The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20111013 Ver 1_Public Comments_20111230lan McMillian 401 Sect�on Examiner Division of Water Quality Department of Natural Resources N Salisbury Road Raleigh NC Mr McMilhan i�-�o�� c�� V � o � EC 3 o zo1� ��`'R �� QUALIIY �'��Rt�fAll�$RANCH I read today about a Martin Marietta m�nmg pro�ect s 404 wetlands/401 water quality certification application The SAW number is 2011-02235 it is my belief economic development �s a beneficial venture So I am not opposed to mirnng for limestone I am opposed to this application though After reading the application I have no peace many questions and hope those charged to evaluate the pro�ect will ensure the questions i have are answered fully before approval is considered I understand the application for the 404 wetlands permit and the NC State Water Quality 401 Certification was written by Kimley Horn I live in Goldsboro NC I can see Stoney Creek a 303 d stream from my upstairs wmdows I followed Kimley Horn s efforts/work product for the Stoney Creek Restoration pro�ect and the Stoney Creek Park pro�ect very closely I have over four huge Rubbermaid storage container of data collected It was an eye opening experience Over and over I found the�r work had mistakes and omission There seemed to be little attention to detail by them It was extremely frustrating to see applications given to regulators which were not drawn to scale did not include elevations and did not include key elements It was extremely difficuit to evaluate their work because so much was missing During the first public meeting for the Park pro�ect their diagram sitting on an easel in the front of the room didn t even have a legend/key and it too was not done to scale One man remarked his house was actually represented as part of the Creek itself� After I endured/witnessed what I did beginning m 2005 where Stoney Creek was concerned I am extremely wary whenever I see the name Kimley Horn on any appl�cation � At the time I learned the company routinely was consultants for industrial pro�ects not conservation pro�ects To be quite honest with you since this application is supposedly right up their alley I expected less problems However I see so many of the same sort of what I call sloppy work here I saw before I am floored any company would even consider what has been submitted complete work product and ready for regulatory evaluation I wish to bring to the attention of those who are in a position to protect our resources and ensure any endeavor m our Coastal Plain will not negatively impact or upside the fragile and recovering ecosystems in the region I fully understand the work is being evaluated as correct by the Army Corp of Engineers where the wetlands are concerned Martin Marietta the applicant will be responsible �ust as Wal Mart was ultimately responsible in New Smyrna FL case I hope every NORTH CAROLINA and FEDERAL agency who is sharehoiders in the preservation and stabil�ty of North Carolina s Coastal Plain will make it a priority to dissect and double check this application for accuracy I also expect regulators to re�ect any pro�ect which is not complete Shaded areas and labels on a flat surface map surely are not sufficient to demonstrate disturbance elevation traffic possible water noise air pollution It seems odd to me to expect public comment on this application In my opinion this one deserves to go back to the drawmg board and actually look like engineers prepared it� This mining pro�ect is located in one of the most beautiful and fragile areas of our state With the short window and the holidays overlay it has been impossibie for me or any individual to do a complete due diligence where this application goes Just to confirm the wetlands delineations on the pro�ect parcel the ratio of wetlands impacted and soil and hydrology site evaluat�ons and modeling has been neariy impossible because so many are out on leave this month� I do expect full due diligence to be expended by each state and federal agency trusted with the task to protect our resources all of them� The difference in my opinion between a good pro�ect and a deficient pro�ect is the detailed piannmg A good pro�ect fully evaluates the particulars and provides detaiis for the pro�ect details which can be verified Details which reflect a careful and profound understanding of the site and its historical ecological and economical position This application falls short on all three positions There is no mention of why this mining effort would be a positive when the area historically was mined and found to be detrimental to the health and long term stability in the region This application does not note any migratory patterns does not note any speaes or population or survey of plant or animal life on the site or explain how their mining operation will affect the various ecosystems Surely there has been such data collected? For years Weyerhaeuser participated in various studies to help all understand how their pine plantations worked with the local ecology/ecosystems and actually fostered improvements in some plant and animal habitats Don t the red fox and the black bear call this region home? I believe there should be more prov�ded by the application It is much better in my opirnon to hold the line until full d�sclosure is made al) parties understand the particulars of a proJect and are on the same page and there is proper accountability and little room for error than rubber stamp a pro�ect and hope the deficiencies do not rear up and cause harm Smce this application involves water the degree of planning is heightened Water