NCG020735_COMPLETE FILE - HISTORICAL_20091106

PERMIT NO.
DOC TYPE
DOC DATE
STORMWATER DIVISION CO
NCG PERMITS
K HISTORICAL FILE
❑ MONITORING REP,
YYYYMMDD

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Dear Mr. Whitt:
Coleen H. Sullins
Director
November 6, 2009
Natural Resources
Subject. General Permit No, N00020000
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Martin Marietta Materials Selma Quarry
COC NCG020735
Johnston County
- In accordance with yourapplication for a discharge permit received on September 15,
2008, we are forwarding herewith the subject certificate of coverage to discharge under the
subject state — NPDES general permit. This permit is issued pursuant to the requirements of
North Carolina General Statute 143-215.1 and the Memorandum of Agreement between North
Carolina and the US Environmental Protection Agency dated October 15, 2007 (or as
subsequently amended).
Please take notice that this certificate of coverage is not transferable except after notice to
the Division of Water Quality. The Division of Water Quality may require modification or
revocation and reissuance of the certi ficate of coverage.
. Please be aware that mine dewatering at your site has the potential to impact adjacent
wetlands. The specific requirements for mine dewatering at facilities near wetlands can be found
in Section C, Part 1 of your permit (Part III Page 5 of 9). You must have an approved
Operation and Monitoring Plan before mine dewatering discharges occur at your facility.
Discharging aline dewatering wastewater without Plan approval will be subject to enforcement
action. An Operation and Monitoring Plan for your facility must be submitted to the Raleigh
Regional Office within. 60 days of your receipt of this permit: Contact Danny Smith at the
Raleigh Regional Office at (9 i 9) 791-4200 for more information about the approval process.
This general permit allows the discharge. of stormwater and certain types of wastewater
from your facility. In your application, you specified that only mine dewatering water would be
discharged from this facil.ity. if separate point -source discharges of stormwater occur (i.e.,
stormwater not combined with mine dewatering water), you will be required to adhere to the
conditions in this permit for stormwater discharges.
Per the requirements of the Neuse Riparian Buffer Rule, all stormwater drainage to .
stream buffers, from portions of this site that have been constructed after July 22, 1997, must be
Wetlands and Stomrwater Branch One
1617 Mail Service Center, Ral*h, North Carolina 27699.1617 NorthCaroltna
Location, 5Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Cantina ry as if ll���
Phone: 919�-8 07-63001 FAX: [phone] Customerr SeService:1-877.623-6798
Internet: wM.ncwaterquality,org
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Ernplayer r

Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials, Selma Quarry NCG020735
November 6, 2009
discharged through a correctly designed level spreader or another device that meets diffuse flow
requirements per 15A NCAC 2B .0233. Diffuse flow requirements are described in Chapter 8 of
the North Carolina Stormwater BMP Manual, avail,ible at':
http://h2o.eiir.state.nc.us/sulbmp_forms.11ti-n. '
This permit does not affect the legal requirements to obtain other permits which may be
required by the Division of Water Quality or permits required by the Division of Land
Resources, Coastal Area Management Act or any other .federal or local governmental permit that
may be required..,
If you have any Questions concerning this permit, please contact Jennifer Jones at
telephone number [phone].
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
KEN PICKLF_
.for Coleen11. Sullins
cc: Raleigh Regional Office, Danny Smith, Lauren Witherspoon
Central files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files

' '.�•. ..t.�f: `� r'k'L�FI. 'tS •.:�a'�:n�ISp9'.Er,n w.,�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL, RESOURCES . .
DIVISION OF ,WATER QUALITY
GENERAL PERMIT NO. NCG020000
CERTIFICATE OF COVERAGE No. NCG020735
STORMWATER AND'MINL DI:WATERING DISCHARGES
NATIONAL 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, -
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
is hereby authorized to discharge stormwater and mine dewatering wastewater discharges from a
facility located at:
Selma Quarry
Bear Farm Road (SR 1914)
Selma
Johnston County
to receiving waters designated as a UT to the Neuse River, a class WS-IV, NSW water in the
Neuse River Basin, in accordance with the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and
other conditions set forth in Parts I, It, III, IV, V, and V1 of General Permit No. NCG020000 as
attached.
This certificate of coverage shall become effective November 6, 2009,
This Certificate of Coverage shall remain in effect for the duration of the General Permit.
Signed this day November 6, 2009. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
KEN PICKLE
for Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
By the Authority of the Environmental Management Commission

h
Ti 10
,' ^., �,.. r�r it �A;,at;a•, "�1:k'd ,I i '., ��• ..`Aw
\ }• w lYi Y11� a
° yr+ xx'�'3,y�,yqg-f', r 5}� by - u % r"A
�V
;A .��; • s � ' �*: - '..Si� C' `„_wwF. �Yi, ..r } u'� it •4„yii ,.,
NAi
i4i` �rfffY i i� c a �1! t r5
Ilk
2,L'5! IYxI- 7 %C ""
1 Martin Manetka Materials Inc;
n� x rs�
7 a
Selma Q uar
` Vx
N{i..,
'rf d •, -- ]e i \�,9 /a' ,xr. p.; rareiy
1" x
04 - fX,c
.J # `;3s: 5 ° • .w.g .' `
s
��. �r�# rrr' + }I�. � ��i �� Y�i3�';7{,i! �•�eu ���+:„�5]
r +
L 5 l / p
F
� Mw� utx t �E
NPr_ E)
NCG020735 Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Selma Quarry
N Selma, NC
r'
Latitude: 350 34' 06" N
w . Longitude: 780 19' 04" W
Receiving Stream: UT to Neuse River
s Stream Class: WS-IV, NSW
Map Scale 1:29,043 Sub -basin: 03-04-02 (Neuse River Basin)
Facility Location i

Jones, Jennifer l
From: Witherspoon, Lauren
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 3:46 PM
To: Jones, Jennifer "
Subject: RE: NCG020735 - MMM Selma Quarry - O&M Approval?
Jen,
I think ther'&M plan looks good. I was most concerned that they had all the monitoring well information included that we discussed in the meeting. I think it is
all there.
Thanks,
Lauren
From: ]ones, Jennifer
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:23 PM
To; Witherspoon, Lauren
Cc: Smith, Danny; Jones, Jennifer
Subject: NCG020735 - MMM Selma Quarry - O&M Approval?
Hey Lauren,
How are you? Hope you are well! Have you had a chance to review the O&M plan and submittal from Martin Marietta for their Selma Quarry? They should
have submitted it Sept 2, 2009 to you. I am catching up here slowly... and I've just looked it over.
What do you think? Let me know if you approve it or if you will be asking for more information. Either way, let me know and I'll put something in RIMS or I can
issue the permit. If you want to talk about it on the phone that would be good too. I am in the office all day tomorrow and Friday - I am not sure when you are
in so if you want to give me a call that would be great,
Thanks Lauren!
Jen
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer

Martin Marietta Materials
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Telephone [phone]
Hand Delivered (in the care of Mr. Ken Pickle)
August 31, 2009
Ms. Jennifer Jones
NC Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Request for Additional Information
General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. — Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Jones:
Firstly we would like to thank you, Lauren Witherspoon, and Danny Smith for meeting with us
on July 24, 2009 to discuss your concerns raised in your letter to our office dated .tune 30, 2009.
We believe the meeting was productive and helped for all parties to come to an understanding
and agreement as to what would truly be required for the O&M plan for the site. To this end
please find attached the following documents:
- Memo responding to your letter dated June 30, 2009. We have gone through the 4-
page request for additional information item by item.
- Revised O&M plan.
- 1-Iydrogeology study demonstrating expected cone of influence.
- Revised maps: Site Plan, Details Sheet.
We believe we have been very thorough in our response and trust that it satisfactorily addresses
all of your concerns.
Sincerely,
Nuwan Wijesur
Environmental Engineer
Attachments
CC: Lauren Witherspoon, Danny Smith — DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office

V A rF9
a Q
t'
o �
June 30, 2009
Mr. Nuwan Wijesuriya, Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials, LLC
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Michael f, l~aslcy, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Subject: General Permit No, NCG020000
Colcen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry, NCGO20735
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Wijesuriya and Mr. Whitt:
The Division of Water Quality's Storrnwater Permitting Unit received a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimina tion System (NPDES) permit application for Martin Marietta Materials, hu., Selma Quarry, on
September 15, 2008. In response to a DWQ request for additional information, we received additional
information from your site on April 20, 2009.
In our last letter, we requested that an O&M Plan for your facility to be submitted to the Raleigh Regional
Office before issuance of an NPDES permit. if you have further questions regarding your O&M plan we
request that you to contact the Raleigh Regional Office to address any wetland concerns for your facility in
order to ensure a successful NPDES application review.
Although you have submitted some components of the O&M plan for review, we are still missing some of
the requested components. Please submit the necessary components of the O&M below that we had
previously requested:
Calculations to show the cone of influence
/•_ Settung pond sizing information and calculations
• Level -spreader -design and calculations
• Description of measures to'prevent erosion and flooding
• Annual Report
+ Restoration Plan (hicludutg an after -site plan for wetlands thak for the life of the mine are to be
maintained by -level -spreaders and dewatering),
After review of your O&M plan we request that you address all the following points:
Wetland 4:
X. On page 2 of the O&M plan you state that groundwater flow in this area is typical of Piedmont where
f OW dire'cti011 is toTmrds stre(atls. You then state that wetland 4 will not be affected by the pit as water 7i)ii1
flow froju Neuse to it. These two statements are contrary, however you state that Wetland 4 will not be
hydrologically affected by the development of the pit. After conversations with NCDENR DWR
Groundwater'hydrologist Nat Wilson, we do not believe that this can be conclusively shown. Please
show a monitoring plan for this wetland. Please'include:
a. A monitoring plan that shows 'water table before mining is started near the wetland.
Wr hCarolina
I/nturallY
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: y%vw.nc%vrterquality,orr Locatiatt: 512 N. Salisbury St, Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opporu nRylAlfinative Action Empbyer - 50% Recycled[10° a Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Steve Whitt & Mr. NUwan Wijesuriya
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry - NCG020735
July 2, 2009
b. Wells should be:
i. 20-30' deep,
ii. -screened over 5' intervals
iii. Monitoring relatively shallow groundwater.
iv. These should be placed and monitored before the digging is begun.
v. ' Monitored for the life of the well
vi. Monitoring should be kept by the permittee. This data needs to be kept for the life of the
permit.
vii. Monitoring needs to be summarized on a regular basis and sent to the Region.
c. Please show from what areas the mine will be are discharging water.
Stream 1, Wetland 1, Wetland 6:
You state in your submitted O&M plan that monitoring is not needed for wetlands 1& 6.You did not
include cone of influence calculations.
1. Please -include cone of influence calculations.
2. If cone of influence reaches wetlands 1&6, please submit a monitoring plan as per Wetland 4.
WetIa_nd 2/Stream 3/ Wetland 3:
1. As water is to be added fo .the stream/wetland system. from dewatering, and as a proposed berm
will diver water from a wetland that currently feeds this system, please show how enough water
will be put into wetland 3 that -this wetland/stream system will still be:
a. Received at a rion-erosive velocity and
b. Yet still receiving enough water from the clarification pit to hydrate the wetlands.
c. Please show calculations for this.
2. Please show on the large scale plans and in the O&M plan where the monitoring gauge will be
placed in Wetland 2 and Wetland 3.
Process Area:
Please show the discharge point(s) from the process area, especially as they pertain to wetland 6 and
stream 1.
Constructed Wetland:
You, state in'the O&M plan' that you will create a constructed wetland. It appears to be Iocated in or
near wetland 6. You cannot create a constructed wetland in wetlands or surface waters. Please address.
XXI Level -spreaders:
1. Concentrated Runoff into the buffer must be discharged in a diffuse manner. Please show that all
concentrated flow into the buffer is done in a diffuse manner.
2. Please include plans and calculations for level -spreaders. A link to level -spreader design
requirements can be found on the stormwater BMP manual webpage.
If your level -spreader designs require a bypass into the buffer, you will be required to have buffer
authorization. Please contact Amy Chapman in the Division of Water Quality for requirements for
buffer authorization. Please return a copy of final correspondence regarding buffer authorization
`! r from Ms. Chapman. You may need a 401 permit modification if you will require a .buffer
authorization. Please innclude a statement as to .whether or not you will be required to have one.
4. Please shoe where both sedinient basins discharge on the large scale plans.
NorthCarolina
Alatitial/1f
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www rimatercluality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr Whitt & Mr. Nuwan Wijesuriya
Mar it Marietta Selina Quarry - NCG020735
July 2, 2009
Large -Scale Plans:
1. Please show on the large-scale plans and in the O&M plan where the monitoring gauge will be
placed in Wetland 2 and Wetland 3.
2. Please show the discharge point(s) from the process area, especially as they pertain to Wetland 6 and
Stream 1.
3. Please show where both sediment basins discharge on the large-scale plants.
4. You state in the O&M plan that you will create a constructed wetland. It appears to be located in or
near Wetland 6. You cannot create a constructed wetland in delineated wetlands or streams. Please
address.
5. Please label all wetlands, streams and BMPs on the large-scale map as per the O&M plan.
6, Please show approximate locations of ALL monitoring wells and gauges.
7. Stream 3 does not appear to be shown correctly on the large-scale plans. Please address.
�. Please show the old borrow pit on, the large-scale plans and in the O&M plan.
Other:
1. Please show vehicle maintenance areas of the site.
2. Please show that you have applied for a flood -hazard permit and that your site plan does not need
to be further modified to meet any local requirements.
3. Please show that you have applied and received local stormwater approvals for water -supply
watershed areas as your site is in a water -supply watershed.
4. I.f your site will include asphalt or ready -mix concrete industrial areas, please include information
about those industrial practices including runoff, recycle systems, treatment systems, wash out areas
and discharges. If your site will not contain these types of industrial activities, please include a
statement to that effect.
5. On the O&M plan prepared by Kinley-Born the stated project boundary is 503 acres. The other
plans -state the project permitted boundary as 480 acres. Please resolve this discrepancy.
6. You state that the site's final built -out condition is based on 27-1 acres of developed area, however
the full-scale plans provided show that stockpiles are 41.3 acres, processing area and haul roads
account: for 84.6 acres (gravel roads are considered to be impervious) and wastepiles account for
99.9 acres of impervious. Please resolve this'discrepancy.
7. Please include a statement that there will.be non -erosive flow to all wetlands for stormwater.
8. Your large-scale map shows future closed -loop settling cells. If you will have an "other" type of
recycle system you will need an Arithorization to Construct. Please address.
9. All monitoring plans should include:
a. Wells should be placed and monitored before the digging is begun.
b. Show a plan that wells are to be monitored for the life of the well- V AA1
c. Monitoring data should be kept by the permittee..This data needs to be kept for the life of the
permit.
d. Monitoring needs to be.summarized on'a regular basis and sent to the Region (on a schedule
to bbe decided with the Region).
10. Please show all outfalls clearly marked on large-scale plans. Please also include calculations to
support stormwater outfall discharge rates.
Please submit two copies of the above information to the Division for Review - one to ine at the Central
Office (address below) and one to Danny Smith at the Raleigh Regional Office. The requested information
Nnr[hCarolina
dVntrrra!!�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] custorner Servicc
Inlcrcict: Ww`V,ncwntcrquali .or Location; 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 . Fax [phone]
An Equal opportunRylAffirmative Action Employee— 50% Recycletl116% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Steve Whitt & Mr, Nuwan Wijesuriya
Martin Marietta Selina Quarry - NCG020735
July 2,-2009 . .
should be received by this Office prior to July 31, 2009, or the application ,mill be returned as incomplete. If
you need additional time to submit the information, please mail, or fax your request for a time extension to
the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date. .
by which you expect to submit the required information.
If you would like to meet in person and discuss these changes we would'welconrie that. I have contacted
you via email to indicate the dates I am available.
If you have any questions concerning the NPDES permit approval process, please contact me at telephone
number [phone]. If you would like to come in.to discuss any concerns, please contact me at the above
number and we would be happy to meet with you.
Sincerely,
��;niter es
Environmental Engineer
cc: Raleigh Regional Office, Danny Smith, Lauren Witherspoon
DWQ 401 Oversight%Express Permitting Unit Horne, Annette"Lucas; Amy Chapman
NCDENR DWR, Nat Wilson
Central Files
�Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
N�hCarotina
rrtumily
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
Internet: www.ncwatercrualitv.orL Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunilyrlAifirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748

0 W AD�
G
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources .
December.8, 2008
Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials, LLC
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
Subject: General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin .Marietta Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Whitt-.
The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater Permitting Unit received a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit application for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Selma Quarry, on
September 15, 2008.
Please also be aware that if your project is located near wetlands, your NPDES permit will require
dewatering operations without wetland impacts. The specific requirements for mine dewatering at Facilities
near wetlands can be found in the text of the general NPDES mining permit number NCG 020000 available
on our website, http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/su/Forms_ Documents.litm. See Section C, Part I of the permit on
the page labeled, "Part III Page 5 of 9", An approved Operation and Monitoring Plan is required for
NPDES-permitted mining facilities. Discharging nine dewatering wastewater without Plan approval will
be subject to enforcement action.
A Plan for your facility must be submitted to the Raleigh Regional Office before issuance of an NPDES
permit. We encourage you to contact Danny Smith or Lauren Cobb at the Raleigh Regional Office at
[phone] at [phone], respectively, to address any wetland concerns for your facility in order to
ensure a successful NPDES application review.
We will need a copy of your mining site plan with all wetlands clearly delineated. I have listed the necessary
components of th*e site plan below. If your mine is near wetlands or may impact surface water or
groundwater please contact the Washington Regional Office (at 252-946-6481) about an 0 & M Plan
(checklist below):
+ Site map with wetlands, ditches, well -placements, borrow areas, overburden storage, stormwater,
wetland locations and stream locations
+ ControlsBMPs, vehicle maintenance areas, settling basins, product process areas, and access
roads.
+ Rain Gauge (on -site, monitoring daily)
Well information (design, depths, maintenance)
+ Physical monitoring for the wetlands areas (locations and sampling frequency)
a Calculations to show the cone of influence
Settling pond sizing information, if applicable
NorthCarolina
�� rrlrrrrrffJ
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: w%v%e.ncxvateroualJJY uy Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone] I-877.623.6749
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-- 50% Recycledi lO% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry — NCG020735
December 4, 2008
• Level spreader design, if applicable
• Visual monitoring plan of outfalls L
• Details about dewatering method
• Description of measures to prevent erosion and flooding qs°
• Annual Report
• Restoration Plan
You -have only included one outfall in the plan that you have submitted. I was told on the phone in a
conversation with Nuwan Wijesuriya on No 13, 2008, that there were -many more stormwater outfalls.
but that you were unsure when they would discharge, depending on the construction of the sediment basin.
BMPs must be installed per approved plans. We will need to see all outfalls clearly marked on large-scale
plans. Please also include calculations to support stormwater outfall discharge rates.
Additionally, dewatering outfalls were not noted on submitted plans. Please include a full set of plans with
all stormwater outfalls marked and all dewatering outfalls marked. If plans for mining. are to be done in
phases, please show phases and corresponding stormwater and dewatering outfalls.
You did not include a narrative of mining activities or a copy of your NC DLR Mining Permit Application.
In order that we can better understand the mining process that will take place at this site please include a
short narrative of mining activities and a copy of your NC DENR DLR Mining permit application.
Please submit two copies of the above information to the Division for Review - one to me at the Central
Office (address below) and one to Danny Smith at the Raleigh Regional Office. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to January 26th, 2009,'or the application will be returned as
incomplete. If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time
extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate
the date by which you expect to submit the required information.
If you have any questions concerning the NPDES permit approval process, please contact me at telephone
number [phone]. If you would like to come in to discuss any concerns, please contact me at the
above number and we would be happy to meet with you.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer .
cc: Raleigh Regional Office, .Danny Smith, Lauren Cobb
Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
N hCarolina
��rttrrrrrll�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail service Center Raleigh, NIC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: W%V%V.ncwaterttu.ilitv.ort Location: 512 NSalisbury St, Raleigh, NC 276D4 Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAfrmalke Action Employer-50% Recycled110% Past Consumer Paper

Selma Quarry NCG020735 - extension request imap:Hcros.ncmai].net:993/fetch%3EUID`/"3E/INBOX'%`3E8934'?hea...
Subject: Selma Quarry NCG020735 - extension request
From: Nuwan Wijesuriya <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:42:46 -0500
To: "[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
CC: Steve Whitt<[e-mail]>, Horace Willson
<[e-mail]>
February 23, 2009
Ms. Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Martin Marietta Materials, Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Jones,
With reference to our telephone conversation earlier, I would like to request an extension of the March
2, 2�9- dline. We kindly request that the deadline be extended to April 2, 2009 in order for us to be" able
to gather the additional information that you had requested.
Please send a response to this email if this acceptable with you.
Sincerely,
Nuwan Wijesuriya
Environmental Services
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
(Office) 919 783 4505
of 1 2/25/2009 1 1:58 AM

Martin Marietta Materials
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Telephone [phone]
Hand Delivered
April 20, 2009
Ms. Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. — Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Jones,
With respect to your letter dated December 8, 2008 please find enclosed a copy of the following:
A copy of the Mining Permit application that was submitted to the NC Division of' [,and
Resources, Land Quality Section. The application contains the design notes and calculations for
the erosion control measures, including Level Spreaders, etc. A copy of the approved permit was
submitted to your office on September 5, 2008.
A large-scale site plan with storrnwater outfalls and deNvatering outfalls clearly marked.
The 480 acre site will produce crushed granite for the local market. With the exception of Martin Marietta
owned land, the property owner owns most of the surrounding adjacent land. In general, the typical
sequence of events for the development of the Mine will be as follows:
I . Locate and flag clearing limits.
2. Install erosion and sediment controls according to approved plans.
3. Clear and grub project area where necessary. RunolTto be directed to E&S controls.
4. Grade as necessary on the entrance road, Plant area, etc.
5. _ Strip overburden from areas designated for Mine excavation. The overburden is to be stored
in approved disposal areas.
6. Seed and stabilize all disturbed areas.
7. Commence mining of granite in areas designated for pit development. Excavated material
will be hauled to the plant for crushing and sizing.
8. Reclaim site upon final completion of mining.
In addition, please find attached a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Plan written by our consultant
to address wetland concerns and Neuse River Basin storinwater requirements.
trust this addresses your concerns, if you have any questions please contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,
Nuwan Wijesuriya
Environmental Engineer
CC: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office — w/attachments
Mike Jones
Ray Thatcher
Steve Whitt

NCG020735 Martin Marietta Selma Mine
Subject: NCG020735 Martin Marietta Selma Mine
From: Jennifer Jones <Jemiifer.Jones a ncmail.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:52:57 -0500
To: Danny Smith <[e-mail]>, lauren.cobb a ncmail.net, "Jenniler.Jones a ncmail.net"
<Jennifer.Jones a ncmail.net>
Hi Lauren and Danny,
We've received an NOI from Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Selma Quarry) for their site in Selma (Johnston
County) for coverage of their sand mine under NCG02 (Mining SWIWW permit). The site discharges
stormwater and mine dewatering water into a UT to the Neuse River (WS-IV, NSW). The NOI is attached.
Their Mining Permit (51-46) from DLR was issued 6/25/2007.
There are some different/special things about this site:
• It is very large (pit is --150 acres), site is about 500 acres.
• It is in the Neuse
• It needs DEH approval — WS-IV, NSW
• It has a 401 /404 already (issued August 3, 2007) — they are impacting wetlands (2.7 acres) and 130 feet
of intermittent stream. They do not have a 401 cert for impacting zone 1 or zone 2 though... not sure how
this is possible given that they are impacting the stream itself? j of M` %t Sq�eGrmk "S .
• They have chosen to pay the EEP for their 401 impacts on the mine footprint
• They don't appear to have any monitoring required for their 401 certification — for outside wetlands.
• It has the mining permit : 51-46 issued June 25, 2007 although they say they have not started mining
—the aerial photos don't look like they have.
• They say their outfalls are "varying", we will need to get further clarification on this. They have not given
a good reason for this — they say it is difficult (but they at least need to show phased outfalls) and their
engineer has said that he "can't be sure the contractors will install the settling basins correctly so he doesn't
know when they will discharge", and that there are at least 50 basins. Being that this is their job to
describe these, I don't think that is a good reason.
• They have not included a dewatering outfall in their plan.
I'd like to set up a meeting with them to better understand what they will need to send to us (i.e: more
clear SW outfalls, clearly marked dewatering outfalls, possible cone of influence talcs, possible O&. M plan,
much more detailed/larger site maps, possible groundwater monitoring) and to hear their description of site
activities. I think this might be useful before they submit anything.
Does the Raleigh Regional Office have any concerns about issuing this facility a COC for this general
permit, and are there any potential impacts to wetlands?
If possible if you could look at these plans by December 5th? Please. If so that would be great. I'd
specifically like to know if you think they need an O & M, and calculations for cone of influence. My
inclination right now is yes as I don't think they have been asked that by the 401 group, I have called the
401 group a number of times to ask them about this and am still waiting on them.
If we don't receive any objections, we'll issue the COC, pending DEH approval.
If you have any questions/concerns please let me know.
Thanks,
Jen
Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NCDENR I DWQ I Stormwater Permitting Unit
I of 11/21/2008 9:53 AM

