20111013 Ver 2_Hearing Officer Report_20130507

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 May 7, 2013
2 Memorandum
3
4 To: Chuck Wakild
5 From Kathy Stecker
6 Subject: Hearing Officer's Report
7 Martin Marietta Materials — Vanceboro 401 Certification
8
9 I recommend that the 401 certification be issued, with conditions as described below.
10
11 At your request, I functioned as the Division of Water Quality's 401 hearing officer for the proposed Martin
12 Marietta Materials open pit aggregate amine near Vanceboro along the Craven /Beaufort county line. The
13 joint NPDES /401 hearing was conducted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 at 7:00 pm at Beaufort County
14 Community College. Approximately 144 people were in attendance. I have attached a copy of the public
15 notice. Cyndi Karoly of the Wetlands and Storawater Branch provided staff support and prepared the
16 hearing record, also attached.
17
18 The site is located on a topographic high point, in the middle of a 90,000 -acre tract managed for
19 silviculture. The proposed 1,664 -acre quarry operation would result in unavoidable loss of 6.69 acres of
20 jurisdictional wetlands and 58,671 linear feet of man-made ditches. The ditches within the impact footprint
21 were identified as jurisdictional waters by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers because they ultimately tie
22 into natural features, so the waters contained within ditch network are considered Waters of the United
23 States. These ditches were historically excavated for silviculture operations and intercept groundwater.
24 But for the fact that the ditches drain to natural features, they would not be considered jurisdictional waters
25 by the Corps. With respect to the Tar- Paimlico Buffer Rules, the state definition for a'Ditch or canal' is a
26 man-made channel other than a modified natural stream constructed for drainage purposes that is typically
27 dug through inter- strearn divide areas. A ditch or canal may have flows that are perennial, intermittent, or
28 ephemeral and may exhibit hydrological and biological characteristics similar to perennial or intermittent
29 streams. [15A NCAC 02B .0259(2)(c)] These ditches are not subject to the Tar - Pamlico Buffer rules since
30 they were determined to be artificial, and the rules do not apply to ditches. Rather, the Tar- Paimlico Buffer
31 Rules apply to buffers directly adjacent to surface waters identified as intermittent streams, perennial
32 streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries [15A NCAC 02B .0259 (3)]. The definitions for subject and non-
33 subject features are provided inl5A NCAC 02B .0259 (2). Since these features were entirely excavated,
34 and do not exhibit characteristics of modified natural channels, stream and buffer mitigation requirements
35 are not applied by the Division.
36
Page 1 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 This is a controversial project. Local newspapers and television stations have covered the proposed quarry
2 and associated meetings and hearing. There are a significant nmmber of residents who are opposed to it.
3 Many support or do not oppose the mine itself, but they do oppose the discharge. The overwhelming
4 majority of comments made before, during, and after the hearing were about the discharge to the creek, not
5 the impact to wetlands and jurisdictional waters.
6
7 I have not considered comments about the discharge in my recommendations. Alternatives to the
8 dewatering discharge should be addressed in evaluation of the NPDES application.
9
10 I believe that a water quality certification can be issued for the proposed project. I offer some conditions
11 for your consideration. I recommend that staff construct appropriate language for including these
12 conditions in the certification. Conditions should address the following issues for the life of the project:
13 1.) Proper placement, storage, and stabilization of overburden.
14 2.) Monitoring headwater stream stability, and remediation as needed to prevent continued degradation.
15 3.) Monitoring adjacent surface water quality to ensure that the project does not result in violation of water
16 quality standards.
17 4.) Monitoring of perimeter ditches to ensure maintenance of hydration to wetland areas.
18
19 The Water Quality Certification rules for reviewing this project can be found in 15A NCAC 02H .0500.
20 I have visited the proposed amine site with Central and Regional Office staff. I have reviewed the
21 application, newspaper articles, maps, reports, and the hearing record. After a review of all pertinent
22 information, I offer these observations to assist you and the staff of the Wetlands, Buffers, Storrnwater
23 Compliance and Penmitting Unit in your decisions related to the issuance of the 401 water quality
24 certification.
25
26 I have organized my observations based on 15A NCAC 02H .0506, the criteria for certification.
27
28 (1). NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE, CONSIDERING POTENTIAL FOR REDUCTION IN SIZE, CONFIGURATION
29 OR DENSITY, AND ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS. THE BASIC PURPOSE CANNOT PRACTICALLY BE
30 ACCOMPLISHED TO RESULT IN LESS ADVERSE IMPACT TO SURFACE WATERS OR WETLANDS.
31 Supporting information is provided in the application. The proposed amine operation is intended to meet
32 local demand for aggregate material. The applicant states that there are no other known economically
33 viable aggregate deposits in this part of the state other than the proposed site, and that other areas in the
34 region contain more natural and altered wetland systems than the proposed site. The applicant relocated the
35 site boundary, which reduced the potential wetland impact by approximately 60 acres.