is fluid and forceful and requires a great deal of planning to ensure best management practices are expected and deployed and costly mistakes are avoided Pro�ects like this one quickly reach point of no return and correction is not possible Compensation is the only avenue available When the fallout impacts fragile ecosystems (mcluding ground water and the Castle Hayne Aquifer and the human ecosystem) isn t it critical the plan submitted be complete and even contain contingencies7 We certa�nly don t want public or private wells to be compromised/harmed� Since the Castle Hayne aquifer is so close to the surface I also wonder how arnmals and plants in the area might be affected I don t even see where any welis locations have been considered and noted on this application � Does the applicant know where these wells are? There is no mention specific to any of the aquifers they do not actually detail where and how they plan to address the water in their mining venture During this economic climate it is even more egregious to delwer a half baked plan without contingencies and expect should something go wrong others to apply to the Clean Water Management Trust Fund for mini or full grants to fix failouts which could have been avoided if the ongmal pro�ect was fully developed and delineated i was discouraged to hear from one Division of Water Resources worker that he hadn t read the 404/401 application I believe it is critical for all enforcement/regulators to read ali submissions made by the applicant� This man also remarked over and over this pro�ect had been in the making over a year and haif Honestly I don t see a year and halYs efforts reflected in this appiication � After reading the application I do now believe this application does NOT reflect enough planning to provide the public/taxpayer with any peace regarding this pro�ect and hopefully you Mr McMillan will agree Honestly I have questions than answers at this moment How can anyone be expected to evaluate what has been submitted? I hope you also pass my concerns to the Corps for their review process My second concern is the timing of this application Why apply in November knowing there is a 60 day window for the State s DWQ and the agency experiences its highest vacation and leave during this same window? Fishy or coincidental? Who can say? After what I endured with the Stoney Creek pro�ect the timing is not a shock to see Kimley Horn submit an application so close to the holidays� I hope as a regulator the timing is not dismissed as coincidental though Sure it may be but I can t seem to shake these thoughts Surely Martm Marietta must realize by submitting this application using this window they have done zero to gain good wiil and trust in the community No consideration was provided was it? I wish DENR would institute a moratorium and force applications submitted after Nov 1 to be deferred until Jan 2nd of the new year OR at the very least reqwre an additional 30 days for those applications to allow for the holiday calendars and personnel being out! It is also the busiest of times for the public isn t it? it is the easiest time for appiications to miss the radar of folks who should/could be stakehoiders who may be traveling or �ust busy with holiday activities The State of NC does not independentiy notify the public but actually depends on the Army Corp of Engineers public notification system The applicat�on mentioned a few FEDERAL regulatory items such as the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Why no reference to specific North Carolina mandates7 Surely we have some? i would be interested why no specific North Carolina Fishery advisory was noted as being in favor of this pro�ect? I also understand there are various surface waterways a ma�or basin and an already impaired stream which will be impacted Why were no details provided by the applicant to demonstrate how their operations will impact or what exact steps they will be taking to minimize impact? The Federal Army Corp of Engineers is ONLY narrowly evaluating whether the application adheres to the Federal wetiands regulat�ons and approaches each application as correct The State of North Carolina has much more to evaluate right? There are multiple layers ( lite�ally) of water issues including but not exclusively ground and surface water stability and quality in a river basin already negatively impaired and evaluating the particulars of a mirnng operation m a vicirnty of North Carolina where mming collapsed decades ago because it was deemed too harmfui to the ecological heaith of the area Surely there is historic data? There has been a concerted expensive protracted effort to restore and allow economic development in this region which is harmonious to ecological stability Can mming aggregate in 2012 be done m a manner that is harmornous? I am open to the possibility but I do not see where the applicant acknowledged the history of the region or noted any of the particulars Are we and the regulators supposed to guess7 The delicate elements which much be considered are missing from their application An explanation of their proposed best management practices for minmg so close to waterways and specifically so close to the Pamlico River which is impaired is also missing This pro�ect will impact the Pamlico River Basin Yet I did not find any specifics in the application The application mentions the managed pme plantation is located on the topographic high point and inter stream divide between the Neuse River and the Tar Pamlico River' What is the exact elevation? Is the aggregate open pit mine pro�ect going to replace the