Martin Marietta Materials
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Telephone [phone]
Hand Delivered
April 20, 2009
�11
Ms. Jennifer Jones �,'� XD vvvvvv {
Environmental Engineer yi
NC Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604�
Subject: General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. — Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Jones,
With respect to your letter dated December 8, 2008 please find enclosed a copy of the following:
A copy of the Mining Permit application that was submitted to 1he.NC Division of Land
Resources, Land Quality Section. The application contains the design notes and calculations for
the erosion control measures, including Level Spreaders, etc. A copy of the approved permit vas
submitted to your office on September 5, 20g8.
A large-scale site plan with stormwater outfalIs and dewatering outfills ills clearly marked.
The 480 acre site will produce crushed granite for the local market. With the exception of Martin Marietta
owned land, the property owner owns most of the surrounding adjacent land. In general, the typical
sequence of events for the development of the Mine will be as follows:
I. Locate and flag clearing limits.
2. Install erosion and sediment controls according to approved plans.
3. Clear and grub project area where necessary. Runoff to be directed to E&S controls.
4. Grade as necessary on the entrance road, Plant area, etc.
5. Strip overburden from areas designated for Mine excavation. The overburden is to be stored
in approved disposal areas.
6. Seed and stabilize all disturbed areas.
7. Commence mining of granite in areas designated for pit development. Excavated material
will be hauled to the plant for crushing and sizing.
8. Reclaim site upon final completion of mining.
In addition, please find attached a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Plan written by our consultant
to address wetland concerns and Neuse River Basin stormwater requirements.
I trust this addresses your concerns, if you have any questions please contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,
Nuwan Wijesuriya
Environmental Engineer
CC: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional OFfice— wlattachments
Mike Janes
Ray Thatcher
Steve Whitt

e; A i
T e c h n i
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
c a l M e m
To: Mr. Steven S. Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials
o r a n d u m
Prepared by: Chad Evenhouse, PWS; Josh Allen, EIT, Todd St. John, PE
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)
Date: April 16, 2009
Subject: Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Introduction
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc (KHA) reviewed the Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) Mine Plan for
the proposed Selma Quarry in Johnston County, NC to address discharge questions raised by the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in their review of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit application. KHA and MMM met with DWQ on December 19, 2008 to discuss their
comments, and the discussions focused on two aspects of the project: 1) Stormwater runoff and nutrient
treatment to meet requirements for the Neuse River Basin, and 2) Potential dewatering impacts on.
surrounding waters (wetlands and streams) associated with the proposed mine.
In order to address these issues, DWQ requested that MMM prepare and submit an NPDES Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Plan.
Therefore, this memorandum presents an evaluation of the site hydrology and a recommendation for
monitoring as the mine develops.
Site Description
The proposed mine site is located in the Town of Selma, Johnston County, North Carolina adjacent to the
Neuse River near US 70 (Figure 1). The area for the proposed pit is agricultural (cattle pasture) adjacent
to forested areas along the Neuse River floodplain. Topographically, the proposed hard rock mine site is
located on a hill in between two headwater streams and the Neuse River floodplain. A berm is proposed ,.
between the future,pit and the Neuse River floodplain (Figure 2)
On the southern portion of the site there is an old borrow pit. This area was not considered "Waters of the
U.S." by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permit approved 5/28/2008, ID: SAW-2007-01798); or
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan Page] of

"Waters of the State" by DWQ (401 Water Quality Certification approved 813/2007, DWQ #2007086.1).
There is a permanent water level in the borrow pit, but no outlet or connection to surface waters. The
location and proximity to the boundary of the site to the floodplain wetlands provide evidence of the
water table in adjacent wetland areas along the Neuse River floodplain.
The proposed development for other aspects of the mine (plant, stockpiles, shop, scale house, etc.) is
located in the managed agricultural fields and flat pasture areas further from the river.
The site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province just west of the fall line between the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain (Giese et al. 1997). The mine will be a hard rock (granite) operation where the pit will
deepen with a series of benches or ledges. Compared to a typical coastal plain mine limestone operation
where the mine expands laterally with the rock layer being mined, the hard rock operation develops
ertically. Groundwater flow in this area is likely typical of the Piedmont where flow direction is towards
streams (discharge areas) and the shape of the water table mimics the topography of the land surface.
? Most of the groundwater flow is located within the upper 30 feet of the more densely fractured rock and
Transitional zones (saprolite and surficial sediments) (Harried, 1989).
W' Hydrology and Hydrogeology Evaluation
This evaluation focuses on the proposed development potential impact to site hydrology and groundwater
in two separate components: stormwater treatment for the developed areas, and groundwater pumping and
discharge. These two components are separated by the nature of the development (i.e. pit and plant
areas), and are discussed separately below.
Croundwiiter Dewatering
Dewatering volume associated with development of the pit will increase as the pit deepens through the
more conductive upper surface, and the cone of influence will expand as the footprint of the pit grows to
its built -out footprint. Once the mine expands to its footprint and then develops vertically, it is not
anticipated that there will be a significant increase in dewatering discharge with depth. This has been
observed at MMM's Benson Quarry which is similarly situated (geographically, topographically,
hydrologically) and is also a hard rock operation.
Wetlands and streams neirest to the pit will likely be affected, however those adjacent to the Neuse River,
and others further from the pit (but closer to the plant areas) will not likely be affected. The delineated
streams and wetlands are shown in Figure 3. Of these, the Stream.-2)W.edand 7_system and Wetland
2'_'Stream-3'/Wetiand:L3-system:are3.likely_to_be:afTr,ctcd=by:.dewatering=and:the.-cone-of;influencerof-.the pit
and will be man?gd_and monitored under the O&M plan with dewatering discharge used to maintain
aquatic functions while mining activities are on -going. Figure 5 shows the location of pit dewatering
ponds and discharge locations to the two systems to be maintained and monitored. It is intended.that the
Weil nd:21S`trcam 3--s`ysterrrt-will:receive-most.of the-d"w ter.ing discharge through a diffuse flow outlet
(i.e. level spreader) upslope of the headwater wetland. Stredtt1:2 Fv.il.l,feceive.less.discharga since the
-stream is intermittent and has less capacity to handle Sustained dis ge. This system will receive
-�---�
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan Page 2 of S
-� 5QrG �� 3r �
5*a*w 7-

periodic discharge. through an outlet allowing for a slower drawdown of the clarification pond and/or
infiltration to the stream.
Wetland 4 will not be hvs3rQlogically affected Ijhe development of the pit since water table will be
sustained by the Neuse River and although groundwater may flow from the river into the pit, this
groundwater will be discharged directly back to the river at the site such that there will be no�act to j4, j `
stream level or base flow. The construction of the&m and compaction of the soils between the future&--�
pit and Wetland 4 will also help reduce lateral water movement along the fringe of the wetland. The old
borrow pit is in a location that will al - for ob rvse ation of the water table adjacent to the Neuse River t 6``'�J
flc odplain wetlands as-tt zed ii ing.pit develops and expands. The water level in the borrow pit will be j/tAd
monitored manually with the installation of.a staff gauge on site_as_a:;roundwater.refcren e hbweVFrr it QM a
will not need to be monitored using a continuously monitoring water level gauge at this point since the
mining -pit will.not.expand to_this portion of the site until later. Additional monitoring may be considered
when the NPDES permit is renewed. 7 {
.l t} D•CCeww{f�v .
Wetlands land 6, and Stream 1 are not likely within the cone of influence of dewatering. -However, these
arias wi� l�eive'additional-hydratio`n•from=the.Best- Management -Practices.(BMPs).and.sto-rmwater
treatment discharge discussed below.
Impacts to Wetlands 5, 8, 9, and 10.have been permitted for the development of the pit. As such, these
wetlands will not be monitored. J""C , vrx�`ej
Stormwater
A stormwater analysis was completed to determine the stormwater treatment requirements for the future
permanent plant (plant) and stockpile area for the proposed development. The Neuse River which is
5
adjacent to the site is classified by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) as nutrient
sensitive water (NSW). Also the site is located in Johnston County, which is subject to Neuse. Basinwide
Stormwater Requirements (I5A NCAC 2B .0235) and are administered by Johnston County (NCDENR
DWQ 2007). Additionally, the approved 401 Water Quality Certification states the following regarding
stormwater requirements.
"If conventional engineered stormwater BMPs are used, they must be designed, at a nrininnina, to
remove 85 percent of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). In addition to controlling 85 percent ofTSS,
all projects requiring stormwater management and located in watersheds that drain directly to
waters containing these supplemental classifications shall meet the following requirements: for
Nutrient Sensitive Waters a minimum of 30 percent total phosphorus and 30 percent total
nitrogen removal."
Johnston County's Stormwater Management Ordinance explains the requirements for nutrient reduction
involving new development:
"Stormwater shall be conveyed from a development in an adequately designed drainage
system of natural drainageways, grass swales, storm sewers, culverts, inlets, and
- channels. Drainage systems shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to encourage
natural infiltration, control velocity, control flooding, and extend the time of
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan Page 3 of 8

concentration of stormwater runoff. The post -development runoff rate for the one-year
storm event shall be attenuated to the predevelopment runoff rate for the one-year storm.
The nitrogen loading contributed by new development shall be restricted to 3.6 pounds of
nitrogen per acre per year. Methodologies for determining nitrogen loading are outlined
in the stormwater design manual. A developer has the option of offsetting the nitrogen -
loading from a development by paying into the state wetlands restoration program.
Procedures for offset payments are outlined in the stormwater design manual. When
using the offset payment, the total nitrogen loading from a development shall not exceed
six pounds per acre per year for residential development and ten pounds per acre per year
for nonresidential development."
Assuming a conservative impervious surface percentage of 50% (100% built -out condition of the 27.1
acre plant site), the amount of runoff for a_1-inch rain is 49,000 cubic -feet, In order to treat this runoff
sufficiently (85% TSS Removal) with a stormwater wetland BMP, the minimum required surface area for
the wetlands would be 49,000 square feet (1. I Acres). Including a 30 foot buffer surrounding the wetland
(for berms, access, etc.), the total surface area required is equal to approximately 1.9 acres. Location for
the stormwater wetland BMP is shown in Figure 4.
he nitrogen loading was calculated for the site at its final built -out condition (based on 27.1 acres of
developed area at 50% imperviousness). The nitrogen load was calculated to be 11.20 pounds per acre
per year. After treatment by the stormwater wetland the resulting nitrogen load would be 6.72 lbs/ac/yr..
This would be below the maximum of 10 lbslac/year, but above the lbs/aclyr. MMM would
be able to provide 2 a r ximate ad t e t e ad exx ort ,
however if the impervious surface percentage for the plant and stockpile area exceeds 44% (11.9 acres of
i
development), MMM ma need to "bu down" the e cess loading from 4.03 lbslac/yr to 3.6 Ibs/ae/yr.
However, expanding the plant site beyond 27.1 acres may also be a mean F increasing the impervious
~1 acreage without exceeding 3.6 ibs/ac/yr. This would require increasing the size of the existing BM Ps or
the addition of BMPs.
Johnston County has indicated that they are willing to allow for a phased development approach. This
would mean if 6__5 o£the 27 acres were made impervious in the first phase then the wetly alone would
nicet the 3.6 lbs/ac/yr nitrogen loading requirement. Once development surpassed 6.5_acres, the ,a dl� itioli. AL
4• �
of a wet pond in series with the wetland would allow another 2.7 acres of development, for a total of 9.2. �Q"
acres of impervious cover. Once development exceeded the 9.2 ae reshold, the addition of a forested t►c
Filter strip in series with the wet pond and wetland would allow MMM to develop up to 11.9 acres 3
wit i� out exceeding 3.6% Ibs/ac/yr of nitrogen. �� C
The use of stormwater wetland will alone meet the 30% Nitrogen and Phosphorus removal required Sy C I�•g �J
the 401 Watei:_Quality_Cer4iflcation for the built -out condition.
Calculations for nutrient loading and BMP sizing are included in Appendix A.
Monitoring
Monitoring at the Selena Quarry siONvill focus on the two drainage systems nearest to the With (Stream^_
2/Wetland 7-and-Wetland.2/Stream-3/Wetland-3). These systems will be hydrated using-lewatering
Selina Quarry DES Operations and Maintenance Plan �- Page 4 of 8

discliar a from the mine it's clarification ponds. This discharge will only include mine ewaterin water
extracted from the pit.
The primary clarification pond will dischar a throe h a diffuse flow i.e. levels reader upslope
from Wetland 2 at headwaters of the perennial stream. The secondary clarification pond will also be
fed by the dewatering discharge, however not on a regtiiar basis such as the primary clarification pond.
This pond will have a draw down in order to release the water into Stream 2 periodically and/or at a '
reduced rate.
VJ`% � �Y
A water level -monitoring a e-wilhbe.installed in-Wetland:2ao:document that wetland hydrology is ,1 r
sustained while mining activities are on -going. Since the drainage sy t below etland 2 is a surface
hydrology wetland/stream system, hydration of Wetland 2 will demonstrate that the system is functioning
with appropriate hydrologic functions. rA-flow per[ViiT.'b`e.tnstalled:in:Stream.2:to document discharge
and flow and d n in the intermittent stream. In addition, a water_leve monitoring-gagewill be
installed-downstream;in Wetland_7, gt•the• ropertyjboundary to document wetland hydrology where
Stream 2 confluences with the Neuse River floodplain wetland area. These ,gages:will:record�water_tablee-
I-evels no a daily_basis-for-the-wetlands;.and:fl ow--volume:and-durati on- by_event.in:Stream 2. Wsta� t� -jal ge
will.be-installed•in,the•borr i satztXlLL-hp,.rnF` n"ally-rQcaded:Qp.? rnnnthlU hnyle -
Anon=site=rain:gage will_be:installed-and will.collect.daily_rainfall:measurements. Monitoring°locations
arc:shown-in-1~ igure 6.
The frequency of data collection -will be evaluated and discussed at the completion of Year 1 monitoring.
Recommendation to change monitoring frequency will be addressed at that time.
An annual monitoring report will be prepared and submitted to DWQ. The report will include:
• Summary of the mine development
Summary of hydrologic monitoring data (daily gage measurements, and monthly observations)
• Summary of on -site rainfall
• Visual assessment of all wetlands and streams shown in Figure 3
Visual assessment of BMP function and copies of any Operations and Maintenance Reporting it'
required by Johnston County.
• Recommendations for corrective measures (if necessary)
It is intended that the first annual report will evaluate the effectiveness of on -site stormwater treatment
and managing dewatering discharge in relation to the progress of site development,and expansion of the
pit. Recommendations for additional monitoring and implementation of future stormwater treatment will
be presented as needed.
References
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Han I Page 5 of 8

Giese, G.L., Eimers, J.L., and Coble, R.W. 1997. Simulation of ground -water flow in the Coastal Plain
aquifer system of North Carolina, in Regional Aquifer -System Analysis -Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-M, 142 p.
Harned, Douglas A. 1989. The Hydrogeologic Framework and a Reconnaissance of Ground -water
Quality in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina, With a Design for Future Study (Water Resources
Investigations Report 88-4130). U.S..Geologic Survey, Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR DWQ (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality). 2007. Administrative Code Section:I 5A NCAC 2B .0200
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands. N.C..
Environmental Management Commission. Raleigh, NC.
a
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan Pagc 6 of 8

Project Area
Title I Vicinity Map
Project Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Pmpama For Johnston County,North Carolina
Y^, Date Project Number Figure
4/16/09 01 1185026 1

r
LIZ
10M
Ml Jp r¢i18 I
jjjj, u a z (� .4!.r,,',�" Y� f R %�f ��r • r r. ram. w.r _ - -a.r •
1+�axd► "} +. 1 `�+'r ;,,£v,3 k'� �, ! k /'fir .+,` - d'apy. + Z, 7 r.t'r'�''y,p, •�' ,, Y.:=-'�,Y•,...'a'd�'d`h
!r6 sir
77:
+"/j , 'hw r .+5 p ! r \ Ir. L, e• + `- -•r • d�' van
6 5 �a Et a a�tr4+ r vp artt r r ., 1u : a'� �'°{ I '� . r �° {vS • „r" r '•
i ''+ r v,,y • JAY `✓rf .� 3t < ���, ly n 'fan'.' +4�f`x" .t'k ry 1. wt J v ev';�r -� _{� •5 s•
��. `� J �: �r $�.ti,,,���t„ � F -:�rr� fi7'tf� ��(j�s► ' '� y f,Vv'•J��'' 11,�'.1 °i+� R •�• 1Y:7;�F ..�= ��� � ti "�• ISON • � �T*, � '� ��., j ? -,`i' 1 a,
' k �-1'+ `,r a r' . a, r r pa .»„ 'a•. ,,.. "+ a 4 , �fi ., e,
r. ♦ !^ ar .fur '"tf r F SI )r,'', trc�l�%t'' - - �k:i�rssu .y+ « .�! rr •F,, 'Fr �, :; W "•+•FY
"11�T
• - _ - ^` � �� r i:j:.l' Va�wz�' ,r:,:., �. *� tf7'�.i I �� � -�'a:��, �� '•`' �`• t'y :_S"``� � }
:Legend:. j.� .�� �, a r� <,.a ` Vsy�_ -rJ af,1,�•_•� ."v,���s �{
x`i4�'i':�nUOV
7 r,' A �•pp a+ -1 4• 5 j}r \ " Y �•t '.t
J �tr:r!•. Pra BCt ' o n r a +sJ' L a y �'. Sa 0 4' !'";� =S I°m- b�f . I.. i. �+F':'� •i�i.-
iw�`i..w �' rJcFf • t '; l�
si ttly�< n Rf .`i'r,�eEt-ar y drry'� y"11
.a^L; rV4! J fs4. r .�,'•,•a •. . .�.• • r{.:1• \' _r :a$!m.o �{•%".. .3',.. i
Title USGS Topographic Map (USGS Quad: Selma, NC: 1964, revised 1988)
Project Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Frrparrd For, Johnston County,North Carolina
I
Date Project Number Figure
4/16/09 011185026 2

A
*ThOstormwater wetland will treat approximately the first
6.5 acres of development in MMM's Future Plant and Stockpile
Area: Any development beyond this can be treated by the addition
of other BMPs in series with the existing stormwater wetland.
Watershed.
Approx. 27.1 ac
Potential Future
BMP Location
r
LEGEND
Proposed Wetland
Proposed Wetland Buffer
-3' Potential Future BMP Locations
t -%Fw Delineated Streams
Delineated Wetlands
Future Plant and Stockpile Area
Title I Proposed Stormwater Treatment for Future Plant and Stockpile Area
N 0 250 500
A I Feet
Potential Future
BMP Location
Stormwater Wetland';
Aoarox., 1.9 ac
Project Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
pmpsrcdFor. Johnston County,North Carolina
w.t6 rem r.b.ir.
Date Project Number Figure
4/16/09 011185026 4

L 1 5 3 }x t N,.\ +i• 'Z \ � • "1. "'fr ; ;•o., .F. ".. 77,..7
ntr h•` �... ` 0 250 500
t r`- yr �i \ �� t r sb, I�� ,y Feet
q.
-,s,K, ,1 y 1,h �j s-.1'1 �+ t, Y.w�/ r -r .� 1 ir•i�''' rryr�, w.,-�
g%'jF ♦\\- + w`` h,- �1; /• ''t S. +;fry `S rr
?\�tf 9•: \ ?'t•r \�^ ��4r{ark gyp+ �� !�•
{�•�r� ,���•r��r�r��r�' / Way .f \:�-
"'�,'�••r� � +•iY" {� f \ \�Sj h.l. t•-1 4 .ar '^• �n,.,_,K,i \h �+.� r�,•i' ••r;/y -:.`.
y,
`• \\ t• ,•.� .:1 ii t r y e
a} _ _ ��1 ..f' „�1 �. i ij : •% s '4 -?� - -
L fS l'
Wetland 7
1 M , a < �a, S•, i �\,$ sMa. - \ a :\ r \Aa�:
$ r`r ��`` \=�.r7/i/fL -.l• =�hT+<�\ �i L.-VN r./ h lam" 14* s • 4
' Stream
tV
Secondary Cladficafiora r' ,
Pond
fn
, I�, �✓' •:� �'r� 1 \a� r r r f;. '"F 3` j,�e�J r, •�s
Prir?afy Clarificafion Jf / c • :` �, "�
Pond
stream 3
!
"LEGEND � ` j=t• j•. rf+� .� 1,/�� \• � .i _
l.r rli
fK,�' lly �11 L
Wetland 3
Mine Water Clarification Pond
wom Delineated Streams "<. t'" _ =�`\ ��J , r . lr.r,l•
633 Delineated Wetlands"-
.� •� fir? , �,, I • '' .. .. � `� j,
Title. I Mine Dewatering Locations
Project Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and M_aintcnance Plan
'rrpared F« Johnston County,North Carolina
= v^. Date Project Number Figure
4/16/09 011185026 5

SiSo ii'nl")l..f.+... •f�ill�i.fF'IRJ..idlY"Y.'Ti'i i
fN
�L`-. - . • ,,rn M f \ r'T, 1`4 •'>rt �•1 t A L
1=eet
Permitted Stream r -:'• - \`
Impact Area M "_\,
5 I�s
Stream 2 Wetland 71.
\
94
; `y Water Depth r..
�.. \` . Welland Gauge
A Velocif y Flow Meter
1 Stream Gauge
Y
i1 i : �""1 ��,1 � �z � �- ; _ _ - , i � f � ��_�iir-• . Fc , r . r ��• .� 1� � w.� �_ s
Permitted Wetland : ` ` •S `� ;' ,tti
Impact Area ✓' 11 La,. �1 �+;f -1 ' ,� �r ,,_,
Permitted Wettand Impact Area
Water Depth . I'; " j f '• ' +� ,, �'�
Wetland Gauge
t � _
` - / d_a- i \ r 5, •• �+J p. .:�� yr .'�
`-. _ �'. -try •` Y.R! rt1� r, #_3'.
. i '1f f / � 1,\ h' ' /�.. •_ J t` � �i rF S' r7 t,.ry,
Stream 3
�"'_"��' \ _ { � � �. .� 6' . :r,- � • / f, for`/'.'. �' S . ti
LEGEND
Proposed Monitoring Locations
A Velocity Meter � �0
0 Wetland Gauge
Mine Water Clarification Pond �� _� =� %lvf�lrf _ ;4�. +-", a�. ''r k '=
Delineated Streams r _ �, ;:� I14 ' r..,•� .,,... -,-iI
� !.
/ _ Permitted wetland i
Delineated Wetlands , ��—�✓ Impact Area
Al
Title Proposed Monitoring Locations
Project Selma Quarry—MPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
PrcpsmdFar. Johnston County, North Carolina
wa16 Yl.i.tb IIrrIW h^
".,..., •y. Date Project Number Figure
4/16/09 011185026 6
czn ,k

APPENDIXA
Selma QuarryNPDL•S Operations and Maintenance Plan Page 8 of

L
®_ n alonmd Ham
Associates � and , Inc.
PROPOSED WETLAND (BASED ON 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER)
Project Information
Project Name: Martin Marietta Materials - Selma Quarry
KHA Project! #F
011185026
Designed by:
JCA Date: 41142009
Revised by:
TSJ Dale; 4/14/2009
Revised by:
Date;
Design Resource:
NCDENR- Stormwater Best Management Practices (April 1999)
NCDENR - Updated Draft Manual of Stormwater Best Management Practices ( July 2005)
Site Information
Sub Area Location:
Future Permanent Plant and Stockpile Area
Drainage Area (DA) =
27,05 Acres
impervious Area (IA) =
13.53 Acres
Percent Impervious (1) =
50.0 %
Required Storage Volume (Water Quality):
Design Storm =
1 Inch
Determine Rv Value =
0.05 + .009 (1) = 0.50 inlin
Storage Volume Required =
49,098 cf (above Permanent Pool)
Temporary Pool Depth =
12 inch
Maximum Surface Area Required =
49,08t3 st
Required Forbay Sizing
Required Volume =
10.00% of Pemrenant Pool
Required Forbay Volume =
4,910 cf
i

EM\ KMItyHorn ,
MM and Assoaates, Inc.
NUTRTIENT LOADING CALCULATIONS (BASED ON 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER) -
Project Information
Project Name: MMM Selma Quarry - Built Out Conditions
KHA Project If: 011185026
Designed by: JCA Date: 4114/2009
Revised by_ TSJ Date: 411412009
Revised by: Dale:
WPA (Wet Pond)
BMP
BMP
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeff.
by Land Use
From Site
Efficiency
by Land Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
Ibslaclyr)
(Ibs! r)
(Ibslaclyr)
N
(Ibs! r)
(Ibslaclyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
Permanently pretested undisturbed
0.000
0.6
0.00
25,0%
0.00
open space forest, unmown, meadow)
Permanently protected managed
13.526
1.2
16.23
25.0°h
4.06
open space (gross. landscaping, etc-)
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21.2
286.74
25.0%
71,69
lots, driveways, roofs, paved storage areas, etc.)
V
Totals
27.05i
302.97
11.20
75.74
2.80
1 8.40
SW1 (Stormwater Wetland)
BMP
BMP
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
COW.
by Land Uso
From Site
Efficiency
by Land Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
(Ibslaclyr)
(lbstyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
M
(Ibstyr)
(lbslac/yr)
(Ibslae! r
Permanently protected undisturbed
0.000
0.6
0.00
40.0%
0.00
open space forest, unmown, meadow)
Permanently protected managed
13.626
1.2
12.17
40.0%
4.87
open space(grass, landscaping, etc.)
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21.2
215.06
40.0%
86.02
(
lots, driveways, roe 5, paved storage areas, etc.)
V
Totals
27.051
22T.23
8.40
90.89
3.36
5.04
FS-1 (Forested Filter Strip)
BMP
BNP
Sl:4P
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeff.
by Land Use
From Site
Efficiency
by Land Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
{Ibslaclyr)
(Ibslyr)
{Ibslaclyr)
M)
(Ibslyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
Permanently protected undisturbed
0.000
0.6
0.00
20.0%
0.00
(
open space forest, unmown, meadow}
Permanently protected managed
13.526
1.2
7.30
20.01/4
1.46
open space { raSS, landscaping, etc.)
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21.2
129.03
20.0%
25.81
lots,driveways, roofs, paved storage areas, etc.)
V
Totals
27,051
136.34
5.04
27.27
1 1.01
1 4,03
TOTAL TN LOAD FOR ENTIRE PROJECT = 11.20 LBSIACIYR
TOTAL TN REDUCTION FOR ENTIRE PROJECT 7.17 LBSIACIYR
TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION TN LOAD = 4.03 LBSIACIYR
% TN REDUCTION FOR ENTIRE SITE = 64.00%

Martin Marietta Materials
P.O. Box 30013 -
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Telephone [phone]
CERTIFIED MAIL —RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
September 5, 2008
Mr. Bradley Bennett
Stormwater and General Permits Unit
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Subject: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. — Selma Quarry
Notice of Intent (NOl)
NPDES General Permit NCG020000
Dear Sir;
Please find attached a completed permit application requesting coverage under the NPDES General
Permit NCG020000 for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. - Selma Quarry. The requested Permit would
cover discharge of stormwater runoff and Mine dewatering from the quarry into an unnamed tributary of
the Neuse River.
Attached along with the Notice of Intent are the following:
- A check for $100 made payable to NCDENR.
- A copy of the approved Mining Permit for the quarry.
- A copy of the USGS quad map with the location of the quarry marked on the trap.
- A copy of the vicinity map showing the location of the quarry in relation to major roads.
- A copy of the Mine map showing the proposed Mine dewatering discharge outlail location.
A copy of the Approval of'401 Water Quality Certification for the project.
A copy of the US Army Corps of Engineers permit (404) for the project.
A copy of'the receipt from the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Indicating
payment for the compensatory mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality
Certification/ 404 permits issued for the project.
I trust the attached information is adequate for your review, and as evidenced by the copies of 401/404
permits we have already gone through the process of minimizing impacts to wetlands by working with the
Division of Water Quality and the US Army Corps of Engineers.
If you should have any questions or require more information please contact rile at [phone].
Sincerely,
7-
Nuwari Wijesuriya
Environmental Engineer
CC: Steve Whitt, Mike Jones, and Ray Thatcher

