20111013 Ver 1_More Info Received_20120918

Martin Marietta Materials
P O Box 30013
Raleigh, North Carolina 27622 -0013
Telephone [phone] _ 1 0 13
Facsimile (919) 510 -4739
E -Mad steve.whitt@martinmanetta com
Steven S. Whitt
Director, Environmental Services
September 18, 2012
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, Branch Chief
NC Division of Water Quality ®��.�J
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
1650 Mail Service Center '---- D
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 SI: 2012
Subject: Request for Additional Information MNR . �A�N
Martin Marietta Materials Inc. — Vanceboro Quarry �Ve ! --.
Dear Ms. Karoly:
We received your request for additional information dated March 2, 2012 for the above
referenced permit application. By way of this letter and the attachments, we are responding to
your items. As requested, we are submitting two sets of copies to your office.
The items referenced below follow the sequence contained in your letter.
1. On September 14, 2012,, a meeting was held with Mr. Ian Mcmillan of your staff to
review the alternatives analysis provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
review detailed the other sites in the area that were evaluated prior to selecting this site. It
was our understanding upon the conclusion of that meeting that this satisfied your
request.
2. Please see the attached memo dated September 17, 2012, from Mr. Chad Evenhouse from
Kimley -Horn and Associates. This memo addresses several of the issues noted in your
request for additional information. As part of their effort, Kimley -Horn and Associates
did complete the requested modeling exercise. That work is contained in the attached
Technical Memorandum dated September 6, 2012.
3. Attached you find a copy of the Mine Map approved by the Division of Land Resources —
Land Quality Section dated September 7, 2011. This drawing, at a scale of 1" = 500', and
several of the other drawings included in this package should help clarify some of the
items needed by your department. This site is more than 2 miles across and to produce
drawings at a scale of 1" = 50' would not be practical.
4. Please see the attached memo dated September 17, 2012, from Mr. Chad Evenhouse from
Kimley -Horn and Associates for information related to the isolated or other non -404
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other waters of the state.

September 18, 2012
Ms. Cyndi Karoly, Branch Chief
Page 2
5. Please see the attached memo dated September 17, 2012 from Mr. Chad Evenhouse from
Kimley -Horn and Associates for information related to riparian buffers.
6. Please see the attached memo dated September 17, 2012 from Mr. Chad Evenhouse from
Kimley -Horn and Associates for a response to the aquatic life passage issue.
7. Please see the attached memo dated September 17, 2012 from Mr. Chad Evenhouse from
Kimley -Horn and Associates for a response on wetland impacts including fill slopes.
8. Please see the attached memo dated September 17, 2012 from Mr. Chad Evenhouse from
Kimley -Horn and Associates for a qualitative indirect and cumulative impact analysis.
We hope this information addresses all the outstanding items from your request. We urge the
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch to continue their review of this information. As mentioned to
you previously, we continue to desire a joint Public Hearing and urge your department to
coordinate with the DWQ Complex NPDES Permits Unit to schedule this hearing as soon as
possible.
Please get in touch with this office if any additional information is needed on this matter.
Sincerely
Steve Whitt, P.E.
Director, Environmental Services

^i
CM Kimley -Horn
Mn and Associates, Inc.
September 17, 2012
Mr. Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials
2710 Wycliff Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Re: Response to North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ)
Request for More Information, dated March 2, 2012
Individual Permit Application
Martin Marietta Materials — Vanceboro Site
Beaufort and Craven Counties
DWQ Project #11 -1013
Dear Mr. Whitt:
P 0 Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636 -3068
1-
SEP
DENR . y/ATER QlJAIt
eVandc a Q,,.._._ TY
In response to NCDWQ's Request for More Information, Kimley -Horn and
Associates, Inc. (KHA) has prepared the following response, as well as attached
technical memorandums providing additional information for your review.
KHA's response by additional information items as listed in NCDWQ's letter
dated March 2, 2012 are as follows:
1. Please provide DWQ the alternatives analysis you provided to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, detailing other sites that had been evaluated prior
to selecting this site.
Response: To be addressed by Martin Marietta Materials (MMM).
2. DWQ recommends a modeling exercise to evaluate the effect of the mining
process wastewater discharge on the biochemistry of the receiving waters
(an unnamed tributary to Blounts Creek). Because of the proximity of the
proposed mine to estuarine waters, dilution of those waters from the
proposed mining discharge could be problematic. Additionally, monitoring
of Blounts Creek will likely be a condition of any 401 Certification. Finally,
it should be notes that the surface water classification of Blounts Creek is SB
(salt waters with primary recreation) and NSW (nutrient sensitive waters).
■
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

Response: KHA conducted additional modeling and analysis to evaluate agency
comments regarding channel stability, flooding, and water quality (i.e. pH,
salinity). A technical memorandum, dated September 6, 2012, is attached that
presents the scope of analysis, results, and recommendations. In addition,
Coastal Zone Resources is currently conducting additional analysis and review
regarding ecosystem effects of the results presented in the KHA memorandum.
3. Please re- submit your site plans on full plan sheets at a scale of no smaller
than I " =50' with topographic contours shown.
Response: To be addressed by MMM.
4. Please locate all isolated or other non -404 jurisdictional wetlands, streams,
and other waters of the State as overlays on the site plan.
Response: Attached are site plan figures amended to include the location of
regulated riparian buffers. The site plan shown here, consistent with the plans
submitted by MMM per #3 above, show all 404 jurisdictional and non -
jurisdictional features within the project area. This includes non - jurisdictional
man -made ditches shown in yellow. There are no isolated wetlands, streams, or
waters within the project area.
5. Please locate all of the protected riparian buffers as overlays on the site
plan clearly showing Zone 1 and Zone 2
Response: See the attached site plan figures discussed above.
6. Please provide cross section details showing the provisions for aquatic life
passage.
Response: There are no new culverts proposed to be installed on any
jurisdictional streams (either natural or modified natural channels) within the
project area. Man -made ditches, both jurisdictional and non - jurisdictional will
impacted at some time with the development of the site, including the installation
of culverts. However, these areas have conservatively been considered as
impacts and accounted for in the individual permit application.

i
7. Please indicate all wetland impacts including fill slopes on the site plan.
Response: There are no wetland impacts proposed to be filled. All the projected
wetlands to be impacted (6.69 acres as shown in the individual permit
application) are to be excavated and are within the footprint of the built -out pit
area. The proposed wetland impact areas are shown in the attached site plan
figures.
8. Please provide a qualitative indirect and cumulative impact analysis for the
project. Please see DWQ's policy for guidance on our website at
http:// Portal.ncdenr.oLvlweblwalswplws /401/ old.
Response: KHA prepared a Qualitative Cumulative Impact Analysis which is
attached to this letter as a technical memorandum, dated September 17, 2012.
Please give me a call at 919- 677 -2121 should you have any questions or need
additional information.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chad Evenhouse, PWS
Project Manager
Attachments:
Technical Memorandum — Stability, Flood, and Water Quality Analyses,
dated September 6, 2012
Technical Memorandum — Qualitative Cumulative Impact Analysis,
dated September 17, 2012
Figures:
• Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro Mine Plan (Approved by
NCDLR on 9/7/2011), dated September 12, 2012, Figure 4a
• Figures 4b, and 4c are inset figures shown on 4a to more clearly
depict regulated riparian buffers within the project area.

Date: September 6, 2012
Project: Vanceboro Site
Martin Marietta Materials
Craven and Beaufort Counties, North Carolina
Subject: Stability, Flood, and Water Quality Analyses
Purpose
The following Technical Memorandum is prepared to summarize the results of several analyses
performed to address the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) comments regarding stream stability, potential flooding, and
water quality issues associated with the proposed addition of the quarry dewatering discharge to
Blounts Creek from the proposed Vanceboro Site. This memo also will provide CZR with
predicted zones of potential impacts so the company can further analyze the potential impacts to
essential aquatic habitats for fish, benthic invertebrates, and vegetation.
Background
The estimated maximum discharge rate from quarry dewatering is approximately 18 cfs
(approximately 12 mgd). As part of the application and review process for the Individual 404
Permit, the associated Water Quality Certification, and the NPDES Discharge Permit, regulatory
agencies raised several concerns related to stream stability, flooding, and water quality.
The dewatering discharge primarily consists of groundwater infiltration from the Castle Hayne
aquifer. Groundwater Management Associates (GMA) provided water chemistry analysis from
wells placed in the aquifer at the Vanceboro site that were used to perform the pump test /water
quality analysis. Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) gathered additional existing
conditions data to assess water quality, flooding potential, and stability throughout the Blounts
Creek system as well. To assess the data, KHA used HEC -HMS, HEC -RAS, and spreadsheet
models. The data collection and analytical methods are discussed in detail in the attached
documents and summarized below.
■ Flooding— Residents of the Cotton Patch Subdivision have expressed concerns that the
additional discharge from the quarry may affect flood elevations near the subdivision. The
flood study within this document found that the addition of 18 cfs of discharge will have little
effect on flood elevations.
Stability —NCDWQ has concerns that the upper reaches of Blounts Creek may experience
excessive erosion from an additional 18 cfs of continuous discharge. KHA performed
C =/1 Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Ina 1 of 21

additional analysis that indicated the effect of splitting the discharge of 18 cfs between the
two outfall locations at a maximum 9 cfs ( -6 mgd) at NPDES Outfall 001 and 9 cfs ( -6 mgd)
at NPDES Outfall 002 should, at most, result in only small changes to the channel geometry
of the upper reaches of Blounts Creek.
■ Water Quality —The two main water quality parameters that the quarry dewatering
discharge could affect are pH and salinity. The pH of the existing headwater /swamp streams
is very low (4.0 to 5.5). The results of the analysis predict that the pH of these systems would
be elevated to 6.5 to 6.9. Such a change would not necessarily be considered a negative
change as more numbers and diversity of intolerant species need higher pHs to survive. The
effect of the pH would likely be noticeable from the discharge point to the confluence with
Herrings Run where the ambient pH level is near 6.
Salinity also is a concern for estuarine species of flora and fauna. The beginning of the estuary
has been established at the confluence of Herrings Run and Blounts Creek. A volumetric
displacement model was developed to estimate the salinity change that would result from the
addition of the dewatering discharge. The model predicts no dramatic change in salinity and
such changes may be masked by natural variability of the systems from tides and runoff events.
It is unlikely that mobile species (such as fish and swimming invertebrates) would be affected by
such a change; however, aquatic vegetation —like salt marsh grasses —may be affected because
such species can be out - competed by freshwater species.
Conclusions
■ Flooding —The results of the modeling indicate that there is no substantial off -site impact
to flooding from the addition of 18 cfs (approximately 12 mgd) of discharge. The results of
the flooding analysis suggest that no additional study is needed to evaluate impacts.
■ Stability —The results of the stability analysis suggest that only minor changes would be
anticipated from the addition of 18 cfs of quarry dewatering discharge if the discharge rates
at NPDES Outfalls o01 and 002 were limited to a maximum of 9 cfs each.
■ Water Quality —The results of the pH analysis suggest that CZR focus on evaluating the
effects of raising the pH from 4.0 -5.5 up to 6.5 to 6.9 above the confluence of Herrings Run.
It is not anticipated that predicted changes to salinity would be enough to affect mobile
aquatic species. CZR would likely need to provide a narrative assessment of what kinds of
changes could occur (if any). The zone of impact for immobile plants and invertebrates may
be larger and should be assessed by CZR from Herrings Run down to the Cotton Patch
Subdivision. Changes may not be enough to require more than a narrative discussion of
potential changes.
GMn Kimley -Horn
M and Associates, Inc. 2 of 21

Table of Contents
1.0 Salinity Evaluation ............................................................... ............................... 4
1.1 Background ................................................. ............................... 4
1.2 Methods ....................................................... ............................... 4
Figure 1 -1: Salinity Sampling Points Map ............................................... ..............................6
1.3 Results and Discussion ................................ ............................... 7
Table 1 -1: Measured Salinity of Blounts Creek ....................................... ............................... 7
Table 1 -2: Measured us. Predicted Salinity of Blounts Creek Downstream of Herrings
Run............................................................................................................. ..............................9
2.0 pH Evaluation ....................................................................... .............................11
2.1 Background .................................................. .............................11
2.2 Methods ........................................................ .............................11
Table 2 -1: pH of Blounts Creek at Various Quarry Discharge to Stream Water Ratios ..11
Figure 2 -1: Relationship of pH to Percent Quarry Water on Receiving Streams ............ 12
2.3 Results and Discussion ................................. .............................12
3.0 Flooding and Stability Analysis ........................................... .............................13
3.1 Background .................................................. .............................13
3.2 Methods ........................................................ .............................13
Figure 3 -1: Model LayoutMmap ...................................................... .............................14
3.3 Results and Discussion ................................. .............................15
3.3.1 Flooding .............................................. .............................15
Table 3 -1: Flood Analysis WSEL Comparison Table .......... ............................... 15
Table 3 -2: Flood Analysis Velocity Comparison Table ........ .............................16
3.3.2 Stability ............................................... .............................16
Table 3 -3: Permissible Shear Stress and Velocity Table .... ............................... 17
3.4 Conclusion ................................................. ............................... 20
References..................................................................................... ............................... 21
Attached: Salinity Tables
GMA Aquifer Water Chemistry Sample Report
Model Results Comparison Tables
Water Quality Analysis Work Map
C =/1 Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 3 of 21

