20111013 Ver 2_Public Comments_20130312 (105)

Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and their consultants have made assumptions
based on computer models, data they have gathered and reference documents
from around the US and elsewhere. What I don't see being used is local
knowledge and common sense. Common sense suggests that you would sample
the fish population and species at different times of the year; however, only one
sample was taken.
In all the reports I've reviewed, far too often I see phrases such as "we do not
expect ", "it is assumed ", and "no adverse effect likely". What if they are wrong?
If the creek becomes polluted will they shut down the quarry? Shouldn't they be
required to post a bond for cleanup of the creek if their assumptions are wrong?
And beyond the scope of this meeting, why haven't they submitted an
Environmental Impact Statement?
One of their reports states that the pH of the creek will be increased from a range
of 4.0 -5.5 to^6.39. My understanding is that the pH of the creek cannot be
changed. From another report, and I quote "increase in pH and perennial flow
above Herring Run may provide more habitat for and less stress to a more diverse
assemblage of freshwater fish species and increased egg survival" and "increased
pH reduces the, so�ubilitty of aluminum and therefore the toxic effects of
aluminum. "VAluminum is toxic to fish. So two wrongs make it right? Dump
g g P
aluminum into the creek, but raise the pH so it's not so bad! Based on their lab
analysis, with a discharge of 9 million allons per day, we can expect 7 pounds of
aluminum to be discharged to the cree� is Jneany�1 % tons per year!
Furthermore, if it is less soluble will it just settle to the bottom of the creek?
I've seen no data describing how the temperature of the discharge water will
affect the temperature of the creek. Only a 5.04 degree F increase is allowed.
While I'm not against the quarry, let's ensure that Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
looks at the bigger picture, not just corporate profit, and chooses a plan to
protect Blounts Creek now and for future generations. To me, direct discharge to
Blounts Creek is not the best plan. Please contact our elected officials, and the
Division of Water Quality expressing your concerns. This is the first day of the 30
day public comment period. It is not too late to make your voice heard! Thank
you.