Martin Marietta Materials
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Steven S. Whitt
Director, Environmental Services
January 12, 2009
Ms. Jennifer Jones
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Request for Additional Information
Certificate of Coverage NCG020735
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. — Selma Quarry
Dear Ms. Jones:
We wanted to thank you and the staff from the Central Office and Raleigh Regional Office for
meeting with us on December 19 to discuss your request for more information dated December
8, 2008. This request relates to our General Stormwater NPDES Permit application for Selma
Quarry located in Johnston County.
During this meeting we discussed the layout of this operation and potential timing of the site
development. We also discussed the permits that we have already acquired from the USACOE
(Action ID SAW-2007-01798) and DWQ (920070861) for proposed impacts to wetlands. Chad
Evenhouse of Kimley-Horn and Assoc. discussed how these granite quarries differ from the
coastal limestone quarries with respect to groundwater impacts.
We understand your request for an Operation and Monitoring Plan for this location and we
would like to notify your office that we will submit to DWQ the information discussed in our
meeting by March 2, 2009.
Please notify this office if this date is not acceptable.
Sincere ,
Ste e Whitt, P.E.
Director, Environmental Services

®LJMIKimley-Ham
and Associates, Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u to
To. Mr. Steven S. Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials
Prepared by: Chad Evenhouse, PWS; Josh Allen, EIT, Todd St. John, PE
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)
Date: September 1, 2009
Subject: Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance flan (amended)
Introduction
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc (KHA) reviewed the Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) Mine Plan for
the proposed Selma Quarry in Johnston County, NC to address discharge questions raised by the NC
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) in their review of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit application. KHA and MMM met with NCDWQ on December 19, 2008 to
discuss their comments, and the discussions focused on two aspects of the project: 1) Storinwater runoff
and nutrient treatment to meet requirements for the Neuse River Basin, and 2) Potential dewatering
impacts on surrounding waters (wetlands and streams) associated with the proposed mine.
In order to address these issues, NCDWQ requested that MMM prepare and submit an NPDES Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) Plan.
MMM and KHA met again with NCDWQ on July 24, 2009 to discuss the O&M plan (dated April 16,
2009) and provided comments and requests for more information.
This memorandum is an amended O&M plan per the project discussions with NCDWQ, MMM, and
KBA_
Site Description
The proposed mine site is located in the Town of Selma, Johnston County, North Carolina adjacent to the
Neuse River near US 70 (Figure 1). The area for the proposed pit is agricultural (cattle pasture) adjacent
to forested areas along the Neuse River floodplans. Topographically, the proposed hard rock mine site is
Selma Quarry NPDES Opciations and Maintenance Plan Pagc I

U
located on a lull in between two headwater streams and the Neuse River floodplain. A berm. is proposed
between the future pit and the Neuse River floodplain (Figure 2)
On the southern portion of the site there is an old borrow pit. This area was not considered "Waters of the
U.S." by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permit approved 5128/2008, ID: SAW-2007-01798), or
"Waters of the State" by NCDWQ (401 Water Quality Certification approved 8/3/2007, NCDWQ
#20070861). There is a permanent water level in the borrow pit, but no outlet or connection to surface
waters. The location and proximity to the boundary of the site to the floodplain wetlands provide
evidence of the water table in adjacent wetland areas along the Neuse River floodplain.
The proposed development for other aspects of the mine (plant, stockpiles, shop, scale house, etc.) is
located in the managed agricultural fields and flat pasture areas further from the river.
The site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province just west of the fall line between the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain (Giese et al. 1997). The mine will be a hard rock (granite) operation where the pit will
deepen with a series of benches or ledges. Compared to a typical coastal plain mine limestone operation
where the mine expands laterally with the rock layer being mined, the hard rock operation develops
vertically. Groundwater flow in this area is likely typical of the Piedmont where flow direction is towards
streams (discharge areas) and the shape of the water table mimics the topography of the land surface.
Most of the groundwater flow is located within the upper 30 feet of the snore densely fractured rock and
transitional zones (saprolite and surficial sediments) (Harried, 1989).
Hydrology and Hydrogeology ,Evaluation
This evaluation focuses on the proposed development potential impact to site hydrology and groundwater
in two separate components: stormwater treatment for the developed areas, and groundwater pumping and
discharge. These two components are separated by the nature of the development (i.e. pit and plant
areas), and are discussed separately below.
Groundwater Dewatering
Dewatering volume associated with development of the pit will increase as the pit deepens through the
more conductive upper surface, and the cone of influence will expand as the footprint of the pit grows to
its built -out footprint. Once the mine expands to its footprint and then develops vertically, it is not
anticipated that there will be a significant increase in dewatering discharge with depth. This has been
observed at MMM's Benson Quarry which is similarly situated (geographically, topographically,
hydrologically) and is also a hard rock operation. In addition, MMM has conducted a hydrogeology
study to determine typical hydrologic influence from dewatering in piedmont quarries. Based on that
study, MMM assumes that the limit for surficial hydrology influence adjacent to a piedmont quarry is 500
feet. This study has been submitted to NCDWQ for the Selma Quarry NPDES permit application in
conjunction with this memorandum.
Selma Quarry NPDE5 Operations and MaintLwnce Plan Page 2

Therefore, wetlands and streams within 500 feet from the pit may be affected by dewatering, however
those adjacent to the Neuse River, and others further from the pit (but closer to the plant areas) will not
likely be affected. "rhe delineated streams and wetlands are shown in Figure 3. Of these, the Stream
21Wetland 7 system and Wetland 2/Stream 3/Wedand 3 system may be affected by dewatering and the
cone of influence of the pit. Hydrology in these systems wi I I be managed and monitored under the O&M
plan utilizing dewatering discharge to maintain aquatic functions while dewatering activities are on-
going. Figure 5 shows the location of pit dewatering ponds and discharge locations to the two systems to
be maintained and monitored. it is intended that the Wetland 2/Stream 3 system will receive most of the
dewatering discharge through a diffuse flow outlet (i.e. plunge pool) upslope of the headwater wetland.
Stream 2 will receive less discharge since the stream is intermittent and has less capacity to handle
sustained discharge. This system will receive hydration from the clarification pond through infiltration to
the strewn.
Wetland 4 will not be hydrologically affected by the initial development of the pit since water table will
be sustained by the Neuse River. It is anticipated that as the pit expands, groundwater may flow from the
floodplain towards the pit; however this groundwater will be discharged directly back to the
river/floodplain system through the discharge discussed above and it is anticipated that there will be no
impact to stream flow in the Neuse River, or hydrology of wetlands in the Neuse River floodplain. It was
agreed by MMM and NCDWQ to install additional wetland monitoring gages along Wetland 4 in the
Neuse River floodplain as the pit expanded. The three additional gages would be installed along the
wetland boundary of Wetland 4 and would be installed once the pit had expanded to within 600 feet of the
permitted limit (for the pit). This is approximately 1,000 feet from the wetland boundary.
The old borrow pit is in a location that will allow for observation of the water table adjacent to the Neuse
River floodplain wetlands as the mining pit develops and expands. The water level in the borrow pit will
be observed as a qualitative groundwater reference as the mine develops, however it will not need to be
monitored using a continuously monitoring water level gauge at this point since the mining pit will not
expand to this portion of the site uritil later. Additional monitoring may be considered when the NPDLS
permit is renewed.
Wetland 1 is beyond the 500-foot cone of influence for the pit, however, NCDWQ expressed concern that
that the development of the berm/stockpile area adjacent to this wetland would reduce overland flow to
the wetland and therefore reduce wetland hydrology. It was agreed that a monitoring gage would be
installed at this location to provide wetland hydrology monitoring prior to construction of the
berm/stockpile area -
Wetland 6 and Stream 1 are not within the cone of influence of dewatering. However, these areas will
receive additional hydration from the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stormwater treatment
discharge discussed below.
Impacts to Wetlands 5, 8, 9, and 10 have been permitted for the development of the pit. As such, these
wetlands will not be monitored.
Selma Quarry NPDFS operations and Mainteronce Plan
Page 3

Stormwater
A stormwater analysis was completed to determine the stormwater treatment requirements for the future
permanent plant (plant) and stockpile area for the proposed development_ The Neuse River which is
adjacent to the site is classified by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC NCDWQ) as
nutrient sensitive water (NSW) and Water Supply Watershed (WS 1V). Also the site is located in
Johnston County, which is subject to Neuse Basinwide Stormwater Requirements (I SA NCAC 2B .0235)
and are administered by Johnston County (NCDENR NCDWQ 2007). However, most of the site is
located within Selma which adn-Linisters the water supply watershed stormwater requirements. Selma's
stormwater program is not on NCDWQ's list of approved local programs, whereas Johnston County's
program is. As such, if Johnston County does not review the stormwater plan, NCDWQ's 401 Unit will.
Additionally, the approved 401 Water Quality Certification states the following regarding stormwater
requirements.
"If conventional engineered stormwater BMPs are used, they must be designed, at a minimum, to
remove 85 percent of Total Suspended Solids ('1'SS). In addition to controlling 85 percent of TSS,
all projects requiring stormwater management and located in watersheds that drain directly to
waters containing these supplemental classifications shall meet the following requirements: for
Nutrient Sensitive Waters a minimum of 30 percent total phosphorus and 30 percent total
nitrogen removal."
If Johnston County's Stormwater Management Ordinance applies, the requirements for nutrient reduction
involving new development are as follows:
"Stormwater shall be conveyed from a development in an adequately designed drainage
system of natural drainageways, grass swales, storm sewers, culverts, inlets, and
channels. Drainage systems shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to cncourage
natural infiltration, control velocity, control flooding, and extend the time of
concentration of stonrwater runoff. The post -development runoff rate for the one-year
storm event shall be attenuated to the predevelopment runoff rate for the one-year storm.
The nitrogen loading contributed by new development shall be restricted to 3.6 pounds of
nitrogen per acre per year. Methodologies for determining nitrogen loading are outlined
in the stormwater design manual. A developer has the option of offsetting the nitrogen
loading from a development by paying into the state wetlands restoration program.
Procedures for offset payments are outlined in the stormwater design manual. When
using the offset payment, the total nitrogen loading from a development shall not exceed
six pounds per acre per year for residential development and ten pounds per acre per year
for nonresidential development."
If Selma's water supply watershed requirements apply, these requirements are typically based on state
minimum requirements. Such requirements include 30-foot or 100-foot stream buffers (based on the
project built -upon area). They also require stormwater best management practices (BMP) that capture
and treat the first one inch of rain and remove 85% total suspended solids (TSS) for high density projects.
These criteria would be less stringent than those set forth in the 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC).
As such, meeting the 401 WQC requirements would likely suffice for meeting Selma's water supply
watershed stormwater requirements.
Selma Quarry NPDFS Operations and Maintenance Plan Page 4

41
Assuming a conservative impervious surface percentage of 50% (100% built -out condition of the 27.1
acre plant site); the amount of runoff for a 1-inch rain is 49,000 cubic feet. In order to treat this runoff
sufficiently (85% TSS Removal) with a stormwater wetland BMP, the minimum required surface area for
the wetlands would be 49,000 square feet (I .l Acres). including a 30 foot buffer surrounding the wetland
(for berms, access, etc.), the total surface area required is equal to approximately 1.9 acres. Location for
the stormwater wetland BMP is shown in Figure 4.
The nitrogen loading was calculated for the site at its final built -out condition (based on 27.1 acres of
developed area at 50% imperviousness). The nitrogen load was calculated to be 11.20 pounds per acre
per year. After treatment by the stormwater wetland the resulting nitrogen load would be 6.72 lbs/ac/yr.
This would be below the maximum of 10 lbs/ac/year, but above the required 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr. MMM would
be able to provide 2 (approximate) additional BMPs in series to decrease the nitrogen load export;
however if the impervious surface percentage for the plant and stockpile area exceeds 44% (11.9 acres of
development), MMM may need to "buy down" the excess loading from 4.03 Ibs/aclyr to 3.6 Ibs/aclyr.
However, expanding the plant site beyond 27.1 acres may also be a means of increasing the impervious
acreage without exceeding 3.6 lbs/ac/yr. This would require increasing the size of the existing BMPs or
the addition of BMPs.
Johnston County and Selma both have indicated that they are willing to allow for a phased development
approach. This would mean if 6.5 of the 27 acres were made impervious in the first phase then the
wetland alone would meet the 3.6 lbs/ac/yr nitrogen loading requirement. Once development surpassed
6.5 acres, the addition of a wet pond in series with the wetland would allow another 2.7 acres of
development, for a total of 9.2 acres of impervious cover. Once development exceeded the 9.2 acre
threshold, the addition of a forested filter strip in series with the wet pond and wetland would allow
MMM to develop up to 11.9 acres without exceeding 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr of nitrogen.
However, if Johnston County's nutrient reduction program does not apply, then the development will
need to meet NCDWQ's 401 WQC requirements as described above. In any event, the development can
be designed to comply with the applicable state, county, or local government requirements. The use of
stormwater wetland will alone meet the 30% Nitrogen and Phosphorus removal required by the 401
Water Quality Certification for the built -out condition.
Calculations for nutrient loading and BMP sizing are included in Appendix A.
Monitoring
Monitoring at the Selma Quarry site will focus on the two drainage systems nearest to the pit (Stream
2/Wetland 7 and Wetland 2/Stream 3/Wetland 3). These systems will be hydrated using dewatering
discharge from the mine pit's clarification ponds. This discharge will only include mine dewatering water
extracted from the pit.
The primary clarification pond will discharge through a diffuse flow structure (i.e. plunge pool) upslope
from Wetland 2 above the headwaters of Stream 3. The secondary clarification pond will also be fed by
the dewatering discharge, however not on a regular basis such as the primary clarification pond. This
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maiu;enance Plan Page 5

C]
pond will allow infiltration to Stream 2 and will periodically be filled to maintain a permanent water level
for hydration.
A water level monitoring gage will be installed in Wetland 2 to document that wetland hydrology is
sustained while dewatering activities are on -going. Since the drainage system below Wetland 2 is a
surface hydrology wetland/stream system, hydration of Wetland 2 will demonstrate that the system is
functioning with appropriate hydrologic functions.
A flow meter will be installed in Stream 2 to document discharge and flow and duration in the
intermittent stream. In addition, a water level monitoring gage will be installed downstream in Wetland 7
at the property boundary to document wetland hydrology where Stream 2 confluences with the Neuse
River floodplain wetland area. These gages will record water table levels on a daily basis for the
wetlands, and flow volume and duration by event in Stream 2. A staff gage will be installed in the borrow
pit area and will be observed periodically by the on -site plant manager.
An on -site rain gage will be installed and will collect daily rainfall measurements.
Monitoring locations are shown in Figure 6.
The frequency of data collection will be evaluated and discussed at the completion of Year 1 monitoring.
Recommendation to change monitoring frequency will be addressed at that time.
An annual monitoring; report will be prepared and submitted to NCDWQ. The report will include:
a Summary of the mine development
G Summary of hydrologic monitoring data (daily gage measurements, and monthly observations)
a Summary of on -site rainfall
o Visual assessment of all wetlands and streams shown in Figure 3
a Visual assessment of BMP function and copies of any Operations and Maintenance Reporting if
required by Johnston County.
a Recommendations for corrective measures (if necessary)
It is intended that the first annual report will evaluate the effectiveness of on -site stormwater treatment
and managing dewatering discharge in relation to the progress of site development and expansion of the
pit. Recommendations for additional monitoring and implementation of future stormwater treatment will
be presented as needed.
Selina Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Page 6

References
Giese, G.L., Eirners,l.L., and Coble, R.W. 1997. Simulation of ground -water flow in the Coastal Plain
aquifer system of North Carolina, in Regional Aquifer -System Analysis -Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain:
U.S_ Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-M, 142 p.
Harned, Douglas A. 1989. The Hydrogeologic Framework and a Reconnaissance of Ground -water
Quality in the Piedmont Province of Nofth Carolina, With a Design for Future Study (Water Resources
Investigations Report 88-4130). U.S. Geologic Survey. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR NCDWQ (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of'
Water Quality). 2007. Administrative Code Section: ISA NCAC 2B .0200
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands. N.C..
Environmental Management Commission. Raleigh, NC.
Selma Quarry NPr)F_S Opcmtions and Mauxtenance Plus Page 7

oft' r i
0 50 too t 0 10 20
Miles L....".`
• tif�leti��;ne_►2 ~ _ _
i`veFst�ne Dr'.•
2090
2Q39
t 2016 ^
�y S aFllne-Rd
2019
2020 ��. -' `� " Bear -Farm -Rd, Project
0 2568 I� K i. u
39
2575
Y �..
1917 E
70
HaH 4 q7,�, , ,. ✓P i bw
0 0.5 --- — 1
239
Sin
a Miles
Title Vicinity Map
Project Selma Quarry— NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
ettpaftld For- Johnston County, North Carolina
• 'A Date Project Number Figure
911 /09 011185026 1
K-,RA1. Fnricomrmaryl, 1191a16 mwi Sd a SEL?,%A c)&m vim F7cVRf Sdx Prepared by lodm a A4m rwi =1

r
Legend
Project Boundary
s
+; fir'` -.. y . ♦ •
i i
{ '- • �� ,, Grave! �� '7 � -
+te
\�� �'s� f•-� Sand and Gravel •M1
[ Fits ,,� ►►
Str
i spn.
� .'
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feel
Title IUSGS Topographic Map (USGS Quad. Selma, NC: 1964, revised 1998)
Project Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Prepared For Johnston County,North Carolina
v• Date Project Number Figure
9/l/09 011185026 2
R:4RAL En tironm,ni.I+D11i65026 MMM Sdnw\SELMA QCM PW FIOURELdw Prqu ed by Joshua Allen
cmn ,m,=•

r!;,
IMP"
NJ
A
Legend
rrI Project Boundaty
7'
Jurisdictional Stream Channel
Jurisdictional Wetlands
96 Jurisdictional Open Waters 0 600 1, 200 2,400
50'Neuse River Buffer Feet
T tie Delineation of Waters of the U.S.
Project Selma Quarry - NP DES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Nqmcd Far Johnston County, North Carolina
Date Project Number Figure
911/09 011185026 3
O&M �FIG WMAW Np.cd by I-hnn AUft L —(I -= .

1
r
'The stormwa ter wetland W11 treat approximately the first
6.5 acres of development in MMM's Future Plant and Stockpile
Area. Any development beyond this can be treated by the addition
of other BMPs in series with the existing stormwater wetland.
LEGEND
a Proposed Wetland
Proposed Wetland Buffer
(�3 Potential Future BMP Locations
-%w• Delineated Streams
K Delineated Wetlands
® Future Plant and Stockpile Area
Potential Future
8MP Location
I
l
l\
Watershed
r
,
N 0 250 500
AI I
Feet
Skwnmster NMtiand":
' Approx. 1.9 ac
ILL•
Title Proposed Stormwater Treatment for Future Plant and Stockpile Area
Project Selma Quarry - NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Prepared For. Johnston County, North Carolina
M
• V r Date Project Number Figure
9/l/09 011185026 4
K ARAL_En-wmt. I1185026 MONM Sdn)ISELMA O&M FLvi FIGUIE x Prepared by Joshua AMn
CC►I " :..

N 0 250 500
A l I I
Feet
.
1
1 PAmary akwa flcaGon ■
Pond
- 01)
I Y
LEGEND r
Mine Water Clarification Pond
-%P+- Delineated Streams
Delineated Wetlands
Tide I Mine Dewateting Locations
Project Selina Quarry PDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Prepared I'm Johnston County, North Carolina
-w. Date Project Number Figure
9/ l /09 011185026 5
K'JUL_PawaonmaMl 1 1115a2a MMM Sd..%SELMA C&M PL-o FSGAMUA. Prepared by Joshua Allen r-mn—,..,,..r

of
Permitted Stream
rmpactArlea
N 0 375 750
n
N Feet
• \ Ktifand B
�\ 0.02 ac
\ Wktland 7
Steam 2 0.48 ac
Vebcfty Flow Mete
,
Stream Gauge
—
1
�. Water Depth
'
ftifand Gauge Water Depth
Wafland Gauge
Water Depth
Watland Gauge
t:..��
•
-
WaNand 2 Permitted Wetland �1
Impact Area ' J
• ^
4�_ -A
Water Depth
• Wetland Gauge
Permitted WeNand
J Y
�
r�
I l / \,ev
ImpactArea
J 1
i
Stream 3
[ 1*.....
LEGEND
Water Depth
Wbttand Gauge
Proposed Monitoring Locations
o Future Wetland Gage Location
KINta ndD a a
• Initial Wetland Gauge Location
o Velocity Meter Location
® Mine Water Clarification Pond
Delineated Streams
Delineated Wetlands
Title
Proposed Monitoring Locations
Project
Selma Quarry PDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Prepaad Far.
Johnston County,North
Carolina
w w wawa MRR..+Ma A A
Date
Project Number
Figure
9/1/09
01118502E
b
v-+AAL Ea.innRa .Ml1 WoM W" Sd—ISELMA MM n - RGMESAm Prcpuod yy Joshua Allee rnn .rr

Im
® ice" Kn1,d1 Horn
[� !� '1 aad Associates. Inc.
Project Information
PROPOSED WETLAND (BASED ON 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER)
Project Name: Martin Marietta Materials - Selma Quarry
KHA Project f#: 011185026
Designed by: JCA Date: 4114f2OO9
Revised by: TSJ Hate: 4114r2009
Revised by: Date:
Design Resource: NCDE NR - Stormwater Best Management Practices (April 1999)
NCdENR - Updated Draft Manual of Stormwater Best Management Preelic es ( July 2005)
Site Information
Sub Area Location: Future Permanent Plant and Stockpile Area
Drainage Area (DA) = 27-05 Acres
Impervious Area (IA) = 13.53 Arles
Percent Impervious (1) = 50.0 %
Required Storage Volume (Water Quality):
Design Storm M 1 inch
Determine Rv Value = 0.05 + .009 (1) = 0.50 inFn
Storage Volume Required = 49,098 cf (above Permanent Pool)
Temporary Pool Depth = 12 inch
Maximum Surface Area Required = 49,098 sf
Required Forbay Sizing
Required Volume = 10.00% of Permenant Pool
Required Forbay Volume = 4,910 cf

t6
E&El � KiraleyHorn
me `I and Assccia:es, tic,
NUTRTIENT LOADING CALCULATIONS (BASED ON 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER)
Project Information
Projed Name: MMM Soima Quarry - Built Out Conditions
KHA Project D: 011185026
Designed by: JCA Date: 411412009
Revised by-. TSJ Date: 411412009
Revised by: Date:
WP-t (Wet Pond)
amp
BMP
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Redaction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeff.
by Land Use
From Site
Efficiency
by Land Use
From Silo
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
Ibslac! r)
(lbslyr)
(lbslaclyr)
(%n)
(ib r
(tbslaclyr)
(tbslaclyr]
Permanently protected undisturbed
0.000
0.6
0.00
25.0%
0.00
1
open space forest, unmown, meadow
Permanently protected managed
13.526
1.2
16.23
25.0%
4.06
1
open space rass, landscaping, etc.
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21.2
286.74
25.0'%
71.69
1
lets, driveways. roofs, paved storage areas, otc.)
I
I
I
I
I
V
Totals
27M1
302.97
1 11.20
75.74
1 2.80
8.40
SW-1 (StormwaterWettand)
amp
B"P
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeft.
by Land Use
From Site
Efficiency
by Lard Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
(lbslaclyr)
(Ibsiyr)
11bsfzc1yr)
(%)
(lbslyr)
(ibalac!yr)
lbslaclyr
Pennanentty protected undisturbed
0.000
0.6
0.00
40.0%
7.00
]
a en space tares., unmown, meadow
Permanently protected managed
13.526
1.2
12.17
40.0%
4,87
1
o n space rass,landscaping, etc.
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21.2
215,06
40.0%
$6.02
1
lots, cinvewa , roots, paved storage areas, etc.)
V
Totals
27.051
227.23
8.44
90.89
3.36
5.p4
F3-1 (Forested Filter Strip)
BMP
BMP
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeff,
by Land Use
From Site
Effielency
by Land Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
Acres
(lbslart r)
Ib r)
(IbslacJyr}
%)
(lbsl r)
Ibslaclyr)
(Ibslaclytl
Permanently protected undisturbed
0,000
0.6
0.00
20.0%
0.00
1
open space forest, unmown, meadow
Permanently protected managed
13.526
1.2
7.30
20.0 %
1.46
1
op6n space(grass, Landscaping, etc.)
Proposed: impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21.2
129.03
20.0 %
H.81
lots, erivewa s, roofs, paved storage areas, etc.)
V
Totals
27.051
1313.34
5.04
27.27
1.01
4.03
TOTAL TN LOAD FOR ENTIRE PROJECT = 11,20 LRS14C)YR
TOTAL TN REDUCTION FOR ENTIRE PROJECT 7.17 LBSIACNR
TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION TN LOAD = 4.03 LSSIACNR
% TN REDUCTION FOR ENTIRE St7E = 64.00 %

,A, Martin Marietta Materials
P.o. Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Telephone [phone]
Hand Delivered (in the care of Mr. Ken Pickle)
August 31, 2009
Ms. Jennifer Jones
NC Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Request for Additional information
General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. — Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Jones:
Firstly we would like to thank you, Lauren Witherspoon, and Damiy Smith for meeting with us
on July 24, 2009 to discuss your concerns raised in your letter to our office dated June 30, 2009.
We believe the meeting was productive and helped for all parties to come to an understanding
and agreement as to what would truly be required for the O&M plan for the site. To this end
please find attached the following documents:
- Memo responding to your letter dated June 30, 2009. We Have gone through the 4-
page request for additional information item by item.
- Revised 0&M plan.
- Hydrogeology study demonstrating expected cone of influence.
- Revised maps: Site Plan, Details Sheet.
We believe we have been very thorough in our response and trust that it satisfactorily addresses
all of your concerns.
Sincerely,
Nuwan Wijesuriya
Environmental Engineer
Attachments
SEP - 2 2009
1
ems. � v�•i U�`F�r,�
CC: Lauren Witherspoon, Danny Smith — DWQ, Raleigh Regional Office