1.0 Salinity Evaluation
1.1 Background
The NCDWQ requested that Martin Marietta Materials evaluate the effect on salinity in
Blounts Creek from the potential maximum quarry dewatering discharge from the
proposed quarry near Vanceboro, NC, starting at the point where NCDWQ considers
estuarine (i.e., salt) waters begin at the confluence of Blounts Creek with Herrings Run.
Per discussions with NCDWQ, it was agreed that a simple mass balance or other
appropriate analysis would be suitable for an initial study on the potential impact that
the discharge may have on salinity. KHA looked at several ways to approach such an
evaluation and concluded that a simple model that evaluates the potential volumetric
displacement of more saline water by the less saline quarry discharge may be adequate to
conservatively estimate the potential effect of the proposed discharge on the salinity of
the creek.
1.2 Methods
KHA determined that it would be necessary to collect field data to define salinity profiles
along Blounts Creek starting at the confluence of Blounts Creek with Herrings Run and
ending approximately one mile downstream of the Cotton Patch Subdivision. A number
of parameters were measured including conductivity, which was converted to salinity.
These measurements were taken using a YSI 6920 water quality "sonde" meter. Stream
velocity was measured at several observation locations to estimate channel discharge.
Sampling was performed on three separate days: April 4th, 2012; April 13th, 2012; and
May 31St, 2012. Sampling dates were chosen to give a variety of flow and salinity
conditions. Sampling on April 4th occurred 3 days after approximately 0.5 -1.0 inches of
rain occurred in the watershed. Sampling on April 13th occurred after several dry days,
with the most recent rainfall occurring a week earlier on April 6 -7th (about 0.2 -0.3 inches
of rain). Sampling on May 31St occurred a day after tropical storm Beryl dropped
approximately 3.5 inches of rain on the watershed. These sampling events represent a
moderate flow, low /base flow, and high flow conditions in Blounts Creek, respectively.
The sampling event on April 4th included only two readings at the Cotton Patch
Subdivision and at the confluence with Herrings Run. Sampling on April 13th and May
13th included measurements starting at the water surface and continuing at 2400t
intervals down to a depth of 10 feet on Blounts Creek from the confluence with Herrings
Run to Blounts Bay at intervals of approximately 1,000 feet.
Locations of sampling observations points can be seen in Figure 1 -1. A salinity profile
with isohaline lines of the April 13th samples were developed using CADD. The resulting
map is represented by the isohaline contours labeled "salinity measured 4/13/2012" in
Figure 1 -2: Measured and Predicted Salinity of Blounts Creek. The profile data
was then used to generate predicted isohaline lines (labeled "predicted salinity ") that
could result from the addition of a maximum of 18 cfs of quarry dewatering discharge.
Can Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Ina 4 of 21

To produce the predicted isohaline contours, a number of assumptions were made:
■ Stream discharge (with or without the addition of the dewatering discharge) does not
completely mix with the more saline estuarine waters.
■ Quarry water discharge was "instantaneously" added to the stream discharge
meaning that the fresh water would simply overrun the more saline water (as it
currently does).
These assumptions are shown by the actual measurements taken and illustrated in
Figure 1 -2. Due to this assumption, the addition of the quarry dewatering discharge can
be seen more as a volumetric displacement with some mixing as already occurs naturally.
We will be able to further establish this concept by resampling after a rain event, which
would increase the stream (freshwater) discharge in a similar manner to the addition of
the quarry dewatering discharge. Using a "volume displacement model' provides a way
to avoid having to assess the effect of tides and other events. The model only represents a
snapshot in time.
A simple explanation of the model is that the volume displacement is taken as the ratio
of the maximum quarry dewatering discharge to the stream discharge at any given point
along the stream. The ratio of quarry dewatering discharge to the stream discharge
would decrease as one progresses downstream. The model assumes that the stream
discharge is proportional to the drainage area and the stream cross section at any given
point along the stream. The presence of the saline water is based on the fact that it is
denser than fresh water resulting in a horizontal stratification such that the freshwater
overruns the more saline water as evidenced by the actual data. This tendency also can
be modeled using the energy equation that takes into account the density of water as well
as air pressure. If air pressure is assumed to be constant over the entire system, this
allows the less dense water to "float" over the denser water. This fact further supports the
assumption that the water will continue to remain stratified by salinity. Assuming a
volumetric displacement as a percent increase of the quarry dewatering discharge versus
the stream discharge at any given point is a sensible and conservative assumption. To
determine the volumetric displacement, the ratio of discharge -based volume
displacement was used to interpolate a displaced value of the salinity between every
point measured.
CMFI Kimley -Horn
1111111110 and Associates, Inc. 5 of 21

Figure 1 -i: Salinity Sampling Points Map
Cam„ Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 6 of 21

1.3 Results and Discussion
The flow conditions on Blounts Creek were taken during what can be characterized as
two base -flow conditions (4/13/2012 base -low, and 4/4/2012 base - moderate) and one
post -storm condition (5/31/2012 high -flow). Each flow condition has an effect on the
salinity of Blounts Creek. Table i -i shows salinity of Blounts Creek at two locations.
Table i -1: Measured Salinity of Blounts Creek
1 Salinity units are PSU (Undiluted sea water = 35 PSU)
2 Sampling conducted after a week of no rain. Approximate estimated flow rate = 25 cfs at Herrings
Run and loo cfs at the Cotton Patch Subdivision
3 Sampling conducted one day after ~0.5 inch rain. Approximate calculated flow rate = 50 cfs at
Herrings Run and 200 cfs at the Cotton Patch Subdivision
4 Sampling conducted one day after ~3.5 inch rain. Approximate calculated flow rate = 800 cfs at
Herrings Run and 1,7oo cfs at the Cotton Patch Subdivision.
Note: Flow rates calculated from cross- sectional area and velocity readings at sampling points. Base -
Low flow was estimated because velocity readings were too low to record.
Although the samples represent only an instant in time, conclusions can be drawn that
illustrate the salinity dynamics of Blounts Creek and the correlation of salinity and flow:
■ Salinity increases with depth.
■ Salinity increases downstream as the creek approaches Blounts Bay.
■ As flow increases, salinity decreases.
Based on sampling conducted on the 4th and 13th of April, 2012 it can be concluded that
salinity in Blounts Creek will be higher after a dry period. This increase in salinity has an
upper limit dictated by the salinity of the Pamlico River at Blounts Bay. Sampling
conducted on May 31St, 2012 after Tropical Storm Beryl shows that a moderate intensity
storm (3.5 inches of rain for a 24 -hour duration storm represents a 1- to 2 -year
occurrence interval) has the ability to completely push salinity out of Blounts Creek.
These fluctuations of salinity appear to be a natural dynamic of Blounts Creek between
C =/i Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Ina 7 of 21
Measured Salinity 1
Sample Location
Depth
()
Base -Low
2
Base -
Moderate
High -Flow 4
Flow
Flow 3
(5/31/2012)
(4/13/2012)
(4/4/2012)
Immediately downstream
3
1.o8
0.07
0.03
of the confluence with
Herrings Run
8
3.03
--
0.03
In front of the Cotton
3
3.11
2.03
0.05
Patch launch area
g
5.65
4.40
0.05
1 Salinity units are PSU (Undiluted sea water = 35 PSU)
2 Sampling conducted after a week of no rain. Approximate estimated flow rate = 25 cfs at Herrings
Run and loo cfs at the Cotton Patch Subdivision
3 Sampling conducted one day after ~0.5 inch rain. Approximate calculated flow rate = 50 cfs at
Herrings Run and 200 cfs at the Cotton Patch Subdivision
4 Sampling conducted one day after ~3.5 inch rain. Approximate calculated flow rate = 800 cfs at
Herrings Run and 1,7oo cfs at the Cotton Patch Subdivision.
Note: Flow rates calculated from cross- sectional area and velocity readings at sampling points. Base -
Low flow was estimated because velocity readings were too low to record.
Although the samples represent only an instant in time, conclusions can be drawn that
illustrate the salinity dynamics of Blounts Creek and the correlation of salinity and flow:
■ Salinity increases with depth.
■ Salinity increases downstream as the creek approaches Blounts Bay.
■ As flow increases, salinity decreases.
Based on sampling conducted on the 4th and 13th of April, 2012 it can be concluded that
salinity in Blounts Creek will be higher after a dry period. This increase in salinity has an
upper limit dictated by the salinity of the Pamlico River at Blounts Bay. Sampling
conducted on May 31St, 2012 after Tropical Storm Beryl shows that a moderate intensity
storm (3.5 inches of rain for a 24 -hour duration storm represents a 1- to 2 -year
occurrence interval) has the ability to completely push salinity out of Blounts Creek.
These fluctuations of salinity appear to be a natural dynamic of Blounts Creek between
C =/i Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Ina 7 of 21

Herrings Run and the Cotton Patch Subdivision. The maximum proposed quarry
discharge of 18 cfs (12 million gallons per day) would be only 1 -2% of the flow rate
measured after Tropical Storm Beryl. As such, the effects of the quarry discharge likely
would not be noticeable during these kinds of flow conditions and should not have the
same effect on the salinity profile as a moderate intensity storm such as Tropical Storm
Beryl. Accordingly, it appears more likely that effects from the quarry discharge only
would be noticeable at discharges closer to base -flow conditions.
The volume displacement model was developed as a tool to predict the effects on salinity
from an increase of 18 cfs (approximately 12 mgd) on salinity in Blounts Creek due to the
proposed quarry dewatering discharge at base -flow conditions. Table 1 -2 and Figure 1-
2 show how the model predicts that the isohaline lines would be deeper and further
downstream when comparing the natural - stream discharge plus quarry discharge versus
the actual, measured conditions —Le., the natural- stream discharge alone. The model
shows that additional flow essentially "pushes" salinity downstream, but to a much
smaller degree than discharge from a 3.5 -inch rainfall would, for instance.
In this scenario, comparing the salinity measurements taken during the two base -flow
discharges (low and moderate) demonstrate how the addition of the quarry discharge
could affect the system. The difference between the discharges from the low -base flow
and moderate base flow at Herrings Run would be very similar to the discharge
difference between the low -base flow and the low -base flow with the quarry discharge
added to it. The difference between the discharges of the low -base flow and moderate -
base flow at the Cotton Patch Subdivision are much larger than the difference between
the low -base flow and low -base flow plus quarry discharge would be. The volume
displacement model over - estimated the predicted salinity (0.07 measured versus 0.7
predicted) at the Herrings Run confluence. The model also underestimated the predicted
versus measured salinity at 3 feet (2.0 measured versus 1.6 predicted) and 8 feet (4.4
measured versus 2.8 predicted) at the Cotton Patch Subdivision. In any event, the
volume displacement model does appear to provide an indication of the relative
predicted changes to salinity from the addition of the quarry discharge that can be
expected during low to moderate base flow conditions.
C=n Kimley -Horn
i and Associates, Inc. 8 of 21

Table 1 -2: Measured vs. Predicted Salinity of Blounts Creek Downstream of
Herrings Run
Distance
Downstream
of Herrings
Run ft
Depth
Below
Surface
ft
Measured
Salinity'
(411312012)
Predicted
Salinity'
Distance
Downstream
of Herrings
Run ft(ft)
Depth
Below
Surface
Measured
Salinity'
(411312012)
Predicted
Salinity'
200
0
0.88
0.51
6,000
0
2.04
1.51
200
2
1.08
0.96
6,000
2
2.14
2.07
200
4
1.70
1.34
6,000
4
2.55
2.25
200
6
2.72
2.13
6,000
6
3.41
2.78
200
8
3.03
2.85
6,000
8
4.51
3.69
200
10
3.12
3.07
6,000
10
5.33
4.72
1,000
0
1.29
0.75
8,000
0
2.22
1.64
1,000
2
1.33
1.31
8,000
2
2.27
2.23
1,000
4
1.77
1.52
8,000
4
2.49
2.33
1,000
6
2.87
2.23
8,000
6
3.98
2.88
1,000
8
3.46
3.12
8,000
8
4.92
4.22
1,000
9.6
3.56
3.50
8,000
10
5.39
5.05
2,000
0
1.61
0.94
10,000
0
2.47
2.10
2,000
2
1.67
1.64
10,000
2
2.51
2.48
2,000
4
2.02
1.82
10,000
4
3.41
2.65
2,000
6
2.65
2.28
10,000
6
4.27
3.54
2,000
8
3.74
3.11
10,000
8
5.00
4.38
2,000
10
4.02.
3.86
10,000
9.1
5.48
5.08
3,000
0
1.87
1.38
12,000
0
2.64
2.25
3,000
2
1.96
1.89
12,000
2
3.01
2.70
3,000
4
2.07
1.99
12,000
4
3.23
3.04
3,000
6
2.36
2.15
12,000
6
4.05
3.35
3,000
8
3.96
2.78
12,000
8
5.76
4.31
3,000
10
4.51
4.10
12,000
10
6.07
5.80
4,000
0
1.76
1.30
13,000
0
2.84
2.42
4,000
2
1.89
1.80
13,000
2
3.11
2.88
4,000
4
2.20
1.97
13,000
4
3.47
3.16
4,000
6
3.33
2.49
13,000
6
5.01
3.70
4,000
8
4.13
3.54
13,000
8
5.65
5.11
4,000
10
4.64
4.27
13,000
10
6.10
5.72
5,000
0
1.92
1.42
14,000
0
3.24
2.75
5,000
2
1.97
1.93
14,000
2
3.28
3.24
5,000
4
2.44
2.09
14,000
4
3.49
3.31
5,000
6
3.30
2.67
14,000
6
4.87
3.69
5,000
8
4.20
3.53
14,000
8
6.36
5.09
5,000 1
10 1
4.73
4.34
14,000
93
6.45
6.38
1 Salinity units are PSU (Undiluted sea water = 35 PSU)
Note: Highlighted cells are approximate location of the Cotton Patch Subdivision
= � Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Ina 9 Of 21

N
w
LL
O
W
K
7 �
N NO�O�OUlO �lO �O
W ���(VNMMaW�f1 u'i t0
N v
D
FW-
U
0 oinovio�no�novia x
W . -�NNMM �'d NJ)10 F
a a
<�
_
z
o °m
y QU N
Q
G N 0 Q O
d I I t 1
(1333) H1cd30
H
w
Li
LL
v
z
Z)
Ir
z
cr
W
S
S
E-
W
U
z
w
z
O
U
w
O
w
vi
z
3
O
0
w
U
z
t-
0
N
w
O
O
IA
i�
✓jJ 4
E �
Y m
C

