map shows a maintenance building slightly NW of the horseshoe wetland
adjacent to the level spreader pond. An additional 30'X75' or 2,250 fig building addition will be added
to the southern end of the current building. This area will be with a covered roof and concrete floor.
General preventative maintenance MI be conducted in this area by an outside contractor who will
provide grease and oil on his service truck The floor area will consist of a 2 black high concrete
walled area on to p of 6" of concrete. The open end will have a 7" silent policeman made of concrete
which will be attached to the concrete floor. This floor area and blocks, along with the silent
policeman provides 42 yd3 of contained concrete storage for spills. 30 X 75X .5' _ 27 = 42 yd3
The floor will have (2) drains located at 25' intervals in the concrete floor and connected to a 4' X 6'
sump area outside of the building by PVC pipe. The actual sump area will be covered with a
removable roof to prevent from inclement weather. Bags of "Oil Dri" will be provided on both sides of
the maintenance area and would be sprinkled over wet areas. The absorbed material would be
swept into a pile and then transferred to a 55 gallon barrel to be sent to an environmentally
appropriate dump site.
NOTE: 500 year flood did not reach the maintenance building floor in September 1999.
As far as bulk storage of diesel fuel, a 10,000 gallon steel tank will be located along the SE corner of
the maintenance building with a built-in secondary containment tank. All maintenance will be
provided by an outside contractor where the mining equipment is purchased. This maintenance will
be conducted by the vendor's employees with the vendor's maintenance truck.
I) The application indicated that this facilrty was not going to use chemicals for
flocculation; however, the narrative discusses the potential for chemical additions to
the wastewater. Will flocculants potentially be used at this site? (BMP)
Answer l: No flocculants will be used at this site.
m) Please include the retention pond on the detailed wetlands and site layout map. (BMP)
Answer m: It is on the enclosed map.

n) In the BMPs plan the analytical and qualitative monitoring requirements for mine
dewatering wastewater and wastewater associated with sand/gravel mining must be
specifically addressed and identified to ensure these requirements are understood and
met (BMP)
Answer n: The following monitoring requirements for mine dewatering and the effluent limitations for
process wastewater and mine dewatering are as follows:
Table 1. Monitoring Requirements for Mine Dewaterin
­Drscisarge
T 5
Measurement
=,Sample
Sample
C#racacteristics
Units
r
y �, �1,
ErequencY
Type
Location
H
S.U.
Quarterly
Grab
E
Settleable Solids
mlll
Quarterly
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids
m A
Quarters '
Grab
E
Turbidity
NTU
Quarterl
Grab
E or U,D
Total Row
MG
Quarterly
-
E
Table 2. Effluent Limitations for Process Wastewater and Mine Dewatering
�� • a y�y��� may _•'�"-"F.,.,
"�f
-q,y-«.•-.,,. ; �'T-
Y L'h ) v1".-G'•
j2. P'C `3a=:.T ^f' �h�: F�''3 -
,�*' ��_ r Discharge L aracterrstics �a � ''_,
'T+y.,, inM-..Y S'Yin 1.
`'��
t : —a ;,A�,,Disdiarge Lunriabort s�+ ,
F •.- 9jf: '"'�'
v.�/'
,�'.�`u_3',i'K``:_"'..a'rn R1i.:.i.:Br-.:�+�Ht-+,.nd',3iEn�xs4.%.`•...,�Lf�.�. i3n:'Jk: ,:Yz��.�}'?rw-"?��t.'A a
L s:-�.a t - 2 _ �'..�
'; �Qt%����_�r=�.Fse�A^"'::�,: �i�� r.':;' '4e
'.i M{`; 'sir Yi. 7r-'U} �1 �L4=:�Sr'. :?.r 'ma`s •' x y � ' w �"La`4 i .s` t: i'S.?,,,; a'�` p�
^N
,:Mond It Ave a ''
1+,��,�._,.'.h.:
,�LJGiI":Mammurn' •-
Settleable Solids
0.1 min
0.2 mill
Total Suspended Solids Industrial Sand Mining)
25m li
45m d
HRange
-
5.0-9.0
Turbidity Freshwater non -trout streams
-
50 NTU
Turbid Non -rout lakes and saltwaters
-
25 NTU
Turbidity Trout Waters
-
10 NTU
o) The General Stormwater & Wastewater Permit for Mining (NCG02000) requires
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan that includes: a thorough
inspection and maintenance plan, preventative maintenance and good housekeeping
measures, including spill control and cleanup measures Stormwater management
requirements; and the requirement that erosion and sedimentation control (E&SC)
measures in the mining permit or E&SC plan approved by the Division of Land
Resources be implemented. In addition, the NCG02 permit requires qualitative and
analytical monitoring of discharges. Please submit the Stormwater BMPs Plan for this
site and plans for addressing monitoring requirements. This submittal is not required
before the permit can be issued but must be submitted before breakng ground at the
mine site. (BMP)
Answer O: Not due at this time.

A
All,
NCDENR'
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James D. Simons, PG, PE Land Quality Section Michael F. Easley, Governor
Director and State Geologist William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
June 19, 2006
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7002 0500 0002 7858 1585
Mr. Stephen C. Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
RE: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC Mine
Pender County — Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Holland:
We have reviewed the application and additional information you submitted for the
referenced mine site. Based on the review of the submitted information the following
information is needed to continue processing your application:
In a coordinated review with the Division of Water Quality, the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and Division of Water Resources, it was determined that the recent pump
test indicated potential impacts to wetland areas and possible sinkholes formation could
occur both on -site and off -site. Please provide the following:
1. A reasonable estimate of the water withdrawal amounts from the mine
dewatering activities.
2. A determination of the areas both on -site and off -site that will be impacted from
the dewatering and that will need protection.
3. Proposed number of monitoring well and locations.
4. Provide a copy of the pumping and monitoring plan developed for the Division of
Water Quality.
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 • 919-733-45741 FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
An Equal opportunity 1 Affsrmahve Action Employer -- 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper

Certified Mail
_Mr. Holland
Page 2
5. Provide a revised mining plan, if needed, based on the pumping and monitoring
plan including any additional monitoring wells.
This office will work in conjunction with the Division of Water Quality in obtaining the
necessary information in reviewing the Mining and Storm Water permit applications. It is
therefore recommended that you worm closely with the Division of Water Quality to obtain the
necessary approvals to allow dewatering activities. You do have the option of revising the
proposed method of operation by not dewatering the excavation and therefore avoiding any
potential impacts..
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed
above have been fully addressed. In addition, please note the Land Quality Section may
request additional information, not included in this letter, as the mining application review
progresses.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward four (4) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 5B.0013, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days
from the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. if you are
unable to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information,
in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline can not be met and request that
an extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made
to grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's
files at the end of the 180-day period.

Certified Mail
Mr. Holland
Page 3
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as
possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Francis M. Nevils, Jr, PE
Section Chief
Land Quality Section
cc: Mr. Stephen Dorenda
Mr. Dan Sams, PE
Ms. Noelle Lutheran — DWQ Wilmington
Mr. Ed Beck- DWQ Wilmington

W A r, R
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
i
Stephen Holland
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
Dear Mr. Holland:
June 12, 2006
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
71RECEIVED6
Subject: NPDES Stormwater General Permit
Additional Information Request
NCG020679 Application —
Proposed Shelter Creek Quarry LLC
Pender County
The Division of Water Quality Regional and Central office staff have reviewed the Shelter Creek Quarry
Wetland and NPDES Permit Narrative. The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater Permitting Unit in
the Central Office received your application for coverage under the above NPDES General Stormwater
Permit on May 16, 2006. After review of the submitted material, -the Division is requesting additional
information to complete processing this permit application. The Regional Office personnel have met on
several occasions with you and your engineer/s and have offered guidance and assistance at your every
request. The objective of this correspondence is to help provide direction for your consulting engineers
in order for you to adequately understand, provide and meet the requirements in accordance with the
NPDES General Mining Permit NCG020000. It is our understanding that the concerns of the Land
Quality Section of the Division of Land Resources, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and
Division of Water Resources per the letter dated June 9, 2006 from Mr. Williams should be addressed if
the requests of this correspondence are met.
Your attention is directed to the following areas of the attached General Permit language:
Compliance with Part II Section A: Requirements to Construct New or Expanding Treatment Facilities
Should the Shelter Creek Quarry utilize a process recycle wastewater system, an Authorization to
Construct will be necessary. Shelter Creek Quarry shall meet the requirements for operation of this
treatment facility per Part II Section B.
Compliance with Part III: Monitoring, Controls, and Limitations for Permitted Discharges
Section A of Part III requires the permittee to develop and implement a stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Plan. The Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland and NPDES Permit narrative
describes some BMPs, but does not present them in a plan that can be easily followed, understood or
implemented by quarry employees. The BMPs plan should address items 1 through 6 in Section A of
Part III. In order to be sure that all areas of concern are addressed, the plan should follow the Table of
Contents as closely as possible. No hCarolma
,lValumll!1
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh. NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer service
Internet: h2o.enrstate.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh. NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunitylAffirmaWe Action Employer — 50% Recycled/l0% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Information Request
June 12, 2006
Compliance with Section C Part III I. Through 5.: Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
for Mine Dewatering Wastewater and Process Wastewater
This section of the permit requires Shelter Creek Quarry to provide an Operation and Monitoring
Plan that will demonstrate the effect of pumping and, as necessary, establish the pumping regime
necessary to reduce the potential impacts to adjacent wetlands. Please refer to Page 5 of 9 Part III of the
NPDES NCG020000 Permit Conditions.
Based on the above the Division is requesting the following information to support continued processing
of this permit application:
• The application indicates three (3) types of discharge (stormwater, mine dewatering, and process
wastewater overflow ). Are all of these waters discharged from one point —at the level
spreader?(O&M)
• Please provide design specifications and calculations for the level spreader and water
cannons.(O&M)
• The narrative states the level spreader will not discharge directly into the wetland; however, the
retention pond map shows the level spreader discharging to wetlands. Please clearly address this
discrepancy.(O&M )
• The radius of influence calculation provided is based on a steady-state radial flow equation.
What assumptions were used for determining this radius of influence around the mining site?
Please submit any available monitoring well data that support assumptions. Please clearly detail
in your'wntten response these assumptions are justified at this mine site. (You should include in
your response all appropriate calculations and copies of relevant citations.) Please address the
discrepancies between the submittal of the second radius of influence calculation vs. the first
submitted, and their discrepancy with the calculation performed by the Land Quality Section
utilizing the data you provided with your second calculation. Once the zone of influence is
determined, identify the wetlands in the impact area and locate additional monitoring wells (if
needed) accordingly. (O&M)
• The narrative describes a "cone of depletion" from the initial quarry pond that covers "an 1800'
area." Contrary to the statement on page 5, this value is not mentioned earlier in the narrative.
Where does this value come from, and how was it determined or calculated? What are the
assumptions? The 1800' cone of depletion refers only to the impacts the initial quarry pond will
impose. Please provide the cone of depletion caused by the proposed Phase I mine pit. Identify
all areas on site and off site that will be impacted by the dewatering activities. Determine
whether additional monitoring wells would be required if impacts will occur in areas outside the
present monitoring well locations. (O&M)
• Please provide data or other information about how seasonal changes in the water table relative
to the wetlands and their jurisdictional status have been evaluated.(O&M)
• The narrative indicates the wetlands will be protected through the use of ponds, water canons,
and a level spreader, but there are no calculations or models to support this claim. Please
provide additional technical information and calculations to support that these techniques will
protect the surrounding hydrology. The narrative (page 2) suggests for every 12 square feet of
wetland, 1 gallon of water will be dispersed. At what rate is this discharge being proposed?
(O&M)
• Please clearly indicate the amount of buffer to be established around the mine footprint edge and
the respective wetland edges. Are the wetlands located within this buffer and will they be
drained from the hydraulic gradient change and pumping of the mine?

1.,_Myv..,kephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Information Request
June 12, 2006
• Please provide.wetland monitoring plan such that data maybe collected to insure that -wetlands
proposed to be avoided are adequately monitored.
*Wetland Monitoring Plan. The wetland monitoring plan should include a map indicating the
landscape position of all wetlands, ditches, proposed well placement, borrow areas, stormwater
controls, the mine footprint and frequency of wetland. physical monitoring (efforts to periodically
reaffirm the presence of the jurisdictional wetland line and soils), well data collection, well
inspections and maintenance, data analysis, and reporting. This plan should also include clear
details on a monitoring plan schedule. The monitoring of the wetland and all existing monitoring
wells should begin immediately if these data have not been collected.
*Well Placement. The placement of wells should be placed within the mine site property
boundary and within the cone of depression (you trust explain how many wells will be installed,
their locations and provide details on installation, data loggers and depths etc.)
*Monitoring. Monitoring results prior to mine site operation will be a requirement.
Specifically, once the monitoring wells locations are approved monitoring must occur prior to
the time of construction and through the duration of the time the site is being mined, and for 5
years after the mining efforts have been completed unless otherwise approved in writing by
NCDWQ. Please include a monitoring plan response.
*Well Maintenance Plan. Wells must be properly installed and properly maintained
throughout the active life of the mine, through reclamation efforts, and for 5 years after the
Division of Land Resources releases the site and determines the Holland Shelter mine site has
been reclaimed unless otherwise approved in writing by NCDWQ. Please include a well
maintenance plan with your response.
*Physical Monitoring. Physical monitoring of wetlands for instability, erosion, sloughing,
subsidence, collapse, newly formed sinkholes and/or removal of the hydrology of wetlands.is
also required. This monitoring may be accomplished by inspection of the wetland areas while
conducting well maintenance efforts. Provide a physical monitoring plan with your
response.(O&M)
• Please clearly explain how you propose to analyze these monitoring data to determine whether
the wetland hydrology is removed or being maintained. If monitoring results indicate impacts to
the avoided wetlands, please explain how these impacts may be abated. You must provide on
your site map, the location of a permanent on site rain gauge. Monitoring data and proper
maintenance of the rain gauge must be provided.(O&M)
• Please provide more detail about groundwater monitoring strategies that will be used to
demonstrate the effect of pumping, and what type of pumping regime will be necessary to reduce
impacts to wetlands. More extensive pumping test data should be included. This and the
information in the two aforementioned bulleted items should be part of a comprehensive
Operation and Monitoring (O&M) Plan, which requires approval by the Division (as specified
in NPDES permit NCG020000) before issuance.(O&M)
• The 72.5 acre mining site is estimated to produce 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) of water. The
only reference to how this value was obtained was that the estimate had been 500,000 gallons
when the original plan was for a mine over twice as large. Please provide calculations to support
the 250,000 gpd estimate.(O&M)
• The application indicates process wastewater overflow will be discharged in addition to mine
dewatering (Question 7.), and that overflows will occur during rain events exceeding the 10-year
event (Question 15.c.)-, however, there are no details about any closed -loop recycle system that
has the potential to overflow. Will there be a recycle system for any wastewater? (lf so, plans,
specifications, and design calculations must be submitted for approval.)(O&M)

Mr._Stephen Holland f
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Information Request
.tune 12, 2006
• What size storm event have the settling ponds and retention pond been designed for? (For
example, the 10-year, 24-hour event?) Please provide calculations to support that these ponds
will be able to hold run-off from the design storm, as well as the mining operation process
wastewater pumped there. Is this the only place where storrnwater will discharge from this
site?(O&M)
• Maintenance areas and bulk fuel storage areas are not indicated on the site map. Please show
where these areas will be. What -secondary containment will be provided? (BMP)
• The application indicated that this facility was not going to use chemicals for flocculation;
however, the narrative discusses the potential for chemical additions to the wastewater. Will
flocculants potentially be used at this site?(BMP)
• Please include the retention pond on the detailed wetlands and site layout map.(BMP)
In the BMPs plan the analytical and qualitative monitoring requirements for mine dewatering
wastewater and wastewater associated with sand/gravel mining must be specifically addressed
and identified to ensure these requirements are understood and met. (BMP)
• The General Stormwater & Wastewater Permit for Mining (NCG020000) requires a Stormwater
Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan that includes: a thorough inspection and maintenance
plan; preventative maintenance and good housekeeping measures, including spill control and
cleanup measures; stormwater management requirements; and the requirement that erosion and
sedimentation control (E&SC) measures in the mining permit or E&SC plan approved by the
Division of Land Resources be implemented. In addition, the NCG02 permit requires qualitative
and analytical monitoring of discharges. Please submit the Stormwater BMPs Plan for this site
and plans for addressing monitoring requirements. This submittal is not required before the
permit can be issued but must be submitted before breaking ground at the mine site.(BMP)
Please submit the information by July 17, 2006, so we can continue processing your request. If you
have any questions or would like to discuss any of these items further, please contact me at (919) 733-
5083, extension. 529.
cerely,
tCL'2
Bethany A. Georgoulias
Environmental Engineer
cc: Wilmington Regional Office/Ed Beck, Noelle Lutheran, Linda Willis
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Mr. Dan Sams, Division of Land Quality, WiRO
Mr. Floyd R. Williams, Division of Land Resources, Raleigh

t
^.06/12/2006 09:03 9197339612 PAGE 02
OTC �N A TF�1 ylichael F. E96tey, GO CM&
�O pG wilham G. Ross Jr,. Secrvara
Forth Carolina Deparunent of EnvironmCnt anci Natural Ae_5ourccs
© Aian W. Klimek. P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 12. 2006
Stephen Holland
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
Subject: NPDES Stormwater General Permit
Additional Information Request
NCG020679 Application—.
Proposed Shelter Creek Quarry LLC
Pender County
Dear Mr, Holland:
The Division of Water Quality Regional and Central office staff have reviewed the Shelter Creels Quarry
Wetland and NPDES Permit Narrative. The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater:Perrnitting Unit in
the Central Office received your application for coverage under the above NPDES General Stormwater
Permit on May 16, 2006. After review of the submitted material, the Division is requesting additional
information to complete processing this permit application. The Regional Office personnel have met on:
several occasions with you and your engineer/s and have offered guidance and assistance at your every
request. The objective of this correspondence is to help provide direction for your consulting engineers
in order for you to adequately understand. provide and meet the requirements in accordance with the
NPDES General Mining Permit NCG020000, It is our understanding that the concerns of the Land..
Quality Section of the Division of Land Resources, the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and _
Division of Water Resources per the letter dated June,9, 2006 from Mr. Williams should be. addressed if.
the requests of this correspondence are met.
Your attention is directed to the following areas of the attached General Permit language:
Compliance with Part II Section A: Requirements to Construct New or Expanding Treatment Facilities
Should the Shelter Creek Quarry utilize a process recycle wastewater system,'an Authorization to
Construct will be necessary. Shelter Creek Quarry shall meet the requirements for operation.of this
treatment facility per Part II Section B.
Compliance with Pan III: Monitoring, Controls, and Limitations for Permitted Discharges
Section A of Part III requires the permittee to develop and implement a stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Plan. The Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland and NPDES. Permit narrative -
describes some BMPs, but does not present them in a plan that can be easily followed; understood ar
implemented by quarry employees_ The BMPs plan should address iterns 1 through 5 in Section A.of
-Part , III_ In order to be sure that all areas of concern are addressed, the plan should follow the Table of
Contents as closely as possible. l�th�camI' a
��atural
North Carolina Division of water Qualiry 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC'7699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet; hamenr.state.x.us 512 T. Salisbury St. Raleigh. NC 27604. FAX [phone]a% 1,977-623-6708
An Equal opportunity/Affirmefrve Acilon ErnploMr 60% Wec oedlt0'.; Past Consumer Papsr

•06112l2666 Q9:K0 9197339512
P AGE 03
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Informaticm Request
June 12, 2006
Compliance with Section C Pan II1 1. Through 6.: Effluent Limitations and`Mlonitoring Requirements
for Mine Dewatering Wastewater and Process Wastewater
This section of the permit requires Shelter Creek Quarry to provide an Operation and Monitoring
Plan that will demonstrate the effect of pumping and, as necessary, establish the pumping regime
necessary to reduce the potential impacts to adjacent wetlands. Please refer°to Page 5 of 9-Parr.-III of the
NPDES NCG020000 Permit Conditions.
Based on the above the Division is requesting the following information to support continued processing
of this permit application.
• The application indicates three (3) types of discharge (stormwater, mine dewatering, and process:
wastewater overflow )_ Are all of these waters discharged from one point —at the.level:
spreader?(O&M)
• Please provide design specifications and calculations for the level spreader and water
cannons.(O&M)
• The narrative states the level spreader x ill not discharge directly into'the wet Iand
;'however;
,retention pond map shows the level spreader discharging to wetlands: Please clearly addressthis
discrepancy.(O&M)
• The radius of influence calculation provided is based on a steady-state radial flow.equatiori.
What assumptions were used for determining this radius of influence around the mining site?
Please submit any available monitoring well data that support assumptions. Please clearly detail
in your written response these assumptions are ,justified at this mine site. (You should include in
Your response all appropriate calculations and copies of relevant citations.) Please address the
discrepancies between the submittal of the second radius of influence calculation vs. the first.
submitted, and their discrepancy with the calculation performed by the Land Quality Section.
utilizing the data you provided with your second calculation. Once the zone of influence is.:"
determined, identify the wetlands in the impact area and locate additional monitoring wells.(if
needed) accordingly. (O&M)
• The narrative describes a "cone of depletion" from the initial quarry, pond that covers "an 1800';"
'area." Contrary to the statement on page 5, this value is not mentioned earlier in the nairative. `
Where does this value come from, and how was it determined or calculated? What are the
assumptions'? The 1800' cone of depletion refers only to the impacts the initial quarry pond will
impose_ Please provide the cone of depletion caused by the proposed Phase I mine pit:. Identify:
all areas on. site and off site that will be impacted by the dewatering activities. DeferTninc
whether additional monitoring wells would be required if impacts will occur in areas outside the°
present monitoring well locations_ (O&.M)
• Please provide data or other information about how seasonal changes in the water table relative.
to the wetlands and their jurisdictional status have been evaluated.(O&M)
• The narrative indicates the wetlands will be protected through the use of ponds, w,at:er canons,
and a level spreader, but there: are no calculations or models to support this claim.. Please
provide additional technical information and calculations to support that these techniques will
protect the surrounding hydrology. The narrative (page 2) suggests for every 12 square feet of
wetland, 1 gallon of water will be dispersed. At what rate is this discharge being proposed?,.
(O&M)
• Please clearly indicate the amount of buffer to be established around .the rriine footprint edge and.
the -respective wetland edges, Are the wetlands located within this buffer and will 'they,be
drained from the hydraulic gradient change and purnping of the mine?