Kimley-Horn
®. and Associates, Inc.
i c c h n i c a l M e rn o r a n d u to
To: Mr. Steven S. Whitt; Mr. Nuwan Wijesuriya
Martin Marietta Materials
Prepared by: Chad Evenhouse, PWS;
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Date: August 31, 2009
Subject: Response to NCDWQ Request for Information (June 6, 2009) and Summary of NCDWQ
meeting on July 24, 2009 regarding NCG020735
Selma Quarry, Johnston County
Introduction
The following memorandum is prepared to address the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) request for more information regarding the Selma Quarry NPDES pen -nit application (GP No.
NCG020735, letter dated June 30, 2009) and the subsequent project meeting held between NCDWQ staff
(Jennifer Jones, Danny Smith, Lauren Witherspoon), Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) staff (Steve
Whitt, Nuwan Wijerusiya) and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) staff (Chad Cvenhouse, Todd
St. John) on July 24, 2009 to discuss NCDWQ's questions.
Response to Comments
The following underlined items follow the bulleted and numbered questions/requests listed in the June 30,
2009 letter. The discussion and response includes the discussion and resolution for each issue per the
project meeting held on July 24, 2009 with NCDWQ.
Calculations to show the cone influence
As was discussed at the July 24, 2009 meeting with NCDWQ, the cone of the Selma Quarry is expected
to be limited and similar to other hard -rock quarries located in the North Carolina Piedmont
Physiographic Region. Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) utilized the attached hydrogeo logic study,
which was prepared to evaluate cone of influence of piedmont hard -rock quarries. MMM proposes to
plan a 500-ft radius from the pit as an appropriate approximation of influence to surficial hydrology.
Settling Pond Sizing— (MMM1
Pond sizing and information and calculations are included in the Mine Plan details submitted with the
permit application.
Selma o&tit Plan_response_5-31-2009.doc
Page 1

Level Spreader Design and Calculations
Level spreader design and Iocations are included with the Mine Plan details for sediment basins. Level
spreaders necessary to meet Neuse River Riparian Buffer requirements and 401 Water Quality
Certification requirements will be presented to the "Gown of Selma and Amy Chapman with the NCDWQ
401 Unit for review and approval. Per the July 24, 2009 meeting, all submittals and approvals will be
copied to Lauren Witherspoon for inclusion in the NPDES permit project file.
Description of measures to prevent erosion and flooding
The Mine Plan includes measures for sediment and erosion control for land disturbance activities per
Division of Land Resources requirements.
With regards to potential erosion due to dewatering discharge, the Mine Plan designates two areas for pit
clarification ponds which will receive mine dewatering water. Pond 1 is located upslope of Wetland 2, a
headwater wetland associated with Stream 3. Pond 2 is located upslope of Stream 2.
It is anticipated that most of the water in the clarification ponds will be utilized for operations of the plant
(i.e. dust suppression) for the initial years of mine development.
Surplus dewatering water will discharge from Pond l via a spillway/control structure and into a plunge
pool to provide diffuse flow towards the headwater wetland. Pond 2 will be maintained as an infiltration
basin (i.e. no surface discharge) providing hydration to Stream 2.
The management of dewatering water and discharge/seepage from these clarification ponds will use an
adaptive management plan (Appendix A) depending on the actual volume of water generated from
dewatering and amount needed for plant operations. MMM anticipates two scenarios:
Scenario 1 — The volume of water needed for the plant operations exceeds volume of water
generated froin dewatering. Under this condition, the adaptive management plan will require that
the pit clarification ponds be maintained at a minimum level to allow for seepage from the ponds
to the adjacent stream or wetland system.
Scenario 2 —The volume of water from dewatering exceeds the water needs for the plant
operation. Under this condition, Pond 2 water level will be maintained at a constant level via a
diversion valve from Pond 1 in order to maintain infiltration and hydration towards Stream 2.
Pond 1 will discharge all surplus water through an energy dissipater/plunge pool providing
diffuse flow into Wetland 2. If the volume of discharge into Wetland 2 is too great and/or
constant, this could potentially cause concentrated flow and erosion of a channel, or channels
through the'wetland. If so, under the adaptive management plan, MMM will expand the
clarification ponds for additional storage and infiltration, and/or provide for surplus water to be
discharged to the abandoned borrow pit within the southern portion of the property, or other
appropriate areas within the property.
The adaptive management plan is attached (Appendix A), and a summary of the management
activities per the plan, as well as condition of the discharge locations and monitoring areas, and
volume of discharge will be included in the annual report.
Selma O&M Plan_resp6nse_S-3l-2009.doc
Page 2

With regards to potential flooding, a flood study was prepared for the project and presented to the Town
of Selma demonstrating that the proposed project complies with City and County floodplain development
ordinances. A copy of the flood study can be provided upon request.
Annual Report
An annual report will be submitted to NCDWQ within the first quarter of the following year (i.e. prior to
March 31), suninarizing the monitoring results and adaptive management activities throughout the
previous year. Monitoring gage data loggers will collect daily measurements and will be
downloaded/inspected periodically throughout the year. A qualitative assessment of the monitoring
locations, clarification ponds, and outlet structures will be performed during all inspections. A summary
of all monitoring data and site assessment inspections will be provided in the annual report.
Restoration Plan
Wetlands and streams adjacent to the mine will be hydrated through the adaptive management plan and
management of mine dewatering discharge while dewatering activities are on -going. Once the
dewatering ceases and the mine is abandoned, MMM will implement the approved Mine Reclamation
Plan per North Carolina Division of Land Resources (NCDLR) requirements.
0&M Plan Comments
Wetland 4
1. Wetland 4 is a broad wetland within the Neuse River floodplain that lies adjacent to the toe -
of -slope of an upland terrace along as igni ficant meander bend of the river. 1-lydrology of this
large wetland system is likely dominated by flooding and flood storage associated with the
river. The initial pit development within the project area is approximately 2,500 feet from the
nearest portion of this wetland boundary. Therefore, the initial pit shown in the Mine Plan
and initial dewatering activities are not likely to affect the water balance of Wetland 4
considering the available source hydrology from the river, and distance of groundwater
influence from the wetland.
However, at the July 24, 2009 meeting, MMM was agreed, that once the pit advanced to
within 500 feet of the wetland, then the dewatering from the pit may have a hydrologic effect
on the adjacent wetland. Therefore, MMM proposed, and NCDWQ agreed that MMM would
install three wetland monitoring gages in Wetland 4 once the pit had advanced to within 600
feet from the permitted pit limit (approximately 1,000 feet from the wetland boundary).
These future monitoring locations will be added to the Mine Plan.
a. Monitoring for wetland hydrology will be initiated once the pit is within 600 feet from
the permitted pit limit in the direction of Wetland 4. This will provide for sufficient
background data before the pit advances within 500 feet from the wetland. In the future,
the annual report will document installation of these monitoring wells and will include
recommendations for adaptive management measures for dewatering discharge as needed
at that time.
Selma O&M Plan_response_8-31-2009.doe Page 3

b. The intent for monitoring at the Selina Quarry will be to demonstrate that the adjacent
stream and wetland features will continue to maintain hydrologic functions during the life
of mining and dewatering activities. All wetland monitoring wells will be installed per
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) guidance for evaluating wetland hydrology
(ERDC-TN-WRAP-05-2, June 2005). These wells will typically be three to three and a
half feet deep, screened to within the upper six inches, and capped with a bentonite seal.
A monitoring gage/data logger will be used to collect daily water level measurements.
The gages will be inspected and downloaded on a quarterly basis. Summary analysis and
qualitative assessment will be provided in the annual report. A flow meter to record base
flow and/or periodic flow events will be installed in the upper portion of Stream 2 to
demonstrate that the intermittent stream maintains hydrologic functions. Corps guidance
and technical specifications for a representative monitoring gage are included in
Appendix B.
c. All mine dewatering will be pumped by sump from the pit and directed to the pit
clarification ponds as described above.
Stream 1, Wetland 1. Wetland
1. As discussed at the July 24, 2009 meeting, MMM will provide a copy of the hydrogeologic study
supporting the assumption that the cone of influence in the upper surface adjacent to the pit will
be 500 feet, typical of other piedmont hard -rock quarry operations.
2. As discussed at the July 24, 2009 meeting with NCDWQ, Wetland 6 is a portion of a broader
wetland area within the Neuse River floodplain and is hydrated by flooding and flood storage.
The pit wall is not planned to ever be within 1,000 feet from this area. Also, Stream 2, which will
receive hydration through the management of dewatering discharge, will provide an effective
hydraulic barrier to groundwater influence. With these considerations, it was agreed that
monitoring at this location would.not be necessary.
Wetland 1 is located more than 2,000 feet from the proposed pit limit, however, NCDWQ
expressed concern that the construction of the stockpile area/berm adjacent to the wetland would
effectively cut off surface runoff towards this area and would negatively affect wetland
hydrology. MMM agreed that a wetland monitoring well would be installed at the wetland
boundary in this area prior to the construction of the berm. The installation, monitoring, and
documentation of this monitoring location would be included in the monitoring program
discussed above. The future location for monitoring in this area will be shown in the Mine Plan.
Wetland 2/Stream 3/Wetland 3
1. Wetland 2/Stream 2 will be hydrated by the adaptive management plan for dewatering discharge
as discussed above.
a. Discharge will be dissipated using a plunge pool at the outlet of Pool I providing diffuse
overland flow upslope of Wetland 2. If site inspections demonstrate that the volume of
water discharged into the system is likely to cause degradation, then the discharge
Selma O&M Plan_ccsponsc_8-31-2009.doc Page 4

volume to Pond 1 will be reduced through expanding clarification pond capacity, and/or
directing flow to other areas within the project as discussed above.
b. Sufficient hydrology provided to the wetland (i.e. wetland/stream hydrologic functions
are sustained) will be demonstrated through the monitoring program, and any identified
deficiencies will be addressed through the adaptive management plan as discussed above.
c. Calculations are unknown at this time since the actual volume of dewatering is unknown
and will change as the mine site develops depending on the rate of expansion of the pit
and water needs of the operation. MMM's adaptive management plan will maintain
hydrologic function in the adjacent strean-dwetland systems per NCDWQ's requirements,
however, actual quantity of discharge and water use are unknown at this time.
2. Wetland monitoring locations will be added to the Mine Plan map as discussed at the July 24,
2009 meeting with NCDWQ.
Process Area
The discharge from the process area will be addressed through the Stormwater Plan and developed with
review from the Town of Selma and NCDWQ 401 Unit. As currently shown, the discharge from the
process area will be treated through a constructed wetland stormwater 13M1 and will provide diffuse flow
upslope of the regulated buffer. Additional future BMP locations arc show to demonstrate that treatment
areas will be added in the future as needed to meet stormwater requirements as the site expands and
develops.
Constructed Wetland
The proposed constructed wetland is located upslope of Wetland b. There is an area shown as a potential
future BMP location in this area, however, the Mine Plan will be amended to remove this area from the
Minc Plan. Future BMP locations will be added as needed and the Mine Plan amended through
coordination with NCDLR as the mine develops l the future.
Level Spreaders
Level spreaders are incorporated with sediment basins per NCDLR requirements and are shown
in the Mine Plan. Stormwater discharge will be addressed through the Stormwater Permit review
process with the Town of Selina and the NCDWQ 401 Unit. Diffused flow for mine dewatering
discharge will be accomplished through the use of the dissipater/plunge pool upslope of Wetland
2 as discussed above.
2. Level spreader and plunge pool calculations and details are included in the Mine Plan.
3. Compliance with riparian buffer regulations will be addressed through the stormwater review
process with the Town of Selma and NCDWQ 401 Unit.
4. Discharge from the clarification ponds will be directed as discussed above. Initial plans are for
Pond 1 to be an infiltration basin only and will not discharge surface water. Pond 2 will
discharge diffused flow towards Wetland 2 as discussed.
Selma O&M Plan_response_8-31 ?009.doc Page 5

Large -Scale Plans
I. Monitoring gage locations have been added to the Mine Plan.
All discharge from the plant area will be addressed through the Stormwatcr Plan review with the
Town of Selina and the NCDWQ 401 Unit. The discharge will likely be directed to Stream 1
and/or the floodplain area near Wetland 6 and will comply with all applicable Neuse River
nutrient requirements and buffer rules.
3. Discharge locations for the clarification ponds as discussed above have been added to the Mine
Plan.
4. The constructed wetland has been sized and located to treat the initial 27.1 acres of development
for the plant and stockpile area (Phased development). The constructed wetland is shown in
uplands and does not impact Wetland 6. There is a future BMP location shown in the area of
Wetland 6. This future BMP will be moved to another location and the Mine Plan has been
amended.
5. The labels of wetlands and stream have been added to the Mine Plan consistent with the O&M
plan.
6. The monitoring locations (initial and future) have been added to the Mine Plan,
7. Stream 3 shown in the Mine flan has been amended to be consistent with the Corps' approved
delineation.
Other
I. Vehicle maintenance areas have been noted on the Mine Plan -
A flood study demonstrating that the proposed project meets local floodplain development
ordinances has been completed, and MMM coordinated with Town of Selina and FEMA through
the zoning process for the property, A copy of the flood study is available upon request.
3. The Stormwater Plan is in development and will be reviewed by the local approved stormwatcr
prograln (Town of Selma) and the NCDWQ 401 Unit. A copy of the approved Stormwater Plan
and agency correspondence will be provided to Lauren Witherspoon for the NPDES permit file.
4. The Selma Quarry site does not include asphalt or ready -mix concrete operations.
5. The project boundary shown in the Mine Plan is the correct boundary. The O&M plan is
amended to show the correct area.
6. 27.1 acres represents the initial portion of development of the plant area. This area represents the
impervious area to be initially developed through a phased development process. MMM will
provide additional water quality treatment to meet stormwater requirements for the site as the site
develops. This will be addressed through the Stormwater Plan review process with the Town of
Selma and the NCDWQ 40I Unit.
Selma O&M Plan—response8-31-2009.dac Pap 6

7. There will be non -erosive velocities to all wetlands and streams from stormwater and thine
dewatering discharge.
S. The closed -loop system shown is for plant processes, and was discussed at the December 19,
2008 meeting with NCDWQ (Ken Pickle, Jennifer Jones, Danny Smith, Lauran Witherspoon, and
Ian McMillan). It was agreed that this area would not be considered an "other" type of recycle
system and would not require Authorization to Construct.
9. Monitoring will be conducted per the adaptive management plan (Appendix A) and will be
documented in the annual report submitted to NCDWQ.
a. Monitoring gage installation for the initial locations will be implemented upon approval
of the NPDES permit. Future locations will be installed per the adaptive management
plan as discussed above.
b. Wells will be monitored as long as dewatering activities are on -going at the site and will
be documented per the adaptive management plan. if changes to the monitoring program
are identified through implementation of the adaptive management plan, MMM will
coordinate with NCDWQ to modify the monitoring program as needed.
c. Monitoring data will be maintained and documented per the adaptive management plan
as discussed above.
d. Monitoring data will be summarized and an annual report submitted to the region as
discussed above.
10. Discharge rates and calculations have been previously provided by MMM in the original NPDES
permit application. The Mine Plan has been amended to clearly show all outfalls.
End
s¢Ima 0&M Plan_response_5-31-2009.doe Page 7

Adaptive Management Plan - Selma Quarry
The following Adaptive Management Plan for the Selma Quarry is prepared to meet the following
requirements:
1. Maintain hydrologic functions of wetlands and streams within 500 feet from the pit so that these
features are not adversely affected by dewatering activities associated with the mine operation.
2. Maintain water level in pit clarification ponds, as needed, to provide hydration to designates)
wetlands/streams as shown in the Mine Plan,
3. Maintain non -erosive discharge to receiving wetlands and streams per the Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Plan, NPDES permit, and Mine Plan.
4. Maintain hydrologic monitoring per the O&M plan.
During initial site development but prior to excavation of consolidated material in the initial pit area,
MMM will implement hydrologic monitoring per the O&M plan. MMM will perform the following on a
quarterly basis:
O Hydrologic Monitoring Locations
o Manual Download of monitoring gages (gages collect daily water level or periodic
flow measurements as noted in 0&M Plan)
o Visual inspection of monitoring area to identify any changes to the natural
community.
Once excavation of consolidated material begins and the pit/plant areas have been established, the on -site
Plant Manager will be inspect the following on a monthly basis:
a Clarification pond(s) water level
o Maintained at designated levels for hydration
a Clarification pond and stormwater BMP outlet structures
o Stability at the structure, and non -erosive flows to down slope areas.
If the Plan Manager identifies any areas of concern related to the requirements above, he/she will notify
MMM Environmental Staff to implement corrective actions.
Corrective Actions — All corrective actions will be approved by MMM Environmental Stan
to be consistent with the O&M plan and NPDESI5tormwater Permit requirements.
Corrective actions will be documented to the file for inclusion in the annual report.

Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program
ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
Technical Standard for Water -Table
Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites
by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PURPOSE: This technical note describes national standards for the collection, analysis,
interpretation, and reporting of hydrologic data, which may be used to help determine whether
wetlands are present on disturbed or problematic sites that may be subject to Clean Water Act
regulatory_jurisdiction. These standards may be supplemented or superseded by locally or rcgionaliy
developed standards at the discretion of the appropriate Corps of Engineers District.
BACKGROUND: Wetland determinations in the majority of cases are based on the presence of
readily observable field indicators of'hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology,
according to procedures given in the Carps. of Engineers Wellawls Delineation Manual
(Divironmental Laboratory 1987) (hereafter called the Corps Manual). These three characteristics
are the best available evidence that an area has performed in the past, and continues to perform, the
functions associated with wetland ecosystems.
The Corps Manual (Part IV, Section F, Atypical Situations) recognizes that wetland determinations
on some sites may be difficult because of human disturbance that may have altered.or destroyed
wetland indicators. In addition, some naturally occurring wetland types may lack indicators or may
have indicators present only at certain times of'year or during certain years in a multi -year cycle
(Part IV, Section G. Problem Areas). Wetland determinations in these atypical and problem
situations increasingly involve the use of direct hydrologic monitoring; to confirm the presence of
wetlands in cases where soils or vegetation have been significantly disturbed or are naturally
problematic, or where the hydrology of the site has been altered recently such that soil and
vegetation indicators may give a misleading; impression of the site's current wetland status.
The Corps Manual provides only a general discussion of wetland hydrology concepts and does not
provide a suitable standard that can be used to design a hydrologic monitoring study or interpret
hydrologic data, particularly in cases where groundwater is an important water source. Therefore,
the purpose of this Technical Standard is to provide a minimum standard for the design,
construction, and installation of water -table monitoring wells, and for the collection and
interpretation of groundwater monitoring data, in cases where direct hydrologic measurements are
needed to determine whether wetlands are present on highly disturbed or problematic sites.
USE OF THE TECHNICAL STANDARD: The Technical Standard is intended l'or use in atypical
and problem situations as described in the Corps Manual. Atypical situations are broadly defined as
any wetlands where indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, or wetland hydrology may he
lacking due to recent human activities or natural events. Problem areas are wetlands that may lack
wetland indicators at certain tunes due to normal variations in environmental conditions. This
standard is designed to determine a site's current hydrologic status and may not be appropriate for
evaluating past or pre -disturbance conditions.

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
This standard should not be used to overrule a wetland determination based on indicators of
hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology on sites that are not significantly
disturbed or problematic. Wetland indicators reflect natural processes that occur in wetlands and
generally provide the best evidence that functioning wetlands are present oil a site. The actual
hydrologic regime required to produce and maintain a wctland may vary locally and regionally due
to climate, landforms, geology, soils, and plant and animal adaptations. Therefore, any wetland
hydrologic standard is necessarily an approximation and should be used only when an indicator -
based wetland determination is not possible or would give misleading results.
In addition, this standard is not intended to overrule other scienti f is evidence that particular regional
or local wetland types may be associated with hydrologic conditions different from those described
here, including the seasonal timing, depth. duration, and frequency ol'satLira tion. Standards used to
verify wetland hydrology in such cases should be based oil the best available scientific information
concerning a particular local or regional wetland type.
The Technical Standard is designed solely to determine the location of the water table for wetland
jurisdictional purposes. It should not be used for water -quality monitoring or other purposes. This
national standard may be supplcmented or superseded by locally or regionally developed standards
at the discretion of the District, and well -documented and justified deviations from the standard are
acceptable with the approval of the District. It is always good practice to discuss the goals and
design of the monitoring study with Corps regulatory personnel before initiating work. This may
help to avoid disagreements and problems of interpretation later. This standard is subject to periodic
review and revision as better scientific information becomes available.
SITE CHARACTERIZATION: A detailed site characterization should be completcd before
initiating the groundwater monitoring program. Site information is needed to determine appropriate
well locations, installation depths, and other design features. The site characterization should begin
with a review of all pertinent off site information including county soil surveys, topographic maps,
aerial photographs. and National Wetland Inventory (N WI) maps, if available. This review should
be followed by afield investigation to verily the off -site information and gather additional data- At
a minimum, the following site information should be collected (see Warne and Wakeley (2000) for
detailed guidance):
• Detailed site map showing the location of property and project -area boundaries (determine
coordinates of boundary points and landmarks, if possible).
• 'ropographic map showing the watershed boundary, water features (e.g., lakes, streams, minor
drainages), and direction of water movement across the site.
• Current vegetation and land use.
• Detailed description of any modifications to site hydrology (e.g., waterdiversions or additions
including ditches, subsurface drains, clams, berms, channelized streams, irrigation, modified
surface topography, etc.).
• Soil profile descriptions including locations of soil test pits (indicate on site map and determine
coordinates, if possible).

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
Soil profile descriptions are an important part of the site characterization because they may dictate
appropriate depths for installation of water -table monitoring wells. Of eritical importance is the
identification of soil strata that can restrict downward water movement and create a perched water
table, Examples of soil strata that may produce perched water tables include iragipans, spodic
horizons, argillic horizons, and shallow bedrock. Ifa shallow restrictive soil layer is identified, care
must be taken during well installation to ensure that the layer is not penetrated. Penetration ofthe
restrictive layer may result in misleading water -level readings.
Soil profile descriptions should include horizon depths and (for each horizon) information about
texture, color, induration (cementation), redoximorphic features, and roots, so that significant
differences in permeability can be evaluated (Sprecher 2000). A blank Soil Characterization Data
Form is provided for this purpose (Appendix A). Soil profiles must be described at least to the
anticipated installation depth of the wells; profile descriptions to 24 in. or more are recommended.
Several soil characteristics indicate that downward water flow may be impeded and that perched
water tables may exist. Features to note include the following (Sprecher 2000):
• Abrupt change from many roots to few or no roots.
• Abrupt change in soil texture.
• Abrupt change in ease of excavation.
• Abrupt change in water content, such as presence of saturated soil horizons immediately above
soil horizons that are dry or only moist.
• Redoximorphic features at any of the distinct boundaries listed above.
WELL PLACEMENT: A detailed discussion ofmonitoring well placement within the project site
is beyond the scope of this Technical Standard. In general, well placement depends on the
objectives of the investigation and characteristics ofthe site. If the objective is to determine whether
wetland hydrology is present at a particular point, a single well may be sufficient. However,
multiple wells maybe necessary to determine ifwetland hydrology occurs on a complex site where
topography and human alterations (e.g., road construction, ditching) have produced considerable
hydrologic variation. Well locations and depths arc dictated by site conditions including
topographic relief and the depth and continuity of restrictive soil layers. Portions of a site that are
most likely to meet wetland hydrology standards (e.g.. low-lying areas such as depressions,
floodplain backwaters, swales and washes, fringes of lakes and ponds, toes of'slopes, or other areas
with shallow restrictive soil layers) should be identified during site characterization and considered
for well placement.
Ifthe objective is to confirm wetland boundaries based on groundwater measurements, then multiple
wells installed along transects perpendicular to the expected wetland boundary are needed (Figure I ).
The number and spacing of wells along each transect depend on the topographic gradient and the
precision needed in defining the wetland boundary. Other site information that may help in placing
wells and identifying boundaries includes changes in topographic gradient, proximity to hydrologic
alterations (e.g., ditches), and changes in soil characteristics or vegetation.
3

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
T'f
"' — — Expected Boundary
Transect
�` • Monitoring Well
T7 X
�,r t T2
� � B
T6 A ♦ `
1 �
♦ / T3
i
T6
T4
Figure 1. Example of monitoring wells located along transects across the expected wetland boundary.
Transects extend from obvious upland to obvious wetland. Two or more wells are needed
along each transect (e.g., at locations A and B).
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION: In most cases, a standard monitoring well installed to
a depth of 15 in. below the soil surl'acc should be used to measure water -table depth on potential
wetland sites. Shallower installation depths may be needed if restrictive soil layers exist within 15 in.
of the surface. Monitoring wells must not penetrate any such restrictive layer. 'file standard design
is fora well installed by augering. Depending upon site conditions, wells installed by driving may
also be acceptable (see the section on Monitoring Well Installation). Installation of'one or more
additional deeper (4-5 ft) wells at each site is also encouraged to help in interpreting water -table
11uctuations and warn of sudden changes in water -table depth. Deeper wel Is are not required but, if
used, should not penetrate any restrictive soil layers. The performance of all wells must be tested
and verified before use.
Monitoring Well Components. A standard monitoring well installed by angering is shown in
Figure 2 and consists of the following main components: well screen, riser, well caps, sand filter
pack, and bentonite sealant. Specifications for each of these components arc given below.
4

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
.June 2005
Vented
Well Cap
(Loosely
1-inch
Fitted)
Diameter
Well
Stock
BentonitelSoil
Mixture
a 'r
Ground Surface
Riser
4 inches
Bentonite Seal
1 inch
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I;1;1'111 1;1;1;1;
I,1,11111 111,1,1,
I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Augered Hole
I III,I,I,
II,I,I,I
I I,I,1,1,
I1,1,1,1
1 1 1 1 1 k l l l
�1111111
I 111�1111
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
111111111 1`1�1�1�
1 `,I111�1 111�1�1�
Well Screen
I,Irrrl,l I,F,I
rI,
15 inches
!`1'1'r'I FFi11;1;
Ef lllll,l F�f, /,I,
I ll, r,f,l 1l1,f,I,
1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sand Filter Pack
I l k l l I I
I I1,1,1,1 1�1,1,1,
I I I I I I I I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1,11111,1 fflll,l,
-
I,I�I�1�1 I,I,111,
I,I,1�1�1 I,I,IIII
I I I I I 1 1 1 1
`IIIII `I`f`I�
Well Cap with
1
1 1 I
Drain Hole
IIIII `I `1`1`I`
I `1`1`1 `1111111111111`1`!`II
1 `1`1`rrllllll111 rlrlll`1`1`
3 inches
Figure 2. Standard 15-in. monitoring well installed by augering
5

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
Well Stock. Shallow monitoring wells should be made from commercially manufactured well
stock. Schedule 40, 1-in, inside diameter PVC pipe is recommended. The diameter of' the pipe
allows sufficient room for hand measurement of water levels while minimizing well volume and
maximizing responsiveness to water -table cliangcs. The small diameter also minimizes auger hole
diameter, volume of the filter pack, and the quantity of bentonite needed to seal the bore hole.
However, if required by automated water -level recorders, then 2-in,-diam pipes call be substituted.
Well stock larger than 2 in. in diameter should be avoided.
Well Screen and Bottom Cap. Recommended slot opening and slot spacing for the well screen
are 0.010 in. and 0.125 in., respectively. The slotted screen should extend from approximately 5 in.
below the ground surface down to the bottom of the well. Hand -slotted or drilled well screens
Should not be used.
One problem with the use of commercial well screen for very shallow monitoring wells is that there
often is a length of unslottcd pipe and joint or threads below the screen. In shallow monitoring
situations, this extra length often must be inserted into underlying soil material 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, resulting in the
potential ofmisleading or incorrect readings during water -table drawdown. To avoid this problem,
commercial well screen should be cut to the desired length within the slotted portion ofthe pipe. A
PVC cap should be glued at the bottom ofthe screen and a small drain hole should be drilled in the
bottom cap (figure 2).
Riser. The riser is the unslotted PVC pipe that extends from the top ofthe well screen to above the
ground surface (Figure 2). The riser should extend far enough above the ground to allow easy
access but not so high that the leverage of normal handling will crack below -ground seals. In
locations that do not pond or flood, 9 to 12 in, above the ground surface is usually sufficient. A
longer riser may be needed on inundated sites or where automatic recording devices are used.
Well Top Cap. A well cap is required to protect the top ofthe well from contamination and
rainfall. Caps should be attached loosely so they can be removed easily without,larring or dislodging
the well, or cracking the bentonite seal. ,,right-Ctting caps, either threaded or unthreaded, should be
avoided because they may seize to the riser and require rough handling to remove. A suitable well
cap can be constructed from a short length of PVC pipe of a larger diameter than the riser, with a
glued PVC cap at one end (Sprecher 2000). The constructed well cap can be attached loosely to the
riser by drilling a hole through both the cap and the riser and connecting the two with a wire lock
pin. "file cap should be vented to allow equilibration of air pressure inside and outside of the well.
Filter Pack. A filter pack is placed around the well screen to remove fine particles and provide a
zone of high hydraulic conductivity that promotes water movement toward the well (figure 2).
Filter packs can be classified into two major categories, natural and artificial. Natural packs are
created by manually repacking any excavated soil around the well screen, ensuring that large voids
are absent. Natural packs are recommended in coarse -textured, sandy soils. In fine -textured soils,
an artificial pack should be used. See `fable 1 for recommendations on the use of filter packs for
soils of. diMerent textures.
N.