2.0 pH Evaluation
2.1 Background
The proposed discharge from the Vanceboro quarry into Blounts Creek will mostly come
from the Castle Hayne aquifer. Based on data from aquifer testing conducted by
Groundwater Management Associates (GMA), discharge from the Castle Hayne aquifer
near the Vanceboro Site had a pH of 6.94, an alkalinity of 321 mg /L, and a total hardness
Of 316 mg /L. Based on these numbers, it was assumed that the hardness and alkalinity
are primarily from calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which would give this discharge a very
strong buffering capacity. Additionally, the pH of the water in Blounts Creek above the
confluence with Herrings Run was measured between 4.o and 5.5 by CZR and KHA.
Given the available water quality data, a simple water chemistry model was developed to
determine what the predicted pH of the Blounts Creek system might be with the
introduction of the quarry dewatering discharge.
2.2 Methods
It is assumed that the alkalinity of the quarry dewatering discharge is carbonate (CO3),
bicarbonate (HCO3), and carbonic acid (H2CO3). Natural acidity in the stream is likely
tannic acid and other organic acids; however, for the sake of this study it was assumed
that the pH is from hydrogen ions only (H +). This assumption that there will be no
buffering from organic acids is conservative because the organic acids likely would
provide some buffering at the lower pH. A spreadsheet model was developed to assess
the proton condition and to assess various ratios or percentages of quarry water to
stream water. Since the pH of the quarry water was 6.94, it was assumed that
bicarbonate (HCO3) would be the dominant base form. Table 2 -1 shows the predicted
pH of the stream as a volumetric ratio of quarry discharge water to stream water.
Table 2 -1: pH of Blounts Creek at Various Quarry Discharge to Stream
Water Ratios
% Quarry
Water
% Stream
Water'
Ratio of Quarry to
Stream Water
H2CO3
HCO3
H+
P H
10%
90%
1:9
1.54E -04
1.66E -04
4.65E -07
6.33
20%
80%
1:4
2.08E -04
4.33E -04
2.42E -07
6.62
30%
70%
3:7
2.63E -04
6.99E -04
1.89E -07
6.72
40%
60%
2:3
3.17E -04
9.66E -04
1.65E -07
6.78
50%
50%
1:1
3.72E -04
1.23E -03
1.51 E -07
6.82
60%
40%
3:2
4.26E -04
1.50E -03
1.43E -07
6.85
70%
30%
7:3
4.81 E -04
1.77E -03
1.37E -07
6.86
80%
20%
4:1
5.35E -04
2.03E -03
1.32E -07
6.88
90%
10%
9:1
1 5.89E -04
2.30E -03
1.29E -07
6.89
1 Receiving stream waters are assumed to have a pH of 4.0
Cn Kimley -Horn
i• and Associates, Inc. 11 of 21

Figure 2 -1: Relationship of pH to Percent Quarry Water on Receiving
Streams
7.0
6.5
6.0
a 5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0 -
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 609'0 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent Quarry Water
2.3 Results and Discussion
The model predicts that as the ratio of quarry water to stream water goes from 1:9 (1o%
quarry water) to 9:1 (9o% quarry water), the pH will begin to rise from 6.3 to 6.8. The
pH at the Herrings Run confluence was measured at approximately 6.5 on April 13th ,
2012. This means that the pH below the confluence of Herrings Run and Blounts Creek
will likely remain at current conditions; however, the pH of Blounts Creek upstream of
the confluence with Herrings Run is expected to increase from a range of 4.0 -5.5 (as
measured on April 13�h, 2012) to 6.3 -6.9 from the addition of the quarry dewatering
discharge.
Kimley -Horn
C �� and Associates, Ina 12 Of 21
now
son
No
ME
milk0
NE
MEN
11011ir,
oil
rim
11111
00
Ing
ME
SESSION
11LIFill"LOON111i
INS
4.0 -
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 609'0 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent Quarry Water
2.3 Results and Discussion
The model predicts that as the ratio of quarry water to stream water goes from 1:9 (1o%
quarry water) to 9:1 (9o% quarry water), the pH will begin to rise from 6.3 to 6.8. The
pH at the Herrings Run confluence was measured at approximately 6.5 on April 13th ,
2012. This means that the pH below the confluence of Herrings Run and Blounts Creek
will likely remain at current conditions; however, the pH of Blounts Creek upstream of
the confluence with Herrings Run is expected to increase from a range of 4.0 -5.5 (as
measured on April 13�h, 2012) to 6.3 -6.9 from the addition of the quarry dewatering
discharge.
Kimley -Horn
C �� and Associates, Ina 12 Of 21

3.0 Flooding and Stability Analysis
3.1 Background
The NCDWQ requested that Martin Marietta Materials evaluate the effect of the quarry
dewatering discharge from the proposed quarry on the stability of Blounts Creek. Local
community members near the Cotton Patch subdivision also have expressed concern
that increased flow from the quarry dewatering discharge may have an adverse effect on
flooding near their property. KHA performed a detailed hydrologic and hydraulic
analysis to the stability and flooding concerns. To address both of these issues, KHA
determined that it would be necessary to develop an unsteady state HEC -RAS model
using hydrographs generated from HEC -HMS. Future conditions scenarios analyze a
steady discharge of 18 cfs (approximately 12 mgd) at the proposed quarry site.
3.2 Methods
■ Hydrology —The HEC -HMS model used the SCS synthetic unit hydrograph to
create flow hydrographs of the 1 -, 5 -, 25 -, and ioo -year 24- hour - duration storms.
Hydrograph parameters of loss, transform, and depth were input using the following
sources: runoff volume was calculated using composite curve numbers from land use
coverage KHA generated using 2010 aerial photography, lag times were calculated
using the SCS Lag Time Method, and precipitation depth was taken from NOAA
Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates for the station located in Washington, NC.
Since there are no tide gauges located on the Pamlico River, daily tides were assumed
to be diurnal with a maximum amplitude of 1 foot and mean sea level at o.00 ft
NAVD 88. It is possible that there is no observable diurnal tides based on
observations from local residents, but the tides were added as an additional
conservative analysis. Surge hydrographs were developed using methodology
described in HEC -25 Tidal Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Scour at Bridges and data
from the effective Flood Insurance Study (FIS) of Beaufort County, NC.
■ Hydraulics —The HEC -RAS model was created using field measurements of cross -
sections, ditch widths /heights, pipe inverts, and soundings. Ditch widths /heights
and pipe inverts were measured on the proposed mining site, eight stream cross -
sections were measured on Weyerhauser property downstream of the proposed
NPDES discharge point (two were taken from previous studies), and four soundings
of Blounts Creek were taken below the confluence of Blounts Creek and Herrings
Run. Cross - section measurements were only taken for the stream section and LIDAR
was used to supplement floodplain geometry. Additionally, since field measurements
were taken based on temporary benchmarks, elevations were tied into LIDAR as
best -fit approximations. To supplement the reach of Blounts Creek from the last
Weyerhauser property cross - section to the Herrings Run confluence, the effective
FEMA HEC -RAS model of Blounts Creek beginning at NC -33 was included.
A layout of the HEC -RAS model centerline and detailed areas of interest for the
Flooding and Stability analyses is shown below in Figure 3 -1. Note: only layouts of
cross sections referenced in this memo are shown on the figure.
��Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 13 of 21

Figure 3 -1: Model Layout Map
C —„ Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 14 of 21

3.3 Results and Discussion
3.3.1 Flooding
The hydraulics of the Pamlico River at Blounts Bay play a significant role in the
hydraulics of Blounts Creek, especially at the Cotton Patch subdivision. Since
information on the elevations of the Pamlico River during storm events is limited
and because rainfall can be spatially determinant (meaning rainfall can be
localized or systemic across multiple drainage areas) a variety of rainfall and
downstream boundary condition scenarios were chosen to cover a wide range of
possible hydraulic conditions at Blounts Creek. Those scenarios include 1 -year
storm with assumed daily tide, 5 -year storm with assumed steady downstream
elevation of 0.5 feet, 25 -year storm with friction slope of o.o1 %, and loo -year
storm with a synthetic surge hydrograph downstream boundary condition.
Tables 3 -1 and 3 -2 (below) show the output of these four scenarios and the
resulting Water Surface Elevations (WSELs) and velocities, respectively.
Table 3 -1: Flood Analysis WSEL Comparison Table
1 Feet above Blounts Bay
2 Estimated daily tide with amplitude of i ft at Blounts Bay
3 No change in downstream water surface elevation (set at o.5 ft)
4 Downstream friction slope of o.o1%
5 Theoretical ioo -yr surge stage hydrograph based
* Confluence of Blounts Creek with Herrings Run
** The Cotton Patch subdivision
Note: Ex = Existing Conditions; Fu = Future Conditions, d = Difference between future and existing
conditions. All elevations are in feet and referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NA VD 88)
M�Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 15 of 21
1 -yr
5 -yr
�5 -yr
loo -yr
River
(Friction
Slope
Station 1
Odes 2)
(No
Ti 3
de )
4)
(Surge 5)
Ex
Fu A
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu A
28600*
0.96
0.97 0.01
2.24
2.26
0.02
4.71
4.73
0.02
9.30
9.31 0.01
25000
0.76
o.77 o.o1
1.6o
1.61
0.01
3.84
3.86
0.02
9.13
9.14 0.01
15900 **
0.57
0.57 0.00
0.82
o.83
0.01
2.68
2.69
o.o1
8.95
8.95 0.00
7000
0.50
0.50 0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
1.87
1.87
0.00
9.20
9.20 0.00
1 Feet above Blounts Bay
2 Estimated daily tide with amplitude of i ft at Blounts Bay
3 No change in downstream water surface elevation (set at o.5 ft)
4 Downstream friction slope of o.o1%
5 Theoretical ioo -yr surge stage hydrograph based
* Confluence of Blounts Creek with Herrings Run
** The Cotton Patch subdivision
Note: Ex = Existing Conditions; Fu = Future Conditions, d = Difference between future and existing
conditions. All elevations are in feet and referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988
(NA VD 88)
M�Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 15 of 21

Table 3 -2: Flood Analysis Velocity Comparison Table
1 Feet above Blounts Bay
2 Estimated daily tide with amplitude of t ft at Blounts Bay
3 No change in downstream water surface elevation (set at o.,5 ft)
4 Downstream friction slope of 0.01%
s Theoretical loo -yr surge stage hydrograph based
* Confluence of Blounts Creek with Herrings Run
** The Cotton Patch subdivision
Note: Note: Ex = Existing Conditions; Fu = Future Conditions, A = Difference between future and
existing conditions. All values are velocity in feet per second (fps).
The modeling results show that there is no significant change in water surface
elevation and velocity at the Cotton Patch subdivision due to the proposed quarry
dewatering discharge. Variations shown in the model are less than the effects
wave action or wind tides would produce.
3.3.2 Stability
Naturally stable coastal streams typically have mobile stream beds and
deformable banks. This means that during the runoff events from most storms
the bed and banks will change their shape. These changes are minor and
normally do not result in bank failure, vegetation loss, or excessive erosion. For a
stream to be characterized as unstable, these changes would need to be more
dramatic and result in excessive erosion, bank collapse, and vegetation loss.
DWQ asked MMM to provide some analysis to assess whether adding the
dewatering discharge of 18 cfs would cause the existing streams to become more
unstable. The following analysis is based on splitting the discharge between
NPDES Outfall 001 and NPDES Outfall 002 such that they are receiving 9cfs
each.
To determine the effects of the proposed quarry dewatering discharge on the
stability of Blounts Creek, it is necessary to analyze channel shear stress and
CM Kimley -Horn
Mn and Associates, Inc. 16 of 21
i -yr
5 -yr
�5 -yr
100-yr
River
(Tides
2)
(No
Tide 3)
(Friction Slope
(Surge
5)
Station 1
4)
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu A
28600*
0.85
0.87
0.02
1.60
1.62
0.02
2.08
2.09
0.01
0.58
0.60 0.02
25000
0.62
0.63
0.01
1.32
1.33
0.01
1.84
1.84
0.00
0.29
0.26 0.03
15900 **
0.34
0.35
0.01
0.79
0.80
0.01
1.10
1.11
0.01
0.68
0.67 0.01
7000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.90
0.90
0.00
0.57
0.57 0.00
1 Feet above Blounts Bay
2 Estimated daily tide with amplitude of t ft at Blounts Bay
3 No change in downstream water surface elevation (set at o.,5 ft)
4 Downstream friction slope of 0.01%
s Theoretical loo -yr surge stage hydrograph based
* Confluence of Blounts Creek with Herrings Run
** The Cotton Patch subdivision
Note: Note: Ex = Existing Conditions; Fu = Future Conditions, A = Difference between future and
existing conditions. All values are velocity in feet per second (fps).
The modeling results show that there is no significant change in water surface
elevation and velocity at the Cotton Patch subdivision due to the proposed quarry
dewatering discharge. Variations shown in the model are less than the effects
wave action or wind tides would produce.
3.3.2 Stability
Naturally stable coastal streams typically have mobile stream beds and
deformable banks. This means that during the runoff events from most storms
the bed and banks will change their shape. These changes are minor and
normally do not result in bank failure, vegetation loss, or excessive erosion. For a
stream to be characterized as unstable, these changes would need to be more
dramatic and result in excessive erosion, bank collapse, and vegetation loss.
DWQ asked MMM to provide some analysis to assess whether adding the
dewatering discharge of 18 cfs would cause the existing streams to become more
unstable. The following analysis is based on splitting the discharge between
NPDES Outfall 001 and NPDES Outfall 002 such that they are receiving 9cfs
each.
To determine the effects of the proposed quarry dewatering discharge on the
stability of Blounts Creek, it is necessary to analyze channel shear stress and
CM Kimley -Horn
Mn and Associates, Inc. 16 of 21

velocity. Bed mobility and bank deformation of the existing channel is likely to
occur when shear and /or velocities in the channel rise above threshold levels that
have been shown to be the limits of maximum permissible shear and velocity in
stable stream channels. Table 3 -3 below summarizes two bed materials from
Table 7 -3— Maximum Permissible Velocities Recommended by Fortier and
Scobey and the Corresponding Unit - Tractive Force Values Converted by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation in Open - Channel Hydraulics (Chow, 1959); it shows an
estimate of the maximum nonerodible velocities in old and well- seasoned
channels based on channel material. Pebble counts performed in previous studies
by KHA estimate bed material to be an organic silty loam. Because there is a
significant amount of organic and clay material in the channel substrate,
maximum permissible velocity and shear was assumed to be somewhere between
non - colloidal silt loam and colloidal alluvial silts. The average value of the two
soil types are shown in Table 3 -3 as the estimated maximum value.
Table 3 -3: Permissible Shear Stress and Velocity Table
Maximum
Permissible Values
Shear
(lbs /LL2)
Velocity
(fps)
Non colloidal Silt Loam
0.05
2.00
Colloidal Alluvial Silts
0.26
3.75
Estimated Maximum 1
0.15
2.5
Estimated maximum permissible shear and velocity for the
study area of Blounts Creek
Low flow was estimated using the Coastal Plain 30Q2 for Clay Soils in Table 2 of
USGS Water - Supply Paper 2403 Low -Flow Characteristics of Stream in North
Carolina (USGS, 1993)• The 30Q2 is the annual minimum average 3o -day
consecutive low flow that has a 50% chance of occurring in a given year. The
30Q2 flow is equivalent to 0.032 cfs per square mile drainage area or
approximately 0.14 cfs at Blounts Creek just downstream of the NPDES discharge
point. The future conditions model included a constant flow of 9 cfs at both
Blounts Creek and UT2 to simulate splitting the maximum proposed quarry
dewatering discharge between the two reaches.
For stable coastal plain streams, instability does not necessarily occur when flow
overtops the top of bank. The study reach of Blounts Creek has excellent access to
the floodplain; therefore, incremental increases to discharge above the maximum
channel discharge capacity do not have incrementally large increases in shear and
velocity. Erosion occurs at elevations higher than bankfull as velocity and shear
increase due to flood stages surcharging above the bankfull stage. To determine
CM/1 Kimley -Horn
Il• and Associates, Ina 17 of 21