existing site and therefore remove the topographic high point ? And what is the inter stream referencing? Are they assertmg the site empties into either the Pamlico or the Neuse? What are the ACTUAL bodies of water which will be impacted? i heard on the news the name BLOUNT s CREEK I don t see it anywhere in the application? Surely the applicant needs to use correct and complete name markers of all bodies of water� They used a term I have only heard the term inter stream used when speaking of high elevations I hope you get some straight answers I didn t see any topographic map included with the pro�ect Sure there is one marked topographic but there are no elevations mcluded Why on earth did Kimley Horn include or label FIGURE 2 as they did? Surely regulators understand the difference of a real topographic map properly keyed and labeled and one that simply says it is one? This sort of pro�ect mvolves water runoff/discharge and it is of paramount concern why omit the figures/diagrams and specifics in the application? Does the applicant believe if they are vague it wili work to their favor? I hope you wili make sure vagueness is NOT rewarded I believe they need to be forthcoming with why they believe their techniques won t harm and spell out exactly what they intend to do on every square foot of the pro�ect site Not �ust shade a few areas on a flat diagram and expect regulators to consider the plan fully developed and able to be evaluated I believe the application should have included the geologic and hydrologic studies too What are the dimensions of their processmg plant and how about traffic/movement? It is their responsibility to provide these studies and designs for your evaluation I didn t even see mention of any studies in their plan I understand only because I contacted some folks at DENR Martin Mar�etta hired GMA out of Greenville to do some sort of ground water modeling I still do not know if the modeling was a 50 year model or not The pro�ect is slated for a 50 year life A lot can happen in 50 years Why wasn t the modeling and report included for public review and consideration? Aren t the exact measurements necessary in order to do modeling? I understand GMA had to do the modeling more than once I have to wonder where they got their initial raw data What they got wrong? And how does their work impact mirror or contrast with this application? Since it has been omitted it is impossible to evaluate You and the public deserve to see and evaluate the FULLY DEVELOPED PLAN This is a 50 year venture This should not be done in piecemeal fashion I have yet to get a straight answer from anyone one regarding the time progression used for the modeling Was it done for the full 50 years? Wouldn t this information be extremely valuable to the commurnty7 I also don t know the particulars where the proposed rock slated to be mined and the water table are concerned as far as the application goes There is no diagram noting where the deposit is located on the site is there? Isn t this necessary to know in order to evaluate the pro�ect� Did the applicant provide the particulars to GMA? Again I ask why didn t the application include geologic soil hydrologic studies and the modeling When I was dealing with the Stoney Creek pro�ect Kimley Horn neglected to represent the site as far as elevation and scale was concerned and they failed to actualiy include real to scale drawings of elements They also failed to note at any time the element they were pushing so hard to get permitted would actually turn a PARK parcel of land into a swamp� How can any regulator be expected to evaluate a plan which is not completely delmeated? One diagram was provided as Proposed Mine Plan No site photos were included WHY? When I asked if anyone had done a site evaluation I was told no one with the State had I was also told this site was nowhere I beg to differ I have included various maps created by NWQ of this area and the surrounding area It is an area which may be considered rural but it s value and importance to North Carolina must never be dismissed because it is not extensively built out There are reasons to monitor any disturbance carefully I expected folks who work for the water resource department of the State of North Carolina to actually understand why conservation and limited development are preferred m this region The closer one gets to the coast the more valuable and scarce potable water is I hope the folks who work in the Corps and DWQ do understand how some land especially close to the coast needs to be carefully protected The quarry overlaps as best as I can tell with the extensive drainage system currently in place Yet the pian does not provide any drainage or discharge particulars once the quarry displaces the ditches Why mention the extensive drainage system at ail? I don t understand how it is relevant to the NEW pro�ect May work weli for a pme hanrest business but And how exactly wdl the mine and the dismantlmg of the extensive drainage system affect the pine plantation business? The application doesn t reflect when the drainage system was created why it was created or how their mme will impact it The application does say their mine pro�ect is inside a 90 000 acre silviculture (loblolly pine) plantation More questions than answers� I am suspicious of the wetlands scale and locations on their diagram While i have never walked this area or taken measurements I did in Goldsboro and Stoney Creek I discovered the diagram produced did not fully or accurately depict the actual wetlands and the USACE in DC where I sent information found the same conclusions I did