Commercially available silica sand is recommended
for use as artificial pack material and is usually well -
sorted, well-rounded, clean, chemically inert, and
free of all fine-grained clays, particles, and organic
material. 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 a 0.010-in.
well screen.
Bentonite Sealant. Bentonite is a type of 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 outside of the pipe to the well screen. With
this protective plub, only groundwater enters the
slotted well screen.
When installing a monitoring well, 4 in, of bentonite
Should be placed around the riser immediately at and
below the ground surface (Figure 2). This 4-in. ring
of bentonite rests directly on top of the filter pack
ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
Table 1
USDA Soil Texture Classes and
Recommendations for Sand Filter
Packs
USDA Soil Texture
Sand Pack
Muck, Mucky Peat, Peat
None
Coarse Sand
None
Medium Sand
None
Fine Sand
None
Loamy Sand
None
Sandy Loam
Recommended
Loam
Recommended
Silt Loam
Recommended
Silt
Recommended
Sandy Clay Loam
Required
Silty Clay Loam
Required
Clay Loam
Required
Sandy Clay
Required
Silty Clay
Required
Clay
Required
around the well screen. Above the bentonite ring.
additional bentonite mixed with natural soil material should be mounded slightly and shaped to slope
away from the riser so that surface water will run away from the pipe rather than pond around it at
the ground surface.
Bentonite is available from well drilling supply companies in powder, chip, or pellet form. Chips
are easiest to use in the field. They can be dropped directly down the annular space above the sand
Filter pack. If this zone is already saturated with water, the chips will absorb water in place, swell
tight, and seal off the sand Filter from above. If the bentonite chips are dropped into a dry annular
space, they should be packed dry and then water should be added down the annular space so the clay
can swell shut.
Modified Well Design for Clay Soils. In heavy clay soils, such as Vertisols, water movement
occurs preferentially along cracks and interconnected large pores. "These cracks may deliver water
to a standard monitoring well through its vertical, slotted walls. Even when the surrounding soil is
unsaturated, water may remain in the well for days due to impeded drainage into the slowly
permeable clay. This problem can be reduced, but not eliminated, by using a well that is slotted or
open only at the bottom. In addition, the sand Filter pack should be installed only around the
immediate well opening and should not extend up the riser. The annular space around the riser
should be packed with the natural clay soil material or filled with bentonite.
Because Vertisols in wetland situations tend to be episaturated (i.e., they perch water at or near the
surfiice but may remain unsaturated below), monitoring should focus on detection of surface ponding
7

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
and saturation in the upper few inches of the soil. For this purpose, wells shorter than 15 in. may he
needed.
MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
Installation Methods. The recommended method for installing shallow monitoring wells
involves the use of a bucket auger with an outside diameter 2 in. greater than the well diameter (e.g.,
3 in. for a standard 1-in. well). As an alternative, wells may be installed by driving them into the
ground. Driven wells may be preferred in areas with noncohesive coarse -grained (sandy) soils,
rocky soils (e.g., glacial tills), or in saturated organic materials (i.e., mucks or peats). Procedures for
both installation methods are given below. No matter which installation method is selected, wells
must be tested for performance before being used. These procedures assume that the soil profile at
the well location has already been described and that the appropriate well depth (i.e., 15 in. or less)
has been determined based on the presence or absence of restrictive soil layers. A Monitoring Well
Installation Data Form (Appendix f3) should be completed to document the design and installation of
each well (Sprecher 2000).
Augering. Recommended equipment includes a bucket auger 2 in. larger than the diameter of the
well being installed, a tamping tool (e.g., wooden or metal rod), bentonite chips, silica sand, and the
constructed monitoring well. A pump or bailer may be needed to test the well after installation. The
following procedure is used to install the well:
1. Auger a hole in the ground to a depth approximately 21n. deeper than the bottom of the well. Be
sure the liole is vertical.
2. Scarify the sides ol'the hole if it was smeared during angering.
3. Place 2 to 3 in. of'silica sand in the bottom of the ho1c.
4. For a 15-in. well with 10 in. of'well screen, make a permanent mark on the well riser 5 in. above
the top of the screen. Insert the well into the hole to the proper depth; the permanent mark on the
riser should be even with the soil surface. Do not insert through the sand.
5. Pour and gently tamp more of the same sand in the annular space around the screen and 1 in.
above the screen.
6. Pour and gently tamp 4 in, of bentonite chips above the sand to the ground surface. Ifnecessary,
add water to cause the bentonite sealant to expand.
7. Form a low mound of a soil/bentonite mixture on the ground surface around the base of the riser
to prevent surface water from puddling around the pipe.
Driving. Well installation by driving is recommended when site conditions prevent angering (e.g.,
noncoliesive sandy soils, soils with many coarse fragments, saturated organic soils). In addition,
driven wells are acceptable whenever their performance can be shown to be equivalent to that of an
angered well. Plans to use driven wells for regulatory purposes should be discussed in advance with
the appropriate Corps of Engineers District office.

r
ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
A driven well is similar in design and construction to the aug;ered well described previously, with the
addition of a well point in place of the bottom cap (Figure 3). Well points are commercially
available and can be vented to permit draining by drilling a hole in the bottom. A special driving;
tool may be needed to install the well without damaging the PVC pipe.
1-inch
Diameter
Well
Stock
Ground Surface
4 inches
15 inches
Vented
Well Cap
(Loosely
Fitted)
Bentonite/Soil
Mixture
Riser
Bentonite Seal
Well Screen
Well Point with
Drain Hole
Figure 3. Standard 15-in. monitoring well installed by driving
F

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
Required materials include bentonite chips and the constructed monitoring well with vented well
point. A pump or bailer may be needed to test the well after installation and, depending on site
conditions, a driving device may be required. The following procedure is used to install the well:
I . Fora standard 15-in. well. make a permanent marl: on the riser 15 in. above the bottom of the
well screen. With the well cap removed, use a driving device to drive the well vertically into the
ground until the mark is at the ground surface. In organic soil materials, the well may simply be
Pushed into the ground.
2. Dig out a ring of soil around the well riser to a depth of 4 in. Fill this space with bentonite chips
and add water, if necessary, to form a tight seal.
3. Form a low mound ofasoil/bentonite mixture on the ground surface around the base ofthe riser
to prevent surface water from puddling around the pipe_
Establishing Riser Height. Water -level measurements are typically recorded as the "depth to
water" From the top of the well riser. The depth of the water table below the ground surface is
determined by subtracting the riser height from the "depth to water' measurement. Therefore, after
installing the well, measure and permanently record the height of the riser above the ground surface.
[('automated water -level recording devices are used, follow the manufacturer's instructions for
calibration of water -level readings relative to the ground surface. Riser height should be checked
after soils have thawed in spring, and should be re -checked periodically when water -table
measurements are taken or electronic data are downloaded.
Surface Water. In areas subject to flooding or ponding, a separate staff gauge or automated
device is required to measure the depth of surface water.
MONITORING WELL TESTING AND MAINTENANCE: During well installation, particularly
with driven wells, tine soil particles may clog the well screen, impeding water flow and increasing
the response time of the well. The performance of the well should be tested by (1) emptying the well
by pumping or bailing and monitoring how quick ly the water level returns to the initial level, or (2) if
the well is dry, filling it with water and monitoring the rate of outflow. The water level in the well
Should reestablish itselfat approximately the same rate as it would Ina freshly dug hole without any
pipe. In soils with a high percentage of clay, this could require several hours. If the water does not
return to the initial level in a reasonable amount oftime, pull the instrument out of the ground, clean
it, reinstall it, and retest it. If' water -table readings are questionable at any time during the
monitoring period, one option is to move some distance away from the well location, auger to the
depth in question, and determine whether the water level in the auger hole is the same as that
indicated by the monitoring well.
Routine Maintenance. Monitoring well responsiveness should be tested at the beginning of the
monitoring period and at least every 2-3 months thereafter by the procedure described above,
because wells can plug over time due to bacterial growth and movement of fine soil particles. Well
performance can also be affected by cracking of the bentonite seal, sediment deposition in the well,
and movement of the ground surface and/or monitoring well due to frost heaving or shrink -swell
action. To ensure accurate water -level readings, check for vertical displacement of the well after
spring thaw and periodically during sampling by re -measuring the height of the riser above the
ground surface and adjusting water -table measurements or resetting the well, as needed.
10

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
MAKING WATER -LEVEL MEASUREMENTS: Water levels in monitoring wells should be
measured with an accuracy of±0.25 in., if possible. Measurements may be made manually or with
automated equipment. The use of automated water -level recorders is recommended unless an
uninterrupted schedule of frequent site visits can be maintained. Automated recorders are also
recommended in areas with highly variable or flashy hydrology. Whichever method is selected, it
should be used consistently throughout the duration of the monitoring study.
Manual Readings. Water -level measurements can be made easily with a steel measuring tape
marked with chalk or a water-soluble marker. Another approach is to use an electric device that
sounds or flashes when the sensor, attached to the end of a graduated tape, makes contact with the
water. Measurement devices that displace large amounts of water (e.g., dowel rods) should not be
used.
Automated Readings. Automated recording devices record water levels with down -well
transducers or capacitance -based sensors. An important consideration when purchasing automatic
recording; devices isthe ability to compensate internally for variations in barometric pressure. These
variations can be significant in wetland determinations. Automated equipment is more costly than
hand measurement, but the devices can be used again in future studies. The credibility of
monitoring; results is enhanced with the hig_;h frequency of water -level readings that automated wells
allow, Automated water -level recorders should be checked frequently for accuracy by comparison
with manual readings. If automated readings are not within instrument specifications, the device
Should be recalibrated.
Required Timing, Frequency, and Duration of Readings. Water -level measurements must
be taken at least once each day, beginning 5-7 days before the first day ol'the growing, season and
continuing until the end of the growing season or until the minimum standard for wetland hydrology
is met that year. if automated recorders are used, readings lbur times per day are recommended (use
the lowest reading; each day). On sires subject to flooding; or ponding, depth of surface water must
be measured each day that water -table readings are made.
Growing; season beginning and ending; dates shall be based on the median dates (i.e., 5 years in 10.
or 50 percent probability) of 28 °F air temperatures in spring and fall as reported in WELTS tables
provided by the USDA-NRCS National Water and Climate Center. WETS tables are based on long-
term temperature data collected at Nationai Weather Service (NWS) cooperative weather stations
throughout the United States and are available oil the Internet at http://www.wcc.nres.tisda,g.,ov/
climatelwetlands.html. For a particular project site, growing season information from the nearest
available weather station should be used unless, due to elevation or other factors, a more distant
weather station is considered to be more representative of conditions at the project site. Alternative
local or regional procedures for determining; growing; season dates may be used at the District's
discretion.
Because hydrologic conditions are naturally variable, many years of groundwater monitoring data
may be needed to establish what is typical for a given site. This is particularly true in the arid
western United States where rainfall can be sparse, unpredictable, and highly localized. In general,
ten or more years of water -table monitoring data may be needed to determine whether minimum
standards for water -table depth, duration, and frequency in wetlands are met. However, because
long-term monitoring; is often impractical in a regulatory context, short-term studies may provide
11

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
sufficient information ifthe normality of precipitation during the monitoring period is considered.
Determining "normal" rainfall is addressed in the following section.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF MONITORING DATA
Technical Standard for Wetland Hydrology. Wetiand hydrology is considered to be present
on an atypical or problem site if the following standard is met:
The site is inundated (flooded or ponded) or the water fable is <_ 12 inches below they sail
.1'rri,filcefi1r>:14 c )nseculive c1q))s during; the growing season al rl ilti!?lll?llll? f'eljllei?G1=Clf �
years in 10 (>_JO%probability). Anycombinalion of inundalion orshalloii, ►i,ater!able is
acc•eptcrble i17 r�recting the 1 d-dory rninirnttnr rerlrlirelnent. Slim t-ter rta nronitnritag data inrly
be used to address the frequency requireinenl if the normality ofrainfrdl occurrin,vprioi-
to anti daring the nloniloriiW period each year is considered.
The Corps Manual discusses wetland hydrology in general, but does not provide a wetland
hydrology criterion suitable for use in interpreting monitoring well data. The standard given above
is based on recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council
1995). By requiring a water table within 12 in. of the surface, this standard ensures that saturation
by free water or the capillary fringe occurs within the "major portion of the root zone" described in
the Manual. A 14-day minimum duration standard is assumed to apply nationwide unless Corps
Districts have adopted a different standard at the local or regional level. The Corps Manual
addresses the need for long-term data (10 or more years) in analyses of stream -gauge data but does
not consider the use ol'short-term data in wetland determinations, nor does it address the frequency
issue in relation to water -table monitoring. This Technical Standard allows the use of short-term
monitoring data to address the frequency requirement for wetland hydrology, if the normality of
rainfall is considered.
The depth to saturation depends both oil the position of the water table and the height of the tension -
saturated capillary fringe (National Research Council 1995). Whilc its presence has an influence on
both plant growth and soil features, the upper limit of the capillary fringe is difficult to measure in
the field and impractical as a basis for hydrologic monitoring. The Technical Standard for Wetland
Hydrology is based on the depth of the water table because, in most cases,.water-table depth can be
monitored readily and consistently through the use ofshallow wells with either manual or automated
data collection. Water -table measurements should not be corrected fora capillary fringe unless other
evidence, such as tensiometer readings, laboratory analysis ofsoil watercontent, or evidence of soil
anoxia, indicates that the height of the saturated capillary fringe is greater than a few inches.
Determining Normal Precipitation. Short-term water -table monitoring; data (i.e„ <10 years)
must be interpreted in relation to the amount of precipitation that fell during and for at least 3
months prior to the monitoring period each year. This is done by comparing the precipitation record
for a given year with the normal range of precipitation based on long-term records collected at the
nearest appropriate NWS cooperative weafher station. The USDA-NRCS National Water and
Climate Center calculates normal precipitation ranges for each month (defined as between the 301h
and 701h percentiles of monthly precipitation totals) for NWS stations throughout the United States.
The information is published in WETS tables available on the Internet (hitp://www.wcc.nres.
usda.ttov/climate/wetfands.html).
12

i
ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
Sprecher and Warne (2000, Chapter 4) describe three methods for evaluating precipitation normality
within a given year. The first method is taken from the NRCS Engineering Field Handbook (Natural
Resources Conservation Service 1997) and involves the direct application of WINS tables in
relation to monthly rainfall totals at the project site. At a minimum, this method shall be used to
determine whether rainfall was normal immediately before and during a groundwater monitoring
study. The analysis should focus on the period leading up to and during; the time when water tables
are usually high in that climatic region. In many parts of the country, this is at the beginning ofthe
growing; season, when precipitation is abundant and evapotranspiration is relatively low. The
second method described by Sprecher and Warne (2000) evaluates daily precipitation data on the
basis of 30-day rolling; sums, and the third method combines the two procedures. If daily
precipitation data are available, the combined method is recommended. The evaluation of
precipitation normality should include the three months prior to the start of the growing season and
extend throughout the entire monitoring period each year.
For many wetlands, water tables in a given year may be affected by precipitation that occurred in
previous years, especially if monitoring, occurs after an extended period of'drought or precipitation
excess. After a series of dry years, for example, it may take several years of normal or above -normal
rainfall to recharge groundwater and return water tables to normal levels. Therefore, in evaluating
wetland hydrology based on short-term monitoring, it is necessary to consider the normality of
rainfall over a period of years prior to the groundwater study. Recent precipitation trends can be
determined by comparing annual rainfall totals at the monitoring site with the normal range given in
WETS tables for two or more years prior to the monitoring study, or by examining trends in drought
indices, such as the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Sprecher and Warne 2000). This issue may not
be important in soils with perched water tables that respond to the current year's rainfall and dry out
seasonally.
Interpreting Results. Iften ormorc years of water -table monitoring data are available fora site,
the long-term record probably includes years of normal, below normal, and above normal
precipitation and thus reflects the average hydrologic conditions on the site. Therefore, wetland
hydrology can be evaluated directly by the following; procedure:
I . For each year, determine the maximum number of' consecutive days that the site was either
inundated or the water table was <_12 in. from the ground surface during the growing season.
Wetland hydrology occurred in a given year i lithe number of consecutive days of inundation or
shallow water tables was >_ 14 days.
2. The "Technical Standard for Wetland Hydrology was met if wetland hydrology occurred in at
least 50 percent of years (i.e., >_5 years in 10).
This procedure may not be appropriate during extended periods of drought or precipitation excess.
Furthermore, in some regions with highly variable precipitation patterns (e.g., the arid West) more
than ten years of groundwater monitoring; data may be needed to capture the typical hydrologic
conditions on a site.
If fewer than ten years of' water -table data are available, then the normality of' precipitation
preceding and during; the monitoring period must be considered. One option is to apply the
procedures described in the section on "Determining Normal Precipitation" for each year that water
tables were monitored. In addition, annual precipitation or drought severity indices should be
13

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
evaluated far two or more years prior to the monitoring period on any site that lacks a perched water
table. Wetland hydrology can then be evaluated by the following procedure:
. Select those years of monitoring data when precipitation was normal, or select an equal number
of'wetter-than-normal and drier -than -normal years.
2. 1 f wetland hydrology (i.e., any combination of inundation or water table <_ 12 in. from the surface
for >_14 consecutive days during the growing season) occurred in >_50 percent of years
(e.g_ 3 years in 5), then the site most likely meets the Technical Standard for Wetland
Hydrology.
It is important to remember that, even in normal rainfall years, many wetlands will lack wetland
hydrology in some years due to annual . differences in air temperatures (which affect
evapotranspiration rates) and the daily distribution of rainfall that arc not considered in this analysis.
This is particularly true of borderline wetlands that may have shallow water tables in only 50-60
percent ol'years. Therefore, this procedure may fail to identify some marginal wetlands.
Another option, particularly for very short -duration monitoring studies (e.g., <_3 years), is to evaluate
water -table measurements in conjunction with groundwater modeling. 1-1 Lint et aE. (2001 ) described
one such approach, called the Threshold Wetland Simulation ('IVS), which uses the DRAINMOD
model. Actual water -table measurements in a given year arc compared with those of a simulated,
threshold wetland (i.e., one that meets wetland hydrology requirements in exactly 50 percent of
years). ']'he TWS approach requires detailed long-term precipitation and temperature data, soil
characteristics, and considerable expertise with the DRAINMOD program.
No method to determine wetland hydrology based on short-term water -table measurements is
entirely reliable or free of assumptions. Therefore, ultimate responsibility for the interpretation of
water -table monitoring data rests with the appropriate Corps District.
REPORTING OF RESULTS: Warne and Wakeley (2000) provided a comprehensive checklist of
information that should be included in the report of a groundwater monitoring study. The report
Should also include a justification for any deviations from procedures given in this Technical
Standard.
The report should include a clear. graphical presentation of'daily water -table levels at each well
plotted over time and shown in relation to the soil surface and the 12-in, depth, the depth of the
monitoring well, growing season starting and ending dates, local precipitation that year, and normal
precipitation ranges based on WENS tables. Another useful feature is a diagram of the soil profile at
the well location including depths and textures of each major horizon. An example graph with many
of these features is shown in Figure 4 (Sprecher 2000).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The initial outline for this Technical Standard was developed at a
workshop in Decatur, GA, in September 2003. Participants (in alphabetical order) were Mr. W illiam
Ainslie, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 4; Mr. Bradley Cook, Minnesota
State University, Mankato; Mr. Jason Hill, Tennessee Tech University (TTU); MS. Julie Kelley,
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory (GSL), U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center (ERDC); Dr. Barbara Kleiss, Environmental Laboratory (EL), F-RDC; Dr. Vincent Neary,
TTU; Mr. Chris Noble, EL-ERDC; Dr. Bruce Pruitt, Nutter and Associates, Inc.; Dr. Thomas
Roberts, TTU: Mr. Paul Rodrigue, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS);
14

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
elanMarfng well Reeend Columbus OH Area Wetland Site 1997
"act name: Calumhus OH � Ranpa of Normal PredplWwn: Columbus AlnocM FmnM County OH WETS Table
General locstlon: • MmMte Predphatlon Totals horn Columbus Akpor WS Stedon
Frmd1M Courtly. 01 0-4 PradpltatWn trpn Q*Mbus M W WS MOM
Wee nameJmmebar: 3 8
rear. IPo7
Number of yaws of record: 13
Frequency of water I" "mdirga: 340ay Rolling
Twin daily
Orpenlnow responslbte for meter le
lava reeahga:
6
toWConsuift Frbn
Descro0on of wme;
Autama:ad wad. 7-10 PVC.—e3'deep
amr�
ebffeA flawith
f •blrsdus'ouf end
ber7e tonsow at surraca
see ta..r:tyrr
FJd..n alit Le.m
6
AP: SM lo� ,y J Le l
A: gi lto-army MI
N I
ell, Clsy loam
3 S
Btr. %lay hem
ft Gay loam
Bc_cinvaf�— ;;4,
:ma�darbam l�wy Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sap Oct Nov Doc
• °` :+ I— - Crowing Season
A. Example filled out
Total
Figure 4. Example of graphical presentation of water -table monitoring data (Note that this example uses
a deeper well than the 15 in. specified in this Technical Standard)
Dr. Steven Sprecher, U. S. Army Engineer (USAE) District, Detroit; and Dr. James Wakeley, El..-
ERDC. The first draft was written by Drs. Neary and Wakeley and Messrs. !-sill and Noble.
Technical reviewers included Harry Baij Jr., USAE District, Anchorage; Mark Clark, NRCS; David
D'Amore, U. S. Forest Service (USES); Jackie DeMontigny, USES; Michiel Holley, USAE District,
Anchorage; Wesley Miller, NRCS; James Miner, Illinois State Geological Survey; Joc Moore,
NRCS; Dr. Chien-Lu Ping, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Ann Puffer, USFS; and Ralph Rogers,
USI'PA Region 10. A subcominittcc of the National 'Technical Committee. for Flydric Soils
(NTCHS) provided an independent peer review in accordance with Office of' Management and
Budget guidelines. The authors are grateful to NTCHS members Drs. Michael Vepraskas and R.
Wayne Skaggs, North Carolina State University, and Mr. Ed Blake, Mr. 1". Michael Whited, Ms.
Lenore Vasi las, and Mr. G. Wade Hurt, NRCS, for their comments and suggestions. The work was
supported by Headquarters, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers through the Wetlands Regulatory
Assistance Program (WRAP).
POINTS OF CONTACT: For additional information, contact Dr. James S. Wakeley, U. S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS, (601-634-3702,
n
.lames.S.Wakeleyerde.trsoce.crrmy.mil or the Program Manager of the Wetlands Regulatory
15