the effects of the dewatering discharge on storm events, the 1 -year 24 -hour storm
was modeled in HEC -RAS.
Model results are shown in Table 3 -4 for the reach of Blounts Creek from
approximately 500 feet downstream of the proposed NPDES discharge point to
the last cross - section on Weyerhaeuser property.
Table 3 -4: Blounts Creek Model Results Comparison Table
River
Low Flow
1 -year 24 -hour Storm
Station
Shear (lb /ft2)
Velocity (fps)
Shear (lb /ft2)
Velocity (fps)
Ex
Fu
0
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu
0
Ex
Fu
A
55,513
0.07
0.11
0.04
0.71
1.04
0.33
0.31
0.32
0.01
2.11
2.14
0.03
54,46o
o.o6
0.14
o.o8
o.66
1.17
0.44
0.43
0.44
0.01
2.42
2.43
0.01
53,848
o.o6
0.12
0.04
o.64
1.03
0.39
0.19
o.19
o.00
1.64
1.66
0.02
o.o6
o.o6
52597
0.03 0.07 0.04
0.47 o.81 0.34
o.00
o.89
0.91
0.02
551,462
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.29
0.57
0.28
0.00
2.10
2.11
0.01
0.28 0.28
50,380
0.05
0.10
0.05
o.62
o.96
0.34
0.53
0.53
0.00
2.86
2.87
0.01
49,174
2
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.52
o.65
0.13
oa8
o.18
o.00
1.63
1.63
0.00
1 Feet above Blounts Bay
2 Last cross - section on Weyerhauser property
Note: Ex = Existing Conditions; Fu = Future Conditions, d = Difference between future and existing
conditions. Highlighted cells exceed the estimated permissible values listed in Table 3 -3•
The model results show that velocity and shear increases (as compared to the
30Q2 low flow) due to the proposed quarry dewatering discharge, but stay below
the estimated maximum permissible shear and velocity. Peak flow conditions of
the 1 -year storm produce shear that is higher than the estimated maximum
permissible shear stress while velocity was below the estimated maximum
permissible velocity except at cross - section 50,380. The additional proposed
quarry dewatering discharge had a minimal effect on the 1 -year peak flow
hydraulics on Blounts Creek.
Model results for the reach of UT2 are shown in Table 3 -5•
EM"Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 18 of 21

Table 3 -5: UT -2 Model Results Comparison Table
River
Low Flow
1 -yr 24 -hr Storm
Station
Shear (lb /ft2)
Velocity (fps)
Shear (lb /ft2)
Velocity (fps)
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu
A
Ex
Fu
A
8,o85
0.04
0.14
o.10
o.86
2.39
1.53
0.36
0.39
0.03
4.54
4.81
0.27
7,515
0.01
0.14
0.13
0.43
2.38
1.95
0.33
0.36
0.03
4.37
4.64
0.27
6,020
0.05
0.14
0.09
0.99
2.37
1.38
0.44
0.48
0.04
4.96
5.30
0.34
4,370
o.o1
o.o9
o.o8
0.38
1.82
1.44
o.18
0.20
0.02
3.04
3.25
0.21
3,920
0.12
0.10
0.02
1.40
1.93
0.53
0.14
o.16
0.02
2.71
2.94
0.23
3,820
o.ol
o.o8
0.07
0.51
1.72
1.21
0.12
0.14
0.02
2.56
2.8o
0.24
3,750
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.17
1.24
1.07
0.11
0.14
0.03
2.31
2.67
0.36
3,263
0.02
0.11
0.09
0.28
1.00
0.72
0.22
0.23
0.01
1.75
1.8o
0.05
1,420
0.02
o.o8
o.o6
0.29
o.81
0.52
0.49
0.49
0.00
0.01
2.74 2.75
1 Feet above confluence of UT-2 with Blounts Creek
Note: Ex = Existing Conditions; Fu = Future Conditions, d = Difference between future and existing
conditions. Highlighted cells exceed the estimated permissible values listed in Table 3 -3•
The model results for UT -2 show that velocity and shear increases (as compared
to the 30Q2 lowflow) due to the proposed quarry dewatering discharge, but stay
below the estimated maximum permissible shear and velocity. Peak flow
conditions of the 1 -year storm produce shear and velocity that is higher than the
estimated maximum permissible shear stress and velocity. The additional
proposed quarry dewatering discharge had a minimal effect on the 1 -year peak
flow shear but increases velocity in the upper reach ditch UT -2.
There are two cross sections where the model predicts that future conditions will
exceed the estimated critical velocity or shear stress, and the existing conditions
do not exceed the thresholds. These cross sections occur at stations 3,75o and
3,920, which are immediately downstream and upstream, respectively, of an
existing culvert under Blounts Creek Road. It is important to observe the
predicted increase in shear stress at station 3,920 is similar to the predicted
increases at the other stations. The same is true of the predicted change in
velocity at station 3,75o. For both cross sections, the change represents an
increase of approximately 13% for both shear stress and velocity. It is important
to note, that both the existing and future conditions shear stress predicted at
3,920 and existing and future conditions velocity at 3,75o are within 7% of the
estimated permissible threshold values. It is KHA's opinion that this change is
small enough that it would be masked by natural variability predicted within the
rainfall and runoff patterns described in the paragraph below, despite the fact
C�I1 Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Ina 19 of 21

that the future conditions value exceeds the estimated permissible value and the
existing conditions value does not. As such, any changes to the channel geometry
are expected to be minimal, and should not result in excessive erosion. It is
recommended that MMM visually monitor the channel yearly (using photograph
points) as discharge rates increase to assess changes, if any, to channel stability.
The 1 -year rainfall depth is 3.19 inches and the peak flow rate for the drainage
area at river station 55,513 is 230 cfs. The corresponding rainfall depth for the
same drainage area for 221 cfs (1 -year peak flow rate minus proposed quarry
dewatering discharge) is approximately 3.14 inches. The go% confidence interval
for the 1 -year 24 -hour storm is 2.92 -3.56 inches. Since the future adjusted 1 -year
rainfall depth lies well within that confidence interval, the future dewatering
discharge is not anticipated to increase the frequency of storm discharges.
3.4 Conclusion
It is expected that the increase in discharge from the proposed quarry will result in some
adjustments in the base -flow geometry of the stream. The modeling results suggest that
such adjustments should not result in excessive erosion of the stream since the estimated
maximum permissible shear stresses and velocities should not be exceeded in low flow
conditions. Additionally, storm events are assumed to have the most influence on
channel geometry since they result in larger velocities and shear stress as the water
column surcharges above the channel. Typically, NCDWQ considers the 1 -year 24 -hourr
discharge to be related to channel stability for its various stormwater programs. The
above results show only minor changes during the peak 1 -year 24 -hour storm event
when comparing the existing conditions to the proposed quarry dewatering discharge.
Based on this analysis, it is not anticipated that the maximum dewatering discharge
would result in major stream channel profile or geometry changes.
Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Ina 20 Of 21

References
Chow, Ven Te (1959)• Open - Channel Hydraulics. Caldwell, NJ: The Blackburn Press.
Fry, Brian (2002). Conservative Mixing of Stable Isotopes Across Estuarine Salinity Gradients:
A Conceptual Framework for Monitoring Watershed Influences on Downstream Fisheries
Production. Estuaries and Coasts, 25, 264 -271.
Stenstrom, Petter (2004). Hydraulics and mixing in the Hudson River estuary: A numerical
model study of tidal variations during neap tide conditions. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 109(CO4019), 1 -12.
Snoeyink, Vernon L., & Jenkins, David (1980). Water Chemistry. New York, NY: John Wiley &
Sons.
UNESCO (1981). Background Papers and Supporting Data on the Practical Salinity Scale 1978
(UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science 37). Place de Fontenoy, Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
U.S. Geological Survey (1993)• Low -Flow Characteristics of Streams in North Carolina (United
States Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 2403). Denver, CO: US Government Printing
Office.
G =Fj Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc. 21 of 21

Attachment 1
Salinity Tables

Measured vs. Predicted Salinity
Distance Downstream of Confluence
with Herring Run (ft)
Depth below
Surface (ft)
Salinity measured
(4/13/2012)
Salinity Predicted
200
0
088
051
200
2
108
096
200
4
170
134
200
6
272
213
200
8
303
285
200
10
312
307
400
0
109
063
400
2
127
117
400
4
168
144
400
6
295
221
400
8
308
300
400
10
314
310
600
0
128
075
600
2
139
133
600
4
182
157
600
5
232
203
600
6
280
252
600
788
307
291
800
0
123
072 ,
800
2
131
126
800
4
185
154
800
6
277
224
800
8
339
303
800
876
339
339
1000
0
129
075
1000
2
133
131
1000
4
177
152
1000
6
287
223
1000
8
346
312
1000
96
356
350
1500
0
148
086
1500
2
161
154
1500
4
189
172
1500
6
289
231
1500
8
363
320
1500
10
387
373
2000
0
161
094
2000
2
167
164
2000
4
202
182
2000
6
265
228
2000
8
374
311
2000
30
402
386
1of6

Measured vs. Predicted Salinity
Distance Downstream of Confluence
with Herring Run (ft)
Depth below
Surface (ft)
Salinity measured
(4/13/2012)
Salinity Predicted
2500
0
189
140
2500
2
192
190
2500
4
203
195
2500
6
208
204
2500
8
376
252
2500
10
435
392
3000
0
187
138
3000
2
196
189
3000
4
207
199
3000
6
236
215
3000
8
396
278
3000
30
451
410
3500
0
167
124
3500
2
189
173
3500
4
207
194
3500
6
293
230
3500
8
394
320
3500
30
451
409
4000
0
176
130
4000
2
189
180
4000
4
220
197
4000
6
333
249
4000
8
413
354
4000
10
464
427
4500
0
182
135
4500
2
184
183
4500
4
219
193
4500
6
327
248
4500
8
408
348
4500
10
467
423
5000
0
192
142
5000
2
197
193
5000
4
244
209
5000
6
330
267
5000
8
420
353
5000
10
473
434
6000
0
204
151
6000
2
214
207
6000
4
255
225
6000
6
341
278
6000
8
451
369
6000
10
533
472
2of6

Measured vs. Predicted Salinity
Distance Downstream of Confluence
with Herring Run (ft)
Depth below
Surface (ft)
Salinity measured
(4/13/2012)
Salinity Predicted
7000
0
208
154
7000
2
224
213
7000
4
232
226
7000
6
345
262
7000
8
465
376
7000
10
534
483
8000
0
222
164
8000
2
227
223
8000
4
249
233
8000
6
398
288
8000
8
492
422
8000
10
539
505
9000
0
241
205
9000
2
250
242
9000
4
271
253
9000
6
409
291
9000
8
471
418
9000
10
534
481
10000
0
247
210
10000
2
251
248
10000
4
341
265
10000
6
427
354
10000
8
Soo
438
10000
91
548
508
11000
0
250
213
11000
2
255
251
11000
4
268
257
11000
6
395
287
11000
8
539
417
11000
10
586
546
12000
0
264
225
12000
2
301
270
12000
4
323
304
12000
6
405
335
12000
8
576
431
12000
10
607
580
13000
0
284
242
13000
2
311
288
13000
4
347
316
13000
6
501
370
13000
8
565
511
13000
10
610
572
14000
0
324
275
14000
2
328
3.24
14000
4
349
331
14000
6
487
369
14000
8
636
509
14000
93
645
638
3of6

Measured Salinity After Tropical Storm Beryl (5/31/2012)
Distance Downstream of
Confluence with Herring Run (ft)
Depth Below Surface
(ft)
Temperature
( °C)
Salinity Measured
(PSU)
0
0
20.84
0.03
0
2
20.85
0.03
0
4
20.85
0.03
0
6
20.94
0.03
1,000
0
21.00
0.03
1,000
2
21.00
0.03
1,000
4
21.00
0.03
1,000
6
21.00
0.03
1,000
8
21.00
0.03
2,000
0
21.05
0.03
2,000
2
21.04
0.03
2,000
4
21.05
0.03
2,000
6
21.05
0.03
2,000
8
21.05
0.03
3,000
0
21.13
0.03
3,000
2
21.14
0.03
3,000
4
21.08
0.03
3,000
6
21.08
0.03
3,000
8
21.06
0.03
4,000
0
21.08
0.03
4,000
2
21.12
0.03
4,000
4
21.10
0.03
4,000
6
21.06
0.03
4,000
8
21.07
0.03
5,000
0
21.16
0.03
5,000
2
21.13
0.03
5,000
4
21.14
0.03
5,000
6
21.11
0.03
5,000
8
21.11
0.03
6,000
0
22.07
0.04
6,000
2
21.35
0.04
6,000
4
21.41
0.04
6,000
6
21.35
0.04
6,000
8
21.18
0.04
7,000
0
22.01
0.04
7,000
2
21.23
0.04
7,000
4
21.25
0.04
7,000
6
21.20
0.04
7,000
8
21.22
0.04
8,000
0
21.87
0.04
8,000
2
21.70
0.04
8,000
4
21.47
0.04
8,000
6
21.36
0.04
8,000
8
21.44
0.04
9,000
0
22.17
0.04
9,000
2
21.54
0.04
9,000
4
21.35
0.04
9,000
6
21.20
0.04
9,000
8
21.38
0.04
4of6

