Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20111013 Ver 1_Public Comments_20120118 (2)Strickland, Bev From: Mcmillan, Ian Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:31 PM To: Strickland, Bev; Dennison, Laurie Subject: FW: comments on Section 404 Martin Marietta Attachments: PTRF Comments Martin Marietta Vanceboro 404_Final.pdf DWQ 11 -1013 Ian J. McMillan, PWS, GISP NCDENR/Division of Water Quality - Wetlands and Stormwater Branch 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 Office: (919) 807 -6364 Fag: (919) 807 -6494 Email: ian.mcmillan.denr(a mmail.com SENT TO MY PHONE Email: ian.mcmillan(a�,ncdenr.gov E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. From: Heather [mai Ito: riverkeeper ptrf.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 4:27 PM To: 'Wescott, William G SAW' Cc: Mcmillan, Ian; Cox, David R.; Hart, Kevin Subject: comments on Section 404 Martin Marietta Please find the attached comments on the Section 404 application by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Heather Jacobs Deck Pamlico -Tar RIVERKEEPER Pamlico -Tar River Foundation P.O. Box 1854 Washington, NC 27889 (252) 946 -7211 (office) (252) 946 -9492 (fax) (252) 402 -5644 (cell) www.ptrf.org Follow us on Facebook: http : / /www.facebook.com /pamlicotar Follow us at Twitter: www .twitter.com /ptrfriverkeeper" Via Electronic Mail January 18, 2012 William Wescott U.S. Army Corps of Engineers /Wilmington District Washington Field Office P.O. Box 1000 Washington, INC 27889 Re: 404 Application by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. — Vanceboro Mine Dear Mr. Wescott, The Pamlico -Tar River Foundation (PTRF), founded in 1981, is a grassroots environmental organization representing greater than 2000 members and is a licensed member of Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. Our mission is to monitor, protect, and enhance the Tar - Pamlico River and watershed while promoting environmental justice. PTRF has closely reviewed the 404/401 application by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc for a 649 acre open -pit mine to be located along the Beaufort - Craven County line. As described in detail below, we have numerous concerns regarding their environmental analysis, alternatives analysis, and resulting impact to Blounts Creek, the proposed receiving stream of the mine dewatering wastewater discharge. Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) has not provided sufficient information for state resource agencies and the public to determine the extent of the proposed activities' impacts on Blounts Creek and the natural environment. We argue that the company has failed to analyze alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to Blounts Creek and the area's groundwater resource. Pursuant to Section 40 CFR 230.11(h) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PTRF focuses its comments on the impacts to Blounts Creek, the receiving stream for the mine dewatering discharge. PTRF appreciates that MMM has avoided the vast majority of jurisdictional wetlands located within the project site. Therefore, our comments regarding direct and indirect impacts to those wetlands are found below within the "Mitigation" and "Impacts to water quality standards and downstream habitat" subsections. The majority of our comments focus on downstream impacts of the proposed project. Blounts Creek Blounts Creek (Lower SB, NSW, upper —C, Sw, NSW) is a brackish creek system and an important aquatic nursery area for numerous species. As noted by the INC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), Blounts Creek supports dense submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) beds'. The DMF also confirms that the system is used by anadromous fish for spawning migrations and nursery areas, and resident species . 2 1 DMF Letter from Kevin Hart to William Wescott, January 3, 2012. Martin Marietta Materials Mine - Vanceboro Site (Beaufort /Craven County) 2 I Blounts Creek is also an important recreational resource for Beaufort County. Two public boat ramps (one is fee based) are located on Blounts Creek. Beaufort County government recently purchased land to expand and improve an existing access point. Recreational fishermen utilize Blounts Creek year round. The creek and Blounts Bay are also an important economic resource for some commercial crabbers and local fishing guides. One local guide estimates that 50% of his Pamlico River fishing trips (that target species such as striped bass, juvenile red drum, speckled trout and flounder) utilize the Blounts Creek fishery resource. 3 Salinity Data collected by the Citizen's Monitoring Network (CWN) a program of the Albemarle - Pamlico National Estuary Program demonstrates the salinity range in Blounts Creek. A trained volunteer collected water quality data twice per month at Bryan's Seine Beach Landing ( Lat. N 35 - 23.342' Lon. W 76 - 58.437' ) from October, 1994 through August of 1997. This location is approximately 2 miles upstream of Crisp Landing. The data demonstrates that salinities of surface water at this location ranged from 0 to 10 ppt.4 Impacts from Mine Dewatering Activities Section 40 CFR 230.11(h) of the CWA requires that secondary impacts and effects on the aquatic ecosystem be analyzed. Therefore, MMM is required to fully and adequately assess the downstream impacts due to mine dewatering activities and the Corps must take those impacts into consideration. The mine as proposed cannot function independently from the dewatering wastewater discharge. The company dismisses impacts to Blounts Creek, the proposed receiving stream of groundwater and stormwater pumped from the mine pit, based on 2 consultant studies. PTRF will demonstrate that both analyses are flawed and the conclusions that MMM draw from the studies are flawed. Aquatic