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
Assistance Program, Mr. Bob Lazor (601-634-2935, Bob.L.Lazora0-dc.arsace.m-my.mil). This
technical note should be cited as follows:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2005). "Technical Standard for Water -Table
Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," FVRAP Technical Notes Collection (EIZDC TN-
WRAP-05-2), U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Ccnter, Vicksburg, MS.
REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report
Y-87-I, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. (Annotated on-line version
available at http://ei.erdC.usaCe.ari-ny.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf)
1-lu11t, W. F., 111, Skaggs, R. W, Chescheir, G. M., and Amatya, D. M. (2001). "Examination ofthe Wetland
Hydrologic Criterion and its Application in the Determination of Wetland Hydrologic Status," Report No.
333, Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, North Carolina State Univ.,
Raleigh.
National Research Council. (1995). "Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries," National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1997). "Hydrology tools for wetland determination," Chapter 19,
Engineering ,field handbook, Donald E, Woodward, ed., USDA-NRCS, Fort Worth, TX.
(http://www.info.usda.�zov/C1:D/ftpICED/EFH-Ch 19.pdf)
Spreclier, S. W. (2000). "Installing monitoring wells/piczometers in wetlands," WRAP Technical Notes
Collection, ERDC TN-WRAP-00-02, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS. (htti):Hcl.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/tnwrap00-2.pdf1
Sprechct, S. W., and Warne. A. G. (2000). "Accessing and using meteorological data to evaluate wetland
hydrology," Technical Report TR-WRAP-00-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS. (http:llel.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wrap00-I/wrap00-I.pdf)
Warne, A. G., and Wakeley, J. S. (2000). "Guidelines Ibr conducting and reporting hydrologic assessments
of potential wetland sites," WRAP Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TN-WRAP-00-01, U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.. (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/
elpubs/pdf/tnwrap00-1_pdf)
NOTE: The contents of this technical hole are not to be used fr�r• prrblic•alinrr, nr pror2rnlinrr(r! pru7)nses-
Citution of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such products.
16

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
APPENDIX A. SOIL CHARACTERIZATION DATA FORM
Soil Characterization Data Form
Project Name
Personnel
Date
Soil Pit ID
Horizon
Depths
(inches)
Texture
Matrix Color
(Munsell
moist)
Redoximor hic Features
Induration
(none, weak,
strop
Roots
Color
Abundance
i
i
Comments:
17

ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2
June 2005
APPENDIX B. MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION DATA FORM
Monitoring Well Installation Data Form
Project Name Date of Installation
Project Location Personnel
Well Identification Code
Attach map of project, showing well locations and significant topographic and hydrologic features.
Characteristics of Instrument:
Source of instrument/well stock
Material of well stock
Slot width
Kind of well cap
Installation:
Was well installed by augering or driving?
Kind of filter sand
Depth to lowest screen slots
Was bentonite wetted for expansion?
Method of measuring water levels in instrument
Flow was instrument checked for clogging after installation?
Diameter of pipe
Slot spacing
Kind of well point/end plug
Kind of bentonite
Riser height above ground
Instrument Diagram"
Soil Characteristics
Texture
Matrix
Color
Redoximorphic
Features
Induration
(none,
weak,
strop
Roots
Color
Abundance
4
aShow depths (heights) of riser, well screen, sand pack, and bentonite in relation to soil horizons.
18

�F A �E9
I QG
v
Michael f. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., secretary
North Carolina Depanment of Environment and Natural Resources
Mr. Nuwan Wijesuriya, Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin. Marietta Materials, LLC
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Dear Mr. Wijesuriya and Mr. Whitt:
Coleen I l Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
June 30, 2009 ,
JUL
Subject: General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Joluiston County
The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater Permitting Unit received a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit application for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Selma Quarry; on
September 15, 2008. In response to•a DWQ request for additional information, we received additional
information from your site on April 20, 2009.
In our last letter, we requested that an O&M Plan for your facility to be submitted to the Raleigh Regional
Office before issuance of an NPDES permit. If you have further questions regarding your O&M plan we
request that you to contact the Raleigh Regional Office to address any wetland concerns for your facility in
order to ensure a successful NPDES application review.
Although you have submitted some components of the O&M plan for review, we are still missing some of
the requested components. Please submit the necessary components of the O&M below that we had
previously requested:
• Cal _ulations to show the cone of influence
• Settling pond sizing information and calculations
• Level -spreader design and calculations
• Description of measures to.prevent erosion and flooding
• Annual Report
• Restoration Plan (including an after -site plan for wetlands that -for the life of the mine are to be
maintained by'ievel-spreaders and dewatering).
After review of your O&M plan we request that you address all the following points:
Wetland 4:
1. On page 2 of the O&M plan you state that groundwater flow in this area is typical of Piedmont where
fIo7U direction is foz wrcls streains. You then state that wetland 4 will not be affected by the pit as water zi;41
flow fro1ji-Neuse to it. These two statements are contrary, however you state that Wetland 4 will not be
hydrologically affected by the development of the pit. After conversations with NCDENR DWR
Groundwater hydrologist Nat Wilson, we do notbeheve that this can be conclusively shown. Please
show a monitoring plan for this wetland. Please'include:
a. A monitoring plan that shows water table before mining is started near the wetland.
NonehCarotina
Aamrally
Noiih Carolina Division of Water Qualily 1617 Mait Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet' wwW,ncwaterqusli r" Location. 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50%Recycledf l0%?ost Consumer Pater

Mr. Steve Whitt & Mr. Nuwan Wijesuriya
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry - NCG020735
July 2,.2009
b. Wells should be:
i. 20-30' deep,
ii. screened over 5' intervals
iii. Monitoring relatively shallow groundwater.
iv. These should be placed and monitored before the digging is begun.
v. Monitored for the life -of the well
vi. Monitoring should be kept by the permittee. This data needs to be kept for the life of the
..permit.
vii. Monitoring needs to be summarized on a regular basis and sent to the Region.
c. Please show from what areas the mine' -will be are discharging water.
Stream 1, Wetland 1, WetIand 6:
You state in your submitted O&M plan that monitoring is not needed for wetlands 1& 6.You did not
include cone of influence calculations.
1. Please include cone of influence calculations.
2. If cone of influence reaches wetlands 1&6, please submit a monitoring plan as per Wetland 4.
Wetland 2/Stream 3/Wetland 3:
1. As water is to be added to the.stream/wetland system from dewatering, and as a proposed berm
will diver water from a wetland that currently feeds this system, please show how enough water
will be put into wetland 3 that -this wetland/stream system will still be:
a. Received at a non -erosive velocity and
b. Yet still receiving enough water from the clarification pit to hydrate the wetlands.
c. Please show calculations for this.
2. Please show on the large scale plans and in the O&M plan where the monitoring gauge will be
placed in Wetkmd-2 and Wetland 3.
Process Area:
PIease show the. discharge point(s) from the process area, especially as they pertain to wetland 6 and
stream 1.
Constructed Wetland:
You state in the O&M plan that you will create a constructed wetland. It appears to be located in or
near wetland 6. You cannot create a constructed wetland in wetlands or surface waters. Please address.
Level -spreaders:
1. Concentrated Runoff into the buffer must be discharged in a diffuse manner. Please show that all
concentrated flow, into the buffer is done in a diffuse manner.
2. Please include plans and calculations for level -spreaders. A link to level -spreader design
requirements can be found on the stormwater BMP manual webpage.
3. If your level -spreader designs require a bypass into the buffer, you will be required to have buffer
authorization. Please contact Amy Chapman in the Division of Water Quality for requirements for
buffer authorization. Please return a copy of final correspondence regarding buffer authorization
from Ms. Chapman. You may need a 401 permit modification if you will require a buffer
authorization. Please include a statement as to .whether or not you will be required to have one.
4. Please show where both sediment basins discharge on the large scale_ plans.
3v,nhCarolina.
�Vatura!!!l
North Carolina [division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Pizone [phone] Customer Service
Internet; www,ncwaterquality.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

WMr. Steve Whitt & Mr. Nuwan Wijesuriya
A�a:win Marietta Selma Quarry - NCG020735
Jul y 2, 2009
Large -Scale Plans:
1. Please show on the large-scale plans and in the O&M plan where the monitoring gauge will be
placed in Wetland 2 and Wetland 3.
2. Please show the discharge point(s) from the process area, especially as they pertain to Wetland 6 and
Stream 1.
3.. Please show where both sediment basins discharge on the large-scale plans.
4. You state in the O&M plan that you will create a constructed wetland. It appears to be located in or
near Wetland 6. You cannot create a constructed wetland in delineated wetlands or streams. Please
address.
5. Please label all wetlands, streams and BMPs on the large-scale map as per the O&M plan.
6. Please show approximate locations of ALL monitoring wells and gauges.
7. Stream 3 does not appear to be shown correctly on the large-scale plans. Please address.
8. Please show the old borrow pit on the large-scale plans and in the O&M plan.
Other:
1. Please show vehicle maintenance areas of the site.
2. Please show that you have applied for a flood -Hazard permit and that your site plan does not need
to be further modified to meet any local requirements.
3. PIease show that you have applied and received. local stormwater approvals for water -supply
watershed areas as your site is in a water -supply watershed.
4.. If your site will include asphalt or ready -mix concrete industrial areas, please include information
about those industrial practices including runoff, recycle systems, treatment systems, wash out areas
and discharges. If your site will not contain these types of industrial activities, please include a
staterent to that effect.
5. On the 04M plan prepared by Kimley-horn the stated project boundary is 503 acres. The other
plans state the project permitted boundary as 480 acres. Please resolve this discrepancy.
6. You state that the site's final built -out condition is based on 27.1 acres of developed area, however
the full-scale plans provided show that stockpiles are 41.3 acres, processing area and haul roads
account.for 84.6 acres (gravel roads are considered to be impervious) and wastepiles account for
99.9 acres of impervious. Please resolve this discrepancy.
7. Please include a statement that there will be non -erosive flow to all wetlands for stormwater.
8. Your large-scale map shows future closed -loop settling cells. If you will have an "other" type of
recycle system you will need an Authorization to Construct. Please address.
9. All monitoring plains should include:
a. Wells should be placed and monitored before the digging is begun.
b. Show a plan that wells are to be monitored for the life of the well
c. Monitoring data should be kept by the permittee:.This data needs to be kept for the life of the
permit. ,
d. Monitoring needs to be summarized on'a regular basis and sent to the Region (on a schedule
to. be decided with the Region).
10. Please show all outfalls clearly marked on large-scale plans. Please also include calculations to
support stormwater outfall discharge rates.
Please submit two copies of the above information to the Division for Review - one to me at the Central
Office (address below) and one to Danny Snith at the Raleigh Regional Office. The requested information
On
No •thCarolina
J`Valarally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mai] Sen�ice Center Raleigh, NC 27699.1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet; www.nctA�iiiergti;ility.org Location; 512 N. Salisburyst, Ralcigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone] t-877-623-6748
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Steve Whitt & Mr. Nuwan Wijesuriya
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry - NCGO20735
my 2, 2009
should be received by this Office prior to July 31, 2009, or the application will be returned as incomplete. If
you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax.your request for a time extension to
the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate the date
by which you expect to submit the required information.
If you would like to meet in person and discuss these changes we would welcome that. I have contacted
you via email to indicate the elates I am available.
If you have any questions concerning the NPDES permit approval process, please contact me at telephone
number [phone]. If you would like to come in to discuss any concerns, please contact me at the above
number and we would be happy to meet with you.
Sincerely,
.1 er es
Environmental Engineer
cc: Raleigh Regional Office, Danny Smith, Lauren Witherspoon
DWQ 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit Home, Annette Lucas, Amy Chapman
NCDENR DWR, Nat Wilson
Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
IPowilhCaro itta
,117atul-ally
Nonh Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone (919) 733-M83 Customer Service
Internet: www.newatergaality.org r Location: 512 N• Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer— 50% Reaycledlt 0% Post Cortsumer Paper

Kimley-Horn
C and Associates Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
,N
P
To: Mr. Steven S. Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials
Prepared by: Chad Evenhouse, PWS; Josh Allen, EIT, Todd St. John, PE
Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. (KI-IA)
Date: April 16, 2009
Subject: Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Introduction
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc (KHA) reviewed the Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) Mine Plan for
the proposed Selma Quarry in Johnston County, NC to address discharge questions raised by the NC
Division of Water Quality'(DWQ) in their review of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit application. KFIA and MMM met with DWQ on December 19, 2008 to discuss their
comments, and the discussions focused on two aspects of the project: 1) Stormwater runoff and nutrient
treatment to meet requirements for the Neuse River Basin, and 2) Potential dewatering impacts on
surrounding waters (wetlands and streams) associated with the proposed mine.
In order to address these issues, DWQ requested that MMM prepare and submit an NPDES Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) Plan.
Therefore, this memorandum presents an evaluation of the site hydrology and a recommendation for
monitoring as the mine develops.
Site Description
The proposed mine site is located in the Town of Selma, Johnston County, North Carolina adjacent to the
Neuse River near US 70 (Figure I). The area for the proposed pit is agricultural (cattle pasture) adjacent
to forested areas along the Neuse River floodplain. Topographically, the proposed hard rock mine site is
located on a hill in between two headwater streams and the Neuse River floodplain. A berm is proposed
between the future pit and the Neuse River floodplain (Figure 2)
On the southern portion of the site there is an old borrow pit. This area was not considered "Waters of the
U.S." by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 permit approved 5/28/2008, ID: SAW-2007-01798), or
Selma Quarry NPDES OPeraticns and Maintenance Plan Page 1 of

"Waters of the State" by DWQ (401 Water Quality Certification approved 8/3/2007, DWQ 420070861).
There is a permanent water level in the borrow pit, but no outlet or connection to surface waters. The
location and proximity to the boundary of the site to the floodplain wetlands provide evidence of the
water table in adjacent wetland areas along the Neuse River floodplain.
The proposed development for other aspects of the mine (plant, stockpiles, shop, scale house, etc.) is
located in the managed agricultural fields and flat pasture areas further from the river.
The site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province just west of the fall line between the Piedmont
and Coastal Plain (Giese et al. 1997). The mine will be a hard rock (granite) operation where the pit will
deepen with a series of benches or ledges. Compared to a typical coastal plain mine limestone operation
where the mine expands laterally with the rock layer being mined, the hard rock operation develops
vertically. Groundwater flow in this area is likely typical of the Piedmont where flow direction is towards
streams (discharge areas) and the shape of the water table mimics the topography of the land surface.
Most of the groundwater flow is located within the upper 30 feet of the more densely fractured rock and
transitional zones (saprolite and surficial sediments) (Harned, 1989).
Hydrology and Hydrogeology Evaluation
This evaluation focuses on the proposed development potential impact to site hydrology and groundwater
in two separate components: stormwater treatment for the developed areas, and groundwater pumping and
discharge. These two components are separated by the nature of the development (i.e. pit and plant
areas), and are discussed separately below.
Groundwater Dewatering
Dewatering volume associated with development of the pit will increase as the pit deepens through the
more conductive upper surface, and the cone of influence will expand as the footprint of the pit grows to
its built -out footprint. Once the mine expands to its footprint and then develops vertically, it is not
anticipated that there will be a significant increase in dewatering discharge with depth. This has been
observed at MMM's Benson Quarry which is similarly situated (geographically, topographically,
hydrologically) and is also a hard rock operation.
Wetlands and streams nearest to the pit will likely be affected, however those adjacent to the Neuse River,
and others further from the pit (but closer to the plant areas) will not likely be affected. The delineated
streams and wetlands are shown in Figure 3. Of these, the Stream 2/Wetland 7 system and Wetland
2/Stream 3/Wetland 3 system are likely to be affected by dewatering and the cone of influence of the pit
and will be managed and monitored under the O&M plan with dewatering discharge used to maintain
aquatic functions while mining activities are on -going. Figure 5 shows the location of pit dewatering
ponds and discharge locations to the two systems to be maintained and monitored. It is intended that the
Wetland 2/Stream 3 system will receive most of the dewatering discharge through a diffuse flow outlet
(i.e. level spreader) upslope of the headwater wetland. Stream 2 will receive less discharge since the
stream is intermittent and has less capacity to handle sustained discharge. This system will receive
Selma Quarry NPDES OperaOcns and tsiainlenance Plan Page 2 of 8

periodic discharge through an outlet allowing for a slower drawdown of the clarification pond and/or
infiltration to the stream.
Wetland 4 will not be hydrologically affected by the development of the pit since water table will be
sustained by the Neuse River and although groundwater may flow from the river into the pit, this
groundwater will be discharged directly back to the river at the site such that there will be no impact to
stream level or base flow. The construction of the berm and compaction of the soils between the future
pit and Wetland 4 will also help reduce lateral water movement along the fringe of the wetland. The old
borrow pit is in a location that will allow for observation of the water table adjacent to the Neuse River
floodplain wetlands as the mining pit develops and expands. The water level in the borrow pit will be
monitored manually with the installation of a staff gauge on site as a groundwater reference, however it
will not need to be monitored using a continuously monitoring water level gauge at this point since the
mining pit will not expand to this portion of the site until later. Additional monitoring may be considered
when the NPDES permit is renewed.
Wetlands 1 and 6, and Stream l are not likely within the cone of influence of dewatering. However, these
areas will receive additional hydration from the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stormwater
treatment discharge discussed below.
Impacts to Wetlands 5,'8, 9, and 10 have been permitted for the development of the pit. As such, these
wetlands will not be monitored.
Stormwater
A stormwater analysis was completed to determine the storrwater treatment requirements for the future
permanent plant (plant) and stockpile area for titre proposed development. "The Neuse River which is
adjacent to the site is classified by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) as nutrient
sensitive water (NSW). Also the site is located in Johnston County, which is subject to Neuse Basinwide
Stormwater Requirements (15A NCAC 213 .0235) and are administered by Johnston County (NCDENR
DWQ 2007). Additionally, the approved 401 Water Quality Certification states the following regarding
stormwater requirements.
"If conventional engineered stormmwater BMPs are used, they must be designed, at a mininnim, to
remove 85 percent of "Total Suspended Solids (TSS). In addition to controlling 85 percent of TSS,
all projects requiring stormwater management and located in watersheds that drain directly to
waterscontaining these supplemental classifications shall meet the following requirements: for
Nutrient Sensitive Waters a minimum of 30 percent total phosphorus and 30 percent total
nitrogen removal."
Johnston County's Stormwater Management Ordinance explains the requirements for nutrient reduction
involving new development:
"Stormwater shall be conveyed from a development in an adequately designed drainage
system of natural drainageways, grass swales, storm sewers, culverts, inlets, and
channels. Drainage systems shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to encourage
natural infiltration, control velocity, control flooding, and extend the time of
Selma Quarry NPD1-S Operations and Maintenance Man Page 3 ot'A

concentration of'stormwater runoff. The post -development runoff rate for the one-year
storm event shall be attenuated to the predevelopment runoff rate for the one-year storm.
The nitrogen loading contributed by new development shall be restricted to 3.6 pounds of
nitrogen per acre per year. Methodologies for determining nitrogen loading are outlined
in the storrnwater design manual. A developer has the option of offsetting the nitrogen
loading from a development by paying into the state wetlands restoration program.
Procedures for offset payments are outlined in the stormwater design manual. When
using the offset payment, the total nitrogen loading from a development shall not exceed
six pounds per acre per year for residential development and ten pounds per acre per year
for nonresidential development."
Assuming a conservative impervious surface percentage of 50% (100% built -out condition of the 27.1
acre plant site), the amount of runoff for a 1-inch rain is 49,000 cubic feet. In order to treat this runoff
sufficiently (85% TSS Removal) with a stormwater wetland BMP, the minimum required surface area for
the wetlands would be 49,000 square feet (I.1 Acres). Including a 30 foot buffer surrounding the wetland
(for berms, access, etc.), the total surface area required is equal to approximately 1.9 acres. Location for
the stormwater wetland BMP is shown in Figure 4.
The nitrogen loading was calculated for the site at its final built -out condition (based on 27.1 acres of'
developed area at 50% imperviousness). The nitrogen load was calculated to be 11.20 pounds per acre
per year. After treatment by the stormwater wetland the resulting nitrogen load would be 6.72 lbs/ae/yr.
"Phis would be below the maximum of 10 lbslac/year, but above the required 3.6 lbslac/yr. MMM would
be able to provide 2 (approximate) additional BMPs in series to decrease the nitrogen load export;
however if the impervious surface percentage for the plant and stockpile area exceeds 44% (11.9 acres of
development), MMM may need to "buy down" the excess loading from 4.03 lbs/ac/yr to 3.6 lbs/ac/yr.
However, expanding the plant site beyond 27.1 acres may also be a means of increasing the impervious
acreage without exceeding 3.6 Ibs/ac/yr. This would require increasing the size ofthe existing BMPs or
the addition of BMPs.
Johnston County has indicated that they are willing to allow for a phased development approach. `this
would mean if 6.5 of the 27 acres were made impervious in the first phase then the wetland alone would
meet the 3.6 Ibs/ac/vr nitrogen loading requirement. Once development surpassed 6.5 acres, the addition
of a wet pond in series with the wetland would allow another 2.7 acres of development, for a total of 9.2
acres of impervious cover. Once development exceeded the 9.2 acre threshold, the addition of a forested
filter strip in series with the wet pond and wetland would allow MMM to develop up to 1 1.9 acres
Without exceeding 3.6 lbslac/yr of nitrogen.
The use ofstormwater wetland will alone meet the 30% Nitrogen and Phosphorus removal required by
the 401 Water Quality Certification for the built -out condition.
Calculations for nutrient loading and BMP sizing are included in Appendix A.
Monitoring
Monitoring at the Selma Quarry site will focus on the two drainage systems nearest to the pit (Stream
2/Wetland 7 and Wetland 2/Stream 3/Wetland 3). Ti}ese systems will be hydrated using dewatering
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan Cage 4 of s

discharge from the mine pit's clarification ponds. This discharge will only include mine dewatering water
extracted from the pit. 1,
The primary clarification pond will discharge through a diffuse flow structure (i.e. level spreader) upslope
from Wetland 2 at the headwaters of the perennial stream. The secondary clarification pond will also be
fed by the dewatering discharge, however not on a regular basis such as the primary clarification pond.
This pond will have a draw down in order to release the water into Stream 2 periodically and/or at a
reduced rate.
A water level monitoring gage will be installed in Wetland 2 to document that wetland hydrology is
sustained while mining activities are on -going. Since the drainage system below Wetland 2 is a surface
hydrology wetland/stream system, hydration of Wetland 2 will demonstrate that the system is functioning
with appropriate hydrologic ftmctions. A flow meter will be installed in Stream 2 to document discharge
and flow and duration in the intermittent stream. In addition, a water level monitoring gage will be
installed downstream in Wetland 7 at the property boundary to document wetland hydrology where
Stream 2 confluences with the NeLlse River floodplain wetland area. These gages will record water table
levels on a daily basis for the wetlands, and flow volume and duration by event in Stream 2. A staff gage
will be installed in the borrow pit area and will be manually recorded on a monthly basis.
An on -site rain gage will be installed and will collect daily rainfall measurements. Monitoring locations
are shown in Figure 6.
The frequency of data collection will be evaluated and discussed at the completion of Year I monitoring.
Recommendation to change monitoring frequency will be addressed at that time.
An annual monitoring report will be prepared and submitted to DWQ. The report will include:
• Summary of the mine development
• Summary of hydrologic monitoring data (daily gage measurements, and monthly observations)
• Summary of on -site rainfall
• Visual assessment of all wetlands and streams shown in Figure 3
• Visual assessment of BMP function and copies of any Operations and Maintenance Reporting if
required by Johnston County.
• Recommendations for corrective measures (if necessary)
It is intended that the first annual report will evaluate the effectiveness of on -site stormwater treatment
and managing dewatering discharge in relation to the progress of site development and expansion ofthe
pit. Recommendations for additional monitoring and implementation of future stormwater treatment will
be presented as needed.
References
Selina Quarry NPDI;S Operations and Maintenance Plan Page 5 0f S

Giese, G.l..., Eimers, J.f.., and Coble, R.W. 1997. Simulation of ground -water flow in the Coastal Plain
aquifer system of North Carolina, in Regional Aquifer -System Analysis -Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-M, 142 p.
Harned, Douglas A. 1989. The Hydrogeologic Framework and a Reconnaissance of Ground -water
Quality in the Piedmont Province of North Carolina, With a Design for Future Study (Water Resources
Investigations Report 88-4130). U.S. Geologic Survey. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR DWQ (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality). 2007. Administrative Code Section: I5A NCAC 2B .0200
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands. N.C..
Environrnenta] Management Commission. Raleigh, NC.
Selma (quarry NI'DES Operations and Maintenance I'lun f'age 6 o1'8

4i
Z Q Z Q
-b
%
% 0, 4+
Grove,
Gravel !9
Sand and Gravel
'Son Unit
ts
r '
4p
Ift
%
Legend If
1,000 2,000 4,000
Project Boundary
Feet
c
Jll4
I ille USGS Topographic Map (USGS Quad: Selma, NC: 1964, revised 1988)
Project Selma Quarry - NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Npared F.r Johnston County, North Carolina
tlarllw n==A A Date Project Number Figure
4116/09 011185026 2

Project Boundar Stream 1 , , �
acr
Wetland 6
0 02 ac
-- ID -- .►.;i. - r Wetland 7
0.09 ac
r Stream 2
ys ti Wetland 5
laG
� Wetland 1
17 8 ac
yrf
' Wetland 2 ( `
08ac
Stream 3
Wetland 4
f Wetland 3 J 32 ac
5.8 ac fr
r Wetland 8
1
0.6 ac
f Wetland 9
0.4 ac
I1T1►S:3=� Wetland 10
0.06ac io,Project Boundary IT
Legend
.� .
Jurisdictional Stream Channel
Jurisdictional.
nNeuseIA'.r �:
Feet

The stormwater wetland will treat approximately the first
6.5 acres of development in MMM's Future Plant and Stockpile
Area. Any development beyond this can be treated by the additioi
of other BMPs in series with the existing stormwater wetland.
0
a
I- 'I-- L f
N 0 250 500
n
/V Feet
.� Watershed:
Approx. 27.1 ac
Potential Future
8MP Location �{
1z "N"
b
LEGEND
'
[ Proposed Wetland
t,
Proposed Wetland Buffer
s�
Potential Future BMP Locations
•r%a— Delineated Streams
( Delineated Wetlands
Future Plant and Stockpile Area Watershed
4-
j Stormwater Wetland':
It Approx. 1.9 ac
werrtral Future
3MP Location
I,\
l o
kl
I
Title Proposed Stormwater Treatment for Future Plant and Stockpile Area
Project Selma Quarry PDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
r«ra. a r�, North Carolina
IMr4n MMN1M M•lwYlol A A
/ V Date Project Number
4/16/09 011185026
Figure
4
0
c=n :=.