So I have to ask PLEASE double check the math and the actual site� I see a red flag Shouldn t Martin Marietta or someone have chronological wetlands maps for this area? Why was only that one hand drawn diagram provided? Also the topographic map they used was dated 1983 That map is almost 30 years old� Is the processing plant to scale7 There are no speci�cs about it in the plan The stock pile area is located on opposite side of the site from the processing plan Does this seem to reflect an effort to provide best management practices? Does it even make sense? How wili dust particles or any of the by products of the mining affect the stockpile area? The stockpile is next door to the wetlands which have not been delineated or counted Is that appropriate? The Vicirnty Map shows the PROJECT BOUNDARY Yet the Proposed Mine Plan — Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Areas impacts does not delineate the size of wetlands from east of Nancy Branch Road close to a shaded area marked as QUARRY This portion of wetlands is not included in the calculation of total wetlands impacted either If you add the tiny wetlands which have labeled sizes and are delineated you get the 6 89 mentioned in the application and reason for how they can apply for an express 404 permit How exactly can they ignore or omit other wetlands WITHIN their proposed pro�ect site? How can they come up with the SIZE of the STOCKPILE area? I am no expert with mining concerns but that doesn t seem to be in scale There is no element s size noted m the application Will you make sure their application is complete? Doesn t this wetlands omission mean a 404 is not sufficient? For a long term pro�ect like this should a 404 be allowed at ail? This pro�ect is a long term one 50 years Shouldn t the planning show how this pro�ect will evoive over time? I have attached a few reports and a particular webpage I found today which i believe have relevance to this site and therefore this application I also have shaded the wetlands on the pro�ect appiication FIGURE 6 that were not included in the calculation One last item where is FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 and FIGURE 5? I didn t see them Please Mr McMillan make Martin Marietta go back to the drawing board and actually develop a pro�ect plan that CAN be evaluated� �cerely �� a� Victoria Jordan � � i��i us a�y co�s Of Engmeers Wilmmgton Distnct PUBLIC NOTICE Issue Date Comment Deadline Corps Achon ID # December 1, 2011 December 31 2011 SAW 2011 02235 The Wilmuigton Distnct, Corps of Engm�eers (Corps) has received an apphcahon from Marhn Marietta Mater�als, Inc. seekuig Department of the Army authonzahon to unpact 6 69 acres of Sechon 404 wetlands and 58,6711inear feet of,unsdichonal �an-made drtches associated vv�th the development of a 649-acre open pit aggregate m�ne on the Craven-Beaufort Connty border North Carohna. Specific plans and locat�on informahon are descnbed below and shown on the attached plans This Pubhc Nohce and a11 attached plans are also available on the Wilmington Distnct Web Srte at www saw usace army mil/wetlands Appl�cant Mamn Manetta Matenals Inc 2710 WychffRoad Raleigh, North Carohna 27607 AGENT (if apphcable) Kunley Horn and Associates Inc Post Office Box 33068 Raleigh, North Cffioluia 27636 Authonty The Corps will evaluate tlus apphcation and decide whether to issue condihonally issue or deny the proposed work pursuant to apphcable procedures of Sect�on 404 of the Clean Water Act Locahon The proposed pro�ect site is located appro�umately 7 m�les east of U S Highway 17 on the Craven-Beaufort County border m North Carolu�a (35 351152 N 77 041220 V� Access to the property is east from U S Highway 17 on C C Road approxunately 6 miles and then south on Schull 2 Road approximately 2 5 miles The srte is located on the drainage basm divide between the Neuse River and Taz Pamlico River Basms E�shng S�te Condihons The pro�ect srte is 1664 acres m size The srte is enhrely located m a conhguous 90,000 acre area converted and managed for silviculture (loblolly pme) and is currently owned and managed by the Weyerhaeuser Corporahon The managed pme plantahon is located on the topographic lugh pomt and mter stream divide between the Neuse River (HiJC 03020202) and the Tar-Pamlico River (HUC 03020104) basuis and is generally well drained by an elaborate drtch drainage system The pro�ect srte contams 18019 acres of �unsdichonal wetlands and 99 059 hnear feet of man made dramage drtches wluch are considered�unsdictional waters regulated by the U S Aimy Corps of Engmeers under the Clean Water Act A �unsdzchonal detemunation was made by the USACE in March 2008 and stream ongmat�on determinat�ons by the North Carohna Division of Water Quahty (NCDWQ) were conducted m 2005 and 2010 AppVcant's Stated Purpose The purpose of ttus pro�ect is to develop a crushed stone operat�on to supply aggregate matenal to the construchon mdustry serving the general area of Beaufort and Craven Counbes m North Catolina Pro'ect Descnphon The apphcant proposes to develop a 649-acre open prt aggregate muie processuig plant, and overburden stockpile areas vv�thin the 1 664 acre srte over the course of approxunately 50 years Total �mpacts for the bmlt-out condibon of the mine mclude 6 69 acres of�urisdictional non-npanan wetlands and 58 671 hnear feet of�unsdichonal man-made drtches To mingate for the proposed unpacts the apphcant proposes to restore 6 75 acres of non npanan wetland via payment into the North Carolma Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Other Required Aathonzahons This nohce and all apphcable apphcation