Page 2 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 RECOMMENDATION: THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE IS NO
2 PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE THAT CAN ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT'S BASIC PURPOSE WITH LESS ADVERSE
3 IMPACT.
4
5 (2). MINIMIZES IMPACTS BY DEMONSTRATING THAT SURFACE WATERS OR WETLANDS ARE ABLE TO
6 CONTINUE TO SUPPORT EXISTING USES AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION, OR BY DEMONSTRATING THAT
7 THE IMPACTS ARE REQUIRED DUE TO SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, OR THE PURPOSE
8 OF THE PROJECT.
9 The applicant believes that impacts to waters and wetlands have been minimized to the greatest extent
10 practical. The pit area was minimized to the smallest footprint that could meet the purpose of the project.
11 Some areas within the proposed project boundary that may contain additional reserves will not be mined, to
12 avoid impacts to 173.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. According to the applicant, the project's purpose
13 could not be accomplished if the remaining 6.69 acres of wetlands were to be avoided. The jurisdictional
14 waters within the site are entirely manmade drainage ditches; 58,671 of 99,059 linear feet are required to be
15 filled, excavated, or rerouted through the development of the amine, to accomplish the project's purpose.
16 RECOMMENDATION: THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED SUFFICIENT DEMONSTRATION THAT IMPACTS ARE
17 REQUIRED DUE TO SPATIAL CONSIDERATIONS, NATURAL FEATURES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT.
18
19 (3). THE PROJECT DOES NOT RESULT IN THE DEGRADATION OF GROUNDWATERS OR SURFACE WATERS.
20 Jurisdictional surface waters in the vicinity of the project area are classified C Sw NSW and C NSW. The
21 recommended conditions should ensure that the project (quarry pit and overburden stockpile) does not
22 result in water quality standards violations. This type of project would not be expected to result in
23 degradation of groundwaters.
24 RECOMMENDATION: THE PROJECT IS NOT EXPECTED TO VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, IF
25 ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
26
27 (4). THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT RESULT IN CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THAT CAUSE DOWNSTREAM
28 VIOLATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
29 Cumulative impacts are those impacts that would result from the incremental effects of the project added to
30 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities (15A NCAC 01C .0103). The project site is
31 entirely within an intensively managed pine plantation. This silviculture activity is expected to continue in
32 the reasonably foreseeable future, providing a buffer between the project and nearby jurisdictional waters.
33 RECOMMENDATION: THE PROJECT IS NOT EXPECTED TO RESULT IN CUMULATIVE IMPACTS THAT
34 VIOLATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, IF ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATION
35 AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
36
Page 3 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 (5). PROVIDES FOR PROTECTION OF DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THROUGH THE USE OF
2 ON -SITE STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES.
3 The project does not include development of significant impervious areas that would require on -site
4 storinwater control measures.
5 RECOMMENDATION: NO FURTHER ON -SITE STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES ARE REQUIRED TO
6 PROTECT DOWNSTREAM WATER QUALITY, IF ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE CERTIFICATION
7 AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE APPLICANT.
8
9 (6). THE PROJECT PROVIDES FOR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING USES THROUGH WETLAND MITIGATION
10 UNDER USACOE REQUIREMENTS. MITIGATION SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED FOR IMPACTS TO WETLANDS
11 LESS THAN ONE ACRE. MITIGATION SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF A 1:1 RATIO. OTHER RATIOS ARE
12 REQUIRED FOR SPECIFIC WETLANDS.
13 The applicant proposes to pursue mitigation through in lieu fee payment to NC EEP for a 1:1 mitigation
14 ratio.
15 RECOMMENDATION: THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED SUFFICIENT MITIGATION.
16
Page 4of16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
2 FOR
3 MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS — PROPOSED VANCEBORO QUARRY
4 APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND
5 APPLICATION FOR NEW NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT
7 NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
8
9 The North Carolina Division of Water Quality will hold a public hearing on Thursday March 14,
10 2013, beginning at 7:00 pm at the Beaufort County Community College, Building 8- Auditorium,
11 5337 Highway 264 East, Washington, NC 27889. Doors will open at 6:00 pm for speaker
12 registration and sign -in. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow interested persons to submit
13 oral and /or written comments on the proposed Martin Marietta Materials Vanceboro Quarry,
14 specifically regarding the 1) application for 401 Water Quality Certification, and 2) application
15 for new NPDES discharge permit.
16
17 Background /401 Certification
18
19 PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that Martin Marietta Materials has applied to the North
20 Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) for a 401 Water Quality Certification pursuant to
21 Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and Water Quality Commission rules in 15A NCAC
22 2B .0101, 15A NCAC 2B .0231 and 15A NCAC 2H .0500. The activity for which this
23 Certification is sought is to impact 14,937 linear feet of jurisdictional man -made ditches and 6.69
24 acres of 404 jurisdictional wetlands to construct a proposed 649 -acre open pit aggregate mine
25 located on the Beaufort/Craven County line. To mitigate for the proposed impacts the applicant
26 proposes to restore 6.75 acres of non - riparian wetlands via payment to the North Carolina
27 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP).