Feet
Wetland 7
�C
Stream 2
- r /
Secondary Clarification \
"+ >> Pond i
\ ■ 1I 11 I i
j r
Primary Clarification ; ■ I
Pond ' ■
Wetland 2
Stmarn
1
LEGEND
Wetland 3
Mine Water Clarification Pond
l�
-06--Delineated Streams
C3 Delineated Wetlands
Title Mine Dewatering Locations
Project Selma Quarry PDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Prepared For Johnston County, North Carolina
v Date Project Number Figure
4/16/09 011185026 5
Can =.

ell/' i �• �. ,;ti �, �- 0 250 500
Feet
Permitted Stream `
Impact Area
`'� ,NJ
{ Stream 2
Wetland 7 '•� ��
• �; i.� \ 0.02ac
1 \
Water Depth
Wetland Gauge
Velocity Flow Meter
Stream Gau e ' r
}
Permitted Wetland yy
r Impact Area ✓ %. - �i �- k r
i r Permitted Wetland
r' Impact Area
Water Depth k �_
Welland Gauge Wetland 2
yr yy f tr 0.8 ac ■
\� Stream 3
V/ G
k
LEGEND
Proposed Monitoring Locations
Velocity Meter
• Wetland Gauge �!
Mine Water Clarification Pond
- Delineated Streams
Delineated Wetlands
Title Proposed Monitoring Locations
Project Selma Quarry —NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
PRparc¢ For Johnston County, North Carolina
Date Project Number Figure
4/16/09 011185026 6

Title I Vicinity Map
Project Selma Quarry yNPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Pmpamd For Johnston Count North Carolina
Yr71w fY!= I�
^, Date Project Number
4/16/09 1 011185026
I' ItiUrl'

t�
APPENDIX A
Selma Quarry NPDES Operations and Maintenance Plan
Page 8 of 8

CM FI Kimiey-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.
Project Information
PROPOSED WETLAND (BASED ON 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER)
Project Name: Martin Marietta Materials - Selma Quarry
KHA Project 9: 011185026
Designed by: JCA Date: 411412009
Revised by: TSJ Date: 4/14/2009
Revised by: Date:
Design Resource: NCDENR - Stormwater Best Management Practices (April 1999)
NCDENR - Updated Draft Manual of Stormwater Best Management Practices ( July 2005)
Site Information
Sub Area I-ocation: Future Permanent Plant and Stockpile Area
Drainage Area (DA) = 27.05 Acres
Impervious Area (IA) = 13.53 Acres
Percent Impervious (1) = 50.0 %
Required Storage Volume (Water Quality)
Design Stoma = 1 inch
Determine Rv Value = 0.05 + .009 (1) = 0,50 infin
Storage Volume Required = 49,098 cf (above Permanent Pool)
Temporary Pool Depth = 12 inch
Maximum Surface Area Required = 4%098 sf
Required Forbay Sizing
Required Volume = 10.00% of Permenant Pool
Required Forbay Volume = 4,910 cf

CM" KhWy-Hom
Mand Associates, Inc.
NUTRTIENT LOADING CALCULATIONS (BASED ON 50% IMPERVIOUS COVER)
Project Information
Project flame: MMM Selma Quarry - Buih Out Conditions
KHA Project #: 011185026
Designed by: JCA Date: 411412009
Revised by: TSJ Date: 411412009
Revised by: Date:
WP-1 (Wet Pond)
BMP
BMP
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeff.
by Land Use
From Site
Efficiency
by Land Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
(Ibslac! r)
(Ibslyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
(%
(Ibslyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
(lbslaclyr)
Permanently protected undisturbed
0.000
0.6
0,00
25.0%
0.00
open space (forest, unmown, meadow)
Permanently protected managed
13.526
1.2
16.23
25.0%
4,06
I
open space (grass, landscaping, etc.)
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads. parking
13.526
21.2
266.74
25.0%
71.69
I
lots. driveways. roofs. paved storage areas, etc.)
I
I-V
Totals 1
27.051
302.97 1
11,20
75.74 1
2.80
8.40
SW-1 (Stormwater Wetland)
BMP
BMP
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeff.
by Land Use
From Site
Efficiency
by Land Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
(Ibslaclyr)
(Ibslyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
(%)
(Ibslyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
(Ibslaclyr
Permanently protected undisturbed
0,000
06
0.00
40.0%
0.00
1
open space (forest, unmown. meadow)
I
Permanently protected managed
13.526
1,2
12,17
40.0%
4.87
1
open space (grass. landscaping, etc.)
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21,2
215.06
40.0%
86.02
I
fats, driveways, roofs, paved storage areas, etc.)
I
I
I
I
I
V
Totals
27.051
227.23
1 8.40
1
90.09 1
3.36
15.04
FS-1 (Forested Filter Strip)
BMP
BMP
BMP
Remaining
Site
TN Export
TN Export
TN Export
TN Removal
TN Reduction
TN Reduction
Nitrogen
Area
Coeff.
by Land Use
From Site
Efficiency
by Land Use
From Site
Load
Drainage Area Conditions
(Acres)
lbslac/ r)
(Ibslyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
N
(Ibrd r)
(Ibslaclyr)
(Ibslaclyr)
Permanently protected undisturbed
0.000
0.6
0.00
20 0%
000
opens ace iforesi, unmown, meadow
Permanently protected managed
13,526
1.2
7.30
20-0%
IA6
I
open space (grass, landscaping, etc.)
Proposed: Impervious surfaces (roads, parking
13.526
21.2
129.03
20.0%
25.81
I
lots, driveways, roofs, paved storage areas, etc.)
I
V
Totals
27.p51
136.34
5.04
27.27
1.01
4.03
TOTAL TN LOAD FOR ENTIRE PROJECT = 11.20 LBSIACIYR
TOTAL TN REDUCTION FOR ENTIRE PROJECT = 7.17 LBSIACIYR
TOTAL POST CONSTRUCTION TN LOAD = 4.03 LBSIACIYR
% TN REDUCTION FOR ENTIRE SITE 2 64.00%

Via
Y
V
-
� 1603
,�S •.: ., r r A
I- r R r r r r r -�-� •;1�y�� �.
416
48
Go G, Gravel
•���� ��.
�� •'. ,.�
y1 • y,' p .
Sand and Grad
IsOnVwt rat
Ime
C� •♦ ion •/
Legend r'
Le , jo 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
r; Project Boundary
Feet
c,na:aoa
Title USGS Topographic Map (USGS Quad: Selma, NC: 1964, revised 1988)
Project MMM Selma
to
Prepared For. Johnston County,North Carolina
N-ft rrl.r. """r M
'V Date Project Number Fig u re
5/17/07 011185026 2
T:ym+OI1ISSOIfi MMM SrlmePrnnil Duetunrnlalprnni! FtgmeelFigtue I_ Shc USGS Tupa Mup,dm Prepared by Laaa Lmg con

q 4. ea _ BE
1 � SfI
O
S
W
-a r' 1}
4 �
OH M 1 . , V. „
0 50 100 it ut lot 0 to 20
! � 1
Miles NIPS{
2090 Riverstone f)r �
pwtheftan a o r
2039
5u414uasa-1�~ .
' •o
`. t lttle-Divine•Rd
a 1
70 Revell•Rd
2016 5 artiFle-Rd
a fy
m ;SO q 2019 -
rr 1 11 !11Ud
Project Area
2D20 �Qeap4aA. Rd
XN
r
e o 25Go �,.
39
2575 zti
70 et
d. L �7 96j
01
tayr �� w
el.pr
70
r'' r Hartley
d'c Sri
"�f�fFFFp r !RS 0 0.5 1
N
' Smlthfld 1 - 2383
Title Vicinity Map
Project MMM Selina Site
Preparsd I'm Johnston County, North Carolina
v� Date Project Number Figure
5/ 17/07 011195026 1
T.4*011 ISS026 ,MMM Schm'8rrmr[ [l.xianrnrsPrnnu Rg,uee Figwe I SrL— V""'Y Mup.d. Prepued 6y Laura Lang rmn
wrwaw

T.1pnWl 1185026 MMM Seim',N nn IT—mrn Pe it Fig-tt ,Fignn: 3_Seluu_NR[S Soil Mup.dme prepared by Laura Ling cmn w`�.s

0
Project Boundary Shears) 1
503 a res�
Wetland�t
0.02 ac
Wetland 7
0.09 ac 4,
Stream 2
Wcl),v id
x ac
r"
Wetland 1
t 7.8 ac
Wetland 2
0.8ac
Stream 3
W: Wetland 4
rrar it .a I 32 ac
5.8 ac
.,r Wetland 8
0. G ac �
Welland 9
0 4 ac
Wetland 10 w.
fary
Stream C
hannel
Wetlands
►' �i�e
4
4 A
'MiMA

F1 7tire 8
i
F'i ure 7
lJ}rf�JYl. t y t
~ iL�X{�.;�y5{L1tti. LV
t
:.L
?Sx.
1JlYY,,Ji}rligur
rrr 4
f
ti
C�
nle
Sw OwFIMw
Fore
6 of 8
P'I
askm om"
USPZE AD •
Appk
Dde d Pkbk PkIcs
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Gbu* Johnston
P.O.B. 30013
Wdw,%W UT to the Neuse River
Raleigh, NV 27622-0013
Flyer Bmdv Neuse

Impact # 4
Wetland Fill
Impact # 3
We n lavatjion
0.81A .
T& In1:.s1 3 and 4 Flpr. 1 7 of 8
P *NA &*rs a m U A M AD •
Ap~ Daa of PQbb NWbV
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Coin Johnston
P.Q.B. 30013 WaterOW UT to the Neuse River
Raleigh, NV 27622-0013 Him Bate Neuse

Martin Marietta Materials
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622-0013
Telephone [phone]
Hand Delivered
April 20, 2009
Ms. Jennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
NC Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. — Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Ms. Jones,
With respect to your letter dated December 8, 2008 please find enclosed a copy of the following:
A copy of the Mining Permit application that was submitted to the NC Division of Land
Resources, Land Quality Section. The application contains the design notes and calculations for
the erosion control measures, including Level Spreaders, etc. A copy of the approved permit was
submitted to your office on September 5, 2008.
A large-scale site plan with stormwater outfalls and dewatering outfalls clearly marked.
The 480 acre site will produce crushed granite for the local market. With the exception of Martin Marietta
owned land, the property owner owns most of the surrounding adjacent land. In general, the typical
sequence of events for the development of the Mine will be as follows:
I. Locate and flag clearing limits.
2. Install erosion and sediment controls according to approved plans.
3. Clear and grub project area where necessary. Runoff to be directed to E&S controls.
4. Grade as necessary on the entrance road, Plant area, etc.
5. Strip overburden from areas designated for Mine excavation. The overburden is to be stored
in approved disposal areas.
6. Seed and stabilize all disturbed areas.
7. Commence mining of granite in areas designated for pit development. Excavated material
will be hauled to the plant for crushing and sizing.
8. Reclaim site upon final completion of mining.
In addition, please find attached a copy of the Operation and Maintenance Plan written by our consultant
to address wetland concerns and Neuse River Basin stormwater requirements.
i trust this addresses your concerns, if you have any questions please contact me at [phone].

Sincerely,
'VZ
Nuwan Wijesuriya
Environmental Engineer
CC: Danny Smith, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office - w/attachments
Mike Jones
Ray Thatcher
Steve Whitt
1 r 1

Michael i'. Lasley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Notch Carolina Dcpartment of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
December 8, 2008
Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials, LLC
P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Subject: General Permit No. NCG020000
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry, NCG020735
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Whitt:
The Division of Water Quality's Stormwater Permitting Unit received a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit application for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., Selma Quarry, on
September 15, 2008.
Please also be aware that if your project is located near wetlands, your NPDES permit will require
dewatering operations without wetland impacts. The specific requirements for mine dewatering at facilities
near wetlands can be found in the text of the general NPDES mining permit number NCG 020000 available
on our website, http://l12o.enr.state.ne.us/su/Forms_Documents.litnl. See Section C, Part 1 of the permit on
the page labeled, "Part III Page 5 of 9". An approved Operation and Monitoring flan is required for
NPDES-permitted mining facilities. Discharging mine dewatering wastewater without Plan approval will
be subject to enforcement action. -
A Plan for your facility must be submitted to the Raleigh Regional Office before issuance of an NPDES
permit. We encourage you to contact Danny Smith or Lauren Cobb at the Raleigh Regional Office at
[phone] at [phone], respectively, to address any wetland concerns for your facility in order to
ensure a successful NPDES application review.
We will need a copy of your mining site plan with all wetlands clearly delineated. I have listed the necessary
components of the site plan below. If your mine is near wetlands or may impact surface water or
groundwater please contact the Washington Regional Office (at 252-946-6481) about an 0 & M Plan
(checklist below):
0 Site map with wetlands, ditches, well -placements, borrow areas, overburden storage, stormwater,
wetland locations and stream locations
• Controls/BMPs, vehicle maintenance areas, settling basins, product process areas, and access
roads.
Y Rain Gauge (on -site, monitoring daily)
e Well information (design, depths, maintenance)
Y Physical monitoring for the wetlands areas (locations and sampling frequency)
• Calculations to show the cone of influence
• Settling pond sizing information, if applicable
One
No hCarotina
�1jrrlurall�
North Carolina Division of Rater Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer service
Internet: Lvtiv%v.ncwatere nality_ nrg Location: 512 N, salisbui}, St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
Ar. Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Selma Quarry --NCG020735
December 4, 2008
• Level spreader design, if applicable
• Visual monitoring plan of outfalls
• Details about dewatering method
Y Description of measures to prevent erosion and flooding
• Annual Report
• Restoration Plan
You have only included one outfall in the plan that you have submitted. I was told on the phone in a
conversation with Nuwan Wijesuriya on November 13, 2008, that there were many more stormwater outfalls
but that you were unsure when they would discharge, depending on the construction of the sediment basin.
BMPs must be installed per approved plans. We will need to see ail outfalls clearly marked on large-scale
plans. Please also include calculations to support stormwater outfall discharge rates.
Additionally, dewatering outfalls were not noted on submitted plans. Please include a full set of plans with
ail stormwater outfalls marked and all dewatering outfalls marked. If plans for mining are to be done in
phases, please show phases and corresponding stormwater and dewatering outfalls.
You did not include a narrative -of mining activities or a copy of your NC DLR Mining Pcrmit Application.
In order that we can better understand the mining process that will take place at this site please include a
short narrative of mining activities and a copy of your NC DENR DLR Mining permit application.
Please submit two copies of the above information to the Division for Review - one to me at the Central
Office (address below) and one to Danny Smith at the Raleigh Regional Office. The requested information
should be received by this Office prior to January 20, 2009, -or the application will be returned as
incomplete. If you need additional time to submit the information, please mail or fax your request for a time
extension to the Division at the address and fax number at the bottom of this letter. The request must indicate
the date by which you expect to submit the required information.
If you have any questions concerning the NPDES permit approval process, please contact me at telephone
number [phone]. If you would like to come in to discuss any concerns, please contact me at the
above number and we would be happy to meet with you.
Sincerely,
lennifer Jones
Environmental Engineer
cc:: Raleigh Regional Office, Danny Smith, Lauren Cobb
Central Files
Stormwater Permitting Unit Files
rt �ohCaroIina
,lVatlrrally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mai Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: w+v+v_.ncwalgrc�u»lily crrt Location: 512 N. SalisburySt, Raleigh, NC 27604 Pax [phone] 1-877-623-6748
An Equal OpportunitylAffirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled110% Post Consumer Paper

GROUND -WATER CONDITIONS
IN THE VICINITY OF TIME PROPOSED
QUARRY SITE NEAR YATES MILL
IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED FOR
MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES'
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY
TRIANGLE ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, INC.
I625 NAVAHO DRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

GROUND -WATER CONDITIONS IN THE VICINITY
OF THE PROPOSED QUARRY SITE NEAR
YATES MILL IN WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope of the investigation
The purpose of this investigation was to make a determination
of the impact, on the local ground -water aquifer, caused by the
development of a rock quarry near Raleigh, North Carolina.
Near the quarry site are several, single-family dwellings and
a mobile -home park. The residents have expressed concern that
dewatering operations at the quarry may cause excessive lowering
of water levels in their wells. In response to this concern,
Martin Marietta Aggregates requested Triangle Engineering and
Surveying, Inc. to make an investigation of the ground --water
conditions in vicinity of the quarry site and to determine, so
far as reasonably possible, the amount of change that may be
produced in ground -water levels at various distances from the
proposed quarry'pit.

Description of the Area
The area of investigation includes the 81-acre tract owned
by Martin Marietta Aggregates. The tract lies on the east side
of Lake Wheeler Road (SR 1371) near its intersection with SA 1379
at approximately 4 miles south of the City of Raleigh.
The proposed pit area of the quarry lies on the south side of
the creek leading from Yates Mill Pond in an east -west direction.
The location of the tract is shown in figure 1.
Underlying the entire tract is bedrock composed largely of
hornebiend gneiss. it is overlain by weathered rock and soil
ranging in depth from one or two feet on the hill tops to as much
as fifty feet in the low flat areas.
Ground -Water
The portion of the outer crust of the earth that contains
ground -water may be regarded as an underground reservior. .The
underground reservoir in the Raleigh area consists of two contrast-
ing types of materials, (i) the clayey and sandy soil_ and saprolite
which underlies the surface to depths generally ranging from
several tens of feet and (2) the underlying bedrock. In the soil
and saprolite, water occurs between the individual mineral grains,
but in the underlying bedrock it occurs only in fractures. These
fractures generally are not evenly distributed, so that they may
-2-

;Ike
q I if
—,c6l
If �Z-
1L 17
JFK `tea C�� -f.
u= IT: -coe -
A f

be an inch or two or several feet apart. Many are interconnected
sufficiently to allow ground -water to circulate through them. In
many places fracture openings are only a fraction of an inch wide,
although there is a great variation in size of openings. The size
and number of fractures appear to decrease with depth. As a result=,
most ground -water occurs at a depth of less than 150 feet - much of
it in the upper 30 feet of bedrock. Therefore, the lower limit of
-the reservoir is a thick, indefinite zone; the top, however, is a
definite though fluctuating surface known as the water table.
Ground -water moves slowly through the soil and fractures in
the rock, always under the influence of gravity. After percolating
downward en masse through the soil and saprolite, ground -water is
restricted in circulation to fractures in the bedrock. The water
does not generally move to great depths but instead is shunted
almost laterally by "tight" or impermeable rocks to discharge
points near the level of the perennial streams. Thus, in areas
such as the quarry site, the movement of ground -water from the
recharge, or interstream, areas to the discharge•, or stream, area
follows, in general., a short, sinous path, with the water flowing
locally through interconnecting fractures in the bedrock and
through pore spaces in the overlying saprolite and soil.
-3-

The Water 'Table
The water table, or upper surface of the underground reservoir,
continuously changes its position, reflecting changes in ground -water
storage. There is a constant discharge of ground -water by seepage
into streams and by evaporation and transpiration by vegetation.
The discharge causes a gradual lowering of the water table except
during and immediately after periods of signigicant precipitation
when recharge to the underground reservoir exceeds the discharge.
As a result of these periods of pr.ecipitation,, the water table
rises. Wich a year of normal rainfall the recharge to the under-
ground reservoir is approximately equal to the discharge from it,
so that the water table at the end of the year is at approximately
the same level as at the beginning of the year.
In the Raleigh vioinlry there is a noticeable change in the
water table with the seasons. It generally begins to decline in
April because of the increasing amount of evaporation and trans-
piration by plants, which not only consume ground water but reduce
the amount of precipitation that reaches the water table. Although
interrupted by minor rises due to heavy rainfall, this decline
generally continues through summer and autumn, in spite of the
usual abundant rainfall. of July and August. By November or
December, when much of the vegetation is dormant and evaporation
is low, more.of the precipitation reaches the aquifer and becomes
recharge, and the water table begins to rise until it reaches
another high stage about March or April of the next year.
-4-

Aside from the above considerations of climate, the depth. of
.the water- table in the Raleigh area depends chiefly on topography
and on the transmitting characteristics of fractures in the rocks.
The water table lies in the saprolite or overburden in most places,
especially beneath the broad upland areas where the saprolite is
thick. Although there is a great variation in the depth to the
water table and in the thickness of the overburden,.the water table
generally lies several feet above the base of the saprolite.
During droughts, when it may be several feet lower than during the
wet seasons, the water table may be in the bedrock in some places.
INVESTIGATION
The first step in determining the ground -water conditions in
an area is to research the available reports and records. This
was done for the proposed quarry site. However, because of the
sparse.population of that vicinity, there .are few well records
available other than those published by the N.C. Department of
Water Resources in 1968 in the report entitled,"Geology and
Ground -Water Resources in the Raleigh Area, North Carolina". This
report discusses, in general, the geology and occurance of ground-
water in the various geologic and topographic conditions in the
Raleigh area.
-5-

To obtain specific data at the proposed quarry site, Martin
Marietta Aggregates drilled six wells on the tract as shown in
figure 1. The wells were all 6-inches in diameter and were cased
with steel casing and grouted with concrete. Logs of these wells
are given in table 1.
Attempts. were made to run aquifer tests using two of the wells
for discharge paints. However, insufficient sustained yields and
running sand made it impossible to obtain a meaningful test even -
though more than a full week was spent in the effort.
The physical character of the bedrock in the quarry vicinity,
and in general, makes it extremely difficult to determine its
hydraulic properties. The size and degree of interconnection between
the joints, bedding planes and fracture zones determine the aquifer's
ability to transmit water to a pumping well and also determine the
direction and distance from such a well or quarry pit that the effects
of pumping can be detected. The occurence of the openings in the
rock is quite heterogenous, and often there is no clue at the
surface of their presence or character. Even with a test drilling
program such as recently completed on the site, there is no
quarantee that the true character of the water bearing racks can
be determined.
Was

Inasmuch as the six test wells and attempted pumping tests
did not produce any great amount of new data, we are now required
to evaluate the hydraulic properties according to the general
knowledge of the area and by applying specific information from
other similar sites.
In figure 2, a generalized settion through a typical quarry
wall is given. The section illustrates the occurrence of over-
burden, bedrock, and the movement of water through the aquifer
:-towards the quarry pit. The most pertinent item to note.,on the
drawing is the edge of the zone of influence at approximately
500 feet from the edge of the pit. This dimension was determined
from a study made at the Stateville quarry where several wells
were available to provide water level data from geologic conditions
similar to those at the proposed site. Also at other quarries
there are wells within 500 ,feet of the pits that have been producing
water without problems for a number of years. At the proposed
site, well number 3 was pumped for 9 hours with a drawdown of
approximately 110 feet with no measurable effect on the water
level in well. number 2 at only 92 feet away.
In summary, it is not anticipated that any significant lower-
ing of water levels due to quarry dewatering will occur beyond
a roximatel 500 feet from the edge of the it in a year .of
PP Y g P Y
average precipitation. However, it must be recognized that an
-7-

anomalous extensive fracture system could be influenced at a
greater distance by dewatering operations in the pit.
These conclusions are based on a general knowledge of the
geologic condition in the Raleigh area and experience in working
with ground -water problems at quarries in similar geologic and
topographic conditions.
��,tiitirrrr
CA
:.��Z- b iUT 9,q ,.
SE
48
_ A
/N 0:
-8-

0
2C
15
___
�
4
I
_
VTI�
PRECIPITL't)ON AT RALEiG„
�� i
fr I pry
�" j '" V
r /�pl
� N �
ail y7 � �
�✓l f 1,' r I dzji / /� �' p �.'? r ^ : r w • `}r iJ ` ...r• - •,^ .�, ..-1., .
^�;• Y �f i ✓ � i � / %L �' � r � f/.::y 1� ? !.! � J -t.`r�; :!^:�-
1939
1940 194E
1942
1943 1944 1945 1946
i947 1945 ! 1949 E 950 s951 1952 053 054 t355 ! s95o � :9`7 E �35b
Figure ;.--Graphs showing relation of water -level fluctuations in a drag well zo precirina;ion,
for the period 1939.58.