Measured Salinity After Tropical Storm Beryl (5/31/2012)
Distance Downstream of
Confluence with Herring Run (ft)
Depth Below Surface
(ft)
Temperature
(°C)
Salinity Measured
(PSU)
10,000
0
21.76
0.04
10,000
2
21.47
0.04
10,000
4
21.34
0.04
10,000
6
21.35
0.04
10,000
8
21.33
0.04
11,000
0
22.55
0.04
11,000
2
21.87
0.04
11,000
4
21.72
0.04
11,000
6
21.38
0.04
11,000
8
21.37
0.04
12,000
0
22.40
0.08
12,000
2
22.92
0.07
12,000
4
21.53
0.04
12,000
6
21.40
0.04
12,000
8
21.42
0.04
13,000
0
22.95
0.05
13,000
2
22.32
0.05
13,000
4
21.67
0.04
13,000
6
21.53
0.04
13,000
8
21.50
0.05
14,000
0
22.70
0.05
14,000
2
22.39
0.04
14,000
4
21.88
0.05
14,000
6
21.42
0.05
14,000
8
21.38
0.05
15,000
0
25.10
0.06
15,000
2
24.47
0.06
15,000
4
22.27
0.05
15,000
6
21.79
0.05
15,000
8
21.50
0.05
16,000
0
25.02
0.08
16,000
2
22.60
0.08
16,000
4
21.67
0.06
16,000
6
21.61
0.05
16,000
8
21.60
0.05
17,000
0
24.30
0.07
17,000
2
21.99
0.06
17,000
4
21.74
0.06
17,000
6
21.65
0.06
17,000
8
21.61
0.06
18,000
0
25.66
0.17
18,000
2
23.65
0.21
18,000
4
21.68
0.09
18,000
6
21.75
0.11
19,000
0
26.17
0.10
19,000
2
22.09
0.10
19,000
4
21.98
1 0.11
19,000
6
22.20
0.11
5 of 6

Measured Salinity After Tropical Storm Beryl (5/31/2012)
Distance Downstream of
Confluence with Herring Run (ft)
Depth Below Surface
(ft)
Temperature
( °C)
Salinity Measured
(PSU)
20,000
0
26.58
0.25
20,000
2
24.76
0.16
20,000
4
22.26
0.30
20,000
6
22.30
0.32
21,000
0
26.31
0.28
21,000
2
23.77
0.20
21,000
4
22.82
0.43
21,000
6
23.48
1.00
22,000
0
26.97
0.46
22,000
2
22.80
0.37
22,000
4
23.32
0.90
22,000
6
23.45
1.05
23,000
0
26.23
0.39
23,000
2
23.20
0.43
23,000
4
24.03
1.23
23,000
6
24.11
1.24
24,000
0
26.79
0.48
24,000
2
26.32
0.57
24,000
4
24.30
0.99
24,000
6
24.04
1.19
25,000
0
27.16
0.81
25,000
2
25.68
0.75
25,000
4
24.30
0.91
25,000
6
24.05
1.13
26,000
0
27.77
0.94
26,000
2
26.90
0.87
26,000
4
25.36
0.84
26,000
6
24.43
1.01
26,000
8
24.19
1.20
27,000
0
26.90
1.02
27,000
2
26.55
1.02
27,000
4
24.95
1.00
27,000
6
24.56
1.13
27,000
8
24.38
1.19
28,000
0
27.82
1.03
28,000
2
25.49
1.09
28,000
4
24.90
1.16
28,000
6
24.69
1.18
28,000
8
24.40
1 1.46
6of6

Attachment 2
GMA Aquifer Water Chemistry Sample Report

10/e12/2007 15:28 1- 252 - 758 -8835 GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 05/14
Environmental Chemists. Inc.
(1 6602 Windmill Way A Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
(910) 392 -0223 Phone a [phone] Fax
GChc:m Wn:�oLcam
Analytical & Consulting Chemists NCDENR: DWQ Certificate 1194, DLS Certificate #37729
NEW WELL INORGAMC CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Page 1 of 10
X'*- All iaffirm ift nacelbe P"Tied for plan tcAcw era&
WATER SYSTEM I #: County. Besuiort
Name of Water System: 1Vpartia Malrietta AQf>•rc�st>ps
Sample Type: X Source for Plan Review
Location Where Collected; 1
otv Teotsaanpe oo Al po,at.
Location Code. Collection Dnte of e i m Tilmte
Collected By: Jay flonvy
Mail Results to (water system reprruentative):
GMA
2025 — E EN to YD6ve
Glreenvr7le. NC 27850
08 /07/07 10:42 AM
)
Phone #: („_
Fax #: L_ 1
LABORATORY ID #: 3 7 7 2 9
❑ SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY ❑ RESAMPLE REQUIRED
FrCONTAM
'
CONTAMINANT
REPORTING LIMIT Ds R R4j p ! QUANTIFIED ALLOWABLE
M1✓TkIOU
CODE
COMP.
(R.R.L.) (7C)
RESULTS*
LIMIT
0100
Turbidity
001
0.10 Into
E3
! 272. NTU
N/A
1005
Arsenic
1 2 5
0.005 mg(L
X
_' ._mIO 1T.
0.010 s> WL
1010
Barium
169
0.400 mg/L
X
2.000 mg/L
1015
Cadmium
169
0.001 mg/L
❑
0.001 mg/L
0.005 WS/L
1016
Calcium
169
0.001 mg/L i
©
_ I_ X_1_..__ mtzl
NIA
1017
Chloride
L7__8
5.0 mg/L ',
©
7. melt,
250.0 mg/L
1020
Chromium !
1 6 9
0.020 mg/L
X
mgj
0.100 mg/L
1022
Copper
169
0.050 mg/L
X
mRLT
1.300 mg/L
1024
C y a n i d e
1 5 4
0.040 mg/L
X
r"a
0.200 tng/L
1025
Fluoride
1 0 7
0.100 mg/L
13
0.4 mail,
4.000 mg/L
1028
iron
169
0.060 mg/L
0.300 mg/L
1030
Lead
125
0.003 mg/L
X
ma/1.
0.015 Mg/j,
1031 Magnesium Lo. 1.0 mg/L 0 ,• 9.5 > malt. N/A
1032 Manganese l 6 9 0.010 mg/L 0 0.249 tng& 0.050 mg/L
1035 Mercury 103 0.0004 mg/L X mWL 0.002 mg/L
*Note: Concentrations for l„ cad and Copper arc action levels. not MCIA. # 16096 7-7579

NEW WELL INORGAMC CHEWgCAL ANAL ySjS
NOW. An h0m. .1=11"le-ullod for Plan tmAuw CFML Page 2 of 10
WATER SYSTEM ED --M[fin Marietta ColleebPa Date —Collection Time
Location Code: _ _Spit at wele 108/07107— 1 -40 AM
(WIDD7Vw) 4"Imnly AM or FM)
IABO TORY W 37729
CONTAM METRO REQUIRED '-=DEnrrED i
CONTAMNMT CICOIX RMP(TINGLWT I (;,*.<RR I QUANTrFIED ALLOWABLE
CObE RL) Do J-) RF-SULTS* LIMIT
-- ------- - (it
1036
-- -- --
Nickel
169
0.100
mg/L
x
M
N/A
1040
Nitrate
109
i 1.00
mg/L
x
Me&
10.00 MSIL
1041
Nitrite
i 109
0.10
mg/L
10.0 mg/L
me&
1.00 mg/L
1045
selenium
1 25
0.010
mg/L!
x
MWI
0.050 MA
1050
silver
169
0.05
mg/L I
mg&!
0.100 mg/L
.1052.
Sodium
169
1.0
mg/L:
Cl
N/A
1055
Sulfate
.'. - - -
i 137
I -- - -
5.0
- ---.
mg/L
- I -
-
WWI
250.0 mg/L
1068
Acidity
�cid '
. 144
1.0
Mg/L;
33.
mg(—L
N/A
1074
Antimony
1 125
0.003
mg/L I
x I
0.006 mg/L
1075 i
Beryllium
169
0.002
mstL,
x
nwJL
0.004 mg/L
1095
Thatliuttt
125
0.001
mg/L
x
Mw-
0.002 mg/l,
1095
Zino
169
1.0
mg/L
x
owt.
5.0 mg/L_
1905
Color
129
5
units
— 1 $ 0.
ulft
15 units
1915
Total Hardness 1
141
1.0 mg/L;
3 16 .
N/A
1925
p H
N/A
N/A 4S..94
units 6.50-8.50units
1927
Alkalinity
142
1.0 mg/L
—
13
mg/L N/A
1930
Total Dissolved Solids i
139
10.0 mg/L
E3 408
,
M&L 500.0 mg/L
*Notc-, Conwntmlons for Lead and Copper aft action Icycls. not MCLs,
]DATE: TIME,
ANALYSES BEGUN: 98/07/07 04:50 PM
ANALYSES COMPLETED: I1 03/15/07 04:30 PM
Laboratory Log 16 0 9 6 Certified By, ±kL, k- j(.%. CIL'— ik)li
COMMENTS; REPORT# 7-15,79

10/02/2007 15:28 1- 252 - 758 -8835 GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 07/14
exawa.ocern.
ANALYTICAL & CONSULTING
CHEMISTS
Customer:
Gld A
2025 -- E Eastgate Drive
Greenville, NC 27850
Attn: Jay Holley
E '0E
'0
nvironmental Chemists, Inca
6602 WmdmiU Way o Wilnnington, NC 28405
(910) 392 -0223 (Lab) • (910) 392 -4424 (.Fax)
710 Bowsertown Road o Mantco, NC 27954
(252) 473 -5702
NCDENR: DWQ 03RTIFICATE #94, ULS CM7ICATE 037729
1� ORI DF ANALMI
Date of Report: September 17, 2007
Purebase Order No.:
Report Number: 7 -7579
Bate Collected: 08/07/07 Report To: Jay Holley
Sampled By: James Holley Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
L D. IN 16096 Page 3 of 10
TRIHALOMETHANE FORMATION POTENTIAL - 7 IDav Incubation
Chlorine Residual after incubation = 3.1 ppm C12 frown a 30 ppm>t Dose
jugl �U21ysis
Chloroform mg/L — 0.216
Bromo %rem mgAL = < 0.001
Chlorodibromommethane mg/L _ < 0.001
Bro>tmodichlorommthane mg/L — 0.016
TFP mg1L = 0.232
4 hover Chlorine Demand = 17.6 pp m Ch
RALOACE TIC ACID FORMATION POTENTIAL. -- 7 IDay InSeation
-HAAFP Analysis
Monochloroacetic Acid mg/L _ < 0.002
L,Dichloroseetic acid mg/L = 0.051
Trlchloroacetic Acid mg/L 0.058
Monobromoacctic Acid mg/L _ < 0.001
Dihromoacetic Acid mg/L — < 0.001
TFP mg/L, = 0.109
/) r -
Reviewed by ,el l ���s , ��1),��,

10/02'/2007 15:28 1-252-758-8835 GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 08/14
Environmental Chemsts, inc.
6602 Windmill Way 9 Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
WN "WIM
4010 [phone] Phone • [phone] Fax r,("hemW@sjo1.C()"T
Analytical &Consulting Chemists NCDENR: DWO Certificate #94, DLS Certificate #37729
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS ANALYUS (VOCE) Page 4 of 10
WATER SYSTEM ID #.
Name of water system, - . -, ... .. M darietta AgimIg
aft r
Sample Type: E3 19utryPoint X Spedal/Non-vompliance
Location Where Collected: --- -- - - - Spiroffitwell
Location Code:
Collected By: . _JRmes- "I'l Net)
Mail Results to (water "an reprwentative):
---om-
2025 —E EagLate Drive . .
County: Beanfon
SCONUM101A 030 991g-c"o Jlmc
Phone M
2MQ
Fax #:
LABORATORY w #: 3 7 7 2 9
0 SAMPLE UNSATISFACTORY C3 RESAMPLE REQUIRED
WNTAM
CODE
CONTAMINANT
MEMOD
CODE
RMRTMO LRAff
QUANTMW
(i.e. < R.Rt,) R*
ESULTS
ALLOWABLE
LHW ff
(R.R.L.)
2030
217
0.0003
mg/L
X
mg/l,
NIA
2210
! Chlaromcthmie
217
0.000S
m9ft-
X
NIA
2212
DiibiiK iflu-c; We
211
0.605
mill,
mg/L
NIA
2214
Brvmomcthane
6.6605
MgAL
X
mg/L
NIA
2i16
chiumd-hpur,
217
0.0005
mg/L
X — — — — — --
!WL
NIA
Fluo6dahloromethane
2' 17
0.0005
0
T]#L
X
mg/L,
WA
2246
I Hawadlof6butodieffe
217
0.0005
mg1l,
X
mg/L
NIA
2248
Naphthalene
217
0.0065
M81L
X
Me,
NIA
2378
IX4.TrirM=bonzmc
217
0.0005
MA
X — — — — — —
mg/L.
0.07 nt$fIt
2390
Cis-4.2-Did0mabylene
217
0.0005
mg/L
X
mg4,
0.07 mg/L
2408
Dibmmomthanc
217
0.0003
PWL:
k
N/A
2440
1,1--Dichia W-- ropene
217
0.0005
MgIL
X — — — — — —
MP)L
N/A.
13-17ichlo'rampne
217
0.0005
mg1l,
X
mg/L
N/A
2413
1.3-vichlompmpoc
21 7
010005
1091
X _— — — — — — —
mg/L
N/A
2414
1.2.3-Triddompmpene
217
0.0003
mg/L
X
N/A
2416
2,2,-1)lch1ommnn.e
217
0.0005
Mg/L
X ---------
Ins/L:
N/A
2418
l,2A-Tdmcthylbwzmc
217
0.0005
mg/L
X -- — . . .
rngn.
N/A
2420
I"-Trichlombenzene
217
0,0005
mg/L
X — --- — — — — —
V1►11,
NIA
2422
n-I3utY1bcn=nc-
217-
0.0005
mg(l,
X -- - - - - - —
MOIL
NIA
2424
1,35-Trimthylbeamc
217
0.0005
in,*)L
X
M&IL
NIA
2426
Tcrt-Butylbemenc
217
0.0005
mg/l,
-- - - - - - -
X -- - - - - - —
mg/L
N/A
2429
Sec- Buvlbcwnnc
217
0.0005
Mg/l.,
X
mg/L
NIA ii
2430
Bromochloromthno
217
0.0005
mg/L
X - - - - --
ing/l,
N/A
2941
Chloroform
217
0.0005
ME/L
X
Mg/L
NIA
*Note: U
result exceeds allowable limit, the laboratory must fax analytical results to the State within 48 hours
# 16096 7-7579