•06/12/2006 09:08 9197239612 PAGE 04
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Information Request
June 12. 2006
• Please provide wetland monitoring plan such that data may be collected, -to insure that ;wetlands".
proposed to be avoided are adequately monitored.
*Wetland Monitoring Plan. The wetland monitoring plan should include a reap indCatitg tho:
landscape position of all wetlands, ditches, proposed well placement, borrow areas, staiml�atef.;
controls, the mine footprint and frequency of wetland physical monitoring (efforts to pet-ib4ica,IN
reaffirm the presence of the jurisdictional wetland line and soils), well data collection, well." -
inspections and maintenance, data analysis, and reporting. This plan should also include clear:-.
details on a monitoring plan schedule. The monitoring of the wetland and all existing inonitorir►g
wells should begin immediately if these data have not been collected.
"Well Placement. The placement of wells should be placed within the°mine site property.
boundary and within the cone of depression (you must explain how mar-y wells will be installed:,-,
their locations and provide details on installation, data loggers and depths etc.)
*Monitoring. Monitoring results prior to mine site operation will be a tequirement.
Specifically, once the monitoring wells locations are approved monitoring must occur prioi to
the time of construction and through the duration of the tune the site is.6eing mined, atld fdr 5
years after the mining efforts have been completed unless otherwise approved in writit g by.
NCDWQ. Please include a monitoring plan response.
*Well Maintenance Plan. Wells must be properly installed and.propeily maintained:
throughout the active life of the mine, through reclamation efforts, and for 5 years aftei the'....
Division of Land Resources releases the site and determines the Holland Shelter mine;3ite bias
been reclaimed unless otherwise approved in writing by NCDWQ. Please include a A! 11
maintenance plan with your response.
*Physical Monitoring. Physical monitoring of wetlands for instability,- erosion, sloughing,
subsidence, collapse, newly formed sinkholes and/or removal of the hydrology of wet14nds'_1s
also required. This monitoring maybe accomplished by inspection of the wetland areas w1We
conducting well maintenance efforts. Provide a physical monitoring plan with your
response.(O&M)
• Please. clearly explain how you propose to analyze these monitoring data to determine;whether`
the wetland hydrology is removed or being maintained. If monitoring results indicate:irnpacts-to
the avoided wetlands,. please explain how these impacts may be abated. You must prch-ideon
your site map, the location of a permanent on site rain gauge. Monitoring data and proper?
maintenance of the rain gauge must be provided.(O&M) '
• Please provide more detail about groundwater monitoring strategies thai-will be used to
demonstrate the effect of pumping, and what type of pumping regime will be riecessaq to ,'reduce
impacts to wetlands. More extensive pumping test data should be included. This and..the
information in the two aforementioned bulleted items should be part of a compirehen�.lve
Operation and Monitoring (O&M) Plan, which requires -approval by the Division (as specified
in NPDES permit NCG020000) before issuance.(O&M)
• The 72.5 acre mining site is estimated to produce 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) of water. ;The:...
only reference to how this value was obtained was that the estimate had been 500,000:'gall'ons
when the original plan was for a mine over twice as large. Please provide calculationsto suppoit
the 250,000 gpd estirnate.(O&M)
• The application indicates process wastewater overflow will be discharged in addition to mine
dewatering (Question 7.), and that overflows will occur during rain events exceeding the 10-year
event (Question 15-c.); however, there are no details about any closed-lbop recycle system that`
has the potential to overflow" Will there be a recycle system for any wastewater? (If so, ptans ;
specifications, and design calculations trust be submitted for approval.)(O&M)

'06/12/2006 09:08 9197339612 PAGE 05
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter week Quarry
Additional Information Request
June 12, 2006
• What size storm event have the set€ling ponds and retention pond been designed for? -,(For. .
example, the 10-year, 24-hour event?) Please provide calculations to support that these ponds;-
will be able to hold run-off from the design storm. as well as the mining operation princess
wastewater pumped there- Is this the only place where stormwater will discharge from this
site?(O&M)
• Maintenance areas and bulls fuel storage areas are not indicated on -the site map. Please show
where these areas will be. What secondary containment will be provided? (BMP)
• The application indicated that this facility was not going to use chemicals for flocculation;'
however, the narrative discusses the potential for chemical additions to the wastewater. Will
flocculants potentially be used at this site?(BMP)
• Please include the retention pond on the detailed wetlands and site layout map.(BMT)::
• In the BMPs plan the analytical and qualitative monitoring requirements for mine dewatehng
wastewater and wastewater associated with sandlgravel mining must be -specifically addressed
and identified to ensure these requirements are understood and met. (BMP)
• The General Stormwater & Wastewater Permit for :Mining (NCO020000) requires a Storniwater
Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan that includes.- a thorough inspection and maintenance
plan; preventative maintenance and good housekeeping measures, including spill control and
cleanup measures; stormwater management requirements; and the requirement that erosion and
sedimentation control (E&SC) measures in the mining permit or E&SC plan approved by .the
Division of Land Resources be implemented. In addition, the NCG02 permit requires -.qualitative
and analytical monitoring of discharges. Please submit the Stormwater BMPs Plan foi this site
and plans for addressing monitoring requirements. This submittal is not required before the
permit can be issued but must be subrmutted before breaking ground at the mine site_(ByiP.)
Please submit the information by July 17, 2006, so we can continue processing. your request.. If you
have any questions or would like to discuss any of these items further, please contact me at (919) 733-
5083, extension 529,
cerely,
Bethany A. Georgoulias
Environmental Engineer
cc: Wilmington Regional Office/Ed Beck- Noelle Lutheran, Linda Willis
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Mr. Dan Sams, Division of Land Quality, WiRO
Mr. Floyd R. Williams, Division of Land Resources, Raleigh

'66112I2e@G 09:08
o� WArZ9
� r
d �
91973.99612
Stephen Holland
$315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
Dear Mr. Holland:
PAGE 62
Michael F. Easley, Govrmoi
William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
,Nbrth Carona Department of Environment and Natural Rescurcc9
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Dtrcctor
Division of water Quality
.Tune 12. 2006
Subject: NPDES Stormwater General Permit
Additional Information Request
NCG020679 Application—
Proposed Sheller Creek Quarry LLC :
Pender County :
The Division of Water Quality Regional and Central office staff have reviewed the Shelter Creek Quarry
Wetland and NPDES Permit Narrative. The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater-Permitting Uriit in
the Central Office received your application for coverage under the above NPDES General Stormwater
Perriiit on May 16, 2006. After review of the submitted material, the Division is requesting additional
information to complete processing this permit application. The Regional Office personnel' have met on.:.
several occasions with you and your engineerls and have offered Quidance and assistance at your every :.
request The objective of this correspondence is to help provide direction for your consulting engineers `
in order for you to adequately understand, provide and meet the requirements in accordance with the
NPDES General Mining Pe=:'r NCG020000. It is our understanding that the concerns of the Land..
Quality Section of the Division of Land Resources, the NC Wildlife Resources CoMim'ssion and
Division of Water Resources per the letter dated June 9, 2006 from Mr. Williams should be addressed if.
the requests of this correspondence are met.
Your attention is directed to the following areas of the attached General Permit language:
Compliance with Part II Section A: Requirements to Construct New or Expanding Treatment Facilities.
Should the Shelter Creek Quarry utilize a process recycle wastewater system,';an Authorization to
Construct will be necessary. Shelter Creek Quarry shall meet the requirements for operation.of this
treatment facility per Part II Section B.
Compliance with Part III._ Monitoring, Controls, and Limitations for Permitted Discharges
Section A of Part III requires the permittee to develop and implement a stormwater Best :
Management Practices (BMPs) Plan. The Shelter Creek Quarry Wetland and NPDES Permit narrative.,
describes some BMPs, but does not present them in a plan that can be easily followed; understood or
implemented by quarry employees- The BMPs plan should address items I through 6 in Section A.of '
Part III. In order to be sure that all areas of concern are addressed. the plan should follow the Table -of
Contents as closely as possible. NfC '°��`trr,,caml a
. �Valurdl,
North Carolina Division ofwater Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh. NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
intemel: h2o.enr.8Cate.AC_u5 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh. NC 27644 FAX (919) 733: 2a96 1-R77-623-6748
An =quel QpportunityARlrmaWe Action Employar— 545E Rcc dedrl0'; Post Consumer Paper

06/ 12/ 2006 09: 0E 919 ; 339b12 PAGE 03
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Greek Quarry
Additional InfoTma. ion Request
June 12, 2006
Compliance with Section C Part 111 1. Through 6.: Effluent Limitations and-MIonitoring Requirements
for Mine Dewatering Wastewater and Process Wastewater
This section of the permit requires Shelter Creek Quarry to provide an Operation and Monitoring
Platt that will demonstrate the effect of pumping and, as necessary, establish the pumping regime
necessary to reduce the potential impacts to adjacent wetlands.- Please refer'to Page 5 of 9.Part-HI of the
NMES NCG020000 Permit Conditions.
Based on the above the Division is requesting the following information to support continued processing
of this permit application: :
• The application indicates three (3) types of discharge (stormwater, mine dewatering, and process,
wastewater overflow ). Are all of these waters discharged from one point —at thelevel_
spreader?(O&M)
• Please provide design specifications and calculations for the level spreader and water
cannons.(O&.yt)
• The narrative states the level spreader will not discharge directly into the wetland;'however:jhe�'
.retention pond map shows the level spreader discharging to wetlands-. Please clearly address -this
discrepancy. (O&M )
• The radius of influence calculation provided is based on a steady-state radial flow equation.'
What assumptions were used for determining this radius of influence around the mining site?
Please submit any available monitoring well data that support assumptions. Please clearly detail
is your written response these assumptions are justified at this mine.site. (You should include in
your response all appropriate calculations and copies of relevant citations.) Please.addfess the
discrepancies between the submittal of the second radius of influence calculation vs. the first_
submitted, and their discrepancy with the calculation performed by the Land Quality Section
utilizing the data you provided with your second calculation. Once 1he zone of influence.is_:'
determined., identify the wetlands in the impact area and locate additional monitoring cvells.(if
needed) accordingly. (O&M)
• The narrative describes a "cone of depletion" from the initial quarry:pond that covers "an 1800':,.'
area." Contrary to the statement on page 5, this value is not mentioned earlier in the narrative.
Where does this value come from, and how was it determined or calculated? What are the
assumptions? The 1800' cone of depletion refers only to the impacts the initial quarry pond will
impose. Please provide the cone of depletion caused by the proposed Phase I mine pit:. Identify
all areas on. site and off site that will be impacted by the dewatering activities. Determine
whether additional monitoring wells would be required if impacts will occur in areas outside the,
present monitoring well locations. (O&.M) -
+ Please provide data or other information about how seasonal changers in the water table relative..
to the wetlands and their jurisdictional status have been evaluated.(O&M)
• The narrative indicates the wetlands will be protected through the use of ponds, water canons,
and a level spreader. but there are no calculations or models to support this claim- Please
provide. additional technical information and calculations to sunnorf that these techniques will
protect the surroundrne, hydrology. The narrative (page 2) suggests for every 12 square feet of .
wetland, I gallon of water will be dispersed. At what rate is this discharge being proposed?,:
(O&M)
• PIease clearly indicate the amount of buffer to be established around the mine footprint edge and
the Tespective wetland edges. Are the wetlands located within this buffer and will-they,be
drained from the hydraulic gradient change and pumping of the mine?

•06/12/20eS 09:08 9197339612 PAGE 04
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Information Request
June 17, 2006
• Please provide wetland monitoring plan such that data may be collectedto insure that;Wetlands.
proposed to be avoided are adequately monitored. ' f
*Wetland Monitoring Plan. The wetland monitoring plan should include a map indicating the
landscape position of all wetlands, ditches, proposed well placement, bdirow areas. stoixnW­ater'.
controls, the mine footprint and frequency of wetland physical monitoring (efforts to periodica-IN
reaffirm the presence of the jurisdictional wetland line and soils), well data collection,.welf
inspections and maintenance, data analysis, and reporting. This plan should also include clear
details on a monitoring plan schedule_ The monitoring of the wetland an' d all existing zmonitoriiig
wells should begin immediately if these data have not been collected.
*Well Placement. The placement of wells should be placed within the mine site property,
boundary and within the cone of depression (you must explain how many •cells vvill be insialle .,
their locations and provide details on installation, data loggers and depths etc.) -
'Monitoring. Monitoring results prior to mine site operation will be a requirement.
Specifically, once the monitoring wells locations are approved rnonitoriiig must accur'prioi to <`
the time of construction and through the duration of the time the site is,being mined, and fdi 5
years after the mining efforts have been completed unless otherwise approved in writi>" by
NCDWQ. Please include a monitoring plan response.
*Well Maintenance Plan. Wells must be properly installed and properly maintained'
throughout the active life of the mine, through reclamation efforts, and for 5 years aft i the': -
Division of Land Resources releases the site and determines the Holland -Shelter mineSite has
been reclaimed unless otherwise approved in writing by NCDWQ. Please include a Well
maintenance plan with your response. F
*Physical Monitoring. Physical monitoring of wetlands for instability, erosion,. sloughing,
subsidence, collapse, newly formed sinkholes and/or removal of the hydrology of wetl2n. ds is
also required. This monitoring may be accomplished by inspection of the wetland areas wililem:z
conducting well maintenance efforts Provide a physical monitoring plasm with your '
response.(O&M)
• Please, clearly explain how you propose to analyze these monitoring data to detem; ne:. lvhefher '
the wetland hydrology is removed or being maintained. If monitoring results indicate impacts-eb
the avoided wetlands,- please explain how these impacts may be abated.:: You must provide on
your site reap, the location of a permanent on site rain gauge. Monitorjb,9 data and proper]
maintenance of the rain gauge must be provided.(O&M)
• Please provide more detail about groundwater monitoring strategies thaimill be used to
demonstrate the effect of pumping, and what type of pumping regime will be hecessar ' to reduce
impacts to wetlands. More extensive pumping test data should be included_ This and•:the
information in the two aforementioned bulleted items should be part of a compreherigi
Operation and Monitoring (O&M) Plan, which requires approval bythe Division (as specified
in NPDES permit NCG020000) before issuance.(O&M)
* The 72.5 acre mining site is estimated to produce 250,000 gallons per slaty (gpd) of vm4ter. _The
only reference to how this value was obtained was that the estimate had been 500,0009all6ns
when the original plan was for a mine over twice as large. Please provide calculations to support
the 250,000 gpd estimate.(O&M)
The application indicates process wastewater overflow will be discharged in addition to mine
dewatering, (Question 7.), and that overflows will occur during rain evei?is exceeding the 10-year
event (Question 15_c_); however. there are no details about any closed -loop recycle system that`
has the potential to overflow. Will there be a recycle system for any wastewater? (If so, plans, -
specifications, and design calculations must be submitted for approval.)(Q&M)

•06I12i2006 09:02 9197339612 PAGE 05
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Information Request
June 12, 2006
• What size storm event have the settling ponds and retention pond been -designed for? (For
example, the 10-year, 24-hour event?) Please provide calculations to support that these ponds
will be able to hold run-off from the design storm, as well as the reining operation prgcess,-
wastewater pumped there. Is this the only place where stor nwater will discharge from this
site?(O&M)
• Ma.intenance'areas and bulk fuel storage areas are not indicated on -the site map. Please show
where these areas will be. What secondary containment will be provided? (BMP)
• The application indicated that this facility was not going to use chemicals for flocculation;`=
however, the narrative discusses the potential for chemical additions to:the wastewater. Will
flocculants potentially be used at this site?(BMP)
Please include the retention pond on the detailed wetlands and site layout map.(BMP)
■ In the BMPs plan the analytical and qualitative monitoring requirements for mine dew.atering
wastewater and wastewater associated with sand/gravel mining must be specifically addressed -
and identified to ensure these requirements are understood and met. (BMP)
• The General Stormwater & Wastewater Permit for Mining (NCG020000) requires a Storm::water
Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan that includes: a thorough inspection and maintenance
plan; preventative maintenance and good housekeeping measures, including spill control artd
erosion cleanup measures; stormwater management requirements; and the requirement that osion and
sedimentation control (E&5C) measures in the mining penrdt or E&SC plan approved by.the
Division of Land Resources be implemented. In addition, the NCG02 permit requiresqualitadve
and analytical monitoring of discharges. Please submit the Stormwater BMPs Plan foar this site
and plans for addressing monitoring requirements. This submittal is not required before the
permit can be issued but must be submitted before breaking ground at the mine site.(B'MP)
Please submit the information. by ,duly 17, 2006, so we can continue processing your request. if you
have any questions or would like to discuss any of these items further, please contact me at (919) 733-
5083, extension 529.
cerely,
Bethany A. Georgoulias
Environmental Engineer
cc: Wilmington Regional Office/Ed Beck- Noel Ie'Lutheran, Linda Willis
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
Mr. Dan Sams, Division of Land Quality, WiRO
Mr. Floyd R. Williams, Division of Land Resources, Raleigh

PM 06/12/2006 09:08
�%
, �-00
}�J G
05 r
7 -1
o -c
9197339612 PACE 01
June 12, 2006
To: Linda Willis, SWPS, WiRO
Fax: [phone]
From: Bethany Georgoulias
Phone: [phone] ext. 529
Fay:: [phone]
S If pages, including cover sheet.
Comments:
Linda,
Michael F. Easiey, Gavemor•
William G..Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Departmeni of Environment and'Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P. E. Diiectvr
Division of Water Quatity
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
Attached is a copy of the signed additional information letter for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
(Application No. NCG020679).
-Bethany
Npr hCarolina
VVaturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Cenrer Raleigh. NC 27699-161.7 Phone [phone] Customer &er-ice
Internet: www.itcwsrecqtfalkv,otg Locanott: S12 N. Salisbury S;. Raleigh, NC 21604 Fax [phone]�3-6749 -
An Equal Oppor.unitylAtfir rahve Acti:l Employer-507,� Aec)cle liol� Post Gonurner Paper

Re: Holly Shelter Mine
Subject: Re: Holly Shelter Mine
From: Danny Smith <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:59:43 -0400
To: Noelle Lutheran <[e-mail]>, linda Willis <[e-mail]>
Linda and Noelle
Sorry for the delay! I got caught in the field on Thursday and Friday... Attached
is your draft letter. All my changes or additions are easy to find... I struck
through and or highlighted in green... ( I changed the bullets to numbers so it
will be easy for us to identify the items they are addressing in their
response....)
Anyway, I worked through your letter very fast (sorry). But, please edit or remove
anything you don't want to include... (it may be too much? noelle.. these comments
were something like what I wanted to give to DLR for them to consider in their
mining permit. consider whether we should forward these items to Mel and Floyd
Williams...
Noelle/Linda fyi....- I did not know Bethany was working on this when we had the
conference call.. For that matter, I really did not know that WiRO had been working
on it in such detail....... [Floyd Williams came up last Friday and asked me to sit
in on meeting - hence, my involvement.]... So, anyway rip into my comments.... oh,
I did not get a chance to talk with Bethany so... I have not discussed any of these
possible additions with her.. She may not be comfortable with the added items at
this stage of her review ... not sure.
I have to go to Haw River State Park (mon- thursday) to teach a class... I will
step out an try to call you both on monday. (Noelle - if you have not left on your
trip yet, take care and have fun!)
see ya
danny
Noelle Lutheran wrote:
Danny,
Something came up that I had to take care of today and I am not at the office.
Can you please send Linda Willis your comments on the letter from Bethany. Just
a couple of lines about once the zone of influence is determined, id wetlands in
impact area and locate monitoring wells accordingly. Plus I think they need to
begin monitoring these areas soon in order to have some baseline data.
Thank you!
Content -Type: application/msword
NCG020679 AddInfo.doc
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 6/12/2006 7:27 AM

June 9, 2006
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7002 0500 0002 7858 1585
Mr. Stephen C. Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
RE: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC Mine
Pender County — Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Holland:
We have reviewed the application and additional information you submitted for the
referenced mine site. Based on the review of the submitted information the following
information is needed to continue processing your application:
In a coordinated review with the Division of Water Quality, the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission and Division of Water Resources, it was determined that the recent pump
test indicated potential impacts to wetland areas and possible sinkholes formation could
occur both on -site and off -site. Please provide the following:
A reasonable estimate of the water withdrawal amounts from the mine
dewatering activities.
2. A determination of the areas both on -site and off -site that will be impacted from
the dewatering and that will need protection.
3. Propose number of monitoring well and locations.
4. Provide a copy of the pumping and monitoring plan developed for the Division of
Water Quality.
a

Certified Mail
Mr. Holland
Page 2
5. Provide a revised mining plan, if needed, based on the pumping and monitoring
plan including any additional monitoring wells.
This office will work in conjunction with the Division of Water Quality in obtaining the
necessary information in reviewing the Mining and Storm Water permit applications. It is
therefore recommended that you work closely with the Division of Water Quality to obtain the
necessary approvals to allow dewatering activities. You do have the option of revising the
proposed method of operation by not dewatering the excavation and therefore avoiding any
potential impacts.
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed
above have been fully addressed. In addition, please note the Land Quality Section may
request additional information, not included in this letter, as the mining application review
progresses.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward four (4) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 513.0013, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days
from the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are
unable to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information,
in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline can not be met and request that
an extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made
to grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's
files at the end of the 180-day period.