matenals are bemg forwazded to the appropnate State agencies for review The Corps r�nll generally not make a final permrt dec�sion unhl the North Cazolma Division of Water Quahty (NCDWQ) issues demes or waives Sta.te Cerhfication reqwred by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92 500) The receipt of the apphcahon combuied v�nth the appropnate apphcahon fee at the North Cazoluia Divis�on of Water Qualrty central offce m Raleigh will conshtute uut�al receipt of an apphcation for a 401 Water Quahty Certificahon A waiver vv�ll be deemed to occur if the NCDWQ fails to act on tlus request for certYficabon vv�thm sixty days of the date of the receipt of this not�ce m the NCDWQ Central Office Addit�onal uiformahon regardmg the Clean Water Act certificahon may be reviewed at the NCDWQ Cent�ral Office, 401 Oversight and Express Pernuts Unrt, 1650 Masl Service Center Raleigh North Carohna 27699 1650 All persons desu7ng to make comments regazding the � F/ � \ applicarion for cerkificahon under Sect�on 401 of the Clea.n Water Act should do so m wnting dehvered to the North Caroluia lhvision of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 1650 Mail Sernce Center Raleigh, North Carolu�a 27699-1650 Attention Mr Ian McMillan by December 31, 2011 Essenhal �'�sh Habitat Tlus norice �bates the Essential Fish Habrtat (EFI� consultation reqwrements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservahon and Management Ac� The Corps' uut�al deteiminat�on is that the proposed pro�ect will not adversely unpact EFH or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlanhc or Mid Atlanbc Fishery Management Councils or the Nattonal Manne Fishenes Sernce Cnitaral Resources The Corps has consulted the latest pubhshed version of the Nahonal Register of Histonc Places and is not aware that any registered properhes or properties hsted as being ehgible for mclusion therem are loca�ted vvitthin the pro�ect azea or vv�ll be affected by the proposed work Presently unknown archeological scientific prelustonc or lustoncal data. may be located vv�th�r► the pro�ect area and/or could be ai�ected by the proposed work Endangered Species The Corps has reviewed the pro�ect area, examined all uiformahon provided by the apphcant and consulted the latest North Carolula Natural Hentage Database Based on available informahon, the Corps has determined pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 that the proposed pro�ect vv�ll have no effect on federally listed endangered or threatened species or theu formally designated cnhcal habrtat Evaluahon The decision whether to issue a pernnt vv�ll be based on an evaluahon of the probable impacts mcluduig cumulative unpacts of the proposed activrty on the public mterest That decision will reflect the national concern for both protect�on and uhlizahon of unportant resources The benefit wluch reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against rts reasonably foreseeable detriments All factors wluch may be relevant to the proposal will be considered mcludmg the cumulative effects thereof among those are conservation, econorrucs aesthebcs general environmental concerns wetlands lustonc properhes fish and vv�ldhfe values flood hazards, flood plam values (m accordance with Execuhve Order 11988) land use navigahon, shorelme erosion and accrehon, recreahon, water supply and conservat�on, water quality energy 3 needs safety, food and fiber produchon, mineral needs consideranons of property ownerstup, and, m general the needs and welfare of the people For activiries involvuig the discharge of dredged or fill matenals in waters of the Umted States, the evaluation of the unpact of the achvrty on the pubhc mterest will mclude apphcation of the Environmental Prote,ction Agency s 404(b)(1) gwdeluies Commenhng Informat�on The Corps of Engineers is sohcrtmg comments from the pubhc Federal State and local agencies and officials mcluding any consohdated State Viewpomt or wntten posihon of the Governor, Indian Tnbes and other mterested parties m order to consider and evaluate the unpacts of tlus proposed achvrty Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Eugmeers to determine whether to issue modify condihon or deny a pernut for ttus proposal To make ttus decision, comments are used to assess unp�acts on endangered species histonc propernes, water quahty general envu�onmental effects and the other pubLc uiterest factors hsted above Comments are used m the preparat�on of an Env�ronmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Env�ronmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the Nahonal Envu�onmental Pohcy Act (NEPA) Comments aze also used to deternune the need for a public hearmg and to determme the overall pubhc mterest of the proposed achvity Any person may request, m wntmg, wrthin the comment penod specified in tlus not�ce that a pubhc heanng be held to consider the apphcation Requests for public hearmgs shall state vv�th pazhculanty the reasons for holdmg a pubhc hea�ng Requests for a pubhc heanng sha11 be granted, unless the Distnct Engmeer determmes that the issues raised aze uisubstanhal or there is otherwise no vahd mterest to be served by a heanng Wntten comments pertment to the proposed work, as outlmed above will be received by the Corps of Eng�neers Wilmuigton Distnct, until5pm December 31 2011 Comments should be submitted to Mr Wilham Wescott, Post Office Box 1000 Washuigton, North Caroluia, 27889 4 �- � � tr+ a..- "� �, v _ � � �r �, i L- s -:� r 't 1 � � ,�: �j ��.. 