10/02/2007 15:28 1- 252 - 758 -8835
GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 09/14
14 "XF ol�ment ne
6602 Windmill Way. Wiltninplton, North Cnmlina23405
a $ �
[phone] Phone a (910) 392 -4424 Pax I"Chernftbaol.com
Analytical 8t Consulting Chemists NCDENR: DWQ Cer'tliieate #94. US Certificate #37729
VOLATILE ORGANIC CHEMICALS ANALYSIS (VOC9) Page 5 of 10
Note: A!1 tnfomt*cm must be wMYied ft oontp Mac* otedit eorrthmixi)
WATER SYSTEM ID #: ALm"IR Mrietta _ +Collection Date -:F C li lime _
Location Code: _ Wen _ ( 0 8 0 7710 7 10 4 9 AM
LABORATORY ED N. 37729
COMAM : i
T
CODE CO 1'AMINANT
Affini D
COPE
"°`1""`°" ! M.FX- LMLI j
REPORTMO LDW ABOVE R.RL.
QUANTH9M)
REStJLT9 a
I
ALLOWABLE
LUW
R L.
2942
; Bmmoibrm
217
0.0005
mg/L
X
mg/L
N/A
2943
' i3rommgdichloromethano
217
0.0005
mg/L ;
X
- --- - J -- -- - _
mgJl,
- --- N/A
-
2944
! C lilorodibtomamethame
217
a000s
M 1
x
'
,�
rlin
2955
xylem (Total)
217
0.0005
mg/1.
X
- _ r _ ^ _
mg/L
10.00 MQA,
25164
; llidrloromcil+ane
21 7
0.0005
mg/L
X
mg/L I
0_._005 mg/L
2965
o C6lorototacnc_
217
0.0005
14C
x
_- --
mWL,
/A
2966
pChlor000luenc
217
0.0005
mg/L !
X
_.N
N/A
2967
' m-0iehlo►obetr>xtro ?
217
0.0005
rn
X
_ � ,, � -, --
a1gf J.
-
N/A
2968
- - - -
arlichlorobdtzene
-
217
0.0005
mg11.
X
_ _ . -- _ _
mg/L
0.60 mg/L
2969
P 13ictitotvl,cn„enc
217
0.0005
mg/L,
X
- _ , ,
mg/L
0.075 KWL.
297b
Vinyl Chloride
217
0.0005
mg/L
X
-- _
tng/L '
0.002 mg/L
2977
chtonncthylcnc
217
0.0005
mg/L •
X
--
mg/L
0.007 mg/L
2g7$
1,1- DiChloroetharte
21 7
0.0005
tnp�L
X
_ - - -T --
mg,/L
N/A
2979
; Tm,s t�,- Dicl,tarocthylenc
2 17
O.Q005
mgJL
X
_ " _ T__ --
mp,/L, i
0.10 mg/L
2980
1,2- ldichtomcthene
217
0.0005
mgn
X
mgtL
O.�S mg/I.
2981
1.1!.1 -Tr ichforo e t hnne
217
- 6.6005
mg/L.
X
_ _ _ -_
mg/lr.
0.20 __mg'L.
2982
Carbon Tc"Aia tide
217
0.0,065
tng/1,.
X
, -" _ _ -
mg/L 1
0.005 mg/L
2983
1,z•Dictrlonoptopanc
217
0.0005
mg&
X
_ , _-
mg/J. ;
0.005 mg/L
2984
Tdchlorocthy1mc
217
0.0005
MWL
X
-- _
mg/L. ,
0.005 mg/L
2985
1.1x2- Trichloncethane
217
0.0005
mg%L. '
7i
T - - - - --
ms/L.
0.005 mg/t,
2986
t,t,l,z- TcrrACblmnethenc
217
0.0005
-
mg/1
X
r- _
mWL.
NIA
-
29$7
-
T e t r s e h l o r n e t h y l e n c
2 1 7
0.0005
mg/L "
X
tng4,.:
0.0.05 mg/L
2988
1,1 .2,2 Tetrachlomethtme
217
0.0005
mglL,
X
- - - -,� -,
mg/L
N/A
2989
Chloroboazctte
217
0 -0005
mg/L '
X
- - - - -.
mg/L ,
0.10 mg/1,
2990
Benzcm
217
0.0005
mg/1.
X
_ _ _ - -_-
mg/i. !
0.005 mg/L
2991
Tol,xem
217
0.0005
mg/L .
X
-- -, _,-
m91L
1.00 mg&
2992
Ethylbenme
217
0.0005
tng/L
7C
- - - _ _
tug/[. '
0.70 mg/L
2993
DromobcozMe
217
0.0005
mg/L '
X
- - - -,_-
mg/L
NIA
2994
Isapmpylbenunc
217
0.0005
mg/L '
X "
-- -. -_-- --
mg/L
N/A
2996
Styrene
217
0 -0005
mg/L
X '
-- - - - ---
mglL
0.10 mg/L
2998
n- Propylbcnmo
217
0.0005
0191
X
_
ingli-
N/A
_ _
'Note: If result exceeds attowable limit, the labotatmy must fax unalytical results to tho State within
-- -- - -
48 hoin
DATE:
-TME,:
1.
ANALYSES IBEG[JN: 1
08 / 08 7
:00
11 AM
t
t
l�ftlm
(�„4 AM Omni 11 1
{II
ANALYSES COMPLETED: i,
AN
O S / 1 3 / 0 7
12:A0o..Pm
'
li
t
'
- .AigQel!SAM,..IhA)
.fMMfDp!!;Vl..
-
Laboratory um m 16096 �:cr
� -- urea nyr jut a .11, t cM kt 1 . , E. ;Ih„na�f �+/3rs * mid
COMMUN> , _� %�i2•• / C ��' - - REPORT # 7- 7 5 "% 9

10/02/2007 15:28 1- 252 -758 -8835 GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 10/14
Gh
nY>tronmentml _ cxnxsts. Inc.
6602 Windmill Way • Wilmington, Noah Carolina 28405
(910) 392 -0223 Phonc • (910) 392 -4424 Pax s ChcmWla pjLCC-ir,•
Analytical dt Consulting Chemists NCUEN1R: DWO Certificate #94. DLS Certificate #37729
PESTICIDES AND SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS ANALYSIS (SOC9) Page 6 of 10
Now. Aluno+maae "whe nNued tbreaeq bwo cmdit.
WATER SYSTEM ID #: County: Deatd'oirt
)Name of Water System: Martin Marletta Agarnates
Sample Type: 0 Entry )Point X SpecisyNon- compliance
Location Where Collected: SDlaot at Well
Ucation Code:
couected lily: Jamles 1lou
ems
Mail Results to (water system representative):
GMA
2(-25 — E Eastgate Drive
GreenviRe, NC 27850
LABORATORY TD #: 3 7 7 2 9
Ccol,moo-Date Cotlectlon Time
Phone #:
Fax #: (_
Cl SAM M UNSATtSiF'ACTORY 0 RCU1V)(pLE REQUIRED
CODS CONTAMINANT
MMOD
ODE
��v Chy�nnCONTAM
R FORTh LIMIT (ix- <RR.L)
UANTWM
*
ALL WWAHLE
2005
: Endtytl
2-L0
! 0.00001
mg/L •
X
- - - -_ mg/L
0.002 mg/L�
20I0
Lindartc
2 1 0
0.00002
mg1L
X — —
_ _ , ._ _ mg/L
0.0002 mg&
2015
Methoxychlor
2! 0
010001
mg/L
X — _
mg/L ;
0.04 mg/L
2020
T o x a p h e n e
2 ). 0
0.001
mglt
X ---
— — mgjL
0.003 mg/1,
2021
; Carbinyl
235
0.004
mg/L, ,
X _
-- — mg/L
N/A
2022
Methomyl
A3 5
j 0.004
mg/L ;
X _ _
-
mgjL '
NIA
2031
Dalapon
2 0 3
0.001
mg/L '
X — -
- - -- mg/L !
0.2 mg/r.
2035
Di(2�•ethylhexyl)adipatc
2 2 5
0.0006
mg/L '
X _ —
— — mg/L '
0.4 mg/l.
2036
Oxamyl(vydate)
2j 5
0.002
mg/L ,
X — -
—
- -_ mg/L
0.2 mg/L
2037
Simazine
2 10
0.00007
mg/L '
X — --
mg/L '
0.004 mg/L,
2040
Picloram
203
0.0001
mp/L •
X
mg/L ;
0.5 mg/L
2041
Dinoseb
2-6'3
0.0002
mg/L
__
X
- - --
mg/L
0.007 mg/l..
2042
wcxschl40mcyd0PtAtWiene
2 1 0
0.0001
tng/L ;
X _
, _ - mg/L,
0.05 mg/L
2043
Aldicarb Sulfoxide-
235
0.0005
mg/L :
X — —_
Mr A
N/A
2044
Aidicarb Su1;fone
235
0.0008
MWL, '
X — —^
— - mp/1,
N/A
2045
Metolachlor
210
0.0008
mp/L,
X — --
_— mg/L
N/A
2046
Carbofuran
235
0.0009
mg/L
X — —
Ing/L
0.04 ing/L
2047
Aldicarb
235
0.0005
mg/L
X _ _
_ _ mg/L
N/A
2050
Atrazine
210
0.0001
mg/r,
X — • -,•_
— — mg/1,
0.003 mg/L. !
2051
Alachlor
2 1 0
0 -0002
mg/L
X _ -
— —
- -_ -- tng /L
0.002 mJI. 1
2065
Heptachlor
210
0.00004
mg/L
X
mgA,
0.0004 mg/L J
* Note: if raiuit exceeds allowable
limit, the laboratory must fox analytical
1CSIS111 to the State within 48 hours.
# 16096 7
^7579 -

10/02/2007 15:28 1-252-758-8835 GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 11114
4=0 gnv1r0=e-ntq1 Chemists, Inc.
6M Windmill Way • Wilmingwri, North Carolina 28403
[phone] Phone* [phone] Fax EChurnftilaol.coni
Avidytical &Consulting Chemists NCDENRI. DWO Certificate 094. JDLS Certificate 437729
PESTICIDES AND SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS ANALYSIS (SOCs) Page 7 of 10
(continu..
MO. All to MM3tb0vWp6d far "Imar WLWIL
WATER SYSTEM 10D #.- _N#d%.NLa 'et A9WW—tft. I Collection Da
Qoj Le Whom - I imme
Location Code: well U
11 . 4.90.71-0 7 10-.40
A
I t -- V V) (5;;-. f-,, *A. FW
Lwwmmy it) #. 3 7 7 2 9
CONTAM
MDF-
CONTAMINANT
REQUIRED XQJ DETECTM I
METHOD QUAMIFF.0
. lkSMTMLWT ABOVERAL.
CODE PESULTS*
L
I
ALWWABU
13
Lmr
2066
3-flydroxycarboftm i
"E-poxidc-
23 5
0.004•
mWL
Ingti,
N/A
2067
1 Heptacblar
0.00002
Mg/j,
x
mg/L
0.0002 mg/L
2070
Dieldrin
2_1 0
0.0002
M811-
x — — —
mg/L '
N/A
2076
Butadflor
210
0.008
MP)L
x --- — — — — —
1"giL
N/A
2077
ftx"ddor
210
1 0.006
mg/L
x
MgIL
NIA
1105
2,4-0
2 02
0,0001
M
x
mg/L
0.07 mg/L
2110
2.4,5 TP (Silvex) 1
203
0.0002
mg/L
7
x
tng/L
0.05 ,mom,
Ht
e
2 I-0
0.0001
mg/L
A
MSIL
0.001 mg/L
2298
, Di(2-4thylljcx'y'l)phtha1ate
225
i 0.00132
mg/L
x — — — — —
mg/L
0.006 m&t
230G
; senzo(opyrene
2 2 5
i 0.00002
mg/L
x
mg/L
0.0002 mg/L
2326
Pentachlorophenol
203
0.00004
mg1L.-
x --- — — — — —
0-001 MSIL
2356
Aldtin
210
0.0002
mg/L
MOIL
NIA
ijb
TEX
x
MWL
mg/L
2440
b6ntba
203
i 0.001
mg/L i
x
mg/L
NIA
2595
Metribuzin
2 1 0
0.0008
mg/L
x
MOIL
N/A
iO3, I'
b9cp"
219
0.00002
mg/l,
x
mg1L
0,0002 mg/i.,
2944
EQO= DibrvMW (E DD)
219
0.00001
i4i
x
mg/L:
0.00005 mgtL
2959
Chlordane
6
0.0 002
mg/L
x
0,002 mg/L
*Note: If result cxeCCd,,4 allowable limit IM laboratory must &x tmalytical results to the State within 48 hours.
DATE; TEM:
ANALYSES BEGUN' 08/09/07 07:00 AM
("M-MWM - - FFP�,Amwm
ANALYSES COWLETEID: .08/23/07 2.-. _3 0.-.M
Laboratory Log 1 6 0-9.6
(Rint and sign name)
I ":,? -,
COMMENTS:
REPORTH 7-7579

10/02/2007 15:28 1- 252 -758 -8835 GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 12/14
t '
Environmental Chemists, Inc.
* N A 6602 Windttull Wov a Wilmington. North Carolina 24405
t911►y 3y2 -tt223 Phone * t910) 392 -442• Fax
Li(hcutW fool, ctm
Analytical & C'onsulting Clumus(s NCDENR: OWQ Certificate #94. DLS Certifiutte II37729
.... � .....��_•_..�....._...,.- .,.,.� �....- •------- ..r.,.,�.... -- - ]BACTI;IIId)Li)G1GCALAj,NAg,ySlg' .._M......._.....-....__ �_ _.��.-- ..._...,_..�.,T_..._..._
Note A1Uppropnate information muxt be supplied fi,r a,mplionce audit. page 8 Of 10
Water Systelml ID #: _ - - W -�� County: Ae, a L4 fey w�
d� o
Yartte of Water Systerrt: ' M a� K M• pr �'c..��•n 1,���i-e A 4 �� P�' o , ec,�' � �_ ).
Sample Typet ❑ Routine distribution C3 Repeat 0 Plan Review EI Special/Non- compliance
Location Where iCollected: Sb; 4,07E � � we /./ !`jZA We
Location Code:
G "ollected J03 y_ 'a ,�r „ O l,M
Vail Results to (water system representative).
Cretin yol f na.L a -7 91 _N --
- - -
Nione No.; I y9'r32 J V
"ax No,: r-
a S� — '7a �^ �S •��
tesponsible Pe rsoren Ewa& ,
,aboratory ID #: 3 7 7 2 9
RiESIf L S
,'ONI'AWNANI' Mr11IOD CODE
tIRrsFNTt,' Ansrrrr
'otal Coliform 3 1 2
'cral /Fi.Coli
,&ftCl t to Collectil'Aln o
(MMmnNY) (Specify Am or PM)
Also - Cotnvlete for RCPF-AT Samples:
Previous Positive Location Code:
Ptrevious Collection Date:
Proximity of I sample to Previous 1Positive;
❑ Same Tap ❑ Nearer to the Source 13 Further from the Source
if Chlorinated: Total Chlorine Residual: mg/L
Free Chlorine Residual: mg/L.
Combined Chlorine Residual: mg/L.
(Combined t:hladnc - laralrhlorina mi,tu., RRe /,;hlonnet)
Note- Also record lhsae voluas on your water aaage report.
0 Repeat Samples Required from Client
❑ Resample required from Client
Ai PS.Mb
iNVAL D CODE N i 1) Conlluent Urowth/No Coliform Growth found
2) TIM/No soli form Growth found
3) Turbid Cultuin No colifotm Growth Ilottnd
4) aver Sit flours 0141
- Ietcrotrophic P.C. _ cflthnL S) improper smnple or Analysis
number
Nolen IfI--otnt ,:.,—Jiro Anctarin is prow. tho laboratory must rax analytical miens lot the Slate within 48 hours.
if Rval /l± C oli bacteria jg present, the laboratory must f x aealylic d rosalts to the state cat dlty tact e,tmpleted,
tnvalid tuaotples (code N5) should be iwompontod by an explanation in the commcnta below
�
1 r 2
_
Analysis Begun: _ l I C , -M
Analysis Completed;
;tboratory Lug; �' _..__ i- "' 76 -- -- - Certified Gy t- � .-'� C
Oz
t 91V114 EN l :S-
-,sou ..._... .. - -- -- - - - - -- ----- •- • - - - -- — - -. �.----------- __.— __— ._---- ...___._ _�,.- --- • - - - -- - � _ -.,_ -- -
�� {� d� Ne v)