Certified Mail
Mr. Holland
Page 3
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as
possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPG, CPM
State Mining Specialist
cc: Mr. Stephen Dorenda
Mr. Dan Sams, PE
Ms. Noelle Lutheran — DWQ Wilmington

IrrE 06/07/2006 14:09 9197339612
PAGE 01
O� *A r R Michael F. Easley, Gov=or
William G. Ross h.; 5caretary
Q� pG North+ Carolina Department of Envircmment and Nanirsl Reso—
C j Alan W. Kiimek, P. F_. Director
j Divisian of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Direuor
Divisim of waia ualiry
June 7, 2006
To: Linda Willis, SWPS, WiRO
Fax: [phone]
From: Bethany Georgoulias
Phone: [phone] ext_ 529
Fax: [phone]
9 pages, including cover sheet.
Comments:
Linda,
We're having server issues, so I'm faxing this_ Attached is a copy of the narrative submitted with.the
application from Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC (Application No. NCG020679).
-Bethany
NCaroioa
�turaff-*
North Carolina Di-ision of watrr Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Custflmer Service
intemet: wXE nrwaerauaiity.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fix [phone] 1-677-623=6746
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 5D% Recycledll o /u Posl Conaumer Paper.

RE: Shelter Creek Quarry
Subject: RE: Shelter Creek Quarry
From: "Steve Everhart" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, S Jun 2006 10:37:37 -0400
To: "'Deaton, Shannon L."' <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Cox, David R."' <[e-mail]>
Shannon and David,
Thanks. This is the first we have heard of a hydrogeological study. In the
past they have presented no real data to suggest anything beyond the/
property boundaries./ Wilmington DWQ has a meeting with them next Monday at
which they will provide an example of a monitoring plan for them to use in
developing their own. They will also tell them how they can go ahead with /
phase I without having to have a 401 certification./
Given a 7000' cone of depression, they will allow them to flag the nearest
boundary of wetlands and not have to do a full delineation. They will
require monitoring wells within the wetlands and a contingency plan for
impact avoidance should the operations have impacts on wetland hydrology.
DWQ says 7000 ft is a reasonable distance for this type operation based on
Martin Marietta operations in the Wilmington area.
I have attached an ArcMap file showing the center of the project with a
-7000 ft radius red circle around it. The creek running through it is
Shelter Creek and the wetlands are shown in purple. Most of them are either
swamp forest or cutover swamp forest with some pocosin. Angola Bay is at
the very top of the page.
They don't seem to understand that this is not a simple sand mine.
I'll try to arrive at the Archdale Building around 1430, sooner if you say
SO.
Steve
-----Original Message -----
From: Deaton, Shannon L.[mailto:shannon.deaton@ncwildlife
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 8:30 AM
To: Everhart, Steve; Cox, David R.
Subject: Shelter Creek Quarry
Importance: High
I got another follow-up call from Floyd Williams on Friday regarding the
meeting today at 3pm on Shelter Creek Quarry. He left a voicemail and
noted that he was interested in any wetlands around 7000 feet away from
the quarry (based on the GW hydrogeological study). Here are the quarry
coordinates if they help. - 7
Steve - David noted that,this is probably something that DWQ should be
able to tell them or CDECMD But maybe you could do something with them
before the meeting this PM. If not that is okay.
Long W77.7444 Lat N34.6389
Content -Type: application/octet-stream
Shelter Creek_Quarry.mxd
Content -Encoding: base64
1 of 1 6/6/2006 8:21 AM

F WATF
F � �
Stephen Holland
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
Dear Mr. Holland:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
June 2, 2006—DRAFT
Subject: NPDES Stormwater General Permit
Additional Information Request
NCG020679 Application
Proposed Shelter Creek Quarry LLC
Pender County
The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater Permitting Unit in the Central Office received an
application for coverage under the above NPDES General Stormwater Permit on May 16, 2006. After
review of the submitted material, the Division is requesting additional information to complete
processing this permit application. Please address the following items:
'� • The application indicates three (3) types of discharge (stormwater, mine dewatering, and process
0 1 wastewater overflow ). Are all of these waters discharged from one point —at the level spreader?
• The narrative states the level sp ader will d'iRJ =— e_not discharge 'rectly into the wetland;
however, the retention pond maps ows t e eve sprea er isc arging to wetlands. Please
address this discrepancy.
• The radius of influence calculation provided is based on a steady-state radial flow equation.
What assumptions were used for determining this radius of influence around the mining site, and
are those assumptions justified at this location? Please submit any available monitoring well
data that support assumptions.
• The narrative describes a "cone of depletion" fromdthe initial quarry pond that covers "an 1800'
9 ti area." Contrary to the statement on page 5, this value is not mentioned earlier in the narrative.
Where does this value come from, and what are the assumptions?
D,t� • Please provide data or other information about how seasonal changes in the water table relative
to the wetlands have been evaluated.
w' • The narrative indicates the wetlands will be protected through the use of ponds, water canons,
and a level spreader, but there are no calculations or models to support this claim. Please
fl i provide additional technical information and calculations to support that these techniques will
protect the surroundinghydroloay.
• Please provide more detail about groundwater monitoring strategies that will be used to
demonstrate the effect of pumping, and what type of pumping regime will be necessary to reduce
impacts to wetlands. More extensive pumping test data should be included. This information
d'hON should be part of a comprehensive Operation an - onitori (O& Plan, which requires
approval by the Division (as specifieddnlVEDFS permit NCG020000).�cIV n�arolina
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: h2o.enr.state.nc.us 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry
Additional Information Request
June 2, 2006
• The 72.5 acre mining site is estimated to produce 250,000 gallons per day (gpd) of water. The '
only reference to'how this value was obtained was that the estimate had been 500,000 gallons b} r►^
when the original plan was for a mine over twice as large. Please provide calculations to support
the 250,000 gpd estimate.
• The application indicates process wastewater overflow will be discharged in addition to mine
dewatering (Question 7.), and that overflows will occur during rain events exceeding the 10-year
p event (Question 15.c.); however, there are no details about any closed -loop recycle system that
n�V has the potential to overflow. Will there be a recycle system for any wastewater? (If so, plans,
specifications, and design calculations must be submitted -for -approval.) --A — e��ts�uah.rc �
• Hai size storm event have the settle in�g=ls and rcjgUjjaa22ELd been designed for? (For
example, the 10-year, 24-hour event?) Please provide calculations to support that these ponds
will be able to hold run-off from the design storm, as well as the mining operation process
wastewater pumped there. Is this the only place where stormwater will discharge from this site?
• Maintenance areas and bulk fuel storage areas are not indicated on the site map. Please show hrge
where these areas will be. What secondary containment will be provided?
• The application indicated that this facility was not going to use chemicals for flocculation;
however, the narrative discusses the potential for chemical additions to the wastewater. Will 'p`9
flocculants potentially be used at this site?
• Please include the retention pond on the detailed wetlands and site layout map.
• The General Stormwater & Wastewater Permit for Mining (NCG020000) requires a Stormwater
Best Management Pr s BMPs Plan that includes: a thorough inspection and maintenance
plan; preventative maintenance and good housekeeping measures, including spill control and
cleanup measures; stormwater management requirements; and the requirement that erosion and
sedimentation control (E&SC) measures in the mining permit or E&SC plan approved by the
Division of Land Resources be implemented. In addition, the NCG02 permit requires qualitative
and analytical monitoring of discharges. Please submit the Stormwater BMPs Plan for this site
and plans for addressing monitoring requirements. =�:;, '� ;,� , . a -a !
Please submit the information by July 17, 2006, so we can continue processing your request. If you
have any questions or would like to discuss any of these items further, please contact me at (919) 733-
5083, extension 529.
Sincerely,
a&7V Lw_,,, t Bethany A. Georgoulias
"J Environmental Engineer
/77/
cc: Wilmington Regional Office/Linda Willis
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files

3 uurtuet
Other obvious indicators
Semi -Annual SDO
Other
stormwater pollution
r'Footnotes:
C7 1 ] Monitoring location: Qualitative monitoring shall be performed at each stormwater discharge outfall (5D0) associated with land
disturbance areas, process areas and vehicle maintenance areas regardless of representative outfall status.
ECTION C: EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
FOR MINE DEWATERING WASTEWATER AND PROCESS
WASTEWATER
!. Mine Dewatering Wastewater (including Borrow Pits)
_ -wring the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration, the
r permittee is authorized to discharge thine dewatering wastewater controlled in accordance with
the conditions of this permit, Mine dewatering activities that have the potential to drain wetlands
must have secured and implemented' an Operation and Monitoring Plan approved by the
Division. Operation and Maintenance Plans shall includebut are not limited o:---_
G
J
• roundwater monitoring strategies to demonstrate the effect of pumping and, as necessary,
establish the pumping regime necessary to reduce impacts.
�' • Detailed plans to maintain the surrounding hydrology and the respective monitoring to
h
demonstrate compliance.
n—, rrr n— c ,.fn
V�
11 J
F

Willis, Linda
From: Linda Willis [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:39 PM
To: brenda.harris
Cc: dan.sams; noel le.lutheran; joanne.steenhuis; bethany.georgoulias; ed.beck
Subject: Holland Shelter Quarry
Attachments: Linda.Willis.vcf
Hello Brenda,
I beg your pardon Brenda, I am late on commenting on the recent submittal by the perspective
permittee regarding the pump test data (comments were due May 30). Land Quality forwarded
that package in a timely manner, I've been the hold up. The package was routed to Aquifer
Protection today for their comments. Although one representative over there felt there
wouldn't be many concerns from their point of view, they still wanted the time to consider
the data.
The concerns regarding this mine are mostly where their SWPPP and O&M plan is concerned.
They are basically non existent. What we have so far is a summary of how they picture the
mine will be operated. Their plans have not been formally written where we have something to
sink our teeth into nor anyone working on site to follow. We've met on many occasions and
have given the permit "boiler plate" language to them as a guide. I don't believe they
understand what the plan is supposed to look like nor how to adequately address each
component of the plans. I have a meeting with Steve Durendo on June 12 to show him an
example of a SWPPP and if needed, discuss each section of the Plans in as much detail as he
needs. Our Wetlands Specialist is more familiar with what an acceptable 0 & M plan than I
and (during one of her initial meetings) had offered to let the consultant look at a copy of
a plan from another mine site as a guide (which he declined). I have to lean on our Wetlands
Specialist since she is far more knowledgeable about 0 & M plans. We asked the Central
Office to hold off on issuing the general permit until we see a SWPPP and a good operation
and monitoring plan.
Without it, there is no guide for anyone working on site to follow. A 3 day pump test is
effective in calculating some of the characteristics of the aquifer (which is an improvement
on the previous calculations where the characteristics were all assumed). It is a ways off
from demonstrating the effects of the mining operation to adjacent wetlands, but they are on
the right track. I intend to give them as much feed back as needed to meet our requirements
and am glad to do so.
I hope this delay in response has not caused you a problem. Should you have any questions,
please don't hesitate to call me. 910-796-7396.
Best Regards,
Linda Willis
1

Re: Shelter Creek Quarry - NCG020679 - Pender Co.
Subject: Re: Shelter Creek Quarry - NCG020679 - Pender Co.
From: Bethany Georgoulias<Bethany. Georgou I las@ncmai ].net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:19:24 -0400
To: Linda Willis <Linda.WiIII [e-mail]>
Linda,
I fully agree Noelle should be in the loop. I feel a little out of my league on
this - typically it's the Regional Office that deals in depth with the applicant on
their pumping plan for mining sites affecting wetlands (and sometimes we issue the
permit with the condition that they provide that to the RO prior to operation), but
we are in full support of.holding off issuing a COC in this case with the lack of
information all around. YI'm struggling with the additional information letter
because I'm not sure how to ask for the right specifics necessary to demonstrate
wetlands hydrology.will be protected. I'll need help with it and want to include
any comments from Noelle. I'll send a draft your way hopefully by the end of the
day and maybe the two of you can help me on how to proceed.
Also, technically the Mining Permit requires aiStormwater BMPs Plan,, rather than a
SWPPP as in most of the other general permits -- that has many of the same
components as the SWPPP, but is not quite the same (it's in Part III). It still
requires I&M, preventative maintenance and good housekeeping, stormwater BMP
4
implementation, E&SC measures, etc. Of course, most importantly here, an 0&M plan /
approved by the Division is necessary because of wetlands impacts as you referred
to in your e-mail to Brenda. /As with any permit, though, we have the option of
requiring that Stormwater BMPs Plan prior to issuance, and I'd support that request
in this case.
One big question ... Ken Pickle initially looked this package over and noted we
could begin processing it, but that it required a heavy duty add. info. request.
Does the RO favor holding on to it, or returning the package all together with
detailed outline of what should be submitted? It seems to be lacking an awful
lot. Let me know if we should return it instead.
Regarding the Morehead City Port -
I never received the Staff Report and thought you were still holding on to it
because of Ed's conversation with Layton. If it's en route, I'll be sure to hold
off even when it arrives.
Whether or not PCS's industrial activity would require a stormwater permit is a
moot point. Even if the SIC code does not fit under any of the NPDES stormwater
categories requiring a permit, DWQ retains the authority to require it regardless
if we deem it a significant contributor of pollutants. This is granted to us under
the Federal Regs (40 CFR 122.26 (a) (v)). It wouldn't be the first example of the
RO making such a recommendation, and you're right --in this case we have even more
leverage because of measured COD levels at the site.
PCS would have to apply for a separate permit, so please let us know how we should
proceed when the matter's been settled with Layton.
I just got your message (my phone's been ringing off the hook today - apologies for
missing your call!) and will get back to you this afternoon.
Thanks,
BG
Linda Willis wrote:
Bethany,
I believe our discussion on this one should include comments from Noelle
Lutheran. She should be in our meeting on this one. According to her, this
site is a ways off from being able to break ground due to the necessity of their
demonstrating 1. what the effects to adjacent wetlands will be when the hole is
cut and 2. how to ensure the wetlands will remain hydrated through their
1 of 2 6/6/2006 8:22 AM

Re: Shelter Creek Quarry - NCG020679 - Pender Co.
dewatering system. As I've been told, the information provided is a long ways
from what was expected. Noelle feels they need to hire a firm (such as Martin
Marietta) to conduct studies and prepare documents that provide enough evidence
that these two issues will be taken care of.
I think for the size of the mine and the area of potential impact, a one page
calculation based on a 3 day pump test is not what we are looking for to satisfy
number 1.
Also, let me say, the staff report I sent up for the Moorehead Port site. . .
hold off on issuing. Ed Beck had a conversation with Layton Bedsole on the PCS
site, he (Ed) thought that Layton was ok with keeping that site on their permit
and under their helm. He in fact wasn't and is still requesting that we break
out that site from thier permit. Do you know of any regulations that really
give us the right to impose a stormwater permit on PCS as a stand alone?? I
will search the SIC codes versus our regs to see if they would be covered by a
general. I suppose the analytical from the stormwater runoff from the PCS site
might allow us the right to impose an individual stormwater permit based on the
level of contamination (COD) etc. we see in their point source discharges. Any
thoughts on the matter??
Linda
Bethany Georgoulias wrote:
Hi Linda,
We got this application for a mining general permit in our office, and it's
been assigned to me. I read your review (thanks for putting together the
memo on it, by the way) and had a chance to look through the submittal, so
I'm in the process of writing an (extensive) add. info. letter to the
applicant. I haven't reviewed a whole lot of mining permit apps, and none
where we've had to deal with wetlands issues, so this will be a learning
experience for me. I'll probably give you a call soon to talk a little more
about it - I wart to make sure I'm asking for the right things and know what
we should expect/deem acceptable in return.
Thanks,
BG
Bethany Georgoulias
Environmental Engineer
NC DENR DWQ
Stormwater Permitting Unit
[phone], ext. 529
[e-mail]
2 of 2 6/6/2006 8:22 AM

��
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
games D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist
March 28, 2006
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7003 0500 0002 7858 2261
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 27614
RE: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC Mine
Pender County — Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Holland:
r�
MAR 3 � 2006
Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
We have reviewed the application and additional information you submitted for the
referenced mine site. However, the following information is needed to continue processing
your application:
As discussed with Representative Carolyn Justice and your consultant, Mr. Stephen
Dorenda, provide an aquifer draw down map based upon a pump test that depicts the
cone of depression that will result from dewatering activities at the proposed mine site. An
analysis should be performed to provide site specific aquifer parameters in developing the
draw down map. Please identify on the map any wetland areas and any existing sinkhole
features within the cone of depression. Provide information on the impacts the water
withdrawal will have on adjacent wetlands and on the formation of sinkholes.
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed
above have been fully addressed. In addition, please note the Land Quality Section may
request additional information, not included in this letter, as the mining application review
progresses.
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612-919-733-45741 FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

T IT
Certified Mail
Mr. Holland
Page 2
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward four (4) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 5B.0013, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days
from the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are
unable to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information,
in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline can not be met and request that
an extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made
to grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's
files at the end of the 180-day period.
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as
possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.
Please contact meat [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPG, CPESC
State Mining Specialist
CC" Mr. Stephen Dorenda
Mr. Dan Sams, PE
Ms. Noelle Lutheran — DWQ Wilmington

t. .tom
.A- 70.1 '?006'
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources `
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D, Simons, PG, PE Michael F. Easley, Governor
Director and State Geologist William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
March 28, 2006
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7003 0500 0002 7858 2261
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 27614
RE: Shelter Creek Quarry LLC Mine
Pender County — Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. Holland. -
We have reviewed the application and additional information you submitted for the
referenced mine site. However, the following information is needed to continue processing
your application:
As discussed with Representative Carolyn Justice and your consultant, Mr. Stephen
Dorenda, provide an aquifer draw down map based upon a pump test that depicts the
cone of depression that will result from dewatering activities at the proposed mine site. An
analysis should be performed to provide site specific aquifer parameters in developing the
draw down map. Please identify on the map any wetland areas and any existing sinkhole
features within the cone of depression. Provide information on the impacts the water
withdrawal will have on adjacent wetlands and on the formation of sinkholes.
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed
above have been fully addressed_ In addition, please note the Land Quality Section may
request additional information, not included in this letter, as the mining application review
progresses.
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 I FAX; 919-715-8801
512 Ncrth Salisbury Street, Rzleich, }North Carolina, 27604
.1
An FCual CCCCRU^.:i;! l r.iili' T12tIV2 r.ction E^1^ylQ;!_r — -700,10 Recjc''n-c 1, 100.1� Post Consumer Pacer

Certified Mail
Mr. Holland
Page 2
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward four (4) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 513.0013, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days
from the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are
unable to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information,
in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline can not be met and request that
an extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made
to grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's
files at the end of the 180-day period.
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as
possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPG, CPESC
State Mining Specialist
cc: Mr. Stephen Dorenda
Mr. Dan Sams, PE
Ms. Noelle Lutheran — DWQ Wilmington

Al�
ta
-V
NCDENR La
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist
May 10, 2006
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7003 Ci500 0002 7858 2025
Ms. Glenda S. Teachey
FNB Southeast
PO Box 1077
Burgaw, North Carolina 28425
RE: Assignment of Savings Account No. 8300158220
Proposed Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Dear Ms. Teachey:
MAY 1 8 2006
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The above mentioned Assignment of Savings Account has been incorrectly completed.
The operator must be the same as the applicant, Shelter Creek Quarry. Please correct the
second "operator" space by putting Shelter Creek Quarry LLC as the first "operator" space has.
The assignment must be in the same name as the applicant for a mining permit.
I
For your convenience, I have enclosed an assignment of a savings account form for
your use. Please correctly complete the form and return it to this office. I have changed the
"operator" space to "applicant" to clarify this for you.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at [phone],
incerely,
udith A. Wehner
Assistant State -Mining Specialist\
Land Quality Section
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, PE
Mr. Stephen Holland -- Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC, 8315 Highway 53 East, Burgaw, NC
27614
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
An Equal Opportunity 1 Afrmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

,
Am,
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist May 8, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Nat Wilson
Hydrogeology Group
Division of Water Resources
FROM: Brenda M. Har
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for shelter Creek Quarries LLC
Shelta Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
® Mine Dewatering Proposed ❑ No Mine Dewatering Proposed
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit modification
request for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on May 30, 2006 so that we may complete our review of
this request within our statutory time limits.
Any comments your agency can provide regarding potential effects on potable
groundwater supplies and groundwater quality will be appreciated. We would like to
have any recommendations you may provide for permit conditions, for reasonable
protection of groundwater quantity or quality.
If your staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they
contact the person submitting this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also,
please send a copy of your comments to the person noted in the application.
PLEASE RETURN ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR
REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
Ibmh
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

r..�-'`,i I I#lllIE1.111'Il II 111 ?tl HIM
I!Ilf#II;
4 I �
i j! � �!
l i I! E I f l l I !rJl illvri I t i l i
I C 1 1► � I I C �! I,f I� I f l C� i I ,� + E! I 1
0I1�. c�I
WN0
I II! I] I I I (�uW E -IIlaNi
�f iiI Ililll ! il�il�fil�ll II�'iIII ���ili!li
1f
iE lii !liiillii illi IIi k i � I !
lrllii�lj�llll�]il!!!j i!l€liltE!!II��If�ill��}{liji]
E
illllj' I!Ij'! III I!i li' Ilill�]ij.ill'i'�]I]f!E11!�
l j� 111i!t!lill Ililji] fli�l!{ Ilfi�!�I
JI �
I_ l I j ] l �.� i��l � � � '``,t� I I �� I j 1 I •' � i ""'"_ i � �iY :� � i I�\.I � 'y f � i ij lI •!� r��
II I} !!I!III11'li;�kll'I�Ill�llllil !!! ],'k Ij,
j !ijii i]ij!il]jlll]illiti6{'�I lilli !IIII�I f!]1!
I .I Ii'�iI✓F iI I��itT. I �J h r' >' I i I % +1� III I�
iyUri
j� j j j 1. j � ii 5�j/vi j "'/, I i� j' 4 .�+►� i' 11 i I j � I !� i 1 I!� i I � i.�'IJ� .�C i�'1G�, �� Z{ j�.
I l
I II !r
ilt] t11�?lil�ltl�j]�il�!Il�lfj jiliij_i-�!i�'!i'•jl.
i-
;j lil�illji{IJ]ili]i'{l!III:I_]lill it lil !
.]_ � l � - I i i i -1 � ! i � I_ I ] � t i j ! -j° l � _i -yI -1 '• I ` 1 I
y4 J If D ! I .. �v f'� _ .;� I I� 1- .fir^! !1•� 1 " I 1V i �- - +. i _+- , 1 i ' i 1 ; _J� I ; .
]-
3 _] l
] { ] r rlZ! fJ u� a � 1�{
% 1
J4 i_J 1 1 .i 1 1 ] -I � ���. �
I
I I
WAi.iam EA7GIATF-EldVG,