Habitat Assessment In order to determine downstream impacts to Blounts Creek aquatic habitat and water quality standards, MMM hired Coastal Zone Resources, Inc. (CZR) to conduct a habitat assessment.' Based on this assessment, MMM stated in the 404 application that, "... no anadromous fish were observed during the study.i' They also concluded that the analysis "showed that the abundance and diversity of fish and macrobenthic invertebrates was lower than expected, and that Blount's Creek was typical of an upper drainage segment of a lower Coastal Plain freshwater system. "' In light of these conclusions, MMM seemingly dismissed any and all impacts to downstream aquatic habitat and downstream water quality standards and offered minimal visual monitoring of channel stability and water quality sampling per NPDES permit requirements at the discharge location only. PTRF demonstrates below that the habitat assessment was flawed in several ways. 3 Personal communication with Cpt. Richard Andrews, Tar -Pam Guide Service. 44 CWN data provided by Chad Smith, Project Coordinator. 5 Appendix D of MMM 404 permit application: Aquatic habitat assessment of the upper headwaters of Blounts Creek in the vicinity of the potential quarry site near Vanceboro, Beaufort County, NC. CZR, Inc. August, 2011. 6 See page 15 of the Section4041ndividual Permit application supporting document. 7 Id. - Regarding the methodology of the study, what is largely missing is the context of these findings when compared to other, similar streams. This is particularly true for the fish assessment. The macro invertebrate data is compared to some state standards, but the Biotic Integrity measures are often designed for a single system and broadly applied. a - Regarding the Jaccard index and the Morisita Horn indices: both are fairly standard techniques to measure similarity. It would be useful to measure a stream that is similar to provide more information on what the differences outside of the system might be. For example, these systems may already be degraded in some way or may be exceptional habitat. 9 - The data demonstrates a lower pH and it is common that a lower natural pH for coastal streams will often predispose the taxa towards lower diversity. 10 Therefore MMM cannot correlate this data with the statement that abundance of fish and macroinvertbrates does not indicate a high quality system." - With regards to this statement found in the analysis, "The Jaccard index indicated that although UT2 had the most species in common with Blounts Creek ( 0 75) the Morisita Horn index indicated that UT2 was more similar to UT1 in terms of community overlap (0 79) (Table 4) on page 8 ": these comparisons are probably meaningless unless compared to some known distribution or diversity of these streams. 12 - Regarding statement in 4.2 fish on page 14: "Overall both species richness and total abundance were relatively low for both impact and control monitoring locations. ": This statement lacks meaning as this data is not compared to a standard or other stream control site. It is unclear here what is meant by low, it has to be qualified by comparison to some standard or other stream. These numbers may appear low, but may be natural for these systems. Also, the fish numbers reported are absolute numbers and do not incorporate the effort it took to collect them. 13 - The study was conducted on only one day in April 2011. With the methods used for collection, young of year of anadromous species should be sampled in June or July. The sampling took place too early in the year to provide meaningful data as to the presence of these species. 14 - In order to more clearly capture the actual fish communities inhabiting the creek, seasonal sampling should have occurred (3 -4 times over the period of one year) and over a 2 -day period /monitoring trip. 1s Hydraulic assessment of receiving streams MMM's consultant Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. conducted a hydraulic assessment of the proposed receiving streams in Upper Blounts Creek.16 The assessment provided data for a proposed build -out 8 Email communication with Dr. David Kimmel, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Biology, East Carolina University. 9 id 10 id 11 See page 15 of the Section4041ndividual Permit application supporting document. 12 id 13 id 14 Personal communication with Dr. Anthony Overton, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Biology, ECU. December 20, 2011. 15 id discharge of 12 MGD on the structural stability of the downstream receiving waters. The assessment noted that for 3 of the 4 channels analyzed, the addition of the 12 MGD or 18.6 cfs would produce flows that equal or exceed the bankfull discharge. Bankfull flows normally experienced by these streams may occur several times each year, but only for a few days in duration, not continuously throughout the year. 17 It is plausible that the UT segments may respond to this large increase in continual discharge by widening and deepening, even if flow is less than bankfull. "If the deepening occurs then the slope will increase and a knickpoint will develop that would result in erosion that occurs and the knickpoint would migrate upstream. 19 Furthermore, any deepening or channelization that occurs due to discharge of mine wastewater will lower the functioning of the floodplain and may result in greater flooding downstream. 20If channels are channelized they may have steeper banks than is normal and if greater discharge is added those banks may have a tendency to slump and the bank material may add sediment to downstream segments . 