10/02/2007 15:28 1- 252 - 758 -8835 GMA GREENVILLE NC PAGE 13/14
RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
Note. All odbrmW= uum be mppiiod &r c"qfimw. midst
WAITER S1CS'I'EM Ili #: county.
Name of Water System: /✓%►r'�-{ -
Sample Type-, 0 Distribution Cl Entry Point O Composite eciamon-comp6ance
- �ollectio>m ]fate
Mail Results to (systems repmentative): ptdad 1 Duty Th m 1m` Sampk Callerted
(11tM OUNT) 00 -*AM -Do Code E4K2d4 n
BY
s;tl(w - �'!�-_.� t =,J ° _M ___
Telephone #'
Fax 4:
4 °Qtr
-- --Q=drr. �r•r...: =: _.: `- a=- :ra;ur..r- .r+nr- iv-= .:r:.�� =c_ __:.__ _ :_.:_�_ .r.. -a �. .. _ ..._ ._._
LABORATORY AD #: X 2 7
0 9
0 SAll4P1LL UNSATRUFACTORY 0 RESAMPLE BEQU[EIE:D
COIvTAM
COOF,
CONTAMINANT
keQU1RFD
MFXttOD
CODE REPORTING LMT
1 D— RYG Ctisri
(i.a't R-RL)
= -�. r'
__ QVANTIktt~D
µ •
COUNTING
MtROR
— -
ALLOWdUXX
(PLR•1-)
(7Q
RESULTS*
UMIT
4OW 00,9:Z- Gross Alpha
435
3 pCi/L
0
—9�. pCuL
_, _1_. _�.
15 pCuL
4004
Radon
N/A
100 pCi/L
0
pCi/L
,,,,_
NIA
4006
Uranium
456
2 pCiA.
O
_ _ _
pCi/L
_
_ ..
20.1 pCi1L.
4010
Combined Radium
N/A
N/A
N /A,
_ _ _ _ — Will.
_
5 pCi/L
4020
R idium 226
446
1 pC:i/L
AL
pCi /L
— • � 0. —
3 pCi1L
4030
Radium 228
452
1 pCi/L
_ -- --
T ^ ^ ^ ^ pCuL
�.
f
2 pCi/L
4100
Gross Rota
4 3 5
4 pCi/L
_. .� Wilt-
—�.
50 pCi/L
4102
Tritium
NIA
1,000 pCi/L
Q
— — — �. —peal,
— -_ __ __
20,(X)0 pCiA
4172
Strontium 89
N/A
10 pCi/L
O
- -- • -- pCi/L
^_ ._ _
N/A
4174
Strontium 90
425
2 pCi/L
13
, -- —� pCi/L
— _ -- --
8 pC1/L
4264
Iodine 131
NIA
I pCi/L
13
_._ _ ^ . pCi/L
..._ . _..,
NIA
4270
Cesium 134
NIA
10 pc: /1,
_ 13
_ — ..- pcVL
N/A
"Note: If tesult excetmis allowable limit, the laboratory must fax aWytical results to the State within 48 hours.
DATE: TIME:
ANALYSES [BEGUN: 0 31
ANALYSES COMPLETED' �} � / „�+ 7 / �'� � � : � �-� �h
Laboratory Lot; #: w _(� ; '� (; erlifm i By-, lk ,IW U M,4 f iY%L`��,l'�
11 rT Pr'+�y�rnamci
REPORT#

O
I
V•J
r�
ro '
U
N l �
r
Sr Q ZW
H a
tq
V w
d1 0
a�
U tp A
•� cr
0)
S M �
0
of
ro u
w
,a
r�
a
pl, Pa
U
P4 a a
N N A
O N
Q
N W
rn d
m U
owl
O
r
Q
-J
U `
faG
A c
2
ER
N
0
H
V
r
l
s
M
M
� V
f �
#
old O
cp � - 1
o �
H
V
to
41
cn
9
f�
m
y.J
ra
v1
Y1i O
U
w
I
ro
U
I
U
D+
.1
N
01 I 01
PI/PT 39Vd
s
H
1.) 7 J O
Vi W «i
O -W
4J W
tl (v
z z x
alma
ON 3-MAN33H9 CW9
9688- 89L -ZSZ -I 8Z:9T L00Z /Z0 /01
ro
•r{
Jd
H
•a
a)
U
�i
s~
W
C,
N
Sa
J
ro
M
W
h
r-1
ro
.,a
.,a
H
w
w
m
ro
s4
d)
.r,
LqJ
G
S1$l3
ti.OJ,
1
'
ro
U
q JU
C
r� la fJ
-ri
`S
i J "j:
r
0
.r,
�
U
aJ
A
U
a-
h
0
a
iP,J
i W
k � (1•
p
vJ
W
�
u
'
Nrr
p
CU
�h
3
G)
N
W
A
V•o
.'
rte)
a
aft
+1
'124
p
p
11
w
4.2
Vu
t
Qi
�f
..•I
�r
h
O
O ,
H
n
�1+
41
v
O
"
ru
A
x
N
2
bN
•q �
W
�.
v
i
9
"a N
4JU )
a
n
°.�
w
°
N
�
urO
�
o
`�
41
°
v
to
u7 )
v
`4
b
b
v
f
�.!
y
0
1.)
4J
H
11
4.)
4J
I"
rp-I
,,
r,
0
0
N
4J
4/
V)
Ja
N d
p
,,
E•
o
�-
v
v)
Jk
W
a
W
P'
w
a
W
a
w
a
w
4J
y
,.
V,
�-yy
JC
ON 3-MAN33H9 CW9
9688- 89L -ZSZ -I 8Z:9T L00Z /Z0 /01
ro
•r{
Jd
H
•a
a)
U
�i
s~
W
C,
N
Sa
J
ro
M
W
h
r-1
ro
.,a
.,a
H
w
w
m
ro
s4
d)

Attachment 3
Model Results Comparison Tables

Vanceboro Future Pit Discharge Flooding Evaluation
RIVER
MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION (NAVD 88)
STATION
1 -YR (TIDES`)
5-YR (NO TIDE)
25 YR (FRICTION SLOPE)
100-YR (SURGE)
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
71300
3452
3849
3.97
3472
3849
3.77
3472
3849
3.77
3452
38.49
397
69286
3441
3569
1.28
3452
3567
1.15
3452
35.68
1.16
3441
3568
127
69176
34,41
35.67
126
3451
35.65
114
3451
3565
114
3441
3S65
124
66451
3239
3453
2.14
3250
3453
2.03
3250
34.53
203
32.39
3453
214
66402
3233
3451
218
32.44
3451
2.07
3244
34.51
207
3233
34.51
218
66353
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
66304
31.99
3424
225
32.14
3424
210
3214
34.24
210
3199
3424
225
66239
31.97
34.23
226
32.12
3423
2 11
3212
34.23
2.11
31.97
3423
226
63140
3157
3327
1.70
3167
33.27
160
31.67
3327
160
3157
3327
170
60629
30.28
3210
182
30.39
3210
1.71
3039
32.10
171
30.28
3210
1.82
60579
3025
3208
1,83
3036
32.08
172
30.36
3208
1.72
3025
32.08
183
60539
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
605W
3000
31.12
112
3008
3112
104
3008
3112
104
30.00
3114
1.14
60465
2981
3104
1.23
2992
31.04
112
2992
3104
1.12
29.81
3106
125
60067
21354
30.47
1.93
28.75
3047
172
2874
30.47
173
2860
30.53
193
60025
2851
3044
193
28.71
3044
1.73
2871
30.44
173
2859
3051
192
59989
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
59952
28.40
30.01
161
2861
3001
140
2861
3002
1.41
2857
30.12
1.55
59849
2832
29.85
153
28.52
2985
1.33
28.52
29.86
134
2856
3001
1.45
57421
2547
27.03
156
26.25
2703
0.78
27 43
2762
019
2847
28.58
011
57382
2542
2701
159
26.25
2701
0.76
27,43
2761
018
2847
2858
0.11
57351
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
57319
25.03
2579
0.76
2625
2646
021
2743
27.52
009
2847
28.52
005
57222
25.03
2560
0.57
2625
26.42
017
2743
27.51
008
2847
28.51
004
56714
25.03
2518
0.15
2625
26.33
008
27.43
27.49
006
28.47
28.51
004
55513
24.01
2410
0.09
25.04
2511
0.07
2614
2618
0.04
2713
27.17
004
54460
2175
2183
0.08
22.81
22.87
006
2403
24.08
0.05
2513
2517
0.04
53848
20.62
2072
0.10
2186
21.92
006
2323
2327
0.04
2444
2448
004
52597
19.81
1989
0.08
2123
2127
0.04
2266
2269
0.03
23.97
1 24.00
003
51462
19.07
1912
0.05
2038
2042
0.04
2168
2171
0.03
22.93
2296
003
50380
17.33
17.38
005
1856
18.60
004
1990
19.93
0.03
21.30
2133
0.03
49174
1556
15.62
006
16 96
17.00
004
1859
1862
0.03
20.25
2028
0.03
44901
1341
13.45
004
1525
15.28
003
1727
17.30
0.03
19.18
1920
002
44851
1326
13.31
005
1498
15.02
004
1690
1693
0.03
18.74
1876
002
44846
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
44842
13 18
1322
4
1479
1483
0.04
16.57
1660
003
1832
18.35
003
44742
13.06
1310
1464
14.67
003
1641
1644
0.03
18.19
1822
003
42007
10.40
1045
12.35
1240
005
1436
14.39
0.03
16.39
1641
002
41972
1038
1043
1233
12.37
004
1434
1437
0.03
16.37
16.39
002
41942
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
41912
1030
10.35
12.13
12 17
004
1411
1413
002
1594
1596
002
41827
10.21
10.26
1206
12.10
004
1404
1407
003
1588
15 90
002
40111
852
857
10.66
1070
004
1279
1282
003
1469
1471
0.03
36680
6.34
641
7
]05
879
883
004
1078
1080
002
1253
1255
002
34964
488
494
7.28
7.32
0.04
946
948
002
1159
11.61
002
34939
4.86
4.92
720
724
0.04
9.32
9.35
003
1145
1147
002
34909
NC -33
NC -33
NC -33
NC -33
34879
476
482
6
701
704
0.03
8.93
8.96
003
1087
1089
002
34800
467
4.72
6 93
6 97
0 04
8.89
8.91
0.02
10.86
10 88
0 02
28600*
0 96
0 97
1
2.24
2.26
0.02
4 71
4 73
0 02
9 30
9 31
0 01
25000
0 76
0.77
1
160
161
0 01
3 84
3 86
0 02
9.13
9.14
0 01
15900 **
0.57
0.57
0.82
0.83
0.01
2.68
2.69
0.01
8.95
8.95
0.00
7000
0.50
0 50
050
050
000
187
187
000
920
9.20
0.00
' Estimated daily tide with amplitude of Vat Blounts Bay
Z No change in downstream water surface elevation
S Downstream friction slope of 0.01%
° Theoretical 100-yr surge stage hydrograph based on FEMA FIS elevations and storm data and timed 12 hours after peak precipitation
* Confluence of Blount's Creek with Herrings Run
** Approximate location of the Cotton Patch