Shelter Creek Mine - 48 Hour Pump 'hest on Well B-7
May 1 st - 3rd 2006 Pump started @ 2:18 PM, May 1 st
Flow Rate = 100 Gallons / Minute
Depth to Water (ft.) Drawdown (ft.)
Date
Time(avg.)
Reading_
B-7
0-1
0-2
0-3
0-4 0-5
0-6
8-6
B-7
0-1
0-2
0-3
0-4
0-5
0-6
B-6
5/1/06
2:00 PM
1 at Start)
5,46
5,76
6.16
2.64
3.66
2.91
3.58 ]2-�270.00
l 0.00
4.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2:24 PM
2
15.28
10.26
7.26
4.12
3.66
9.82
1,10
1,48
0.00
2:31 PM
3
16.18
11.72
8.43
4.64
3.69
10.72
1 5.96
2.27
2.00
0.03
j 2:40 PM
4
16.42
12.20
8.95
4.89
3.70
10.96
6.44
2.79
2.25
0-04
2:47 PM
5
16.58
12.49
9.25
5.50
3.70
11.12
6.73
3.09
2.86
0.04
2:56 PM
6
16.66
12.72
9.43
520
3.70
11.20
6.96
3. 77
2,56
0.04
106 PM
7
16.76
12.87
9.62
5.30
3.70
11.30
7.11
j 3.46
2.66
I 0.04
I 3:16 PM
I 8
16.82
13.00
9.72
5.38
3.72
11.36
7.24
3.56
2.74
I 0.06
3:25 PM
j 9
18.85
13.06
9.81
5.44
3.71
11.39
7.30
3.65
2.80
0.05
I 134 PM
10
16.93
13.14
9.87
5.48
3.72
2.91
3.58
829
111.447--F
7.38
3.71
2.84
I 0.06
0-00
0.00
0.00
4:15 PM
11
17.01
13.31
10.08
5.60
I 3.71
11.55
7.55
3.92
2.96
I 0.05
6:07 PM
12
17.22
13.62
10.22
5.72
3,71
I
11.76
7.86
I 4.06
3.08
I 0.05
I
8:08 PM
13 _
17.13
13.42
10.24
5.74
3.71
l
11.67
7.66
I 4.08
3.10
0.05
512/06
8:38 AM
14
17.01
13.69
10.43
5.90
3.70
11.55
7.93
4.27
3.26
0.04
I 11:07 AM
15
17.18
13.65
10.43
5.90
3.70
3.48
3.64
8.42
11.72
I 7.89
I 4.27
I 3.26
I 0.04
0.57
0.06
0. 33
4:30 PM
16
17.13
13.60
10.43
5.92
3.70
3.50
3.67
8.47
11.67
7.84
4.27
I 3.28
I 0.04
0.59
0.09
0.18
{
7:40 PM I
17
17.12
13,62
10.42
4.94
3.70
11.66
I 7.86
4.26
I 2.30
I 0.04
5/3/06
8:48 AM
_
18
17.18
13.70
10.49
6.00
3.71
3.61
3.70
8.50
11.72
7.94
4.33
3.36
0.05
0.70
0.12
0.21
1:54 PM
19
17.11
13.66 I
10.50
6.00
3.73
3.64
3.72
8.57
11.65
7.90
4.34
3.36
I 0.07
0.73
0.14
0.28
Well Data
Well #
Dia.
Depth
Distance
from B--7
B-7
4"
80'
---
O-1
2"
80'
10,
0-2
2"
80'
100,
0-3
4"
80,
254'
0-4
2"
15,
254'
0-5
4"
80'
1397'
0-6
2'
15' j
1397'
B-6 1
4"
80'
1327'
Aquifer Data (all wells)
Fine Sand--0-20'
Limestone 420'-80'
Fine Sand --80' +
Note: Wells 0-3 thru 0-6 are in wetlands.
Note: Fine sand overburden (0-20') is considered confining layer as evidenced by lack of drawdown during test.

Ov-, � , 'I & ) W e, 0 S 1OPPR
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Comparison of Well Water Depths since July 1, 2006
July 1. 2006
April 28, 20.09
1.
3.90'
Deep*
4.5'
2.
5.10'
Shallow**
3.16'
3.
3.70'
Deep
3.08'
4.
7.10'
Shallow
4.71'
S.
3.10'
Deep
4.5'
6.
3.80'
Shallow
4.0'
7.
7.80'
Deep
8.3'
8.
7.50'
Deep
7.75'
9.
7.20'
Deep
8.5'
10.
6.41'
Shallow
5.1'
11.
5.98'
Deep
6.0'
12.
5.82'
Shallow
4.9'
13.
5.94'
Shallow
4.85'
*Deep Wells are 80'
**Shallow Wells are 15'

Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
May 15, 2009
Mrs. Linda Willis
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
Dear Mrs. Willis;
During the week of March 23, 2009 we had a meeting of several Environmental
Specialists at Shelter Creek Quarry, yourself included, in order to evaluate wetlands and to
better understand the monitoring wells, and the data accumulated by them over a year and
a half period. As we know, certain wells that were in designated wetland areas have never
shown any accumulation of water. This is significant since these wells were operational
before pumping started at the mine.
As you might remember, the initial expense to install these monitoring wells was
over $30,000. From the onset, we had wells that never recorded water as being present,
and naturally over a year and a half period continued to show that there was no water
present. Some of these wells are now electronically broken and unable to function. Before
we repair them, we need to invite your attention to the fact that the manufacturer of these
electronic devices said the failure was premature since they remained in dry conditions.
We would like permission to stop monitoring the wells numbered 3,4,9,10,11, 12,
13,14,15,16,18,19,20. Also, since only (8) of the wells have ever shown any activity, we
would like to have permission to continue to monitor those (8) wells in the future. They
are well numbers 1,2;5;6,7,8,1.7,21. It would certainly help curtail additional expense for
repairs, and really allow us to monitor wetlands that have shown water retention over a
period of time.
r
,�✓� r ego
Also, we thought it might be beneficial to look at the other (13) wells that we had
installed prior to pumping in the quarry. One would expect to see some dramatic
differences in these particular wells since they were installed to calculate a specific
phenomenon called the cone of depletion. Although this cone of depletion is hypothetical,
the wells were drilled to simulate pumping over a period of time from the quarry pit.

Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
We never agreed with the NC State Hydrologist as to the results of this pumping, and the
prediction of gallons of water that we would end up pumping per 24 hour day. Our data
over the past year and a half shows that we have pumped much less water than was
predicted.
The empirical evidence we have obtained was that all of the shallow wells gained
water except well #6, which appeared to hold its own. This proves that by recycling water
into the wetland with our level spreader, we have closed circuited the water that might
have emptied into our main pump area in the pit. Because of the drought that we are
currently experiencing, the shallow wells could not have gained water any other way than
with our level spreader discharge water! The deep wells have averaged a net loss of .9 of a
foot over these 18 months, but since they are 80' deep and are below the pumping level of
the quarry, they do not really demonstrate any trend, since we are still in a drought
condition. We would certainly agree to monitor these (13) wells on a monthly basis, so that
we might see trends that demonstrate dewatering is occurring in a given aquifer, shallow
or deep.
Any question or comments will be addressed by me immediately.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Dorenda

t
�} � � �'�
.,�
i
��
1 A�

1 A
r-®. ,

o • ' hi-AWMI
l
1_d-oO�p�,n-• �
-
CJ
12Vv,- nox,
J'
IStOU I r c�3 0Qcu\A A
K kv
1
�e J\

PA
I
I b
1
lQ
l
' � 1
E
4-1
0 Q A.A 0-73

U 4
1
1

Shelter Creek Quarry'
Subject: Shelter Creek Quarry
From: "Mark Walton" <walton8 @bellsouth. net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:10:24 -0700
To: "Linda Willis" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Bethany Georgoulias" <[e-mail]>
Hi Linda,
I am helping Steve Dorenda with the technical parts of the NPDES BMP Plan and O&M Plan. I am
also providing certain items of the additional information requested by Bethany in her letter dated
June 12, 2006.
In reviewing the request, I realized that Bethany probably never had the results and analysis of the
pump test I performed at the site. I called Bethany today and she confirmed she didn't have them.
Since you do have the pump test results, I would like you to look at Bullets 4, 5 and 12 in Bethany's
letter and see how much of those items is addressed by the pump test results and analysis.
If you will do that and then let me know if there is anything else you need in regards to those items, I
will take care of it.
Thanks,
Mark Walton
P.S. This has made me realize that Steve Dorenda does not understand how separate the NPDES and
Mining Permit processes are. He apparently thought that DWQ would have copies of anything that
has been sent to Land Quality. I did not know before because we have been doing tecnical work and
preparing plans for the project, but Steve has been doing all the permit applications, meetings, etc.
1 of 1 7/18/2006 1:38 PM

,I�IIIiIjljll'li i
�ill�' if� �IilIll �I•
� ! I �• la Ir,J � �,{�� Ir �� I �� �• I I
IrIII i�ljl'iilt•I!i !
I I I � ! � I ! � � � �; �_ 1 ! i ! ► I I j
i
Iljl'4Illi,E;ljli
I I �IFs.I�%1;t1} s i p 171 I oi IC L
Vik
I i j j i l i I j 1 I iI 1 j I
i!�t �iFill.11lllti€
Jli �i!ijlltliijllik
i l! i i '• l� 1 1 i i i i i i l I
I�jyI I I/ 1,j t
111��liljlll11iill�]
�Illlili��j!kfiljllitl-E
�) } j I 'DI
1l11 11}}li�l 1ili i
lEkl�11�41{IIII{ Ilil�l
i E it I I: � �Z1 /�f EIS •� � �; I i !
Ilil�Iki'
�j;llIllili�
i C.� I I 1 I• .,�c �x
IIi ilii�!ljl'!li1
1 II rillj{il�ll{
;.�: C' � 11•'N� I� � i i l i i � i l
� ilil��I!# Ilill
0(1Oi 5
#Ili�ll�{3�IIIIfI�
}!QUALITY, SECTFON
j l i l l I I I I l i
Imo. I' I
i 4
Ililli�l!II�`j`�
i l t l=! � ilk 5�-►.�•����Uri
-
�k
�lil?ill i]li!l,l
i{f; 1
I;rlijjl lillllli!
li Il��ll Iil
I�III� II!li�l�l�j
I
ifiljl lljllll E
WAj,ToA,EA,GIAT-E-]?]A'G

- a�
-7zI..S-
.3 ys
- 79�-- 7� f6
F �� 7a A
796-7z/8

1

MEMORANDUM
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
TO: Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist'
FROM: Noelle Lutheran, Environmental Specialist III
THROUGH: Edward Beck, Regional Supervisor Surface Water Protection Section
DATE: February 17, 2006
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
PROJECT: Shelter Creek Quarry
COUNTY: Pender
The Wilmington Regional Office has reviewed the application for the Shelter Creek Quarry Mining Permit
and the "Shelter Creek Quarry Narrative" and calculations received in response to state and federal agency
comments on February 2, 2006. Although this office is very aware that the applicant has plans to apply for a
Individual 404 Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and an Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to directly impact approximately 25 acres of wetlands in association
with future phases of the mining operation, this office is concerned that impacts to wetlands, within and adjacent to
the project area, may not be able to be avoided during construction and operation of Phase IA. Some information
has been provided in attempt to address DWQ's concerns; however, due to the reasonably foreseen potential
impacts to wetlands and wildlife habitat, this office recommends that the Mining Permit application be placed on
hold until a complete and detailed Operation, Monitoring and Pumping Plan, prepared in accordance with the
NPDES General Permit NCG020000, is submitted to and approved by DWQ and until all of the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission comments are adequately addressed.
At a minimum, the following condition should be included in the Mining Permit:
Prior to any land disturbing activities associated with construction of the quarry, a Notice of Intent must be
submitted to the DWQ Stormwater and General Permits Unit in Raleigh and an Operation, Monitoring and
Pumping Plan prepared in accordance with NCG020000 must be submitted to and approved by the DWQ
Wilmington Regional Office. In addition, no impacts to wetlands shall occur prior to securing the appropriate 404
Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and 401 Water Quality Certification from DWQ.
7215
If you have any questions or concerns, please telephone Linda Willis or Noelle Lutheran at (910) 796-
Thank You
EB/nnd: S:1WQS14011MEMOSIShelterCreek Quarry.feb

. . L ytAe,-i s
In Accordance with General Permit No. NCG 020000
Operation and Monitoring Plan.
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC.
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, Pender County, NC
Prepared by:
Stephen Dorenda
VP Operations
Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC

l.0 Background
Once the State Mining Permit and the NPDES Permit have been issued to Shelter Creek
Quarry, LLC, several projects will have to be completed before any mining activity commences.
All of these projects are shown on the Phase 1A-72.5 acre map entitled NPDES MAP and an
additional map titled NPDES SuPRIemental Wetland Map (La). First and foremost is the
construction of the Speed -Up and Slow -Down lanes at the entrance to the mine site.
2.0 Project List Prior to Mining
3.0 Speed -Up and Slow -Dawn Lane Construction
All of the necessary plans have been submitted to and approved by the NC State DOT for
construction. Bids have been received and are ready to be awarded. Once the construction
begins, additional material will be added to the main entrance road from the speed-up and slow-
down area to the entire length of the main entrance road and finally terminating at the level
spreader lake. The road will be raised from 19.7 MSL to approximately 23.0 MSL. This
elevation will prevail the entire length of the main road and will be widened and asphalted to the
office and scale area shown on the enclosed map. The road will be ditched on either side and all
storm water from the east side of the road will be sent by pipe to the west side of the road, and
will ultimately be sent to the main sump area in the quarry as depicted on the enclosed map.
This same road will circle the level spreader lake and will continue west towards the
maintenance building at the same 23.0 MSL height. This height will be maintained for the entire
35.0 + acre mine site to prevent storm water from ever entering or leaving the actual mining area.
The berm depicted on the enclosed map will also continue down the property line to intercept the
same 23.0 MSL elevation at the maintenance building. This elevation was chosen because in the
recent 500 year flood, water never rose above the maintenance building elevation!
4.0 Horseshoe Lake Remodeling
The horseshoe lake will be deepened to an average depth of 20' and the wails will be
sloped at a 3-1 grade and grassed. It will be clear of all trees and brush and will have a road
circling it at a 23.0 MSL elevation. A floating pump station will be built and located in the
southwest corner of the horseshoe. This pump will transfer main pit sump water to the level
spreader lake. This Iake can store 300,000 gallons of water and will be capable of withstanding
flood waters that occurred during the recent 500 year flood. The lake will cover approximately
1.2 acres and the water elevation will be held at a nominal 14' elevation.
5.0 Construction of the Level Spreader Lake
The level spreader lake will be built simultaneously with the two previously mentioned
Page 2

projects. The level spreader lake will be quite unique for several reasons. It will cover
approximately 4.0 acres with 2.5 acres of water in it. It will hold approximately 12,000,000
gallons of water and can withstand a 100 year, 24 hour storm (10" rain in 24 hours) very easily.
it is unique because it will have a 200' long discharge manifold that can be adjusted for rate of
flow by closing or opening three separate gate valves. These gate valves control the amount of
water to be discharged by the manifold. Another unique feature is that it will be built directly on
top of the crustaceous limestone, which will allow some of the contained water to close -circuit to
the main pump station from which it came. Lastly, the actual discharge will occur on the mining
property prior to it's migration to the wetland. All of the design data and other necessary
information have been included with this plan. (Enclosure 1) This design meets or exceeds the
guidelines established by Dr. Van Der Wiele of N.C. Division of Water Quality
6.00 Stripping of Overburden
As soon as both of the lakes are completed, a stripping program to remove the overburden
will commence. The initial stripping will occur to the west of the main entrance road, into the
quarry and will be approximately 400' x 750' and will remove 200,000 cubic yards of
overburden. The map shows how storm water will be trapped and sent to the main sump area by
both ditching and grading as depicted on the map.
6.1.a Overburden Uses:
6.1.a.1 It will be used to build all of the berms shown on the enclosed map as well as
protection berms for haul roads as demanded by MSHA Rules.
6.1.a.2 It will be used to widen roads and heighten the main road into the quarry as well
as to build new roads around the horseshoe lake, level spreader lake and a berm
from the level spreader lake to the maintenance building.
6.1.a.3 Excess overburden will be stored on the east side of the main entrance road shown
on the enclosed snap. Although this material will ultimately be placed in the
bottom of the mined -out pit area, it will be temporarily stored and encapsulated by
a berm and silt fencing as shown on the map.
6.1.a.4 As the overburden is being removed, collected storm water will be sent from a
submersible pump and plastic pipe to the horseshoe lake. This pump will be
located in the designated sinking cut area to be drilled and blasted where the
permanent pump station will be located. All overburden in this area must be
removed before drilling and blasting commences. As soon as the fixed sump area
is established by removal of the rock that was blasted, an immediate drilling and
blasting program will develop the two benches shown in the map legend. At this
time, a small portable crusher will be used to crush rock for all of the roads to be
heightened and widened. This crusher will only make one size of finished product
Page 3

(base material) and does not use water for cleaning of the rock.
770 Rock Crushing Plant Construction
The portable rock crushing plant and portable generating plant will begin to be set-up in
the area shown on the map, slightly southwest of the pump station. The plant will have all
equipment at 23.0 MSL or higher to prevent flood damage. It is all portable equipment and can
be moved easily, if so desired. Although permanent electricity will be provided by Four County
Co -Op, a back-up generator will be installed and wired series -in -parallel since Shelter Creek
Quarry will be buying interruptible service. The entire plant will be built by an outside
contractor and delivered pre -built to the mine site.
8_0 Ongoing Construction Projects
8.a.1 Chainlink fence construction on berms will begin as soon as berms are finished.
8.a.2 Benns will be sowed and planted with native grasses.
8.a.3 Wash water pond will be constructed near crushing plant. It will be a totally
close -circuited pond_
8.a.4 Construct office building and scales on the main entrance road.
8.a.5 Begin construction of a 30' x 75' addition the maintenance building on the
southern end of the current building.
8.a.5 Construct a 4,115 foot ditch down the west side of the quarry property as depicted
on the attached NPDES Supplemental Wetland Man (La) This ditch will be
kept filled with water provided by two ponds shown on the same map, and will
not be allowed to become dry. This ditch and the parallel ditches on Highway 53
will provide a hydraulic barrier to N.C. State Gamelands.
8.a.7 Asphalt the main entrance roads and install automatic gates to the fencing along
the main entrance road.
8.a.8 Continue to berm all isolated wetlands as stripping continues. Berms will be
sowed and planted with native grasses and silt fencing as necessary.
8.a.9 Build ponds for water cannon use in areas shown on the map. Outside walls of
ponds will be sowed and planted with native grasses and silt fencing will be used
as necessary Construction data can be found in the Iegend section of enclosures
(8) and (9).
Page 4

%0 Water Monitoring and Test Wells
Since May, 2005, there has been an ongoing monitoring of six (6) wells that were placed
in the main wetland area of the mine. Three (3) of the wells are shallow (15 feet deep) and the
three (3) other wells are deep (80 feet deep).
Initially, test results were conducted on a monthly basis since there was no mining
activity on the property. With the recommendation to increase monitoring on a weekly basis
from Ms. Linda Willis, I began to collect water heights from these and other wells from August
08, 2006 to the present time. See Enclosure (7), Monitoring Well Data for 13 wells. Well
locations are shown on the two (2) enclosed maps. Enclosure (8) and (9).
The results to date from the monitoring of these thirteen (13) wells have supported the
initial findings of the three (3) pump down wells used in our cone of depletion studies. That is to
say that the data collected to date shows that the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands was not
significantly influenced from dewatering activity elsewhere on the mining site.
It has been my experience in mining coastal limestone that the hydrology of the large
wetlands are more likely influenced from lateral groundwater flow in the upper surficial aquifer
towards the mine wall as the mine advances.
For these aforementioned reasons, a level spreader pond, ditching, and pond construction
to provide water for water cannon use have all been incorporated in this mining plan to prevent
loss of water in the overburden areas of the wetlands.
10.0 Drainage Facilities
Any storm water that goes to the pit area will be pumped from a central pumping station
as depicted on the NPDES Map. All other ditches that are on the property will still be used as
well. No new ditches are expected to be needed. The ditches and sump area deliver natural and
storm water to the man-made lake for discharge. It will be discharged evenly into the wetlands.
No sump pump water will be directly pumped off the mining site. The submitted cross sections
show that the sump settling pump basin will be approximately 100 ft. x 300 ft., and it will have
the deepest mined area in the quarry at - 80 ft. MSL. The actual water level will automatically be
controlled by mercury switches, and will only pump water down to a nominal - 65 ft. MSL. This
is necessary since non -turbid water is desired for pumping. Also, this will be the first chance that
suspended solids can be removed before any pumping sends water to the first settling pond. The
sump also provides a huge retention area in case of inclement conditions. All storm water and
ditch water is sent to the main sump area by grading or ditches during extended mining
operations. See the flow charge arrows on the NPDES Map. Enclosure (8).
Page 5