21 One inaccuracy noted in the report is that bankfull flooding is estimated to occur every 1.1 -1.3 years. However, the numbers used are for streams in Piedmont and Mountain settings and are too high for the Coastal Plain .22 A paper by Sweet and Geratz 23 notes that bankfull flooding for similar INC Coastal Plain streams occurs several times a year. The report nor MMM does not comment on what happens during storm events when stormflow is also conveyed by the channel in addition to baseflow and the additional mine dewater discharge. Impacts to water quality standards and downstream habitat Additional concerns regarding the 404 permit application include: - The 404 application and the consultant report does not specify how downstream stability is to be monitored or what corrective actions would take place should erosion and sedimentation occur if permitted. - Lack of a comparable control creek that is utilized for monitoring. - The reports fail to address bank stability, downstream impacts, and impacts to water quality standards during storm events that will result in at times double the normal bankfull discharge. 16 Appendix C of 404 application. Technical Memorandum: Geomorphic and hydraulic analysis for the proposed built -out dewatering discharge. July 2010. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. 17 Email communication with Dr. Michael O'Driscoll, Assistant Professor, Geology Dept. ECU and Dr. Scott Lecce, Professor, Dept. of Geography, ECU 1s id 19 Id. 20 Email communication with Dr. Michael O'Driscoll, Assistant Professor, Geology Dept. ECU 21 id 22 Id 23 Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. BANKFULL HYDRAULIC GEOMETRY RELATIONSHIPS AND RECURRENCE INTERVALS FOR NORTH CAROLINA'S COASTAL PLAIN. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(4):861 -871. - The consulting reports provide no analysis on downstream impacts from dewatering discharge regarding changes to flow, chemical nature of the surface water, discharge water, salinity, etc. and the resulting impacts on downstream habitat, aquatic species and existing uses. - The natural pH of Blounts Creek ranges from approximately 4.5 to 6 standard units. The report does not take into consideration the impact of a discharge of mine wastewater that is normally above 7. 24 - Hydrologic integrity of avoided adjacent and downstream wetlands. Alternatives Avoidance and minimization of impacts must also include consideration of the downstream impacts due to the mine dewatering discharge. In light of this, PTRF believes that possible other alternatives relating to the mine dewatering discharge should have been analyzed. Such alternatives may include: - Depressurization wells that could then re- inject all or a portion of the groundwater to avoid or minimize impacts via wastewater discharge and groundwater withdrawal and drawdown. Such an alternative would require re- injection of only groundwater, as injection of wastewater (i.e. from the open mine pit) is not allowable under North Carolina rules and statutes. - Connection to local water supply for all or a portion of the groundwater. - Other alternatives that would avoid or minimize the discharge of wastewater to Blounts Creek (or other creek systems). Mitigation Mitigation ratios are established in order to provide a margin of error due to the fact that restoration efforts are not 100% successful and functional replacement requires a significant amount of lag time. Furthermore, the Corps and EPA have noted that certain types of wetlands, especially hardwood forest wetlands, require a much higher mitigation ratio than 1:1. The information included in the application notes that some historic man -made alteration of soils and hydrology has occurred to the depressional hardwood wetlands proposed to be impacted by the mine. None the less, hardwood wetlands typically require a mitigation ratio greater than 1:1 and if permitted, PTRF proposes that a 2:1 ratio would be a more appropriate mitigation ratio for hardwood wetland impacts based on the reasons cited above. Monitoring Should the project ultimately be permitted, PTRF recommends the following monitoring requirements beyond what MMM offered in the 404 application: - Erosion pins placed at several locations downstream of the discharge location and at a control site. The control site, pin locations, and number to be determined in consultation with DWQ and the Corps. If erosion exceeding the control site occurs, we request the Corps to re -open the permit and 24 The NPDES permit application by MMM includes lab reports of quarry discharge water from a similar operation. The data states the pH was 7.4 su. require additional measures to minimize further impacts to the downstream area as well as additional compensatory mitigation for stream impacts. Water Quality sampling including but not limited to the following parameters: nitrate /nitrite, total phosphorus, ammonia, TKN, TON and TIN, pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen, TSS, and turbidity. Monitoring should occur on a monthly basis for a period of 2 years to establish baseline data, then quarterly. Monthly monitoring would again be required once MMM has reached its maximum discharge (approximated to be 9 MGD) for a period of 2 years, then quarterly until the discharge is ceased permanently. In summary, we believe the information above demonstrates that the applicant has failed to provide adequate information for the public and resource agencies to assess the proposed environmental impacts of the mine and its associated discharge. Therefore, we urge the Corps to deny the 404 permit until further information is provided. We appreciate the opportunity to comment in the proposed project. We also appreciate the willingness of the Corps of Engineers to grant a comment extension in order to allow for full public participation. Sincerely, Heather Deck Pamlico -Tar Riverkeeper Pamlico -Tar River Foundation Cc: Ian McMillian, INC Division of Water Quality Kevin Hart, INC Division of Marine Fisheries David Cox, INC Wildlife Resource Commission