4 � ° .' � � -� �� 7t� � Z � � � s w � � v '�# a r��, �,4. a. '� r a i�' � �' � ^ �t £ N I �}a,�... � � , �--.p r � �� . / ' �,. �.i ,c,,a.;� '3 t"��, � t 9�_ ; r ! j �,'� �✓ r r�� '�. .. � S:. i� - 4, ,�' �� s' k F f�� j� 9 i.d � �. \ .. yt, ''� � t.. � + A' ^w` ' �� 'F�^thS ��-�A � � ,��~ } / tr ' ry, �� `"�' ��6,�� k :i;�� f � `\ ��:E i`�'� _ �� ,� z c -�i '�, � ` � =r- ��; f - '�'� -. � f ��;' �� N i � �1;� ,'� rxt LL �..\ `� �', r } � ::t � ,. , e � } Lz ,� ,�;4 } . 5 � ` � � / �� ' lt � t - t -f .r+s�'f �� 1 '�4 � t'. :S e + i 7 ��'3`c-� L i „r � . .� � , ' Fi 1 � .�� ,� � p �: ?�� f i �� i �� \ f x ��" _ V r l ., . < / ,?�.- � � � 9Aa */� % �. , �"�' � �� : ^� � 7 ;.�`" ��L' � ; ., , rr � � � , f f �� k�� LL lfY�� f� �� ./ �� s �l` F�1 �.,;1.��. ' ' ; �� . "� � .� � ' I 4.j� ��( �`. � �. S r h� /� � x` ��, �.,�P� � „ti "� �� . �-�,Y � � ! "6 ` 'T '� ,tMn � � f f�,,`� � +�.y, +�` � . } .� _ � .. R� f' ,' �. f + F� � '. S'�� 1 ��S ��`�. '�l ._`� �a: � { �. , �,_ , � ,. ,,� � r � .��b \ � ,a�+,� �' . j � ' 'r .' .+`�y,' ° .�a t R �: r i �� .� �r.' � 5.r � � � . � �' i �� '� � I � � . :1 � r r �� 1 5 �' \ 9 ; . �: �' I � � ; s- � � r � <'�"-/t T � � � ` - i �` t, t � . j�` �y� �� p � ;� � �,�?� t_ `.(s�;r � ' i `t �,� "S" i �:� � �n r�� j�� `r�J7 ��d �� k ;..f ��:� � �� i � t Z� t i"'�� I. ��Y �. ` 5'°' t •: � : � { �� .� '� ��. t � �'�\ � . a t "4 > ; u "S� � a .;�`w'}d � �s t � � � � i y �� '� ��; � : t ` r 1 �' ,.Z`r: ` , : `x°`:w� ..i � �µy� w^' i � t � . � } ,�y�. t_.-� � > a� � f �-y� � / $j �1� T �� fa� �; Jr f�, �`Y�,•{ � d I � � �'t i� �>., :, � � i � � ,� , : . � 'S � ' �J � � ' �{+ \:� yt '�T��' � m � 7 Z t:. . . .. . . � . , �. "^,. �'..°a 1 r { _ • µ - �� .. t�� •'� 1 �J!�'� �� O . ` � � 1`i � ' �J� �� `� � �„ � � V ..� , 6 ' ', � T ,.,� � '' �:. � �d M o i-i :5 „ � , . .� ; � ? � � ._.�..: �`' � Z �.. .. ! �f i � a_, ''� '. tf � �w ; �� ,� � - , .�� i - . . i . �' ��" � N ^t ti �'+� , .g J.� y _ j F�L.�°� �-�,,,,,�:(� ��,0'", �� N C . �r f'� % � � �„ ' c x".� � �j i- � a� �,� '" � ' ', . ��'„"... Y �" � p r - � � � \ a ' . %' .. t� r tN,:� � o ' � �r \ A� � f�, �f ��F .' � � ai + '' � �' ' ~ ` �^* ,�., ; � y �'' i � O > � ` t e i4 �'Sr �( jj,. � fx ; � O N O �,� s . i t ,'?'T �, � � `�'tiy'� ,�Y� i - r ' °� '. �y � (� fV �- t �. f� < .-. ` r ; � ! \j � �-�3 !� / �4 v � f �yP t"„, „k."..N. � 'S„ r � .� .!'r �1 i �.:' � 7 C C N �� ^��i � t0 � wN � �' ��: I� _t � t y,.r l "`� y ', �, : W � � Q,G �� { �.,` w t�� ... �'� � x � �� `�,k � ,. � � j � 4 H` � "t• c , t '' � � - 'S �+.: i. _... r —"�."-� Q. � � .,�` � - � '' ix. A �� ; ,�G'J� � � m � /� "� :. . -� � s ' i i� a.., \ � :� y �� ! �1� l :� �4� . �` � } � '� U ��``` 'l� ' ' , I s `. ,i ` . ` , ; . x� r � r ,. �.� , � � . , �� w � � �� a � � <<.,_ �. � 4 , + �.^..._,.�. + '� = •''`"�"�,� �,�r ? ;, '�_ � > 3 � � 'C ( �`�� , � � i r {.-�-r'`'��.v '� a-. . � � � a . + � ,. r f ` � �-�''. j �'� � N ' 1 � ��. � _ �� ` l t :� *�✓''r� , � ��''' Z , � f � ��'S'' � � � J, t t �`y '`, f'`� � �� .l �+" j � ' 1 � '� '�� .. � � � � y' ! '� i/� ° � • � : � :: 4( _c: �.\ � .�' � .- .:. � ti � � �.; � � � � � �� ``� � r C� � ti �` :�f.' ,.�� ""`�,'�r � ' � ;� � "� . ":� �o ; }� � � � ' � �� - ,j�i N.�.z � �,"�" '-�,7 '`'= m J$� , i' " _ _- �° a � *� + i e" � ' �, aj� � T�^. � - � � � � c �__, � *,� � `' ti . � { ±`c; • � � ++ a � �, t ' � �'.� � � , � � � t�. J{ �� r D '� � ,}� : :. i,_� ..,�i_: _# ;`� �..`� �- ,_ ,: , �� , „• � �� . .. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. `: , . i '.:- ..�.�.-. .._ '.'.�..r:�x .. ,_.:�'TY.. �Choc�owinity Bay - Pamlico River Watershed 03_OZO_1040-1� � O Watershed Boundary � � � _ _ _ ,' County Boundaries , , �` s MARTIN Municipalities '� ,.y_�' ConservationLand � Primary Roads � -� � Swine Operation Permits 0 401 Wetlands Permit Wastewater Discharge � Major �7 � Minor Non-Discharge Facility � Major ;y�'; � � Minor e� ; % '�' ,-� . � � Monitoring Sites ; 264 �sr, . ;' �� 08155 32 � Ambient ,��: .�e PITT �_; �,� � '; Washington G` �etdarr� w Benthos ' -_ - ---- 0 - o .�� USGS Gages pj „'�� Use Support Rating 07650 0 0 =• �`�"' B129 �� Supporting Wash ton Chocowinity� 0 Park'�, 264 ^�.� Impaired o ` 11 Bro °'-� Not Rated /�, � 07680000� o� � � �� _ � n � � No Data o � 'i �1as , 07710000 � � G� � � o�� o .� �� 0 � Little�° �,t• �� I o � �� o�s�000N ��a n ay Br.o 4f- G o C� _. �ti ,� � ,�.j 1�r �5 �, � �'S'G �+~ � 0787000C �' ;��5 roU �� t ',°a� � rris � 078�oo0S�ots Bay Cre pAMLIC�RI�'E12 G� � o � �acl� ek � � y �t� �r °� Gt�'� �� U o � � � c � ShePPard J�� 4� '�, a � � ;\ N CRAVEN Prepared by DWQ Basinwide Planning Unit using DRAFT 2010 data May 2010 0/osas8000 ,��i' �� ° BEAUFORT Nan° �I'�g� 4� � � a� ��°�°�'SG� A��'�°' 'bo � �� .� � �� _ �� 0 1 2 l\ 4 6 II 8 ii South Creek - Pamlico River Watershed 0.302010402 BEAUFORT J CRAVEN `G �. �o • 4� ; vPper_,..� , , ,' ; � ;� N P er pared by DWQ ` Basinwide Planning Unit using DRAFT 2010 data May 2010 T a��afv� Cre � e� a�,e�' C r�ek Ro�,land C' BOYd Ctee� o r ��: ath Ba � � I O c�� dj�f o �0� wC� � ___J .� �a� � � �� . � 92 � - - � �� alfe ,� - .L < , � �, � 0865000N� 3, �"� � Q � C`.�, 0865000Co 306 0865000S 09059000 � Cree� O � � pq�Ll .�� o , �'o Rlir� �, � R 4 �� 4ot�� ''e�� teek � s .ti�'b 'Lr C�` S� �`'a .�st C'r �` � , °� 1 ��,��Y' e �� „ C ''��.,., 'u � Bailey Ct� � � �'.� �o � Aurora n � OF14 � 33 ��,ss Ro Cyp '� ,th Creek o 0 '� 2 4 PAMLICO Stonewall 6 8 Miles ,�� HYDE �' � ;� OWatershed Boundary _ _ _ ,' County Boundaries Municipalities �� Conservation Land � Primary Roads 0 401 Wetlands Permit Biosolids Field Wastewater Discharge � Major 4 Minor Non-Discharge Facility � Major � Minor Monitoring Sites � Ambient e Fish Community � USGS Gages Use Support Rating �.i Supporting '��a r Impaired �\.,,. Not Rated No Data , � � , � � � ; ; ; ; � � z 0 a � w � � z� o ,� � w � �. a �af� w p 6� ff� �°co� ob � �,fi� 'o _ �� o � � Q=�N;�_. � ,. � � -�smlr �. ~ c� . ct � � N � w � o a��M .