11.0 Pumping Frequency
Initially, quantities of water will be smaller at first due to the size of the open pit. The
quantities of water will naturally become Iarger as the mine expands which causes the aquifer to
expand. At first, the aquifer will give up more gallons of water per hour since this water
represents storage water found in the aquifer. However, as the aquifer grows, the water will have
to migrate further in order to get to the pump station, and the flow will tend to stabilize to a lesser
flow rate.
Pumping periods will be controlled at the pump station by mercury switches and a
pumping log will be maintained on a daily basis. Although the float -mounted pump can deliver
1400 gallons per minute, it is estimated that the pump station will not operate but a short period
every hour during operating hours. After operating hours, the pump will remain idle. Although
the pump can send up to 2 million gallons of water per day to the level spreader, it is not going to
pump more than 250,000 - 500,000 gallons per day for the first two to three years. This is simply
because of the size of the aquifer in the retention ponds and the need to refill all of the water and
the 4100' ditch. This mining plan is only for 72.5 acres, and it will be mined in two phases of 36
acres each. When the first 36 acres is totally mined, water and wetlands should no longer be an
issues since the 36 acres will be allowed to fill with water, It will take approximately 6-7 years
to mine the 36 acre tract.
Since quantities of water to pumped are all hypothetical and are attempted to be proved
with theoretical formulas, 1 have concluded that our initial pumping will produce 250,000 -
500,000 gallons of water per day once the sinking cut has been made. Naturally, as the mine
area increases in size, so too will the aquifer increase in size. Thus, Mr. Walton's testing shows
at the end of a 6-7 year period, we will have 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 gallons of water to be
pumped daily. ,This has been concurred by the N.C. State Hydrologist also. See enclosure (10).
The Cone of Depletion has also been agreed upon to be 6200'. (Enclosure 9a)
A log book listing all wells will be kept in the VP Operation's office with all collected
and reported data from weekly inspections. Site checks for sink holes or any other abnormalities
at the mine site will be done daily and all findings will be recorded with time and date of such
findings.
12.0 Isolated Wetland Buffer
Maps that have been submitted and the map currently submitted show a minimum 50'
buffer away from all wetlands to the edge of the mine, The wetlands are not in the buffer and all
isolated wetlands will be monitored by monitoring wells located in each wetland's general area.
Provisions have been delineated to keep these areas wet. See #7 of this document.
Also, there will be a 2/ 1 slope to the rock in the quarry from the outline footprint of the
isolated wetland. Thus, for a 15 foot of overburden in an isolated wetland, the actual mining
Page 6

distance from the wetland would be 80 feet and not 50 feet.
13.0 Isolated Wetland Ponds
The ponds holding water for the isolated wetlands will have float mounted pumps with
manifolds capable of running (3) water cannons at one time. The water cannons can spray 75
gallons/minute or 4,500 gallons/hour.
Based on the previous example given, an average isolated wetland would need 12,670
gallons of water pumped on non -rainy days. With a water cannon delivering 4,500 gallons per
hour, it would take 2.82 hours to spray 12,670 gallons onto an average wetland.
14.0 Maintenance Area and Fuel Storage
The submitted map shows a maintenance building slightly NW of the horseshoe wetland
adjacent to the level spreader pond. An additional 30" x 75' or 2,250 ft. building addition will be
added to the southern end of the current building. This area will be with a covered roof and
concrete floor. General preventative maintenance will be conducted in this area by an outside
contractor who will provide grease and oil on his service truck. The floor area will consist of a 2
block high concrete walled area on top of 6" of concrete. The open end will have a 7" silent
policeman made of concrete which will be attached to the concrete floor. This floor area and
blocks, along with the silent policeman provides 42 yds. of contained concrete storage for spills.
30 x 75 x .5' - 27 = 42 yds and 42 x 201.974 = 8,483 gallons of liquid storage. The floor will
have (2) drains located at 25' intervals in the concrete floor and connected to a 4' x 6' sump area
outside of the building by PVC pipe. The actual sump area will be covered with a removable
roof to prevent from inclement weather. Bags of "Oil Dri" will be provided on both sides of the
maintenance area and would be sprinkled over wet areas. The absorbed material would be swept
into a pile and then transferred to a 55 gallon barrel to be sent to an environmentally appropriate
dump site.
NOTE: 500 year flood did not reach the maintenance building floor in September, 1999. As far
as bulk storage of diesel fuel, a 10,000 gallon steel tank will be located along the SE corner of the
maintenance building with a built-in secondary containment tank. All maintenance will be
provided by an outside contractor where the mining equipment is purchased. This maintenance
will be conducted by the vendor's employees with the vendor's maintenance truck.
15.0 Discharge Monitoring
Discharge monitoring and reporting will be performed as specified in Table 1. if the
effluent limitations are greater than specified in Table 2, the monitoring frequency will be
modified to monthly monitoring of the effluents.
Page 7

16.0 Monitoring Reports
Discharge monitoring results in accordance with the terms of this permit, NCG020000,
shall be submitted no later than 30 days from the end of the monitoring period. Duplicate signed
copies of all reports required shall be submitted to the NC DENR Division of Water Quality,
Water Quality Section, ATTENTION: Central Files, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1617.
Shelter Creek Mining will report orally any noncompliance within 24 hours after Shelter
Creek Mining becomes aware of the noncompliance.
Table 1. Monitoring Requirements for Mine Dewatering
Meaauiemerrt
rSample
_Sample
Drschairge Chaeaeterlshes
Unrts
T
TYPg
fi
Location
_.,uenc7►
�__•.
pH
S.U.
Quarterly
Grab
E
Settleable Solids
mN
Quartedy
Grab
E
Total Suspended Solids
mgA
Quarterly
Grab
E
Turbidity
NTU
Quarterly
Grab
E or U,D
Total Flow
MG
Quarterly
-
E
Table 2. Effluent limitations for Process Wastewater and Mine Dewatering
s-r.� ,�-. � _"'r[•�': r' �. � : ,r--•-y-
_.,� ,,. ,.:.,..cam-3:-�.SS�-... t...- .: �.....
Discharge;Cfiaracteiistics'
r Disehai,Limitattprtl§
a_ -
�M0110
:Dal:ManumI
Settleable Solids
0.1 m1A
0.2 mUl
Total Suspended Solids Industrial Sand Mini
25mgA
45mgA
pH Range
-
6.0 - 9.0
Turtaidit Freshwater non -trout streams
-
50 NTU
TurbidR Non -trout lakes and sattwaters
-
25 NTU
Turbidity (Trout Waters)
-
10 NTU
Page 8

16.0 Water Cannon Use in Isolated Wetlands
A far as keeping the isolated wetlands wet with water cannons, the following formula shoves
how much water is necessary to equal the normal precipitation based on the thirty year average
rainfall amounts:
inches of rain x sq ft x 7.48 = (x) gallons
Using I 16.9" of rain/year (30 year average) for this area, I can calculate the number of gallons
per no rain days that would have to have water sprayed by the water cannons to the isolated
wetlands. Average size of isolated wetland = 1.437 acres 1.437 acres = 62,595 fl?
Example: 3
116.2 x 62, 595.72 ft = 609,786 ft
12
A
609, 786 ft x 7.48 gallons = 4,561,202.4 gallons/year
4,561,202 gallons/year = 380,100 gallons/month
12 months
380, 100 gallons/month = 12,670 gallons/day per avg. wetland
30 days/month
12,670 gallons/day x 17 isolated wetlands = 215,390 gallons/day
19 dry days/month x 215, 390 gallons/day-- 4,092,410/month
Page 9

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM
Iff
6WIM
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
Brenda M. Harris
Land Quality Section
NCDLR
Steven H. Everhart, PhD
Permit Coordinator
Program
February 7, 2006
Supp e—m—enis to Mining Pen -nit Application for Stephen Holland/Shelter Creek
Quarry, LLC — Shelter Creek Quarry — Pender County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the supplemental materials supplied by the applicant in response to our previous comments. We
follow here with those comments and our evaluation of the applicant's responses.
Water withdrawal and discharge could have impacts on these natural areas and
rare species populations. These impacts need to be more fully addressed.
Our main concern is that water withdrawal will result in the depletion of groundwater necessary
to maintain the wetland communities that surround the mine site. This is addressed somewhat in
the applicant's response to the next concern.
2. The application does not describe the impacts to groundwater. We recommend an
engineering estimate of the maximum radius of the cone of depression during
normal and extreme droughts prior to permit approval. We also recommend, in
cooperation with DENR and others, that a water -level monitoring network be
established to monitor the development and reach of the cone of depression.
The applicant is proposing a monitoring network consisting primarily of monitoring wells within
the mine property boundaries. Only one well is to be established in surrounding wetlands. No
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Holland/Holly Shelter Quarry
February 7, 2006
standards are given as to what would constitute an impact sufficient to suspend or abort mining
operations. We recommend that a more extensive monitoring well network be established
through coordination with NCDWQ and USACE with established criteria for determining the
impact of water removal on the status of surrounding wetlands, i.e., at what point has the
hydrology changed sufficiently that the wetland can no longer be categorized as such.
Natural communities important to many species of fish and wildlife are being
removed parcel by parcel in the area. We recommend surveys be completed by
biologists qualified to determine the status of protected species such as the red -
cockaded woodpecker and the Carolina goldenrod. A cluster/clan of red -
cockaded woodpeckers requires up to 100 acres of territory for foraging and may
be using the site as part of their home range. The impact on this species of
converting the forested portion of this site to open water/residential needs to be
addressed.
The survey results sufficiently address this concern.
4. We recommend the use of locally native species such as switchgrass (Panicum
virgatuni) for post -disturbance stabilization. Also, we recommend shrub species
such as wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), and/or
marsh elder (Iva frutescens) for stabilization around the lake edge. The use of
these species will provide food and cover for wildlife not afforded by lawn
grasses typically used for stabilization.
Not addressed in the supplemental materials.
5. We recommend a 100 ft native forested buffer be maintained or created on both
sides of perennial streams (Holly Shelter Creek) adjacent to the site.
Not addressed in the supplemental materials.
6. The application indicates that wetlands adjacent to Holly Shelter Creek are to be
used to receive between 0.5 and 2.0 MGD of effluent from the quarry. This will
quickly make its way into Holly Shelter Creek and the applicant has not addressed
the impact this will have on the watershed. Specifically, the following need to be
addressed: changes in baseflow; temperature; water chemistry, especially pH and
phosphorus levels. For baseline purposes, we concur with the Natural Heritage
Program's recommendation to conduct a biological inventory of Shelter Creek,
and obtain detailed information on the stream's physical conditions as well.
Although the applicant has attempted to address this in the narrative presented, we defer
comment on this to NCDWQ as no plan was presented to monitor these changes. We
recommend that a plan be developed for evaluating these changes as well as how changes in
water quality parameters might be ameliorated, should they arise.

Holland/Holly Shelter Quarry 3 February 7, 2006
The level spreader system discussed in the supplemental materials will spread the discharge out
as was suggested in the original plan. However, the question still remains as to whether the
discharge area will handle the expected discharge through infiltration or will it "sheet flow" into
the creek.
7. There are also several (24.4) acres of isolated wetlands on the site that are to be
impacted through excavation. No mitigation plan is presented for these impacts.
We do not support the removal of wetlands, especially in such great quantity.
No mitigation plan has been provided. We recommend, at a minimum, the applicant be required
buy -in to the NC EEP for purchase of wetlands of like quality in the Shelter Creek watershed.
8. If wetlands are impacted by excavation, drainage, or fill, appropriate mitigation
should be provided.
See number 7 above.
9. The cumulative and secondary impacts that will result from the proposed 200
homesite development are not addressed. Additionally, the applicant states that
the resultant lakes (reservoirs) would provide millions of gallons of water for the
area, but does not address the impacts resulting development would have on
natural resources.
The applicant has only addressed this by stating that "...the construction of a gated community is
in the planning stages only." However, he goes on to state that "...the supply of water is unable
to keep up with the demand!" The secondary impact of the provision of water supply is further
development. Given that the development of water supply and homesites is estimated to be 50
years coming, we concede that they are not an issue with this mining permit request. However,
neither should they be used as a benefit arising from the project.
The NCWRC does not object to the issuance of this permit, provided our recommendations are
included as permit condition.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. If you have any
questions or require additional information regarding these comments, please call me at (910)
796-7436.
cc: Noelle Lutheran, DENR/DWQ
Scott Pohlman, DENR/NHP
Tommy Hughes, NCWRC

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brenda M. Harris
Land Quality Section
NCDLR
FROM: Steven H. Everhart, PhD
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
a on Program
DATE: February 7, 2006
SUBJECT: Supplements to Mining Permit Application for Stephen Holland/Shelter Creek
Quarry, LLC — Shelter Creek Quarry — Pender County
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the supplemental materials supplied by the applicant in response to our previous comments. We
follow here with those comments and our evaluation of the applicant's responses.
Water withdrawal and discharge could have impacts on these natural areas and
rare species populations. These impacts need to be more fully addressed.
Our main concern is that water withdrawal will result in the depletion of groundwater necessary
to maintain the wetland communities that surround the mine site. This is addressed somewhat in
the applicant's response to the next concern.
2. The application does not describe the impacts to groundwater. We recommend an
engineering estimate of the maximum radius of the cone of depression during
normal and extreme droughts prior to permit approval. We also recommend, in
cooperation with DENR and others, that a water -level monitoring network be
established to monitor the development and reach of the cone of depression.
The applicant is proposing a monitoring network consisting primarily of monitoring wells within
the mine property boundaries. Only one well is to be established in surrounding wetlands. No
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Holland/Holly Shelter Quarry
February 7, 2006
standards are given as to what would constitute an impact sufficient to suspend or abort mining
operations. We recommend that a more extensive monitoring well network be established
through coordination with NCDWQ and USACE with established criteria for determining the
impact of water removal on the status of surrounding wetlands, i.e., at what point has the
hydrology changed sufficiently that the wetland can no longer be categorized as such.
Natural communities important to many species of fish and wildlife are being
removed parcel by parcel in the area. We recommend surveys be completed by
biologists qualified to determine the status of protected species such as the red -
cockaded woodpecker and the Carolina goldenrod. A cluster/clan of red -
cockaded woodpeckers requires up to 100 acres of territory for foraging and may
be using the site as part of their home range. The impact on this species of
converting the forested portion of this site to open water/residential needs to be
addressed.
The survey results sufficiently address this concern.
4. We recommend the use of locally native species such as switchgrass (Panicum
virgatum) for post -disturbance stabilization. Also, we recommend shrub species
such as wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), silverling (Baccharis halimifolia), and/or
marsh elder (Iva frutescens) for stabilization around the lake edge. The use of
these species will provide food and cover for wildlife not afforded by lawn
grasses typically used for stabilization.
Not addressed in the supplemental materials.
5. We recommend a 100 ft native forested buffer be maintained or created on both
sides of perennial streams (Holly Shelter Creek) adjacent to the site.
Not addressed in the supplemental materials.
6. The application indicates that wetlands adjacent to Holly Shelter Creek are to be
used to receive between 0.5 and 2.0 MGD of effluent from the quarry. This will
quickly make its way into Holly Shelter Creek and the applicant has not addressed
the impact this will have on the watershed. Specifically, the following need to be
addressed: changes in baseflow; temperature; water chemistry, especially pH and
phosphorus levels. For baseline purposes, we concur with the Natural Heritage
Program's recommendation to conduct a biological inventory of Shelter Creek,
and obtain detailed information on the stream's physical conditions as well.
Although the applicant has attempted to address this in the narrative presented, we defer
comment on this to NCDWQ as no plan was presented to monitor these changes. We
recommend that a plan be developed for evaluating these changes as well as how changes in
water quality parameters might be ameliorated, should they arise.

Holland/Holly Shelter Quarry 3 February 7, 2006
The level spreader system discussed in the supplemental materials will spread the discharge out
as was suggested in the original plan. However, the question still remains as to whether the
discharge area will handle the expected discharge through infiltration or will it "sheet flow" into
the creek.
7. There are also several (24.4) acres of isolated wetlands on the site that are to be
impacted through excavation. No mitigation plan is presented for these impacts.
We do not support the removal of wetlands, especially in such great quantity.
No mitigation plan has been provided. We recommend, at a minimum, the applicant be required
buy -in to the NC EEP for purchase of wetlands of like quality in the Shelter Creek watershed.
8. If wetlands are impacted by excavation, drainage, or fill, appropriate mitigation
should be provided.
See number 7 above.
9. The cumulative and secondary impacts that will result from the proposed 200
homesite development are not addressed. Additionally, the applicant states that
the resultant lakes (reservoirs) would provide millions of gallons of water for the
area, but does not address the impacts resulting development would have on
natural resources.
The applicant has only addressed this by stating that "...the construction of a gated community is
in the planning stages only." However, he goes on to state that "...the supply of water is unable
to keep up with the demand!" The secondary impact of the provision of water supply is further
development. Given that the development of water supply and homesites is estimated to be 50
years coming, we concede that they are not an issue with this mining permit request. However;
neither should they be used as a benefit arising from the project.
The NCWRC does not object to the issuance of this permit, provided our recommendations are
included as pen -nit condition.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. if you have any
questions or require additional information regarding these comments, please call me at (910)
796-7436.
cc: Noelle Lutheran, DENR/DWQ
Scott Pohlman, DENR/NHP
Tommy Hughes, NCWRC

MINING CHECKLIST FOR ROUTING FEB 0 & c006
E
Applicant's Name: L-LlProject Name: _ �r
Applic./Permit No.: County: Abt& Date Received:
Reviewer. River Basin Name:
ANI,`ew ❑ Renewal ❑ Modification (inside permit boundariec,)
❑ Modification (outside permit boundaries) ❑ Transfer 0 Release
0 Partial Release I Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed: $
❑ Fee Received: $
,90
1 Regional Office (2 complete copies; attach the 105SCeional
Office Mining Ap 511cation Review Checklist" to one copy and attach bah t DW d DAQ
"Mining Application Review Form" to the other copy; Send both copies° th_8Lpeional Engineer)
Date: Routed !0 ec'd
❑ Division of Water Resources Date: Routed Redd
C Wildlife Resources Gommieoion Date: Routed Rec'd
U5 Fish & Wildlife Service Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new applications and modifZcation reque5t5 that add land to the permit)
0 Division of Parke & Recreation Date: Routed Rec'd
❑ NC Geoioglcal Survey Section Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new applications and modification reo[ueot5 that add land to the permit)
❑ Division of Archives & History Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new a plications)
Xother: `� Date: Routed Rec'd
-4Addr-� N 11M�
Suspense Date for Comments: 0 (no later than 25 days
from receipt)
Please note the following:
All

-Al a
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
MEMORANDUM
February 2, 2006
TO: Mr. Peter M. Benjamin
Application Review Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FROM: Brenda M. Harris
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
�C F7V-, 13
FEB 0 6 2006
[FEB
Resources-- ----
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F, Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining application request for
the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by February 27, 2006 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment control
measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. PLEASE RETURN ALL
APPLICATION MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS
OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
/bmh
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 I FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

AGla .
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, R.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist February 2, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. Steve Everhart
Habitat Conservation Program Coordinator
Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Brenda M. Harri
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
Resources
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit application
request for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by February 27, 2006 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment control
measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. RETURN ALL APPLICATION
MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
Ibmh
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 -919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27804

_k
soot t � ���
MINING CHECKLIST F01� POUTING
Applicant's Name: d/' oject Name:
, ARWLA)LQ
- MPI
Applic./Permit No.: County: VAII Date Received:
Reviewer4 1
River Basin Name: Ou2taxv-)
KNew ❑ Renewal El Modification {Inside permit boundaries}
J odification (outside permit boundaries) ❑Transfer ❑ Release
❑ Partial Release i Additional Information ❑ Fee Needed: $
E, Fee Received: $
I
' Regional Office (2 complete copies; attach the "LQS Regional
Office Mi ing Ap lication Review Checklist" to one copy and attach bath the DWQ and DAQ
"Mining Appiication Review Form" to the other copy; send bath copie to ,t�h/e Kc,3ional Engineer)
Date: Routed Rec'd
Division of Water Resources Date: Routed Rec'd
0 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Date: Routed Rec'd
0 US Fish & Wildlife Service Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new applications and modification rcque5t5 that add land to the permit)
r
❑ Division of Parks & Recreation Date: Routed Rec'd
lu NC Geological Survey Section Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new applications and modification reque5t5 that add land to the permit)
Division of Archives & History Date: Routed Rec'd _
(Only new applications)
❑ Other.
Date: Ro uted Rec'd
"5u5pen5e Date for Comments: (no later than 25 days
from receipt)
Please note the following:
g