TABLE 1 - WELL RECORDS
Well No Depth,
Casing Depth Static WL
Geology:
0-8' Red Sandy Clay
8'-11' Saprolite
11'-158' Bedrock
Well No DepthCasingDepth
2 120' 11'
Geology:
0-11' Overburden
1.1'-60' Bedrock
60'-64 ' Soft Micaceous Seams
64'-120' Bedrock
Well Na.+�L W� W Depth -.w j +^Casing Depth
3 120'
Geology:
0-7' Overburden
j 7-10' Saprolite
J 10-120 Bedrock
Static WL
21'
Static WL
13'

TABLE 1 - WELL RECORDS
(Continued)
Well No Depth Casing Depth
4 158' 21'
Geology:
0-9' Red Clay
9'-46' Bedrock
46'-49' Soft Seam
49'-1-00' Bedrock
100'-103' Soft Seam
103' --158' Bedrock
Well No.
5
Geology;
0-7'
7.'-35'
35'--1.58'
6
Geology:
i
0-19"
19'-29'
I
29'-
Static WL
5'
-Depth_u -.._ Casing DepthR Static WL
158' 16'
Red and Brown Sandy Clay
Brown and Grey Saprolite
Bedrock w[th Several Soft Seams
Depth asingV Depth
+-^+ �5'tatic WL-r
Overburden
Saprolite
Bedrock
30'

i
I
'
I /
C)s
u
D00'66i'2: 9 +
005'461'a a +
V
r/
0 0
0
m m m
m m m m
m
z, z, z z
7.
1 �
t.,4 i11,.
O
o
z
2 o
O
W O
e T
T^
�y
U
rn
� 3
a�
oa
z_r
wx
maw
00
ez
CFO
�
v
a
oho
o
'�^
o
c
�
en
a
W U Fz1
�
eO1n
w
8
w
0
0pk
O
O
M
r-�
U
rl
N
N
W
w
U
CDd
d
�
Q
H E
A
0v
a
W
O
m z
OORO�ONO .J
(Lam)
NOLLVAa'Ia
00o'S0a'z
009'Eoz'z 3
000'202'a a
000'68I'z
oog,arZ 3
Cd
Cd
L
cd
II l
Qn
I'n�
N
>
Cd �
�yy"
_y
cn
p,
O >
•F
O
c}.d.�
b
�, �:
to
Cd
O
U
)
O
N
to cCO
o
0
�
0 . N.
U
cd
�
Z ,
0
cd
to 0
J)
Cd
`*
�
0
.
OM
O
4 N
0
N
cj
"C3
O"
� C
d i/1
cd
+
N
• O
O
y Cc
O
+
O
V�
�
02
z
�
�
04
N
0
0
co
m

I
N
It
O
"
O
~y
O
►�*�
CD
CD
0
�
r♦
0
w
rb
(
O
G
0
CD
"
►�
tQ
�'+
O Vl
ram+.
V1
CD
/¢�+a'
E✓
yF0
CD
CD
~
Q.
CDCD
O
N
2
(AD
_
U,
O
O
O
G
CD
CDa
W
W
CD
a�
0
CD
CD
o
CD
a�
,.CDCD
�o�o
F.♦
Nr •
CD
VT`1
O
l I
O
C
O
CD
L�
CD
�Mi
♦CD
CD
y�Eor
p..
CCD
C
CD
`o
CD
V+
C
CD
CD
V+
E 2,197,500
E 2,199,000
z z
m ao
o .-
0 0
0 0
Z
D
9N
. O
Z
v
RAI
v
Q
1
0
O
r D
c
W
'
m
\ �
<
(n f f E
�- m
A
r
O
<
�
D
Spy
t f E ,.�
.�TM'•F
m
\
0
Z
E c
f �
�
/
k f f
Q
r-
E
E_ f l
m
O
C)
t
E
{ f E
I#i k ��
X
N
`E
z
I
m
�
1
f
f,
f t;.
�-1
Q .�
..
(�
D D
O
O
f
{ 'f
F
r E J y
4
,A
� r
E
f f t
VI r
m
D
D
f X� f
f
4 f
v
C
r
m
f mf
t
a
EE X
rn
f
io
�Q
-n
f
E
E
X
�f
r
+
f f
.t
m5<G�
E 2,197
E 2,1
E
E 2,202,000 i \ a r / ER ' t" o -4-X$ .. rPr'p O i' fi E 2,20�,000
2,203,500
2,205,000
0
0
0
fp
E
i
T N
r --IO m
m
m 3
m 1
m O
iJ ca
D m
Z ic
O
Z
N -_
i
m O
< m
m v
v c
< U)
U z
G)
D
r
NORTH
a 6 _ m
= a �
r
• I I 1
E
Y f
f
f
•2 yy6
c O [n
e �
.�1 �' ♦�lP i ....: Y.. .�.;�: :. 1'.� �1'.S �::ii; .... .. �t a,1„i r�✓�.L .'u.. J.i ♦r .'��.�, �5.�\{ii.r
i p
•2 yy6
c O [n
e �
.�1 �' ♦�lP i ....: Y.. .�.;�: :. 1'.� �1'.S �::ii; .... .. �t a,1„i r�✓�.L .'u.. J.i ♦r .'��.�, �5.�\{ii.r
i p

-14--1 do iI S'I —. _ _ .. _. ... -. ..y s. .u_. .. .. --
N
a
a
0
J
w
<
F
LL.
I
i
i
I
W
z'$$
8`
o
e v
LU
H
t
_
to
0
CC
Z
a
Iy
I
•
t
I (
z
'z a
46I'z a
O O
m m com
z z z CD
C
N N
W ~ �\
// ZZJ ¢ s/�11�\ o
W W b p \ + +
W / ~... W Q Z p OF W \
3oo -j M
x CD
�k Z
W Cn a W / + a i i' i
'x G
/Oa LUO
/ i i i i i'� i } i i a \
r�•,x CD
R i
i i i� i i i i i i i� i
ui \ \.
i i pj� i i W \ ti
x iLU
\
F
J
ti Q
cx
-
J
LL
Q
QU.
Q
�'
.._ ..W
Ix
i
i i of i
i
i, i
K
I•'
W
Lfi.:
i imxa
i
im i
F J
R'
0
Ox >
Q J
O
W
W
i a
a i i
i
i
A.
i
Z
LL
N
O
s
f(�
W
LL.
w
i i .. a
i
i i
Z
J
O O
Q
Q
K
J
U
U
j♦
i i i
i i i i
i
i
i
' �
Ix
O
7
W'
H W
W o'
Z
oix
2
W
N
.°D.
��
V LU
y
N
0:p
Q
p
i i i i
Z
Z
Z
W
m
=
0
W
0
Z U
U
W
W y
0
Q~
F
F
IL
i
I
W
�r
R
3c7a
O
v
o
ako
00 co
co co
w
W J
Q J
rL ~
O O
W
J R'
Q =
N U
W to
F p
0
IL
se,
4
4s 0
Pit Limit
Permit Bomdary
_rp
QTA
tla
Q O
v
°
z
'c
O
$
V
V G
5
a a
5
0
9=
a �
a
� o
� ='a
�Uw
w
W
C
p
0
W
F
C7
W
x
p+ u
F
V a+
Pr
a
F
F+ Fs.
000`90z'z a
009'£09'2: aI
000'zoz'z a
F \
0o9'ooz`z z
o
d
U
N
N
4v1
O
�
Q
V
z
a�
s
w
c7
�
v
A
W
PLI
V
lb
O
� 7
DO V'O�ONO '=
� � o
'ISSN
ffAOEd �
1loUVA
Ia X
000'66I'z H
009`L6I'z
to
CC
i-1
Cqs
cd
cis
�
61
N
�
�
(�
• t.y
jai
v
w�.i^
�
i�
ul
¢r
•o
�F
onto
:zi,
�:
Cd
�oCl,�.
o
U
aS
_
U
Z
4
U
Ohl
Q�
.r
U
Cd
+-'
0
M
4-4
t.y
0
M
crj
N
0
N
•O
p
too
N
cd��
Gi
�
"C
0
O
y (
i,
C'
(t,,,,,
S-
Qj
Z �a2
o�
N
K

_L_S.- E--! _Y.-. +. _:.r,:ttr ,tea'.., + ... ... `--- -_a ..-.•ffir' _ f.� .... .... __._'r` _::!±.� <<'. 1i1'_. ..:�'.1_e��>_�t' �' ...
2T,
C17LVER
MAX. FWW
ENERGY
SIZE
SLOPE
(cfi)
DISSIPATER
((.-MP}
42"
h %
54.64
Class H - 24" rck
2g'Lx ITSW
NOTE-
Culver[ design may be field modified Imce the
appropriate flow is verified.
CARRY RIP -RAP OVER TOP OF PIPE
C, M.P. MITRED TO CONFORM TO SLOPE
RIP -RAP (DUMPED IN PLACE} TO FORM
CHANNEL (SEE SCHEDULE)
(f 4" FILTER WAS] IUD STONE HUD,
FILTTERFAHRICO' r:r?unl.-
CARRY 112 WAY UP PIPE F.I Grt
SEE SCHEDULE FOR
STONE SIZE & AREA
(OUTLET PROWL-11ON)
P.IPF OUTLET WITH RIP -RAP PROTECTION
24'-0"']'revel Surface
8'-0" 12' 0" I T-O" 1g' 0"
grassed gnissed
shoulder i Grade Point shoulder
Existing -1 II2 Ft -114" 1 r 1/4" I Ft FF
Grade 2
1-1/2" bituminous concrete surface course, type "e" or
3" bituminous concrete binder course, type "b"
Tack coat placed at rate of 0.05 gal./sq/ yd.
8" abc (crushed stone paving)
Subgrade compacted to 950% AASHTO density/
See ditch schedule for depth and width of ditch
ASPHALT ROADWAY WITH DITCH
not to scale
24'-O" Travel Surface (typ.)
gassed
shoulder i shoulder
-
Grede' Point
Existing 112" Ill' t!4" 1 114" 1 1r -1/2~'
Grade
Subgrade compacted to 95% AASHTO density vim !?� P NOTE: crushed stone pa g shall
be maintained Illy owner as required
g" min. crushed stole paving
24' ROADWAY _(CrwhedStone)
not to scale
Vegetated . , :::. , • , " •'lto
Diversion :>- ...... • OWN]- -
..... ... /./ . . . . . . . . .
stabihud
Stable �. • .• •.•.•. � � 1 . .
outlet ~` . •
CROSS SECTION
tit m��ry �rmt uro<t�1r
stow lieu me tayearmem.
- ara.�im iWrra h„a the ep,e,drrmtnm
- sp<varr sv r;tt 6eavee r.a.ah.„
Existing I
Grade
Existing
Grade
LEVEL
SPREADER
- TYPICAL
tac mine ai,+mhed.re. oSd.e �e.de,r,�
(NTS)
rdtm„ts�mara�
Level Spreader Design Notes
'For all discha
t ,
Ire points locatad adjacenttlo the Nauss Inver 11111parian Buffer: ,
Design Flow
F�m
h�rtll�°
-
Roughening can he achieved with lacked machinery in arms
with sandy soils.
Qperete tracked machinery up and dawn the slope to ieevc
horizontal dep[essions in the soil.
- Stair -step grade or groove out slopes with a gradient gf�euter tires
3:1,
- Use stair -etc ng ou any erodible m�a•ial soft enough to be
ripped with a bulldaier.
- Imme,dialely seed and mulch roughened areas to o€rtoin
rrinmacgttirnaan
seed gcron and growth.
I
Stair Stepping Cut Slaves
ire
0-v
Grooving slopes
SURFACE ROUGHENING DETALL I
not to scale
Place material from excavation on
downhill side of flow- Use additional
Gil to achieve specified height and width.
2' min,
z;
Flow
Seed and mulch diversion channel and dike
immediately after construction. Choose appropriate
Varies seeding mbiumc from the seeding schedule.
3' min.
TEMPORARY DIVERSION DITCH
Notes:
1) Sufiment traps (ST) are sized for the total drainage area with I clean -out per year.
2) Weir dimensions are minimum requirements from NCESCPDM (]'able 6.60a)
3) Frosion & sediment controls will be adjusted in the Field as necessary to conform to actual topography,
114, am
tap orBesu Cx Rip-PJP"
SA.aqu y
Tt'-o" (:M1 a. M�iH t2" min. ofx(�p7' ps
1 IDPd"a" ar#57 d
- Sediment Storage Inne
- (TMal Brim Canacity)
Max- It l of eedimmr
ted etas basin V-6" rocs }I 4 e
Wl- this level is rtxadred Sedimenl t?ePtl+ 1 v
adtc^ /
V...R { riblr Varyrc
Mom.
C-y dpraP up
sides of aptliway � iEir1PC1RAItY SEfSII.tEhiT BASIN DErAI[.
A Rip -Rip
SF(-nON THROUGH TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN
1R Min.
Pitch clown to drain
rnroirto tee
Iinteriar of the Mpcar
t 2$' Mlrt. l jlmp_�ty t .
2 2 I Yarn
1 Sap Wig I Pitch cmwn io drain
r' v�a xa �l MnOn to ON
�iraeriot ofthe property
l W Bench sloped ] V 13crsch sloped
m Intenw _1 r 10 Ictezi"r
Top Widlh
l Varies Pitch Brown to drain
I' "`•I rawirwlhc
�mterior orthe pro7perty
2p• Rewh Sloped i 2R A-:h Sloped
ip Interior 35 nYP.
`
2(r P3 wh sloped
to Interior
N(rrES=
I Shapes will be tracked during construction to aid in the es1sbl-rshhWA1 of sing yauvc awcr.
2. All eipomd areas will be stabilized immediately following eonsuvetror.
a►r�uaraayaa..iu
Filter Fabric
v
V-Trench
Backfiil min. 8" thick
layer of gravel
Filar Fabric
I
l
4 Wire
Extension of fabric and
wire into the trench
SILT FENCE DETAIL
TypicAL BERM CROSS SECTION
not to scale
6" min. stone bed
Stone Size: NCDOT #S
or #57 washed stone
Table 6-11p. Seeding for, Well -to -Poorly Drained Soils, Low Maintenance
(from North Carolina Erasion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual]
Seeding Mixture
Species Rate (lbs/ac,)
Tall Fescue 80
Pensacola bahiagrass 50
SLricea Icspedeza 30
Kobe lespedeza 10
Seeding notes:
I - from Sept. I - Mar. 1, use unscarified sericea seed,
2. On poorly drained sites omit sericea and increase Kobe to 30 lblacre.
3. Where a neat appearance is desired, omit sericea and increase Kobe to 40 lb/acre.
Nurse ]Tanta
Between Apr. 15 and Aug- 15, acid 10 lb/acre German millet or 15 lb/acre Sudangrass.
Prior to May 1 or after Aug. 15, add 25 Iblacre rye (grain).
Seeding Dates
Rest Possible
Early Spring: Feb. 15 - Mar. 20 Feb. IS - Apr. 30
Fall: Sept. 1 - Sept. 30 Sept, I - Oct. 31
Soil Amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000 lb/ac - 5,0001h/ac. ground
agricultural limestone (use the lower rate on sandy soils) and 1,000 Ib/ac. 10-10-10 fertilizer,
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/se. grain straw or an equivalent cover of another suitable
mulching material. Anchor mulch by tacking with asphalt, raving, or netting, or
by crimping with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades Set nearly straight
can be used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
If growth is less than fully adequate, refertilize in the socond year, according to soil tests
or topdress with 500 lb/acre 1.0-10-10 fertilizer. Mow as needed when sericea is omitted
from the mixture. Reseed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas immediately,
30 1'YP.
2(Y Ream sloped
TYP. f to Int:nor
f
n rn.
PARCEL ID
Notes:
1) Sufiment traps (ST) are sized for the total drainage area with I clean -out per year.
2) Weir dimensions are minimum requirements from NCESCPDM (]'able 6.60a)
3) Frosion & sediment controls will be adjusted in the Field as necessary to conform to actual topography,
114, am
tap orBesu Cx Rip-PJP"
SA.aqu y
Tt'-o" (:M1 a. M�iH t2" min. ofx(�p7' ps
1 IDPd"a" ar#57 d
- Sediment Storage Inne
- (TMal Brim Canacity)
Max- It l of eedimmr
ted etas basin V-6" rocs }I 4 e
Wl- this level is rtxadred Sedimenl t?ePtl+ 1 v
adtc^ /
V...R { riblr Varyrc
Mom.
C-y dpraP up
sides of aptliway � iEir1PC1RAItY SEfSII.tEhiT BASIN DErAI[.
A Rip -Rip
SF(-nON THROUGH TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN
1R Min.
Pitch clown to drain
rnroirto tee
Iinteriar of the Mpcar
t 2$' Mlrt. l jlmp_�ty t .
2 2 I Yarn
1 Sap Wig I Pitch cmwn io drain
r' v�a xa �l MnOn to ON
�iraeriot ofthe property
l W Bench sloped ] V 13crsch sloped
m Intenw _1 r 10 Ictezi"r
Top Widlh
l Varies Pitch Brown to drain
I' "`•I rawirwlhc
�mterior orthe pro7perty
2p• Rewh Sloped i 2R A-:h Sloped
ip Interior 35 nYP.
`
2(r P3 wh sloped
to Interior
N(rrES=
I Shapes will be tracked during construction to aid in the es1sbl-rshhWA1 of sing yauvc awcr.
2. All eipomd areas will be stabilized immediately following eonsuvetror.
a►r�uaraayaa..iu
Filter Fabric
v
V-Trench
Backfiil min. 8" thick
layer of gravel
Filar Fabric
I
l
4 Wire
Extension of fabric and
wire into the trench
SILT FENCE DETAIL
TypicAL BERM CROSS SECTION
not to scale
6" min. stone bed
Stone Size: NCDOT #S
or #57 washed stone
Table 6-11p. Seeding for, Well -to -Poorly Drained Soils, Low Maintenance
(from North Carolina Erasion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual]
Seeding Mixture
Species Rate (lbs/ac,)
Tall Fescue 80
Pensacola bahiagrass 50
SLricea Icspedeza 30
Kobe lespedeza 10
Seeding notes:
I - from Sept. I - Mar. 1, use unscarified sericea seed,
2. On poorly drained sites omit sericea and increase Kobe to 30 lblacre.
3. Where a neat appearance is desired, omit sericea and increase Kobe to 40 lb/acre.
Nurse ]Tanta
Between Apr. 15 and Aug- 15, acid 10 lb/acre German millet or 15 lb/acre Sudangrass.
Prior to May 1 or after Aug. 15, add 25 Iblacre rye (grain).
Seeding Dates
Rest Possible
Early Spring: Feb. 15 - Mar. 20 Feb. IS - Apr. 30
Fall: Sept. 1 - Sept. 30 Sept, I - Oct. 31
Soil Amendments
Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil tests, or apply 3,000 lb/ac - 5,0001h/ac. ground
agricultural limestone (use the lower rate on sandy soils) and 1,000 Ib/ac. 10-10-10 fertilizer,
Mulch
Apply 4,000 lb/se. grain straw or an equivalent cover of another suitable
mulching material. Anchor mulch by tacking with asphalt, raving, or netting, or
by crimping with a mulch anchoring tool. A disk with blades Set nearly straight
can be used as a mulch anchoring tool.
Maintenance
If growth is less than fully adequate, refertilize in the socond year, according to soil tests
or topdress with 500 lb/acre 1.0-10-10 fertilizer. Mow as needed when sericea is omitted
from the mixture. Reseed, fertilize, and mulch damaged areas immediately,
30 1'YP.
2(Y Ream sloped
TYP. f to Int:nor
f
n rn.
PARCEL ID
OWNER NAME
1
Vann, Bemard & Wywma
2
Tillery, Christopher & Heath(
3
Johnson, Marcia & Terrelnc(
4
Daniels, Carol G.
5
Clay, Hal Robertson III & Cecil N
6
Johnson, Gregory & EUabei
7
Daniels, Carol G.
8
Johnson, Gregory & Elizabei
9
Smith, Steven & Sherry
10
Gibson, Christopher & Tamn
11
Johnson, Gregory & Elizabei
12
Huddleston, Kenneth & Donr
13
Wolfe Investments Inc.
14
Johnson, Gregory & Elizabei
15
Daniels, Carol G. & Johnson, Gr
16
Palma -Martinez, Ceasar Augu
17
Daniels, Carol G_ & Johnson, Gr
18
Stevens, Oliver
19
Parrish, Dons & Thomas
20
Roberts & Wellons, Inc,
21
Lucas, Robert & Victoria
22
Lucas, Robert
23
Lucas, Robert
24
Creech, Gertrude
25
Johns, Russell
26
Easom, Alma
27
Rose, James Kirby EST & Thomas Frar
28
Thompson, Thomas
29
Thompson, Thomas
30
Roberts & Wellons, Inc.
31
Janes E Snakenberg, RE, NCDOT- General Servic
32
Hobbs, E.G. & Michael R.
33
Hinnant, Richard & Carolyn
34
Bruton, Eugene & Sheila
35
Parrish, Thomas K.
36
Parrish, Doris J Life Estate & Parrish, Josel
37
Parrish, Joseph E. III & Parrish, Al
38
Hales, S- Wallace & Glenda
Table updated on 12-20-06 using information gathered from the John
PIPE
51 1 FROM SUMP
265'L x 75'W
N .. •...a... (INSIDE FROM TOP OF BANKS)
NATURAL GRAD 1
2:1 f12' 2:1
NOTE:
1. NCDOT #5 stone is preferred. Pad to be 50 ft. L x
20 ft_ W x 6 in. thick (min.).
2. Turning radius sufficient to accommodate large
trucks.
3. Must be maintained in a condition which will
prevent tracking or direct flow of mud onto streets.
Periodic topdressing may be necessary.
4. This construction entrance will be installed at all
entrance and exit points to the site. At this time the
only entrance and exit shown on the site plan will be
paved as part of the initial project.
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
not to scale
SEEDBED PREPARtkTION NOTES:
1) Erosion control measures are to be installed according to plan.
2) Areas to be seededshall be ripped and spread with topsoil (if necessary), 3" deep. Total
seedbed prepared shallbe 4"-6" deep.
3) Loose rocks, roots, and other obstructions shall be removed from the surface so as not to
interfere with the estallishment and maintenance of vegetation. Surface for final seedbed
preparation, at final Sades shown, shall be reasonably smooth and uniform.
4) If no soil test is take, provide fertilizer and lime according to seeding schedule.
5) If soil test is taken provide fertilizer and lime according to the soil test report. Soil testing is
recommended.
6) Lime and fertilizershall be applied uniformly and mixed with the soil during seedbed
preparation.
7)Roughen surfaces according to Surface ]toughening detail provided.
r tlt�oatm
r slain Itir7i+d2Gli + lyy�r�,t 1 ortnnvrme"t
-repotNNIiM� cl rIAvaIf
mum Ism:[
L R t�pm
Z' [ x 1' Wdr
' Ctrwtrt,c,xh nL1Eri FABRIC
r zA
CROSS SECnON
Spillway Detaa
Top o'kock Abetment
%.be
Skipe rnnnSpillway
NOTFS:
SadaAntpt inflow gtht: beam will be locaved
away&am the dA to prevent short cisctau
from inlets to theletiet
Three prrtx!s baft will be installed as
shown on the pranied'Hath9e Detail'
Basins will be inse after every rainfall
Sediment will bemwved and restored to
nmgmal voltpne mice sediment accumulates
to ap plat etotbe desty volume.
- Repairs will be prrormed as needed for troy
observed erosiodrd/or rack displaceattent
See Ra k Dlam Sit>str k for rock dam derails
Ap'. I
ROCK DAM SEDIMENT BASIN
(NTS)
PIPE EXIT TO PLUNGE, POOL
5� , NATURAL GROUND
j�+-��j % PIPE OUTLET
.".,....... A... / PLUNGE POOL
NATURAL GRADE
Typical Cross Section of Pit Clarification Pond with Plume Pool
not to scale
DWERSIONA€TCH SCHE�DULi'i
V - Ditch No.
V - Ditch Size
T Ft. x D Ft.(Ft-1Change
Length of Ditch
Elevation
(Ft.)
Slope {%)
Lining
Temporary Ditch Liner
TD #1
6
x
1
349 2
0.6%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #2
6
x
1
564 10
1.8%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress =1.45 lbs/sq, ft,
TD #3
6
x
1
600 4
0.7%
Tall Fescue
' Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress =1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #4
6
x
1
350 3
0.9%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #5
9
x
1
370 1
0.3%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TO #6
9
x
1
558 1.5
0.3%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TO #7
6
x
1
486 4
0,8%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible sheaf stress =1.45 lbs/sq- ft-
TD #8
6
x
1
561 6
1.1 %
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net linter with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #9
9
x
1
520 1.5
0.3%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #10
6
x
1
432 4
0.9%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft
TD #11
6
x
1
430 2
0-5%
Tali Fescue
Not required
TD #12
6
x
1
600 6
1A%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #13
9
x
1
504 1
0.2%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #14
6
x
1
368 1
0.3%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TO #15
9
x
1
406 1
0.2%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TO #16
6
x
1
367 2
0.5%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #17
9
x
1
601 1
0.2%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #18
6
x
1
274 1.5
0.5%
Tail Fescue
Not required
TD #19
6
x
1
93 1
1.1%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #20
fi
I x
1
290 7
2.4%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 Ibs/sq, ft.
TD #21
6
x
1
166 2
1.2%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq, ft.
TD #22
6
x
1
245 4
1.6%
Tau Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #23
6
x
1
172 2
1.2%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1 A5 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #24
6
x
1
464 2
1 0.4%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #25
9
x
1
886 14
1.6%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq, ft.
TD #26
6
x
1
542 7
1.3%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #27
6
x
1
284 5
1.8%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #28
6
x
1
297 12
4.01/6
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #29
6
x
1
352 22
6.3%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #30
6
x
1
694 5
0.7%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress =1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD#31
6
x
1
890 9
1.0%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress =1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #32
9
x
1
542 1
0.2%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #33
6
x
1
498 3
0.6%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #34
12
x
1
936 2
0.2%
Tall Fescue
Not required
TD #35
6
x
1
191 1
0.5%
Tail Fescue
Not required
TD #36
6
x
1
639 4
0.6%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #37
6
x
+ 1
96 4
4.2%
Tall Fescue !
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #38
6
x
1
238 10
4.2%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq, ft.
TO #39
6
x
( 1
265 15
5.7%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1 45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #40
6
x
1
210 18
8.6%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbslsq. ff.
TD #41
6
x
1
177 18
10.2%
Bermuda
Synthetic Mat liner with a permissible shear stress = 2-00 Ibs/sq- ft.
TD #42
6
x
1
215 21
9.8%
Tall Fescue
Synthetic Mat liner with a permissible shear stress = 2.00 lbslsq- ft.
TD #43
6
x
1
64 3
4.71/6
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1 A5 lbslsq- ft
TD #44
6
x
1
323 16
&0%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1,45 lbs/sq, ft_
TD #45
6
x
1
5W 10
2.0%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TO #46
6
x
1
127 2
1.6%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft,
TD #47
6
x
1
324 8
2.5%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1.45 lbs/sq. ft.
TD #48
6
x
1
300 26
8.7%
Tall Fescue
Synthetic Mat liner with a permissible shear stress = 2.00 lbslsq. ft.
TD #49
6
x
1
745 30
4.0%
Tall Fescue
Straw with Net liner with a permissible shear stress = 1 A5 lbs/sq. ft.
TD#50
6
x
1
114 1 1
0.9%
Tall Fescue
Not required
SEDIMENT TRAP SC> 11_DULE
Sediment
TrapNo,
Drainage
Area Ac-
Sediment
Store Cu. Ft.
Sedimemen nt Trp Dimensions
Weir Dimension
Ft-
L (Ft-)
W'iFt,)
H (Ft.)
STA
0.25
450
28
4
4
4
ST B
0.50
9W .
40
0
4
4
STC
an
�...
4i
4
4
4...
ST D
1.06
.1356
1476 ., •.
,
56
.8
4 .
4
ST E ....
1.25
2250 ....
..62
,1
4
6 ... .
ST F
1.50
2700
88
k
4
B
ST G
1.75
3150.....
72.
15
4
_ . 6
ST H
2.00
3600
78
0
a
6
RO(:K DAM SCHFDUL.
Rock Dam
No.
Drainage
Area (Ac.)
Sedimentt Sedimelt Trap Dimensions
Ltorage (Cu, Ft.) L (Ft-) W (Ft_) H (Ft.)
Weir Dimension
Ft.)
Rock Dam 1
5.00
18000 122 61
6
12
r•r.
•.j �: .5's rS '�''yl :1'..,,-• .'•r ".�r" -S;-., �;r r -,5:� -
1+ ' t•i .. •�'''r 'i,1r +11' ell 1 °., ,, •'' �'' yY+�1. f'f �1... [,1j',♦'" , t .y,•..
1 t t I ` , b •' I 1 ' � , ;
+ E h i �� r t 1( I, • F ti` !, , 6} itr t t } r, .,1 5 r f .i'.ry + J1 +, t r trh i 1 t{ "'' I l l I I+ ' I.
�� •.I.+, �b,`l �: ,l. HI, 1!...l�tt'+.i i ! ti' ..F.
.. ... r .. ,.+. .., y- rrt. [rt t{1 tk �r'�.t.t+,-t<s11w S++rr.i Fit'. y!{r