� �b� � � 'L u p� � fD y �� ;. � � ��° � ��a a�n� Q �N7`< � � 3 � � o=g z � d Cp ^. 3 w ^. n 3 n � � .�a� � �� . n w � ,. � y 4� �`� '�' � � 0 \ � � C "O � ,� � � � � �� 00 � ,t',- , 0 � ° � � �'��.', , . 0 � g � � � � � � � �� y w 7d �' o a. � � � � � Q- a � crou w °; � � � � � � W � � O � � ._ ._ M"� A� � � •� . 0 r`` } Goose Creek `�' � p > � ; � p g ;p �O � � ; � � .�i � N C�i � O �-s , o � � n w �" ; � � � i � � � � :, a � �, ,.., . '~ On o � � �C C • � � t-� � � - _.. .. _.....,. � O � � N � O O Z lar.�?1 ��d � �+ � _ � v rn _� ° �Q W �� 0 ,.: �+ � 1 � , o O 0 r--a N O� �Oy , � � r/] � N r--� � � � ,��/ W � bA � �� -i-� \ �� 0 �ie �w��' ._ � � ,''i ��4 0 � � 4ot�s Z � Q � w � _ � 0 � � m � 0 �3; C d > ca t d m ( �� a`� � � � 1 � > � 0 au � a J C@ z ��° 0 o �oo >.0 N� O va�;, `mv�g °-�3 0 � � rn a�,� � N 0 �`� m � Gs� � �� G�� '� � � � � � o � � � oA- _ cfl 0 � � `Y a p o �' o � 0 �0 0 �a � � °' °�n p O � � O ai$ay Q o �� .�� 4 0 � U .�.,. � _ � �� 0 0 ;� , ° � a � 0 0 u� �k` � �0 ' J °�� 0 , � 0 ct� 0 4°�� Xaa.r� �`�I11P � r� N N � � � v N O w > � x O a � .� � � � � c� p � .v �+ � O � U` Q�+ � N � +�.' pp � � '� � s�, a � � � Q od�w��zz �� -o ° � � � � � � ,� �, w c � o � � -o � '�. � � ° o � � Q .� � `� `° � '� O Z a � � � �� 3 „ �, °� � �� o 3 U� U a v° �n � 0 , -,`' � 0 a � BERTIE � Pantego_Creek�Watershed 0302010403 �� ", ,, : WASHINGTON , . , , ,� �` � , � ; � ,. , , , � . ; , � ;;; •, ~`'� 09755000 � s <' ,. MARTlN , ; OWatershed Boundary ; County Boundaries Municipalities �' �� Conservation Land � Primary Roads 0 401 Wetlands Permit � Swine Operation Permits 0 Minor WW Discharge Non-Discharge Facility � Major � Minor Monitoring Sites � Ambient � USGS Gages Use Support Rating �L Supporting '`� "�.� Impaired r�� Not Rated No Data I� BEAUFORT 0 1 2 � O A'31��e � go ra aQ. C�''ee,F (�� C�a �ante ''ai � 4 6 ---- . , '�, HYDE , , . , � tzi ,d� o Belha� ��Cre ek Aa'lfeg 0 09751000:� p Miles ( , , � , , � . �, ; N �W � }� ,_ .` Prepared by DWQ Basinwide Pianning Unit using DRAFT 2010 data May 2010 TYRRELL ; ----------------------------------------- O � � O O O � � � C� � � � � b!J � � � N � � '� � � � � � � :.o ��» H F � � .t� � � U � N 3 � � � � U � � .k .v � � � �� N M � W � � � Q O N �R �--� 0 on c I �C a I _� � Q tp�p� I � �. �- J j��J S�'�,i* I �� 0 "�. 8t��j i ��O , / \��J � I Z O F- C9 Z _ � 3 � W G � _ 0 v � n � � rn 0 Q m ��' n U� "' r O J� Q '� � o � u°� � � o � ' m r M � ^ � n � r :�� p m � oa ° ° � 4 O O � O � N O � 4 � ---.,.... .. N � Q � � s � � m 0 � I�u�,� ax� �d ',;� "IOc4 � �o : � 4°� ' � f � � a r� _. % £,.:; � � �� m z ��, �° 0 � D�eo� >' C fV O "a a ll.. T N'�62'� �30 ac m '�,.5 _ �'___' m � 0 � O � � � m + o�n a �� a /� � � r� z., v � 0 � .� �, � � ^ � � b � � � � � �.� � �a�� .� '� � m A a'> a�i b�o � � � � � � � � �' C! � � '� � � � y ar �-+ tC � � > �' N � r-i 6� � � � � � � � y � � � 3. L � N i/] � � Q .:"J � R1 � � � 3 � o. � .� en � � ,� � a � � A 3 U° U° a °v~ � � ¢�' v '� ¢ � ,.� � v� � Z Z 1 � ° � O;_�', C p4��0 ��4*� l l l ., ; ;, , � � O� f' u" Ca'�ets C�a� =0 � � BU�S Cana1 �""� ��' 1o�e��i[F� � � _� O \ \� - _-� -F a�i O � \-_ _�__�- � � � � �° Florida Can OC C�/] � �� Swindells ( i—+ ��"--_ x� U � � � _ � ; f�� ' - �o , � C� ; �� -', �, , % � � `� ' o�' � �� ti� �. i�-+ ' 9�r� �� r � � ' * d � �, r� � � Y � � � f � 3 � O � z � bA ; * � � i � � � � � �A� ' � �J � � , a�� p 3 ' `�AlO -- � ------------------------ - � o � � , � � � i� � i JJQA� � � � 4 � z ' , _ ' , �� i � Q � � +-� 3 � � � c� � , � O ' � . � � ; I � �,,,� � - - ��-I ' i-1 I� � � � � -� � a � � .b �, � � a. o � en W � Y � � � •� � � y � Q Q � � � C � i� '[d (d � � =w Q y y fd La � .� � nw i.�r ^ •� � (� r3 O � � i-� i-� Vi � (�] � •Q L'� � Q � � � � � .� •c � a`� ° � b0 :n a� � o a '� c� 3 � � � a � � � 3 � � o ¢ � � � � � z z O �� = v'� � o �� 3♦ a�a*�� l l� '� � v�� o z =� o'�oo T C M 0 aaii �, ma�g n30 � � � . a •N c m m � � � � � W } = C° v N � 0 �ad a y �O U N O o v . �,�. 0 . "�` o gm� � ; a a o a �� o a 0 0 0 ON � 1 � a° o J p o M � � � � � O � '�..,,o� � m/ ' _ _ _ � � . � � O �U � u o � M 0. a � � o ; 6, � s, r:' �' Fi�uRE 4-1.HUC 03020104 Mae , � � A� � r— N O � � 2 � � � W � .� � � � L � � 0 � � 4.2 _ �1l) � � � � �� No 3� ° °: , �I ��i 1 �; !b.io�r.?�. 1 ti. �� i �,-�' _ -�`_. :� ; � r (�i y � =� . E. \ ` . 1 y �- ' � \ T r' � ' � � ; � z * , -; �, . �- , > -. /�i� � !:i �.�ii. J' lf/l ' 8 o /�� - :. �' � -� -� � � � �� c� � a � � � �� ' �' � i" U L'+ �� • y �n � � �" '��' a � :C '� . '��' � � "p .p � +-�+ � 3 .s7 a � � � v � � � � o � �n �1 ' � � o o L °a, �' Q � � ' o a, ot� � � v � a� Ao�a��° �o o'��o.� ��,-� ��zz ��¢wa�a 0• , q v' ) a � �.; � � . � � ` � � O � �. ,� s. ^i = � u) 41 0 1 _ " ci i�r, �� - .a - O o rn p � Q �'n m o ��v~ o:, - � �v��i� �� (/��\� � � �F- g �� 1 Ori O^i ON^i �:aJ) O `�v V^ N' � � Q � u1 �ic� � - _ � �" '_ n O^ � N � � N � � .�� yO � m ^ � � �� O � � � iyu,T I�'ur� �Y�•�� o'un�� I o O y Q ��. 1iT �' � Q r .;" r � V/n4n Pungo� � O m O� c � � '�/eU,,, a1 � g � ` f!/e4n a,W+ yyy---�� , � N � �,",4j).) � `� � 0�� gr'�. a g W \,_,,� O \ Q � \ � � �� ../, z_� � � . �; "` o: ' ;,.`" `c` ;� �`y .��J^^:..,o�0 . `_ � � ��../ ,'-G .`� � f. �� CJ Y. � �l�`' ' � � M �: N p = � I M � aL.. �'�y°o �° ; m' " � � o = : ' � s, � � LL ,: Y�.. ' 1e' �c. ` j ;�:�„�, a��S� � ~_' _ t1 _� r ,� �;: _ m �� - � ,. ,..__ ' � f y,,,.