APPLICATION FOR A NUNING PERMIT JA�
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION -
I; � ._., an applicant, or an agent, or employee of an applicant, for a new
Mining Permit, br a modification of an existing Mining Permit to add laud to the permitted area, from the N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, being first duly sworn, do hereby attest that the following
are all known owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the mining permit
boundary (including, where an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of
the mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts, that are within 1,000 feet of the mining permit
boundary) and that notice of the pending application has been caused to be mailed, by certified or registered mail,
to said owners of record at their addresses shown below, such notice being given on a form provided by the
Department:
(Adjoining Landow r Name) (Address)
41
CA (%tach additional list if necessary)
I do also attest that the following individual is the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality.
in which any part of the permitted area is located and that notice of the pending application has been caused to
be mailed, by certified or registered mail, to said office at the following address: --
(Chief Administrative Officer Name) (Address)
[City Manager, County Manager, Mayor, etc.] r
kv- C 2L Yt l
The above attestation was made by me while under oath to provide proof satisfactory to the Department that
a reasonable effort has been made to notify all known owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of
land that are adjoining the mining permit boundary (including, where an adjoining tract is owned or leased by
the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts, that
are within 1,000 feet of the mining permit boundary) and the chief administrative officer of the county or
municipality in which any part of the permitted area is located in compliance with N.C.G.S. 74-50(bl) and 15A
NCAC 5B .0004(d). I understand that it is the responsibility of the applicant to retain the receipts of mailing
showing that the above notices were caused to be mailed and to provide them to the Department upon request.
Signature of Applicant or Agent Date
If person executing Affidavit is an agent or employee of an applicant, provide the following information:
�� L /1
(Name of applicant) ,.^�� c -� v'��-*�!..,_._; (title of person executing -
Affidavit)
I, �. E:,,�l� ni 6a L 6 rla( , a Notary Public of the County of _Pe, d � � , State of North
Carolina, do hereby certify that Q e d i eenL _ Ur 1_1 61 personally appeared
before me this day and under oath acknowledged that the above Affidavit was made by him/her.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this �� day of I-i n i 6 / 1 , 20 n e
Notary: - ,P t c My Commission expires. 1 � 0 i o
-17-

Page 2 of 2
ISRAT pO
A cl A3cyv--t A - e- s s
MEL--
r-
sr -/ C) 3
r� 1 11�6 fyi CY v rl-j c
G LA r� c
2) Mc a / -s t,
http-.Ilv,,ww.undersys.com/scripts/testadv/Usiwebnp4.dll/usi?formis=ptmap&MouseX--O&... 10/25/2005

. A
A
NCDENK
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist 1 November 30, 2005
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7003 0500 0002 0451 3970
Mr. Stephen Holland
Shelter Creek Quarry LLC
8315 Highway 53 East
Burgaw, North Carolina 27614
RE: Shelter Creep Quarry LLC Mine
Pender County
Cape Far River Basin
Dear Mr. Holland:
RECEIVED
DEC u 9 z0O
Natural Reso Tis
Michael F. Easley, Govemcr
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
We have reviewed the application you submitted for the referenced mine site. However,
the following information is needed to continue processing your application:
Please find enclosed comments from the US Fish and Wildlife Services and the
NC Natural Heritage Program. Please address their concerns, including the
concerns regarding conducting the endangered species study, impacts to
wetland because of pit dewatering and specific buffers to wetlands and
waterways. In addition, please explain how wetlands will not be drained from the
mine dewatering. Include wetland monitoring plans, pump plans, discharge
outfall monitoring plans and reference sites as per the Division of Water Quality
requirements_
2. Specify the actual buffer distances on the mine map. All buffers along wetlands
must remain undisturbed.
3. Provide access to the level spreader system on the mine map and include this
acreage within the affected acreage.
4. Please complete the enclosed page 5 of the application. Include the access
required in No. 3 above.
5. Indicate on the mine map the screening berms along Hwy. 53 and the associated
sediment and erosion control measures used to prevent offsite sedimentation.
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, Forth Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604
An Egial Opportunity l Af �rmative Ac,ion ;Emptoyer Recyc:ed 110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Holland
Page 3
6. More detail is needed regarding the settling ponds for the processing plant.
Indicate on the mine map the location of said ponds and provide a construction
detail and supporting calculations for any spillways.
7. Provide proof, such as the signed return receipt from certified mail, that the
county manager has been notified.
8. The Phase 1 Quarry Cross Section indicates a vertical highwall will be left along
the interior highwall. A vertical slope along the pit edge will not be permitted
because of safety reasons. A minimum 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter slope
will be required in any overburden cut slope. Please revise the cross section to
reflect a safer slope to the water.
9. Provide supporting calculations for the riser/barrel system for the level spreader
area. All spillways must pass at a minimum a 25 year 24 hour storm event, have
a minimum 1800 foot sediment storage capacity and provide a 70% settling
efficiency. In addition, provide more detail and construction sequence for the
construction of the level spreaders. Include details on how you intend to prevent
sedimentation of the wetland area.
Please be advised that our review cannot be completed until all of the items listed
above have been fully addressed. In addition, please note the Land Quality Section may
request additional information, not included in this letter, as the mining application review
progresses.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward four (4) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 5B.0013, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days
from the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are
unable to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information,
in writing, to the Director clearly indicating why!the deadline can not be met and! request that
an extension of time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made
to grant or deny the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's
files at the end of the 180-day period.
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as
possible. Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner.

Mr. Holland
Page 3
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any. questions.
Sincerely,
n ! n
.:f
.Yudith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Enclosures- USFWS' Comments =
NC NHP Comments
Page 5 of the application
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, PE, wlenclosures

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ralei,h Field Office
Post Office Box 33 726
Ralei_h. North Carolina 17636-37,6
November 23, 2005
-lr. lames D. Simmons
Director and State Geologist
NCDENR-Division of Land Resources
1612 ,'YEail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Attn: Brenda :'Y1. Harris
Dear Mr. Simmons:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the mining application dated November
2005, for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC. The applicant has applied for a new mining permit to mine
limestone, marl, and sand from 398 acres adjacent to wetlands and Holly Shelter Creek in the
Northeast Cape Fear River Basin in Pender County, North Carolina. This report is submitted in
accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d). and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) to be used M.
your public interest review relative to the protection of fish and wildlife resources.
Based on the information provided, the proposed mine would impact wetlands and waters of the U.S.
which are subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Due to the proximity of the proposed mine
site to the wetlands and Holly Shelter Creek, and the importance of these areas to the health of the
iortheast Cape Fear River Basin, the Service recommends that any mining permit for the proposed
activity be conditioned to require appropriate buffers along all streams, natural watercourses and
wetlands. Anv wastewater discharged from the proposed mine must be treated appropriately before
leaving the mine site and the appropriate state permits obtained. Additionally, any anticipated
impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. from the proposed activity or future expansions of the mini
should be immediately coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. an;
the appropriate federal permits obtained prior to the commencement of work. Compensatory
mitigation, including avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams would likely
be required.
The proposed mine site may contain suitable habitat,for the federally endangered red -cockaded
woodpecker, Picoides borealis, (RCW) and element occurrence data indicates that the species is
known from this region of Pender County. Several federally threatened or endangered plants are also
known from Pender County and they include rough -leaved loosestrife, Lysimachia aspendeafolia.
American chaffseed, Schwalbea americana, , and Cooley's meadowrue, Thalictnun cooleyi. These
species are protected by federal law. Therefore, for projects of this magnitude, the Service
recommends that surveys be conducted for suitable habitat for the red -cockaded woodpecker, or the
potential presence of the red -cockaded woodpecker on, or near the proposed mine site. We also
recommend that the applicant survey for protected plant species that may occur on the proposed min"
site during appropriate times of the year. The applicant may prepare a biological assessment

describing the existing habitat and the potential for impacts to federally protected species from the
proposed activity.
Due to the nature and scale of the proposed mine expansion and the importance of the habitats
potentially impacted, the Service recommends the following measures be incorporated into any
mining permit issued for the proposed work to reduce potentially significant adverse impacts to Fish
and wildlife trust resources:
We have coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission concerninv
appropriate stream and wetland buffers to protect unique and important aquatic habitats. To
reduce impacts to streams and aquatic resources, we recommend a minimum 200-foot
undisturbed forested buffer be required along all perennial streams and a minimum €00-foot
undisturbed forested buffer be required along intermittent streams and wetlands.
Sediment and erosion control measures should also be required and -'maintained to protect
the water quality in Holly Shelter Creek.
We recommend that the applicant demonstrate avoidance of impacts to streams. wetlands.
and buffer areas where practicable when planning any furore expansions of the mine.
4. Point source discharges should be proportional to the size of the receiving stream so that the
hydrology of the stream is not compromised, and all discharges should meet or exc,-ed
NPDES permit standards. Excessive water discharge rates and increased turbidity can
negatively impact sensitive aquatic species, aquatic habitats, and water quality.
We recommend vegetative planting using seed mixtures that are valuable to wildlife. such e_
native, warm season grasses. We refer the applicant to the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission for reclamation ideas for native wildlife.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the subject mining permit application. If you
have any questions regarding this information, please contact Vlr. VIark D. Bowers of my staff at
[phone] (Ext. 19) or at the above address.
I�i13�::
cc: NViFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh, NC
USACE, Wilmington, NC
Sincerely,
7yie 14 0,
Pete Benjamin
Ecological Services Supervisor

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
November 18, 2005
James D. Simons, Director
Division of Land Resources
1612 Mail Services Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Simons:
illiam G. Ross Jr., Secretary
f
f
In reviewing the mining permit application for Shelter Creek LLC, the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program has some concerns and questions regarding impacts from the proposed Shelter
Creek Quarry to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems:
Impacts to Groundwater and Wetlands
In the past, the Natural Heritage Program has expressed concerns about effects of groundwater
withdrawal on wetlands and associated natural communities and rare species (e.g "The Sedges'
at Buxton Woods or limesink ponds close to MOTSU). This proposed quarry lies near and
between large natural area complexes, and we are concerned that both water withdrawal and
discharge could have impacts on these nearby natural areas and rare species populations. We are
particularly concerned about impacts from the groundwater cone of depression, and from
discharges of clarified pit seepage and storrnwater.
The application notes that "The water from the pit is anticipated to range from 0.5 -'vIGD at the
beginning of each phase to 2.0 MGD as the phase enlarges and nears completion." However, the
application does not describe the impacts to groundwater. We recommend an engineering
estimate of the maximum radius of the cone of depression during normal and extreme droughts
prior to permit approval. We also recommend, in cooperation with DENR and others, that a
water -level monitoring network be established to monitor the development and reach of the cone
of depression.
It is important to insure that the cone of depression does not impact nearby natural areas, such as
Angola Bay Game Land, The Neck Savanna, or Shelter Swamp Creek (all within two miles of
the proposed' quarry). All wetlands associated with these natural areas are dependent on
groundwater. There are active efforts underway to conserve and protect North Carolina's native
biodiversity in this region, and these natural areas are an integral part of that task. With
proximity to Atlantic Ocean, there would seem to be some risk of saltwater intrusion as well.
We strongly recommend that monitoring wells be a condition of the permit. .
1601 Mail Service Center, Raidgh, North Carolina 27699-1601 One
Phone: [phone] • FAX: [phone] • Internet:-.vmi.enrstale. M.us NorrhCa+riolliina
.fin Equal Cpportunity' Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Rec/ded • 10 9, Post Consumer Paoer lVattz �il`y

Impacts to Shelter Creels
We recommend that the application provide information about the possible impacts on the water
quality and the aquatic ecosystem of Shelter Creek. The potential for ecological damage from
water withdrawal and discharge are important concerns, for they may impact miles of the Shelter
Creek system, not just a small area in and around the project site. We are concerned about
possible impacts from the proposed quarry operation through overland flaw or wastewater
discharge. The application notes that no General NPDES Permit will be sought to discharge to
the waters of the State. The project instead plans to discharge, via a level spreader, into a 100-
plus acre natural wetland from a man-made lake. The wetland is contiguous to the floodplain of
Shelter Creek, and effluent could quickly make its way to Shelter Creek. What impact to
baseflow of Shelter Creek will the proposed project have? What impact on aquatic systems will
change in baseflow have? To what degree will water discharged from quarry operations diner in
temperature, chemistry, pH, or nutrient levels from natural groundwater in the vicinity? What
effects could these changes in water quality have on aquatic systems2.-, Fdr baseline purposes, we
recommend conducting biological inventory of Shelter Creek, and obtaining detailed, information
on the stream's physical conditions as well. We also recommend water quality monitoring wells
be placed where groundwater discharges into Shelter Creek from wetlands receiving clarif ed pit
seepage and stormwater.
Soils
In section C.9 of the worth Carolina ✓lining Permit Application, the applicant is asked: "Are acid
producing minerals or soils present?", to which the applicant responded "No." According to the
Pender County USDA Soil Survey, Baymeade, Foreston, and Woodington appear to be the
dominant soil types in the proposed mine area. The survey rates their acidity as follows
(assuming lime has not been added to the surface):
Baymeade: very strongly to slightly acid
Foreston: very strongly to medium acid
Woodington: extremely to strongly acid
Private Wells
In section 3.c of the mining permit application the applicant states that "Private wells are not
located within a mile of quarry operations." At section C.11, the applicant states "The nearest
occupied dwelling is east of the mining operation at 2000'." How does this dwelling get its
water?
We look forward to receiving addiitonal information about the possible impacts of this mine.
Please contact me at 919-71 5-8696 if I can provide more information.
Sincerely, /
J �f
Scott Pohlman
Cc: Steve Everhart, Wildlife Resources Commission

APPLICATION FOR a MINING PEM IIT
A table/chart must be provided on the mine map that clearly lists the approximate acreage or
tailings/sediment ponds, stockpiles, wastepiles, processing area/haul roads, mine excavation and any other
major aspect of the rrunin7 operation that is proposed to be affected/disturbed during the life of the training
permit. A table/chart similar to the following will be acceptable:
CATEGORY AFFECTED ACREAGE
Tailings/Sediment Ponds
Stockpiles
Wastepiles
Processing Area/Haul Roads
Mine Excavation
Other
�l IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, THE MAPS iVfUST ALSO INCLUDE ANY SITE -
SPECIFIC INFORIMATION THAT IS PROVIDED IN THE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS IN THIS APPLICATION FORM (PLEASE NOTE THE ITALICIZED
OUESTIONSISTATEIMENTS THROUGHOUT THE FORM). THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE
CONSIDERED COMPLETE 'WITHOUT ALL RELEVANT ITEMS BEING ADEQUATELY
ADDRESSED ON THE -MINE MAPS.

.,
•.f f,-
Q
Postage
S
Q
Certifled Fee
-,
13427
M , yl!
Q
Retrm Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
1
1�
Ham
!
d
❑`
Restricted DeWory Fee
{Ertdarsement AeG�7ed)
-
rlj,lfj
M
a
Total Postage & Fees
111f 2d{?ti0q,
�4 . t?
Ln
O
Q
Senr
..........
or POamm.
f'
Elm
ra
a -
'�.,'
mxr r71�7
Postage
S
CortifledFee '?,31} IjL7.�i
d _
a Return Receipr Fee 1!'i Postmark
(Endorsement Required) + / 5 Here
Q RBstri&od Delivery Fee
fTi
Er'(Endcrsomerit Required)
Q Toter Past age 6 Fees , +2 ! ! t fQ/?I1i15
L0
O ent
f7 �
arx. Na;
or PC Bar No. %Q
Ci - - r'
ry tar uP+4 JJ
m
Postage ri, ij, 37
Q Certifled Fee
C1 Postmark
C3 Retum Receipt Fee :l , i ri Hera
(Endorsement Required)
Q RestrlCteo Delivery Fee
[' (Endorsement Required)
fTl 1)
O
Iota! Postage &Foes y , t PC
Ln
[:j son) To
lfl-'�. _ ------ ---- '---c--- ......
1` .rilriEiei. apt. tip• f r jF fi
..................
or PO...
------- -
Cr
.A
MM
7�-�Onw-,' F, I A L tiJ 'S E
W
lit V
Q Postage
QCeriftc! Foe
�
Q Fee
t!. PQSrrnark
Here
;
(EndarsamenRt Required)
rI •
n Raetrlctgd D.Rv.ry, Fee
a- (Endorsement Required)
i OXI
m
a Total Postage a Fees
u'1
-
or Po Bar No. 3U•'�
------------------
L. �7 f/� �n r�
_
C+✓5: Sta r Z1Pr-4
I
,:CERTIFIED-.MAIL M�RECEIF
k(Dainm Wti MailVtely; Nolnaumoe'64 t
m
C]
Pos age
5
{Fl 77
� Certified Fee
!'
a
Q
Retum Receipt Fee
(Endorsement Required)
P05ttrark
Hera
�. + I3
url
RostrictedDelivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
=3J•1;3
f
Q
Total Postage & Fees
.., _ . .
, " •
t.rl
t�
d
Sent j
!. Ht
R
/I
scree, ayc a.; _ C
ar Pt7 Floor ...
cry :, z1P
'rl 7 U�
to
e r
d
Postage
$ s.l
b:aU'1
Q CertitladFea
Q
R
RetUm Receipt Fee
�t7
Postmark
Ffere
(Endorsement Required)
Q
I r
Restricted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
Tdiat Postage &Foes
L1
p
Sent
$deer, Apt. No.:
prPO------ ................
-
-•----•--
C.rY Sfara, a4

Shelter Creek Quarry
m
Subject: Shelter Creek Quarry
From: Ed Beck <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 14:31:54 -0500
To: Noelle Lutheran <Noelle. Lutheran cr ncmail.net>, Wes Hare <[e-mail]>
Noelle
Do you still have a file on this project? What is the status of the review of
proposals from the consultant who had ideas for a wetland rewetting system?
Wes
Please get the mining permit file from DDQ and get together with Noelle to consider
if we need to make stronger comments on the mining permit issuance. Has an
application been submitted for NCG coverage?
Lets discuss it.
Thanks
Ed
A
�jiMS 7�nE5 NoT 5lkw ANY/ I(fq
pe-E yr 6-0) �2 Tit l 5 oc,9 e/ G / T y
1/11/2006 11:47 AM i,-

MINING CHECKLIST FOR ROUTIN NONO
� T �0�'
/BY�1:/
Applicant's Name: :'�u ,1�, � sir � P oject Name: ``.l2 elbI (L'JJ
Applic./Permit No.:1��ys County: •z�cl� Date Received: ! /
Reviewer: _ River Basin Name:
�Crlw ❑ Renewal 0 Modification (inside permit boundaries)
p Modification (outside permit oundaries) ❑ Transfer 0 Release
❑ Partial Release � dditional Information u Fee Needed: $
❑ Fee Received: $
n
r` A Regional Office (2 complete copies; attach the "LQ5 Regional
cc Mining ApIllication Review Checklist" to one copy and attach hQlh the DWQ and DAQ
"Mining Appiication Review Form" to the other copy; send bath copies to the Regional Engineer)
Date: Routed Rec'd
CI Division of Water Resources Date: Routed Rec'd
❑ NC Wildlife Resources Commission Date: Routed Rec'd
0 U5 Fish & Wildlife Service Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new applications and modification requests that add land to the permit)
Pow rant& fire 3_naes of the amli=ion and any location malt :
C Division of Park!5 & Recreation Date: Routed Rec'd
NC Geological Survey Section Date: Routed Rec'd _
(Only new applications and modification requests that add land to the permit)
Ci Division of Archives & History Date: Routed Rec'd
(Only new applications)
❑ Other:
Date: Routed Rec'd
"5uopenoc Date for Comments: -.& A Pt' c - o later than 25 days
from receipt)
lease note the following:
,ft 6" ?