Vanceboro Future Pit Discharge Flooding Evaluation
RIVER
MAXIMUM WSEL VELOCITY (fps)
STATION
1 -YR (TIDES`)
5 -YR (NO TIDE)
25 -YR (FRICTION SLOPE 3)
100 -YR (SURGE°)
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
EXISTING
FUTURE
CHANGE
71300
032
159
1.27
0.50
159
109
050
159
109
032
159
127
69286
022
349
3.27
038
343
305
0.38
3.45
307
022
342
320
69176
005
085
080
008
083
0.75
008
084
0.76
0.05
083
078
66451
080
191
111
092
1.91
099
092
1.91
099
080
191
111
66402
070
184
114
084
184
100
084
184 1
100
070
184
114
66353
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
66304
0.53
121
068
057
1.21
064
057
121
0.64
053
121
068
66239
0.39
1.16
0.77
048
116
0.68
048
116
0.68
039
116
077
63140
012
154
1.42
021
154
133
0.21
154
133
0.12
154
142
60629
064
167
103
074
1.67
093
074
1.67
093
064
1.67
1.03
60579
051
1.60
1.09
062
160
098
062
160
098
051
160
1.09
60539
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
60500
115
2.64
1.49
124
264
140
124
2.64
140
115
261
1.46
60465
2.58
261
003
1.12
261
149
1.02
260
158
258
2 56
-002
60067
081
168
087
094
1.68
074
0.94
168
074
043
162
119
60025
069
1.61
092
083
1.61
078
084
161
077
0.36
156
120
59989
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
59952
078
2.03
125
093
203
110
0.93
203
110
033
189
156
59849
0.76
2 12
136
091
2 12
121
091
2 11
1.20
029
1.91
162
57421
089
180
0.91
025
1.80
155
011
131
120
003
090
087
57382
076
1.73
097
022
173
151
010
127
1.17
003
089
0.86
57351
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
57319
024
252
228
013
151
138
006
084
078
002
0.52
050
57222
013
2.08
195
010
122
1.12
006
073
067
002
048
046
56714
001
033
0.32
001
0.15
014
001
009
008
000
007
007
55513
2.11
217
006
274
277
003
328
330
002
369
371
002
54460
242
245
003
2.68
271
003
288
290
002
302
304
0.02
53848
164
1.68
004
187
190
003
2.14
2 16
0.02
224
2.26
002
52597
089
094
005
0.96
099
0.03
106
108
002
116
1.17
001
51462
210
2.13
003
274
276
002
341
342
001
391
3.92
001
50380
286
289
003
333
334
0.01
354
355
001
360
3.61
001
49174
1.63
164
001
177
177
000
1.82
182
000
185
185
0.00
44901
115
117
002
1.27
128
001
1.40
141
001
1.51
152
001
44851
332
3.37
005
500
503
003
6.41
642
001
7.35
737
0.02
44846
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
44842
338
343
005
517
520
003
672
6.74
0.02
776
7.77
001
44742
204
20S
001
238
238
0.00
2.67
268
001
287
287
0.00
42007
224
2.25
001
2.50
2 50
000
280
280
000
300
300
0.00
41972
172
173
001
2 11
211
000
24S
2.45
000
268
2.68
000
41942
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
41912
176
177
001
221
221
0.00
255
256
001
2.84
285
001
41827
240
241
0.01
271
272
001
297
298
001
323
324
001
40111
177
178
001
213
214
0.01
256
256
000
294
295
001
36680
1.88
188
000
218
219
001
272
272
0.00
317
317
000
34964
2.33
235
002
297
298
001
310
310
0.00
250
250
000
34939
2 16
219
003
3.23
325
002
418
419
001
434
427
-007
34909
NC -33
NC -33
NC -33
NC -33
34879
2.20
222
002
331
3.34
0.03
443
444
1 001
43S
1 437
0.02
34800
245
2.47
002
311
3.12
001
329
330
0.01
2.68
269
001
28600*
085
0.87
002
160
162
002
208
2.09
0.01
058
060
0.02
25000
062
0.63
001
132
133
001
184
1.84
0.00
-029
-026
0.03
15900 **
0.34
0.35
0.01
0.79
0.80
0.01
1.10
1.11
0.01
-0.68
-0.67
0.01
7000
000
000
000
000
000
000
090
090
000
-057
-0.57
000
Estimated daily tide with amplitude of 1' at Blounts Bay
' No change in downstream water surface elevation
3 Downstream friction slope of 0 01%
"Theoretical 100-yr surge stage hydrograph based on FEMA AS elevations and storm data and timed 12 hours after peak precipitation
* Confluence of Blount's Creek with Herrings Run
** Approximate location of the Cotton Patch

Vanceboro Future Pit Discharge Stability Analysis
Shear (Ib /ftr)
Velocity (fps)
RIVER
STATION
30Q2
1 -yr Max WSEL
30Q2
1 -yr Max WSEL
Existing
Future
Change
Existing
Future
Change
Existing
Future
Change
Existing
Future
Change
71300
000
004
004
000
003
003
004
159
155
003
134
131
69286
000
030
030
001
009
008
002
376
374
046
206
160
69176
000
002
002
000
000
000
000
090
090
009
048
039
66451
001
008
007
003
008
005
047
191
144
080
175
095
66402
001
007
006
002
1 007
0 05
033
184
151
070
1 168
098
66353
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
66304
001
003
002
001
002
001
035
121
086
053
102
049
66239
000
003
003
001
002
001
022
116
094
043
096
053
63140
000
005
005
000
003
003
003
154
151
015
106
091
60629
001
006
005
002
004
002
040
167
127
064
135
071
60579
000
005
005
001
004
003
024
160
136
051
126
075
60539
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
60500
001
017
016
006
014
008
043
264
221
115
216
101
60465
006
017
Oil
017
015
-002
107
261
1S4
258
224
-034
60067
003
006
003
003
006
003
089
168
079
094
145
051
60025
002
006
004
002
005
003
079
161
082
080
138
058
59989
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
DITCH CULVERT
59952
003
010
007
003
007
004
087
203
116
092
162
070
59849
002
Oil
009
003
008
005
086
212
126
089
169
080
57421
003
007
004
003
006
003
097
180
083
099
147
048
57382
002
007
005
003
005
002
084
173
089
086
137
051
57351
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
NPDES DISCHARGE POINT
57319
006
022
016
001
010
009
121
284
163
051
185
134
57222
009
017
008
000
005
005
144
258
114
028
134
106
56714
004
017
013
000
000
000
056
134
078
003
018
015
55513
007
010
00031
032
001
071
104
033
211
214
003
54460
006
021
01043
044
001
066
149
083
242
243
001
53848
006
014
001
0 19
0 19
000
064
119
055
164
166
002
52597
003
009
006
006
006
000
047
097
050
089
091
002
51462
001
005
004
028
028
000
029
076
047
210
211
001
50380
005
014
009
053
053
000
062
118
056
2 86
287
001
49174
003
005
002
018
018
000
052
075
023
1 63
163
000
44901
001
006
005
008
008
000
030
083
053
115
116
001
44851
000
001
001
070
071
001
012
038
026
332
334
002
44846
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
RAILROAD
44842
000
001
001
072
073
001
013
038
025
338
340
002
44742
003
009
006
0 25
025
000
054
096
042
2 04
204
000
42007
001
003
002
0 31
031
000
031
055
024
2 24
224
000
41972
000
001
001
0 18
018
000
009
027
018
1 72
173
001
41942
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
TRIPP RD
41912
000
001
001
019
019
000
009
027
018
176
176
000
41827
002
004
002
036
036
000
036
058
022
240
240
000
40111
005
010
005
019
019
000
063
095
032
177
177
000
36680
000
003
003
020
020
000
009
054
045
188
188
000
34964
000
000
000
033
033
000
000
021
021
233
234
001
34939
000
000
000
028
028
000
001
017
016
216
217
001
34909
NC -33
NC -33
NC -33
NC -33
34879
000
000
000
029
029
000
001
017
016
220
221
001
34800
000
000
000
036
037
001
001
021
020
245
246
001
28600'
000
000
000
004
004
000
-002
001
003
085
086
001
25000
000
000
000
002
002
000
-001
000
001
062
063
001
15900"
000
000
000
001
001
000
-002
-001
001
034
035
001
7000
000
000
000
000
000
000
-003
-002
00,
000 1
000 1
000

Attachment 4
Water Quality Analysis Work Map

SALINITY ANALYSIS PLANVIEW -
I
0/
L1.
2DOO
A
f A
• \ L
N i)/
T
U
Y i
•
P
R Y� rt L
t
�1
• l
j
STABILITY mm6mmw gp,'` ANALYSIS
�6 - PLANVIEW
I+
VANCEBORO WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS WORK MAP -lA - .� STABILITY ANALYSIS PLANVIEVI
\ o/
NMESOelll-
//
o 1.5w 1
o/ /0

(0Q
900
U M
cu
CL
E
- N
LO
N �
Q
N
U CM }�
E
y�
i
F Y i is a
o E�iaK
w
t w
g
t,y v•ti =
s
0
all 9
v
.R.. °����.•.v•.•.. •:iii °i °a
N
n
y
V
O�O
0
w
�xc
M w n N
n M Lf1 e-i
M
<D
z 4
�
W
$g 1�
W
ri N N
N rH M
e
Z j
; J `11
p
p
HOi(r�, pyC
COY
Iii
1�'1�e
f
J
r`•�
: a)
re a
c�
L
1
K
Ur
ry
Q N
N Q
a
n
CO 9
�
V
one
M
0
all 9
v
.R.. °����.•.v•.•.. •:iii °i °a
r
n
y
V
O�O
W
w
�xc
M w n N
n M Lf1 e-i
M
<D
z 4
�
W
M N N lD
W
w
N r
�0 $
wo
y. U
B
a
e
0.
O
U
a
W
d
i�
3
..I�III1��� • �
p €ta tai =ggpea� � a
y ee f W ! !
1 °
a
n
s�
y p O
P m
� a�a
& � d
� W
ty
all 9
v
.R.. °����.•.v•.•.. •:iii °i °a
r
M
LL L.L L.L LL
;
un Ln M O
Op n W LD
M w n N
n M Lf1 e-i
M
<D
z 4
Ol O rl O
M N N lD
W
ri N N
N rH M
N f to
•i IH N
Z j
; J `11
p
p
HOi(r�, pyC
COY
Iii
1�'1�e
f
� y���� �r 'G
!
r`•�
: a)
re a
c�
L
1
co
Q
ry
Q N
N Q
cr
CO 9
a
one
M
a
e
0.
O
U
a
W
d
i�
3
..I�III1��� • �
p €ta tai =ggpea� � a
y ee f W ! !
1 °
a
n
s�
y p O
P m
� a�a
& � d
� W
ty
v
.R.. °����.•.v•.•.. •:iii °i °a
LL LL LL LL
LL L.L L.L LL
;
un Ln M O
Op n W LD
M w n N
n M Lf1 e-i
M
<D
z 4
Ol O rl O
M N N lD
W
ri N N
N rH M
N f to
•i IH N
Z j
; J `11
: a)
y
L
1
co
Q
ry
Q N
N Q
CO 9
a
v
M
o°
o°
Y
D
a) 4'
U N = ;
m
=
= s
Q 1
Co >
D] >
>
>
> g
F
O m
O
C�
v+
m
a y
a v v
E
V C
V C
Lp
O O co
C7 in 0-
Lq
O O ra
C! in CL
Q
'w
E E E
E E E
O O O Q
O O O Q
C
� 4- �
4- 4-
U
a
o- n. a
o- a Q 0
°
0)
E E E
E E E
F
O
= O
o
.v 7
7
Q W
o
U
o
a
a
e
0.
O
U
a
W
d
i�
3
..I�III1��� • �
p €ta tai =ggpea� � a
y ee f W ! !
1 °
a
n
s�
y p O
P m
� a�a
& � d
� W
ty
g
e b
�3
�c
z�
N
E Co
Ur
O
N
ti
O
O
J
U
Z
A N
70 O
> cu
O U
a
C CL
Q O
Z
0—
O
a� U N
O C o(N
0 0 > N
N O a�
v -0 U
0
0
M
CC1 Q
co
a)
CM m
G �
Ccu (L
G
o
a c
i
O Y
i.✓�
Ym
►l
.R.. °����.•.v•.•.. •:iii °i °a
g
e b
�3
�c
z�
N
E Co
Ur
O
N
ti
O
O
J
U
Z
A N
70 O
> cu
O U
a
C CL
Q O
Z
0—
O
a� U N
O C o(N
0 0 > N
N O a�
v -0 U
0
0
M
CC1 Q
co
a)
CM m
G �
Ccu (L
G
o
a c
i
O Y
i.✓�
Ym
►l

mx
Eg
Y m
C
,/

ja
a
yJs
a
N
O'er p
N
(n L
M
C m
M L
W
Y ,N
L
L Q N
L O
c O N O
. >_ N
M N
O LL
F- N
Z
�i
O
C
r.
°
'9
_o°
L �^^O
LL °
M or-
0 m L
° E— ELo
U ° :3°
z co
co Z �
��y °v
W M
M LJ O O
.� O)
o c
� Z
> co
� � U
a �
Q �
0
z
(u N
N �
C
U N
o U) C °
0 o > N
N�L�N
U)
° C (� °�
° ca
CO
M
25: co
c a
a)
W
ca
CL
C
a
m�
sg

0
�t
0
0
0
0
LA
0
0
N
O
0
n Z
CD
lO C
CD
a
CD
cr�a
CD CD
CD
rn
n
CD
n
O
i
�`-
O
i
C�
M _
CrJ
O
w�
q?�z
�OQ2i
(i
li
II
I I
c o
x a
a
W w rA z
b I i
b
d " i m tan �dy a N o a,
yy yy E3 7 r H 5
y
cr
Ct m
m
W'`
�s
S I
Brite
� r
too
�
n
I
.97
CD
tJ
E I
�= I
(i
li
II
I I
c o
x a
a
W w rA z
b I i
b
d " i m tan �dy a N o a,
yy yy E3 7 r H 5
y
cr
Ct m
m
W'`
�s
Brite
� r
too
�
n
(i
li
II
I I
c o
x a
a
W w rA z
b I i
b
d " i m tan �dy a N o a,
yy yy E3 7 r H 5
y
cr
Ct m
m
a.
N
d
CD
m
M
m
m
W'`
_
Brite
� r
7
CD
.97
CD
tJ
to �
a „
i�
>
•
0�
is7
C)
N
z
0
a
C
v
o
ro
°-
i'
e
�
\
��
ro
8
0.
o
9
o s
a
�
Cad
�
J
I
I
t
I
T
y
�
o
i
Crl
w
0
Ln
C
a
m
z
�
�
n
C
� 1
O
O
pOp
tTl
>
O
m
rx
'
M
m
H
to
O o
o
n
o
y
�
o
�
�
J
O
o
a
Z,
a.
N
d
CD
m
M
m
m
r�
l ^1,
\ 1
Road
W'`
_
Brite
� r
7
CD
.97
CD
a
y
a „
i�
>
•
a
is7
C)
I
a
C
v
o
°-
i'
a
,a
a
�
�
J
I
I
t
I
y
�
i
Crl
r�
l ^1,
\ 1
Road
W'`
_
Brite
� r
7
a
i�
•
I
i1 I
C�
ti
x�
► ►� I I I
i I I
u�
I
1 i �
f- s ,o c fie?
a vv w �v`'v M-19
� // .�.�I Cr �I x• Fe'' y`T' o , y .\ \ `\ i `?e'\ f '4 p�A 'p � fi \.
1 t►� to ce f A, �e s• ty , i
x/ x
?C iv vi
°.,%'ep Aye a
A\
\tie i..
A 1
M t '
� i
,.
t « f
t � v
1' _____________ ,
Ei _
Gol
1 i
It '
�* .t ao n a 3 0• ' t \
a °., a t j
E. y O ., y K p• m , i-
y y x b �g5 It
ta
t
ssA�sA�? It y vv ti`
It
A
It
O � � in � i • .
`
It
t ,
I existin rivate road -
_
r\ s
x ^
LLL
I
ti� tr
000� I I
o� I� � I
I
1
Clot, I I
I I fi f /
I t� m
� o
°om
l+J
0
q�
tai
�v
i
M
V1
`y®
1
Off'
O
1'
C�
liJ
O
C
tai
0
Schull 2 Road
I\
Nancy Branch Road
G
M
W
0
�a
r'i
� r
7
a
i�
•
I\
Nancy Branch Road
G
M
W
0
�a
r'i