>, ,� = \ (/'� � o � v, � \ m - 52 � _ o � `O :'� m �� \ ' J`\`` �n �� , a = o �i� N � s 8 � �—` o � � �'; i� � Na0 r � Q + c � � L� Q°o O l\\` ( �cck a o rG.O ° �. c�hoco�*`• � �o �. o.c � 0 � O /�� t � U �- / C .y �� M ��/� V/ OI 3� � / / / i , / i / , i / N a� N � � ■ � � i �� ... M � O � � \ :� � 'J y> ''.� puof� � . _ i �. , n_ v�� , J ,�///� �, c,��ti �`.� ,� , CJ �� ya.;,> ti,.r.�if1 � �)i t ,� a' '�� v;i� o i' � � i ► � 1 � � 1 � � I � � � 4 � O .Q y, � _ � %J C2 �� 7 � z _I 1 � � _ � ... .� 5� �o C 0 '� � � � N L / .� ^ � / � 11 �. J� � � � /j N � � I d N / m Working Draft, last updated 10i i/`L010 Figure 1S_ �he Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain aquifer system in Segment 11 extends fram the Fall Line to#he shoreline and from the North Caralina—Sou#h Carolina State line northward thraugh New Jersey. EX P LA 1`LATI O M � Mor#hern Atfantie �astal Plain aquifer sys�m A A' Line of hydmgeologie seetion �, f-��`s� -- -- -- - - ------- -- __- --.--�. . . � ; "' : � �.. ;-'� ��}T�`�'4'LV'�'s"FlT�—`_v_� ;�+� r ,� .s:.t, d �. . pr� t ' , �P'wb+rgr . . ��,F��n�• � Pti�ul�.t��- .....' . YJJr.-{trt"r � . f,'-"i ....___.__... r, ,.4a u�ur �= ,�IFt I1dif. : ;..n; t `�,�aa�n„ � f// `f �1 I i v ;r� �; . M1�� :li'.c... f_.._.. ___. 7s- _ �� le.n, '''�nsu,v w1 �� Modifiedfrom Trapp, Henry, Jr., "� ��- - 1992, Hydrogealogicframewnrk , i1 "�'y ?�'-' R iT r' f�'+ of tt�e Nor�ern Atlantic Coasl�l ,�-' �y�d:�� Plain in parts of North Carolina, =---- --�� -'� "`�.. p�� medNM ribre Ui0. bdejaY Virginia, t+Aaryland, Delaw�re, a��wvam�daae.t;000.000.aa NewJersey, and New York : U.S. @,,,� :,,,,,,, Geological Survey Professional Q �y ,y,M„�� Paper 1�04-G, 59 p. �, ,r � R�„� g.c'.: � U �' O V' ta i 0 4 V b Page 1 of 1 http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch 1/gif/L018.GIF 12/29/2011 Page 1 of 1 rvorrrH chraouw► V IPoGf4 Y1 ---�- hNRV WYD � �EL--�- M 9N J F%EY � FEETB � � �I$ $ SdD� _� . _�_ _� _.. � _�_ r ��_ ;1= r Yxqoal wY� 9nuU�' ��ep9xabG - �� I-� - EXFLAP[ATIOM 0 2D 40 50M1E5 �J 0 2D 40 BDIOIAMElERS Surficial aquifer abnfining unit t�esapea loe agui Fer �stie Ha�yne-Jiquia aquifer�ray block patternindicates limestnne;athenvise glauconiticsand pattern indicates limestane � Severn�[agothy aquifer � Peede�upper Cape Fear aguiFer � Pommraeaguifer—Includes lacal basalconfining unitfrom Delaware southward � c�ys�ir� �k Madifiedfrom Trapp, Flenry,Jr., 1992, Hydrogealogic framew+ork aF the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain in parts af North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, NewJersey, and New Yark: IJ.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1 dOd-G, 59 p. Figure 24. The aquifer sys#em is thinner where parts of the underlying crystalline-rocksurface have been upwarped and thickerwherethe crystalline racks have been down-warped. The line af #he hydrogeologic sectian is shawn in figure 18. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch 1/gif/L020.GIF 12/29/2011 0 0 0 O N � m m � 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c� 0 0 0�p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f� t0 tn V lh N r 1 �I I � I� I I aD O� O N(h N(O I I I I I 1 I � � N 'C .� �. O � � U � C�.� �. O � N V � a� � cG 3 � � a� �� z�a�° 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O � N N �- 0 0 o a o 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0p 0 0 0ppO N N N aO0 (�O � N O a�0 c�0 � b � � 0 a � � � 0 ., � .., � � 0 J � � � � � 0 � � � � � � w U S ° O O N 0 U O J _ � � � �� y = ",.i x J � m � � � _ � i � � � � . � 1 � 3 ; m � .. .. � �a � � � �� g w � �+.'� y �� L 6� O U � � � �L � � � � � � : s U i � W � s � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � { , Q � � � � 9 � � � � � � ' € � � , � � � � � j � � � � �� $ � � 'W � 0 � W � � � ff � K Z I Y � � � � '� � � � � �- � � �� ,�� -+�" a I� � ��' � � a � ��`� s � � � � � + � � � � � � C � m V i �. L V A � ._.,.,_...r. �� j V e _ & ' __. _. � _-` � � � � � L � 5 � f u ! ' � � Y � �y� 7 p S 11 C� & i � Y � � � Y v F _ � I 'd�� W � !Z 1�+ 7 � + � � •G U'. S L � w � �� z W� �#.:h r C V � J w s° Q '�6`0 i V � �` LJ � g� $ ` � � �� N � � � �; �� CV ('7 r NCDENR - Mining Operations NC Department of Ernironment and Natural Resources Marine Fisheries - Mining Operations � � �� 4�0..:="r �.� � . g :� ':a . � ��. .� �'eM,� . � Mining Operations HabiWts Affected: Water column, soft bottom, wetlands Commo� Sources: As of October 2004, no mi�ing (other than for beach nourishment) occurs in North Carolina estuarine and nearshore ocean waters. However, the potential for mining projects exists in phosphate-rich areas in nearshore ocean waters in Onslow Bay as well as the Pamlico River. In addition, sand mining is common throughout eastern North Carotina, and occasionally mines are dewatered into wetlands or coastal streams. Impacts: • Extraction of minerals could have bottom-disturbing effects similar to that of dredging, such as � increased turbidity � mortality of benthic organisms • Underwater mining activities could lead to the unintentional release of "phosphate mining byproducts" into the water column, induding radioactive substances, florides, and other chemicals. • Water from sand mines entering wetlands and coastal streams can increase turbidity. BdCk CO Chdit Ih[[p://poi�al ncdenr.oig/web/mf/70) .__ _........._... _. ....._ ...... .. . . ........ N.C. Division of MaNne Flsheries • 3447 Arendell Street • Morehead City, NC 28557 •(252)726-7021 or 1-800-682-2632 ra�NCaRO� v ; �� 9q � W �f FisHE N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1601 Totl Free: (877)623-6748 Fax: (919� 715-3060 _w, •7 Page 1 of 1 fUP http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/09-mining-operations 12/29/2011