SENDER:! •N COMeLUTE THIS SECTroNON DELIVERY
{ ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Sj
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X �,1 ❑ Age
m
■ Printyoui llama and address on the reverse 1 \ ' � i�Addressee
so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by (Printed Name) C D,pte�dS
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, /1 j
cr on the front if space permits. V
1. Article Addressed to: D. Is deavery address different from item 17 ❑ Yes
If YES, enter dellvery address below: ❑ No
Z 5 U dl.�✓ S .� !
C -} f� (�, Certified Maf1 ❑ Express Mail i
RagFstergd ❑ Return Receipt for Mernhandi i
0 Insured Mail © C.O.D.
4. Restricted0elivery4 Xxtra Fee) 12 Yes
irtiGehlurrtber =? -.7005 0390' �0004 0317 _4869
serer hW
orm 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M4540
COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. .C� ❑ Agent
■ Print your name and address on the reverse X ,7 ED Addressee '
so that we can return the card to you. B. Rocely rated Name) y� Delivery ;
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front d space permits.
D. is d add it I? ❑ e6s
!. Article Addressed to:
- It YES, anter delivery address below: ❑ No
�Ico Type
1. 'jr�:o�l 3 Certified Mail it Express Mall
❑ Registered 0 Return Receipt for Marchand.
❑ lmwred Mail ❑ C.O.D.
4. _Restricted Delivery? (F" Foe) ._— . 3 Yes
4rdcle ; --
Trans
1 GoresSENDER: COMPLETE THIS :59 r82-M-1'
SECTION
ONVERY
■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3' Also complete A S
item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse X Q Agen�
so that we can return the card to you. 0 Addre_
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpieco, _ B Received by (Ainr©dName] C. Da of
or on the front if space permits.
i. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from ttem 1 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below ❑ No
170� fv�s�
3 ice Type —
�' Y ed Mal ❑ Express Ma l
I � Rag?stamd ❑ Return Receipt for Merctrandi+
�](,� ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C,O,D,
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑Yes
Artrde Number 7 0 0 $—� -
(Transrer rmm service !a 0 3 9 0 r3 0 0 4 0 317 4 8$ 3
3 Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt—
._102595-02-

/■I Fiji
STEPHEN HOLLAND
8315 HWY 53 EAST
BURGAW NC, 28425 --
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
6UR284.NC
7005 D 3 9 i] b D [l 4 uN,raosruT�s OCT 26 , 0S
317 4890 "'� '� AMOUNT
28403 $19200056757-02
BRUCE R. RI ENBAC . lst��i�e_�-�
219 RACIN Q VE 2nd �i4tiCe__---�-.
WILMINGT -
A i INSUFFICIENT ADnur
r.
■ Complete itemO , 2, and 3. Also complete
Item 4 it ReSM. 6ted Delivery Is desired.
• Prfnt your riffne and address on the reverse
so that we dn return the card to you.
■ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1.. Articfe'Addressed to:
e
�C ' LiATTEMPTED NOT KNO00
WNSTREET OTHER
�S ❑ NOT DELIVERABLE NUMBER/0 NO SUCH ❑ S ADDRESSED
- UNABLE TO FORWARD
A A
A. Signature
x E3 Agent
0 Addream:
B. Received by ( Printed Name) C. Date of Dwtmn
D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No
rvlCe Type I
Certlfled Mall ❑ Express Mail
Registered ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mall ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 70D5 D390 DDD4 0317 4890
(transfer from Service label)
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 10259"2-14-1840

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
11 FA ►l•G,.\O 1/
Land Quality Section
November 1, 2005
TO- Dr. Steve Everhart
Habitat Conservation Program Coordinator
Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM- Brenda M. Harris
AWA--
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit application
request for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by November 23, 2005 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment control
measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. RETURN ALL APPLICATION
MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 -919-733-4574 I FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., F.E.
Director and State Geologist November 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Nat Wilson
Hydrogeology Group
Division of Water Resources
FROM: Brenda M. Harris
Mining Program Secfetary
Land Quality Section
Resources
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
® Mine Dewatering Proposed ❑ No Mine Dewatering Proposed
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit modification
request for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on November 23, 2005 so that we may complete our
review of this request within our statutory time limits.
Any comments your agency can provide regarding potential effects on potable
groundwater supplies and groundwater quality will be appreciated. We would like to
have any -recommendations you may provide for permit conditions, for reasonable
protection of groundwater quantity or quality.
If your staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they
contact the person submitting this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also,
please send a copy of your comments to the person noted in the application.
PLEASE RETURN ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR
REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS OFFICE.
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
Ibmh
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 I FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
November 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Lewis Ledford, Director
Division of Parks and Recreation
FROM: Brenda M. Harris
Mining Program etary
Land Quality Section
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining application request for
the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly. November 23, 2005 so that we may complete our review of this request
within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment control
measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
publicly owned parks, forests or recreation areas would be greatly appreciated. If your
staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the
person submitting this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send
a copy of your comments to the person noted in the application. RETURN ALL
APPLICATION MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service' Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
MEMORANDUM
November 1, 2005
TO: Mr. Peter M. Benjamin
Application Review Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FROM: Brenda M. Harris RWVA-�
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
Naturai Resources
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining application request for
the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)).
Please respond by November 23, 2005 so that we may complete our review of this
request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office,will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment control
measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to
perform a site inspection, it is recommended that they contact the person submitting
this request to set up a convenient date and time. Also, please send a copy of your
comments to the person noted in the application. PLEASE RETURN ALL
APPLICATION MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS
'A32044
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
Ibmh
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E. November 1, 2005
Director and State Geologist
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms_ Renee Gledhill -Earley
Application Review Coordinator
Archives & History
FROM: Brenda M. Harris
65;�E�
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter'Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Govemor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining application request for
the above referenced project.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment control
measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site
sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on
significant archeological resources and/or Duman skeletal remains would be greatly
appreciated. If your staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it is recommended that
they contact the person submitting this request to set up a convenient date and time.
Also, please send a copy of your comments to the person noted in the application.
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
/bmh
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 •919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

A�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist November 1, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. Mike Street, Chief
Habitat Protection Section
Division of Marine Fisheries
FROM: Brenda M. Harr'
Mining Program Secretary
Land Quality Section
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Application for Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC
Shelter Creek Quarry
Pender County
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Please find attached for your review a copy of the mining permit application request
for the above referenced project.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this operation
having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries (G.S. 74-51 (2)). Please
respond by November 23, 2005 so that we may complete our review of this request within
our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals and
modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and sediment control
measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain erosion and off -site sedimentation.
However, any comments your agency can provide regarding effects on wildlife and marine
fisheries would be greatly appreciated, If your staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it is
recommended that they contact the person submitting this request to set up a convenient
date and time. Also, please send a copy of your comments to the person noted in the
application. RETURN ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS AND MAPS WITH YOUR
REVIEW COMMENTS TO THIS OFFICE..
Your continued cooperation is greatly appreciated. Please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner at [phone] if you have any questions.
Ibmh
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 -919-733-4574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604

NCGS Mine Permit Application Review Checksheet
Application ID J LOS Complete This Section Attach Pages 1-3 of Mine Permit Application
hUne Name / , Company Name
Date Due LOS Permit T . _.
ype: New -Renewal
Modification - Transfer;
NCGS Complete This Section
Commodity Geochemistry
Hazardous
County Minerals
7.5' Quad Subsidence
Lat(DecDeg)
Long (DecDeg) Slope Stability
1985 Geologic
Map Unit Seismic Hazard
Hydrogeology,
Other
Geologic Map
Unit Mineral
Resources
Lithology: — -
Flood Plain
Deposits
Comments
Comments
(Cont'd)
Note: Seismic hazard value is the peak horizontal acceleration with a 10% chance of exceedence in 50 years. Reference
value is firm bedrock, actual site conditions may vary. Source - National Seismic Hazard Maps Documentation, June 1996,
U. S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 96-532 (httpllgIdmapSA1.cr.usgs.gov/saishaz/pgal0.html).
Record No 13000 Reviewed Comp[Datet F—
Reviewed2 I ComplDate2 �
NCGS Mine Review Checksheet-Database Rev. 2 11/28100

077- 46-10.00"
F
W, P77' 45'1
10.00" W1 077' 44-10.00"
W,
am
War
IN
z
7
X
F,
M
z
�3
Clt
1 1 1
ji
'Ite�i
z
C3
h e ry
creek quarry
C!
0
A.
- am I
—
b./
to
CD
am t �j
-4
%
IN
f,
2
7
h
z------
ISM
—4-N
C,
.40'
'077- 46�0.00" W '077- 45-10.00"
077- 44-10.00"
Name: PIN HOOK Location: 034* 38'05.9" N 077' 45'04.7" W
Date: 10/31/2005
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Copynght (C) 1997. Maptech, Inc.

Z 4—n-i , e b k J-r ..i I
Vwl V
'A
'e'
."SHELTER: CREEWQUARRYLLC,i
ter'/x
'C.,'H0LLANb`,-
TEPHE S W ""e, e,
N,'
741531
X,\8�15 C'HWY, 53 -EAST",
\'.BURGAWlNCP'l28425/% -13
0.5 83
/
TO TH
•ORDE 0
-7 -DOLLARS
r Sao
qg
or
E FREEMONT STREET OFFICE'
BUAGAW,
FOR AP
NORTH CAROLINA
1.
1:

APPLICATION FOR A MIMING PERMIT ZeN,
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION O1, C. Jan applicant, or an agent, or employee of an w Mi ing
?et�rtit, or a mod frcation of an existing Mining Permit to add land to the permitted area, from!p lent
of Environment and Natural Resources, being first duly sworn, do hereby attest that the following are all known
owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the mining permit boundary
(including, where an adjoining tract is owned or ]eased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the mine tract,
all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts, that are within 1,000 feet of the mining permit boundary) and
that notice of the pending application has been caused to be mailed, by certified or registered mail, to said ok ners of
record at their addresses shown below-, such notice being given on a form provided by the Department:
(Adjoining Landowner Name) (Address)
(Attach additional list if necessar)i)
I do afso attest that the following individual is the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality in
which any part of the permitted area is located and that notice of the pending application has been caused to be
mailed, by certified or registered rail, to said office at the following address--
(Chief Administrative Officer Naive)
[City Manager, County Manager, Mayor, etc.],
M�'� irr�-s►� PEA irr�,e s/
,t el((Address)
u � r f
O v
13t4 t.rqa-ck) , IfId .Z ff �",2 S-
The above attestation was made by me while under oath to provide proof satisfactory to the Department that a
reasonable effort has been made to notify all known owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land
that are adjoining the mining permit boundary (including, where an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the
applicant or is owned by the lessor of the mine tract, all owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts, that are
within 1,000 feet of the mining permit boundary) and the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality ill
which any part of the permitted area is located in compliance with N.C_G.S_ 74-50(bl) and 15A NCAC 5B .M04(d).
1 understand that it is the responsibility of the applicant to retain the receipts of mailing showing that the above
notices were causal to he ,nailed and to provide Ifrern to the Department upon request.
ignature of Applicant or Agent
Z
Date
if person executing Affidavit is an age�tt or employee of a3� applicant, rovide the following informaiic�n
(Name of applicant) {title of person executing Affidavit}
I, a Nolary Public
((ofthe County of 6 jvL , Stet"
of North Carolina, do licreby certify that_4 l-CIr V'el ` 1` IS � 1
appeared before me this day and under oath acknowledged that the above Affidavit was made by hinr/her
W
Notary
IV
i
7

APPLICATION FOR A !►'LINING PERMIT
G. 'LAND ENTRY AGREEMENT
We hereby grant to the Department or its appointed representatives the right of entry and travel upon our lands
or operation during regular business hours for the purpose of making necessary field inspections or investigations as
may be reasonably required in the administration of the Mining Act of 1971.
We further grant to the Department or its appointed representatives the right to make whatever entries on the
land as may be reasonably necessary and to take whatever actions as may be reasonably necessary in order to carry
out reclamation which the operator has failed to complete in the event a bond forfeiture is ordered pursuant to G.S.
74-Sri.
LANDOWNER: APPLICANT:
Signature: Signature:*
Print Name: o d Print Name: I tr7 a
Address: '2 3 I S
�J!A,r a�,3 d 27G14
Telephone. l/D -
Title: _.. 6WMer
Company: 2a Crew -
Mine Ofwalerq
"Signature must be the same as the individual who signed Page I of this application.
6) conies of
C) copies of all location maps, mine maps and reclamation
m_Vs,_and the appropriate processing fee (see next page for fee schedule) in the form a check or money order
payable to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources must be sent to the Land
Quality Section Central Office at the address listed on the front cover of this application form.
Inquiries regarding the status of the review of this application should be directed to the Mining Program staff at
[phone].

m< ❑
Qa ) `a r � z0
f■ '■■
ci
O
r
a
m�
J
zJ
ti
c
y
irs
)
rr
Y
d x
m
o
9
0
R
E o
u� CL U
2
ru
U-)
ro
F�
❑
¢
M
cn
,r
Q
:.
LJ
�
m a
V
E lu:iroCD
�
1
1�
° -5
l
� c
th
A
U
CO M
F
•
cD
O >�i
s
m
«2 .L
Ir
"
pEpEC.b
Ufa �iC o
Q \ n
"-
f 1 ■
V �
V.i
,.�
"�`
1►
��
yx
�. 1
o g s
11 ¢
z
Om r
V:+`v
a
>: €
�'
'
07
cc�I
w o�`a
O a
it3
ET6h L-TEO h000
06E0
9001
CD
C7
Cr
IT)
C]
U-1
M
H
E
TI
m
N
a
d
Cr
tr
U
■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3- Also complete
item 4 if Fiestricted Dellory is desired.
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to yau.
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpioca,
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:
�'vv,/
r
A- Sig urG ❑ Agent
x ID Addressee
B . eivad y (P n d Name)
C. Date of Delivery
S 14&
D. Is delivery address different from item 17 0 Yes
It YES. enter delivery address below: 0 No
r
e TypertifiedMall ❑ Express Mail
gisterod ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise
❑ Insured Mall ❑ C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes
2. Article Number 7005 0090 0004 0317 4913
(F7ansforfrom service 18b 102535-62-ttAW
Domestic Return Receipt
PS Form 3811, February 2004
SECTION
■ Complete Items 1, 2, pnd 3. Also complete
item 4 If Restricted Delivery is desired,
■ Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you,
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
1. MIde Addressed to:
I ),(r /-/IV //
COMPLETE THiS.SECTIONON DELIVERY
A. SiAnaAgent
X
© Addressee
B. Ry (Printed Nant
Date of Delivery
D. is delivery address diffekht from Rem 17
❑ Yes
It YES, enter delivery address below:
U No
3. rvioe Type
rtified Mail 0 Express Mail
C1 Registered ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise
Insured all © C.O,D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee}
❑ Yes
2. Article Number, , - . , l
:7flns fl39[1 QaQ4 a�1�7 y87'S
(Pansfei fnoin s.8 v1 a 1ebeq
PS Form 3811, February 2nn4 ncrnea4tc Ra'.1^n Receipt 102595-02-M-1"0

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 200400613 County: Pender U.S.G.S, Quad: Maple Hill`
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Steve Holland
Address: 8315 Highway 53 East,
Burgaw, NC 27614
Telephone No.: [phone]
Agent: Mike Ortosky
Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Ralei h NC 27614
[phone]
Property description:
Size (acres)
398 acres
Nearest Town Maple Hiller
Nearest Waterway
Holly Shelter Creek
River Basin Cape Fear River
USGS HUC
03030007
Coordinates N 34.6399 W 77.7444
Location description The
property is located ad'acent to Holly Shelter Creek on the south side of Hwy
53 approximately
3 miles west of the intersection of Hwy 53 and Hwy
50, west of Maple Hill, Fender County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the FolIowin A 1 :
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands on the above described proverty subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act CWA 33 USC 1344). Unless there is a chap a in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon fora period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
X The wetlands have been delineated and surveXed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on October 3, 2005. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period „not to exceed five Years fromthe date of this
notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subiect to reeulation under the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Wilminaton, NC at [phone] to
determine their re uirements.
Page 1 of 2

Action ID: 200400613
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Lillette Granade at (910) 2514829.
Basis For Determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual
and is adjacent to Holly Shelter Creek, a tributary of the Northeast Cape Fear River, a navi able water of the US.
Determination is based on information provided by Mike Ortoskv, of Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA and a
field visit by Lillette Granade on October 8 and December 12, 2004.
Remarks: There are five isolated wetland areas totafing 2.55 acres in size on the above describedyrouerty. These areas
are identified as Wetland Area AA 0.54 acres Wetland Area BB 0.24 acres Wetland Area C 0.11 acres Wetland
Area D 0.16 acres and Wetland Area T 1.5 acres on the attached wetland delineation survey. The Cor s of
En 'neers does not have jurisdiction over these areas. The State of North Carolina does have jurisdiction over these
wetlands and any activities in these wetlands are subject to the State's re ulations. Please contact Ms. C ndi Karol
with the North Carolina Division of Water Ouality at 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina
27609-2260 before doingy any work in these areas.
Corps Regulatory Official: d0A jgwzl,�Z�
Date October 3 2005 Expiration Date October 3 2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
• If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Page 2 of 2

1
���, �� O�LF�G�TION;OF'�iA�NII I R:A': ► PL+��L OPT ONS C�+ SS�AND �' ��
F, - :. «�$ � ! �S'i .F.A�A� � �-'# i,:�j�, ,fi
�.. 7;..,. .� • ',sC...".3's ,�
'R uy
.w
.Applicant: Steve Holland
File Number: 200400613
Date: October 3, 2005
Attached is: a si ned.wetland survey
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
ernus5ion)
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter ofpermission)
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
IISy1CTI4N IT!%ollowisngyr'd hfies yourziglits nd�oplions rdxing�adrriiiiistrative peal�+af4th`"essa2battv+e
,L1�:•+'A �'�gi�7iS a3'•�p
decsslon° �1�dd�tlonal.Infozxnation.ma be found5atyhttg//wv►ww usace-army rnFl/inet/fumctkons, ceewalreg;or
Ar
Co ' -ten, 1�`
s red _at_ionsatx33GFR_ Paart33I „„�`
___ _ 7 _yS. �� _.�, �. "SY: Ala• .�. ": i�.
A: INITLAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
Permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section Il of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
Permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section Il of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

7
E: PRELIN41NARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to the JD.
yreevaluate
C� •� �� , . - � ' �`3� . t.+glu .. -
fl Sk+f���'M'h •:y, ;.1 - �a} k�At`�' pit
5
TBCJ-EGTI :ON'
SEC:TI N iI ARE . ° .VEST F4R APPEAL or b . % 0 I_ TIA LwaPROFF RED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
�POINT�OF��CQNTgA"C-T;��F,ORd �.UES'TIQNS�QR�INFQR1v1A�Ti®N��`��
�.. �'�.
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.

INTRODUCED BY: Stephen Carpenter DATE: August 15, 2005
Permit 904-09-19-13
Permit#05-08-15-13R
ITEM NO:
Special Use Permit: Mining Operation, Shelter Creek, LLC (Revision)
SUBJECT: CASE NO: 04-08-05-I3
PROPERTY RECORD NO: 33115 & 33116
APPLICANT: Shelter Creek Quarry, LLC 9s'
OWNER: Yellow Lab Farm, LLC (Stephen C. Holland, Pre ident)&,
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of Special Use Permit for Mining Operation On
Approximately 380 Acres. (Revision) ti
*New Items -- Bold
*Deleted Items - n lie &<i -et
HISTORY/BACKGROUND.
Project Location: The project is located on the south east side of NC 53 approximately 3.5 miles south
west of the NC 53 and NC 50 intersection. The site is approximately 1 mile south west of the old
Maple HiII Quarry.
Project Description: The project will consist of excavation and mining on 252 acres of the 380 acre
site. The property contains 128 acres of protected wetlands that will not be excavated or disturbed.
Mining Type & Description — open pit mining techniques with portable equipment will be utilized.
The overburden will be removed and stored for one phase at a time and the excavation of marl and
limestone will progress for that phase. The initial mining cut into each phase of the project will utilize
explosives to make the initial pit opening. After the initial pit opening is made, it is anticipated that an
80 or 100 ton excavator will be used to mine rock material without explosives, if possible. After the
initial pit of each phase is established the primary crushing operation will be located in the pit for each
phase. The material will be carried by conveyor to a finishing plant located separately for phase one &
two and three & four.
Dewatering Activities — the operation will remove pit seepage and storm water from the operating
portion of the pit after it has aectnnulated and settled in a 20 ft. deep, 100 ft by 300 ft-
settling/clarification basin in the bottom of the pit. The water pumped from the pit is anticipated to
range from 0.5 MGD at the beginning of each phase to"2.0 MGD as the phase enlarges and nears
completion. The sump water will be pumped to a 5 plus acre man made lake that will discharge
clarified water to the adjacent wetlainds by a level spreader. Dewatering will not take place lower than
4-5 65 ft. below MSL. It is anticipated that no mining pit water will be discharged directly from the
property as a result of mining activities.
Depth of Mining — excavation of limestone in the pit will not exceed 38 60 ft. below MSL, except in
the sump clarification pit and it will be excavated to a depth of not lower than -58 80 ft. below MSL.
The completed and reclaimed lake areas will be finished with a bottom elevation of not less than 38 ft.
below MSL.
Project Schedule — it is anticipated that each phase of the project will be completed in 10 to 12 years
and the entire mining operation will be complete in 40 to 50 years.
Reclamation Schedule —The reclamation is anticipated to be complete as follows:
l . Completed reclamation of phases 1 and 2 including inundation of the excavated area will be
completed after mining activities are finished in those areas.
2. A fish habitat area will be constructed as part of the final reclamation of phase 2.
jcs pd sup (my does) shelcrkquar reso 2-04, rev 9-13-04 l of 6

Permit #04-09-19-13
P erniit#05-08-15 -13R
3. Completed reclamation of phases 3 and 4 including inundation of the excavated area will be
completed after mining activities are finished in those areas.
4. The entire property will be totally reclaimed immediately following the completion of mining
activities in phase 4.
Hours of Operation — operating hours are anticipated to be 5:30 AM to 9 PM, Monday through
Saturday.
Stated Reclamation Purpose: The property will be reclaimed in four phases as mining progresses for
residential development, recreational boating, fishing and other water sports, wildlife habitat and a
water supply storage facility.
Project History: Portions of the property has previously and is currently being used as timberlands,
agriculture and a hunting and shooting facility. There are no know zoning violations on the property.
EVALUATION:
A) Public Notifications: Advertisements for the proposal have been placed in the Topsail Voice and
Pender Post. Adjacent property owners were notified by first class mail. Special Use Permit signs
were posted on or near the proposed site.
B) Zoning Ordinance Compliance: The property is zoned I-2 and ruining as defined in GS 74-49 by
means of explosives, dewatering or excavation below sea level is allowed if a special use permit is
approved.
C) Land Use Plan Compliance: The 1991 Land Use Plan classifies the project area as Rural.
Agricultural, forestry, mineral extraction and other uses, are appropriate in the Rural
Classification. This project is consistent with the 1991 Land Use Plaii.
D) 20120 Growth Policies Consistency: The proposal is not inconsistent with the 20/20 Policies as
long as reasonable measures are taken in a timely manner to provide buffers and reclamation. The
reclamation plan and purpose should be compatible with existing uses and conditions on and in the
vicinity of the site and consistent with future plans and policies for the area. The reclamation
activities should be under taken in a timely manner and the activities and reclaimed site not pose
and nuisances or hazards to the area or community. Adequate security and buffers and green
space should be provided during and after completion of the mining activities.
E) Flood Hazard Ordinance Compliance: The proposal is in compliance with the Flood Hazard
Prevention Ordinance, since the only structure (restroom/maintenance building) on the site below
flood elevation existed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. New permanent structures must be
elevated two feet above existing grade.
F) Existing Laird Use In Area: Land uses adjacent to the property consist of one vacant residential
structure on the adjacent site to the north east, one additional residential structure within 2000 feet
of the site to the north east and the remaining area surrounding the site is agricultural and forestry
activities. A poultry operation is located approximately 0.75 miles to the north east of the site.
G) Site Access Conditions: The mining site and property will have direct access to a major
thoroughfare, NC 53. The access used by the mining operation is not through a residential area.
H) Pender County's Primary Interest.
1. Compatibility of the activity with the surrounding uses.
2. That the activity will not impair the integrity or character of the surrounding uses during operation
or upon closing or completion.
3. That the activity will not adversely affect the safety, health, morals or welfare of the immediate
area or community during operation or upon closing or completion.
4. Compatibility of the activity with surrounding zoning.
jcs pd sup (my does) shelerkquar reso 2-04, rev 9-13-04 2of 6

Permit #04-09-19-13
Perm it#05-08-15-13R
5. Hazards or nuisances that may be associated with the activity during operation or upon closing or
completion.
b. Adequacy of drainage and sanitation during operation and upon closing or completion.
7. Compatibility of the proposal with adopted plans and policies.
8. Adequate access to public thoroughfares for the activity,
9. That the activity will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable
regulations.
10. That the activity is located on a site controlled by the operator that is of sufficient size to
accommodate the activity and comply with the regulations and conditions of the Special Use
Permit.
11. That the property will be reclaimed for a useful purpose in a timely manner that is compatible with
the existing and projected uses in the area.
I) Conditions To Consider In Issuing A Special Use Permit For This Project:
1. A final scaled site plan shall be submitted for all phases of the project. it shall show topsoil and
overburden stock pile areas and all activities on the property including specific areas where
support activities are located or to be located including process areas, finished product storage
areas, structures and use, haul roads, access roads, areas to undergo active mining, equipment
maintenance facilities, limits of disturbed area and all other activities on the project. The site plan
shall be submitted and approved by the Community Development Coordinator prior to issuance of
a Zoning Permit for Phase I of the project and prior to any clearing, grading or mining activities
occurring on the property.
2. The Reclamation Plan for this project shall be submitted complete and reflecting the schedules and
conditions in this Special Use Permit and approved by the Community Development Coordinator
or in his absence Planning Director, prior to issuance of a Zoning Permit for Phase I of the project
and prior to any clearing, grading related to mining activities or mining activities occurring on the
property with the following conditions-
a. The Reclamation Plan shall consist of a map or maps at a readable scale, a submission that
may be in narrative, outline or list form (no more than 5 pages) and support documentation.
b. The plan shall show the proposed reclamation use of all areas of the site that are to be
disturbed during the project.
c. Reclamation Plan document shall reflect compliance with all conditions and scheduling
required in this Special Use Permit.
d. All areas proposed for future residential development shall be seeded and stabilized in accord
with a plan approved by the NC Cooperative Extension Service or SCS. These areas shall be
planted in canopy and under story trees at a rate of at least 5 canopy and 5 under story or 10
canopy trees per acre. The plantings may occur in clumps and be distributed across the areas
or planted individually and distributed relatively uniformly across the area or in a pattern that
may reflect future building site.
e. An area equivalent to five percent of the final inundated lake area shall be provided as
shallow water areas that are from one to six feet deep. At least two percent of this area shall
have a depth less than three feet, to enhance aquatic plant & animal life and water fowl habitat
in the residual water body. These areas that are less than 3 ft. in depth shall be graded to a
slope of 8 — 12 ft. horizontal to I ft. vertical to provide for adequate drainage should water
levels drop during drought conditions.
f. Sufficient amounts of topsoil shall be removed and stockpiled in order for reclamation
conditions to be met for disturbed areas that are not inundated.
g. All disturbed areas of the site that are not to be inundated shall receive an application of 12 to
18 inches of top soil reapplied from stock pile areas and scarified into the overburden or
jcs pd sup (my flocs) shcicrkquar reso 2-04, rev 9-13-04 3of 6

Permit #04-09-19-13
Permit#05-08-15-13R
subsoil material with a dozer root rake or other, means to provide a finished site that will
include a 12 to 18 inch deep top soil mixture.
h. All disturbed areas of the site that are not to be inundated and are to be reclaimed as wildlife
habitat areas shall receive plantings as recommended in writing by a NCWRC representative
after a site visit or 5% of the disturbed area that is not inundated can be planted in native
warm season grasses, including switch grass, Indian grass, bluestern and gamma grass and
tree seedling transplants as contained in the NC Forestry Service "Wildlife Pack East."
i. All areas required to be planted in specific vegetation shall be shown as separate planting
areas on the map.
j. Reclamation of Phase 1 & 2 shall be complete including ending of pit pumping and
commencing inundation of the pit areas within two years of beginning mining related
activities in any additional phases.
k. Reclamation of the entire property shall be complete within two years of the expiration of the
permit for those phases or within two years of completion of extraction activities for phase 3
& 4 which ever occurs earlier.
1. The applicant/operator shall provide a signed and sealed certification for the completed
phases of reclamation from one or more appropriate licensed professionals (licensed engineer,
professional surveyor, licensed geologist, licensed soil scientist, etc.) that the conditions of
reclamation required in this permit have been completed with specific reference to the type
condition completed (slopes, vegetation, redistribution of top soil, depths of excavation,
acreages of shallow water area, etc.) The certification for top soil redistribution must be
accompanied by sample soil borings of areas not to be inundated to indicate a topsoil mixture
to a depth of 18 inches.
m. The applicant/operator shall provide a written signed final report from a WRC wildlife
specialist, US Fish & Wildlife Service Specialist, NC Extension Service, USDA-NRCS
Agency, RC& D Council or other recognized and approved wildlife habitat expert or
organization, that the site has been completed in compliance with the Reclamation Plan
requirements that relate to any areas in the reclamation plan that are designated as "Wildlife
Habitat." The report shall deal with at least the requirements for vegetation types (trees and
grass) as contained in the approved permits.
n. The reclamation shall be completed prior to flooding of the pit, by providing a 5 (horizontal)
to 1 (vertical) slope 10' horizontally above and 10' horizontally below the final water
elevation. These slopes shall be provided at all landmasses in the impoundment and all
perimeter areas of the impoundment. No permanent slopes above the water line and inside
the project boundary shall exceed 3 to 1. This condition shall be reflected on the approved
reclamation plan.
3. Existing vegetation shall be maintained or seeded and stabilized earthen berms installed in the 50
ft. buffer on all sides of the project area.
4. Solid waste, trash, debris, or other waste generated on or off the site including, scrap metal,
batteries, used oil, junked equipment, etc., will be disposed of off site at a licensed or permitted
site or by a licensed or permitted collector. Materials that are permitted to be disposed of on the
site. under rules promulgated by state agencies pursuant to The North Carolina Mining Act (GS 74)
such as cables, drill steel, etc may be disposed of on the site when a map is recorded of the specific
disposal site or sites in the Pender County Registry and a copy of the map is provided to the
Pender County Planning Dept. Only natural soil, mineral material and organic material generated
from clearing operations on the site may be disposed of on the site with out restrictions under this
permit as long as such materials are disposed in accord with state regulations.
jcs pd sup (my dots) shelcrkquar reso 2-04, rev 9-13-04 4of 6

Permit 404-09-19-13
Permit#05-08-15-13R
5. The maximum depth of dewatering on the site shall not be lower than 4§ 65 ft. (fermi sixty five
feet) below mean sea level and no excavation shall occur lower than -M 60 ft. (th4-& cif sixty
feet) below MSL, except for the 100 ft. by 300 ft. sump area and that excavation shall not be lower
than M 80 ft. (fifi�,e+gh eighty feet) below MSL. No portion of the reclaimed water body shall
exceed a depth of 38 ft. below MSL.
6. The applicant shall provide the Pender County Planning Dept. with a copy of the state mining
application upon submission and state mining permit upon approval.
7. The property must be reclaimed, graded, seeded, stabilized and maintained in accord with the
conditions and schedule contained in this permit and all state and federal permits. Any violation
of any state or federal permit that is not corrected within the time specified by the responsible
agency will result in the Special Use Permit being in violation of the Pender County Zoning
Ordinance and upon such occurrence the Zoning Administrator shall immediately initiate
Revocation Proceedings.
8. The project shall not result in any visible sedimentation beyond the project limit of disturbance
boundary as shown on the revised and approved final site plan.
9. Excavation or fill shall not take place within 50' of any wetland unless approval has been obtained
from the appropriate State and Federal Agencies and a copy of such approval submitted to the
Pender County Planning Dept.
10. The hours of operation for this project, including processing plant, stripping, drilling, loading,
blasting or excavation, shall be limited to 5:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday thru Saturday, unless
exceptions are approved by the Pender County Manager for emergency conditions. Traffic other
than automobiles and light trucks (pickups) will not be permitted to enter or leave the site other
than during the hours of operation. Process plant, site and equipment maintenance, reclamation
and dewatering activities may take place at other hours.
11. Portable or permanent restrooms shall be maintained on the site for the duration of the mining
operation and until reclamation is complete.
12. When the term reclamation or reclaimed is used in this permit, it shall mean reclamation or
reclaimed in accord with the conditions of this permit unless specifically noted otherwise.
13. The term of this permit shall commence upon the issuance of a zoning permit for any phase of the
project and run for a period of 10 years unless renewed by Pender County.
14. The project shall be carried out and completed in accord with the applicant's "project description"
and the project description and conditions contained in this resolution and the approved special
use permit-
15. The obligations and conditions unposed by this permit will be the responsibility of the applicant
and its successors in interest and property owner(s) and shall continue in effect until all conditions
of this permit and other permits have been complied with and the Pender County Planning
Department has made a final inspection of the site and provided a written certification that the site
is in compliance. The applicant shall have the responsibility of maintaining the mining site in a
state of compliance for a period of two years from the date the written certification of compliance
is issued or until the applicant has terminated its mining operations and relinquished control to the
owners of that portion of the site that has been determined in compliance.
RESOLUTION: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on September 20, 2004, the
Pender County Board of Commissioners considered a Special Use Permit for Shelter Creek Quarry,
L,L.C. as described herein and Dwight Strickland, Chairman is authorized to execute the order
implementing this resolution and provide notice to the applicant of the action taken herein.
ics pd sup (my does) shdcrkquar reso 2-04, rev 9-13-04 5of 6

Permit 404-09-19-13
Permit4O5-08-15-13R
RESOLUTION: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on August 15, 2005, the Pender
County Board of Commissioners considered a Special Use Permit Revision for Shelter Creek Quarry,
LLC as described herein and Eugene Meadows, Chairman to the Board, is authorized to execute the
order implementing this resolution and provide notice to the applicant of the action taken herein.
AMENDMENTS:
MOVED _ � %%G AS SECONDED ?qiVen/JatIC
APPROVED) DENIED UNANIMOUS
YEA VOTES: Meadows X Holland t,o l Moore _5eRivenbark !C Williams _
08-15-05
>ugene ea s, Date
%1 Chairman
li
08-] 5-05
Date
EK IBITS:
Ex ibits attached include the following items:
. Exhibit B, Ortho Property Map of the Area and Adjacent Areas.
b. Exhibit C, Phase 1 Mine Map.
c. Exhibit D, Phase 2 Mine Map.
d. Exhibit E, Fish Habitat Area of the Site
e. Exhibit F, Mine Map of All Sections of the Mining Project.
jcs pd sup (my dots) shc1crkquar reso 2.04, rcv 9-13-04 6of 6

Action Id. 200400613
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
County: Pender
U.S.G.S. Quad:! Maple Hill
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
G?
Property Owner: Steve Holland Agent: Mike Ortosky'i�'
Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA 'dam
Address: 8315 Hiehwa 53 East 11010 Raven Ridge Road
Bu gaw; NC 27614 Raleigh, NC 27614
Telephone No.: [phone] [phone]
Property description:
Size (acres) 398 acres Nearest Town Maple -Hill sr
Nearest Waterway Holly Shelter Creek River Basin Cape Fear River
USGS HUC 03030007 Coordinates N 34.6389 W 77.7444
Location description The Property is located ad'acent to Holly Shelter Cree on the south side of Hwy 53 apilroximatel
3 miles west of the intersection of Hwy 53 and Hwy 50, west of Maple Hill Pender County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Followinia APPIy:
Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are wetlands on the above described -property subiect to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA)(33 USC, 1344). Unless there is a chance in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
X The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed„and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on October 3, 2005. Unless there is a change in the Iaw or our published
reeulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above descry -bed property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Wilmington, NC atL910) 796-7215 to
determine their requirements.
Page 1 of 2

Action ID: 200400613
5
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Lillette Granade at (910) 2514829.
Basis For Determination: This site exhibits wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual
and is adjacent to Holly Shelter Creek, a tributary of the Northeast Cape Fear River, a navigable water of the US.
Determination is based on information provided by Mike Ortosky,, of Soil and Environmental Consultants, PA and a
field visit by Lillette Granade on October 8 and December 12, 2004,
Remarks: There are five isolated wetland areas totaling 2.55 acres in size on the above described property. These areas
are identified as Wetland Area AA 0.54 acres Wetland Area RB 0.24 acres Wetland Area C f0.11 acres Wetland
Area D (0.16 acres), and Wetland Area T (1.5 acres) on the attached wetland delineation survey. The Corps of
En ineers does not have 'urisdiction over these areas. The State of North Carolina does have 'urisdiction over these
wetlands and any activities in these wetlands are subject to the State's regulations. Please contact Ms. Cyndi Karoly
with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality at 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite2.50, Raleigh, North Carolina
27609-2260 before doing any work in these areas.
Corps Regulatory Official: t
Date October 3 2005 Expiration Date October 3, 2010
Corps Regulatory Official (Initial):
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
• A plat or sketch of the property and the wetland data form must be attached to the file copy of this form.
• A copy of the "Notification Of Administrative Appeal Options And Process And Request For Appeal" form must be
transmitted with the property owner/agent copy of this form.
If the property contains isolated wetlands/waters, please indicate in "Remarks" section and attach the
"Isolated Determination Information Sheet" to the file copy of this form.
Page 2 of 2

s r D- "
_AE>ENSADROCES
CR
REQUEST EOR�- ° :PEA'Y. „
F r_ #� R
Applicant: Steve Holland File Number: 200400613 Date: October 3, 2005
Attached is: a signed wetland survey
See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
A
ermission
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of ermission
B
PERMIT DENIAL
C
X
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
SECTI�N,I'Tliefollo� WON in tivea "eayovwiintifiorinannist�afr#he above '"
dec14unrIdformation may_besfoun"tittW.Mwww usacce.arm mis/cw/cecwoLre .or.
pCo s re ahons;at:33rM-CFR Part=33=1g:
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: YOU may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved !'D.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
4 li
U-N- 00 � b� 4
4 N,I RE E _ AN;INITIALPRUFIiERED�P.ERM
tJES�'I OR.API'EAL or, BJE TIONS Tt� T'
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATTON: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
P®IN„Tk,OF,CQNTACTFQRQiJES,TONSORTIVFQRMATIQNWON �
If you have questions regarding this decision
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact:
may also contact:
Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-ET-CO-R
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Geor 'a 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.

1 4
A4
NCDENR
rioan. rwouw oct.wr..exr v
Cwv�o.+a.r w.�o Have. �nou�cea
Division of Water Quality I Water Quality Section
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NCG020000
FOR AGENCY USE ONLY
Date Received
Year Month
Da
Certificate of Coves e
Check 9
Amount
Permit Assigned to
NOTICE OF INTENT Qh)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System application for coverage under General -Permit
N C G 020000:
STORMWATER DISCHARGES associated with activities classified as:
SIC 14 Mineral Mining Industry (except as specified below)
The following activities are also included:
• Active or inactive mining operations (including borrow pits) that discharge stormwater contaminated with or
that has come in contact with, any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished products,
byproducts or waste products located on the site of such operations
• Stormwater from vehicle maintenance activities at mining operations; overflow from facilities that recycle
process wastewater; and/or mine dewatering
The following activities are specifically excluded from coverage under this General Permit;
• Peat mining, coal mining, and metal mining
• Stormwater discharges from mining operations which are intermixed on site with Stormwater from asphalt
operations, and oil and gas extraction operations
Standard Industrial Classification Code
(Please print or type)
1) Mailing address of ownerloperator:
Name Ho /I a h01
Street Address 3L.:ir '/A.Jd77 a % --r- 3 Bar f' _
City a Q State /VC ZIP Code a rI �y
Telephone No. 410 V 2-,,f9 j"'7 ys Fax: 9'zQ� 2- -4-!?- 9,3QX
2) Location of facility producing discharge:
Facility Name
Facility Contact
Street Address
City
County
Telephone No.
3) Physical Location Information:
• Address to which all permit correspondence will be mailed
LIr uoae �27 & i Y
Please provide a narrative description of how to get to the facility (use street names, state road numbers, and
distance and direction from a roadway intersection), Q,r"oe.'em fs a V1 Se 51A 6, F/&)d S3_a,
(A copy of a county map or USGS quad sheet with facility clearly located on the map is required to be submitted with this application)
h)
Page 1 of 4
SWU-217-101701

NCG020000 N.O.J.
4) This NPDES Permit Application applies to which of the following :
New or Proposed Facility Date operation is to begin 45_ -d,o � d � IyC /4/i n � ►t(� fe rr�+t
❑ Existing IS % S5u ej
S) Standard Industrial Classification.
Provide the 4 digit Standard Industrial Classification Code (SIC Code) that describes the primary industrial
activity at this facility
SIC Code: 1.
6) Provide p brief narrative description of the types of minerals mined at this facility: Ly"e 6 C
e A
7) Discharge Points;
Number of discharge points (ditches, pipes, channels, etc. that convey discharges From the property):
5tormwater: 0 Mine dewatering: 0 Process Wastewater Overflow:
Please provide short narrative dgscription of discharges: Sew L'd� *02, A 7-/, d 7-.Z d
8) Receiving waters:
What is the name of the bod or bodies of water (creek, stream, river, lake, etc.) that the facility storm ter
discharges end up in? m v,,e ( tJ� �d�.ri�s d•�aj w -i h" B ��d J -C.r "48 �¢ .
If the site stormwater discharges to a separate storm sewer system, na}�e the operator of the separate storm
sewer system (e.g. City of Raleigh municipal storm sewer). A /A
I
9) Does this facility have any other NPDES permits?
N(No
❑ Yes
If yes, list the permit numbers for all current NPDES permits for this facility:
10) Does this facility have any Non -Discharge permits (ex: recycle permits)?
iNo
❑ Yes
If yes, list the permit numbers for all current Non -Discharge permits for this facility:
11) Does this facility employ any best management practices for stormwater control?
U(N o
❑ Yes
If yes, please briefly describe:
12) Does this facility have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan?
No
❑ Yes
If yes, when was it implemented?
13) Are vehicle maintenance activities occurring at this facility?
❑ No Yes C3yv_e VAIAIy►� be8 in 3
14) Are mine dewatering discharges occurring?
KNo ❑ Yes
o F'
Page 2 of 4
SWU-217-101701

NCG020000 N.O.I.
15) Are discharges of overflows from process wastewater treatment systems occurring?
KNo
❑ Yes
If yes, answer the following questions on the wastewater treatment system:
a) Please describe the type of process used to treat and/or recycle the process wastewater. Give design
specifics (i.e. design volume, retention time, surface area, etc.). Existing treatment facilities should be
described in detail and design criteria or operational data should be provided (including calculations) to
ensure that the facility can comply with requirements of the General Permit. [Use separate sheet(s)]
Note: Construction of any wastewater treatment facilities require submission of three (3) sets of plans and
specifications along with their application. Design of treatment facilities must comply with requirements
15A NCAC 2H .013& If construction of wastewater treatment facilities applies to the discharge of process
wastewater, include three sets of plans and specifications with this application.
b) Does this facility employ chemical additives to Flocculate suspended solids?
E�N o
❑ Yes
If yes, please state the name, manufacturer and the quantity of average daily usage of the chemical
additive
c) Does this facility overflow only during rainfall events exceeding the 10-yr, 24-hr rainfall event?
❑ No XYes
16) Hazardous Waste:
a) is this facility a Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility?
ANo ❑ Yes
b) Is this facility a Small Quantity Generator (less than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste generated per month) of
hazardous waste?
ANo ❑ Yes
c) Is this facility a Large Quantity Generator (1000 kg. or more of hazardous waste generated per month) of
hazardous waste?
ANo ❑ Yes
d) If you answered yes to questions b. or c., please provide the following information:
Type(s) of waste:
How is material stored:
Where is material stored:
How many disposal shipments per year:
Name of transport / disposal vendor:_
Vendor address:
17) Certification:
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.6 b (1) provides that:
Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any application, record, report,
plan or other document filed or required to be maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the Environmental
Management Commission implementing that Article, or who falsifies, tampers with or knowingly renders inaccurate any
recording or monitoring device or method required to be operated or maintained under Article 21 or regulations of the
Environmental Management Commission implementing that Article, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine
Page 3 of 4
5WU-217-101701

NCG020000 N.O.I.
not to exceed $10,000, or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or by both. (18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides a
punishment by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years, or both, for a similar offense.)
I hereby request coverage urider the referenced General Permit. I understand that coverage under this permit
will constitute the permit requirements for the discharge(s) and is enforceable in the same manner as an
individual permit.
I agree to abide by the following as a part of coverage under this General Permit:
1. 1 agree to abide by the approved, Mining Permit for this mining activity. (A copy of the valid
mining permit must be attached to this request.
2. 1 agree to not discharge any sanitary wastewater from this mining activity except under the
provisions of another NPDES permit specifically issued therefore.
3. 1 agree that bulk storage of petroleum products and other chemicals shall have adequate
protection so as to contain all spills on the site.
4. 1 agree that solid wastes will be disposed of in accordance with N.C. statutes and rules
governing solid waste disposal.
5. 1 agree that maintenance activities for vehicles and heavy equipment will be performed so as to
not result in contamination of the surface or ground waters.
I agree to abide by the provisions as listed above and recognize that the provisions are to be considered as
enforceable requirements of the General Permit
I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application and that to the best of my knowledge
and belief such information is true, complete, and accurate.
Printed Name of Person Signing: 5&49eo/j
Title: O W )%e y�
(Signature of Applicant)
(Date Signed)
Notice of Intent must be accompanied by a check or money order for $80.00 made payable to:
NCDENR
Final Checklist
This application will be returned as incomplete unless all of the following items have been included:
❑ Check for $80 made payable to NCDENR
❑ This completed application and all supporting documents
❑ Copy of the valid approved mining permit for the facility
❑ Copy of county map or USGS quad sheet with location of facility clearly marked on map
Mail the entire package to:
Stormwater and General Permits Unit
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Note
The submission of this document does not guarantee the issuance of an NPDES permit.
Page 4 of 4
SWU-217-101701