28
29 Background/NPDES Permit NCO089168
30
31 PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that on the basis of preliminary staff review and application of
32 Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina, and other lawful standards and
33 regulations, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission proposes to issue a new
34 NPDES permit for this facility subject to specific pollutant limitations and special conditions. The
35 proposed NPDES Permit NCO089168 to Martin Marietta Materials provides for a discharge of up
36 to 9 MGD of mine dewatering and comingled stormwater to unnamed tributaries to Blounts
37 Creek, a Class C Swamp NSW water in Beaufort County within the Tar Pamlico River Basin.
38 This proposed discharge may affect future discharge allocations. The facility will be located off
39 Welbourn Road, near Vanceboro, on Weyerhaeuser property.
40
41 Public Hearing /Procedures
42
43 The public is invited to comment in writing on the above - mentioned 401 application and NPDES
44 permit as well as speaking during the Public Hearing. Those wanting to speak will need to
45 register at the hearing, and speaking sequence will be based on the order of registration.
46 Registration will begin at 6:00 pm. Speaking times may be limited to 3 minutes maximum per
47 speaker, with the final time limit to be determined on the day of the hearing depending upon the
48 number of registered speakers. Cross examination of persons speaking will not be allowed;
49 however, the Hearing Officers may ask questions for clarification. Written comments may be
50 forwarded at any time before or after the hearing provided they are received by the Division no
51 later than April 12, 2013.
Page 5 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
2 Written comments may be sent via regular mail to the N.C. Division of Water Quality, Wetlands
3 and Stormwater Branch, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699 -1650, Attn: Cyndi
4 Karoly, or emailed to [e-mail] (Phone 919 - 807 - 6380). Comments may also be
5 hand - delivered to the physical location of the DWQ Central Office at Room 826T, 512 N.
6 Salisbury St., Raleigh, NC, 27604, or the DWQ Washington Regional Office at 943 Washington
7 Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina, 27889, Attn: Amy Adams (phone [phone]).
8 Please be sure to identify the Vanceboro Quarry project in the subject line of your
9 correspondence to ensure proper routing.
10
11 Information
12
13 Copies of the 401 application are posted online at:
14 http: / /its.enr. state. nc. us /laserfiche8 /Login.aspx ?db =NCDWQ (Username: public, Password:
15 password). Copies of the Draft NPDES permit and Fact Sheet are linked online at:
16 http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /swp /ps /npdes /calendar.
17 Copies of both 401 application and NPDES Draft Permit/Fact Sheet are also available at the
18 DWQ Washington and Raleigh Central locations listed above during normal business hours (8:00
19 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) and may be inspected by the public. Original physical copies of all public
20 comments received will be filed at the Raleigh location, and will also be available online. Those
21 wishing to view the physical file materials are advised to schedule an appointment to ensure that
22 the file is available for a dedicated time slot. File materials may not be removed from any DWQ
23 office, as copy machines are available for use at a nominal charge.
24
25 Charles Wakild, P.E.
26 Director
27 N.C. Division of Water Quality
28 Date: February 4, 2013
Page 6 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 PUBLIC HEARING
2 FOR
3 MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS — PROPOSED VANCEBORO QUARRY
4 APPLICATION FOR 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
5 BEAUFORT AND CRAVEN COUNTIES
6
7 Beaufort County Community College, Beaufort County, North Carolina
8 Thursday, March 14, 2013, 7:00 p.m.
9
10 Summary prepared by Cyndi Karoly
11 Approximately 144 people in attendance
12
13 Paul Rawls, after introducing himself and Kathy Stecker, called the hearing to order. He noted
14 that the two of them work for the Division of Water Quality and have been designated to serve as
15 the hearing officers by the Director of DWQ. Mr. Rawls expressed his appreciation to everyone
16 attending the hearing this evening. He asked for any public officials present to identify
17 themselves to be recognized, but none were present. He asked all DWQ staff members to stand,
18 and advised attendees that staff would be available to assist them throughout the evening.
19
20 Mr. Rawls then explained the purpose and procedures of the hearing. He noted that the hearing
21 was being held to receive comments on the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
22 System ( NPDES) Permit as well as the 401 Water Quality Certification. He listed the NC
23 General Statutes providing the authorization to conduct the hearing. He stated that in North
24 Carolina, every individual who proposes a discharge of waste into Waters of the State is required
25 to obtain an NPDES Permit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authorized the
26 State of North Carolina and Division of Water Quality to issue or deny these permits.
27 Furthermore, those proposing to impact jurisdictional wetlands must apply for a Section 401
28 Water Quality Certification under the Clean Water Act, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWQ and
29 the NC Wetlands Rules.
30
31 Mr. Rawls noted that in addition to comments provided at the hearing, written comments would
32 be accepted through April 12, 2013. He also stated that the hearing was being recorded, and that
33 a written record would be prepared. All comments received will become part of the hearing
34 record. These comments will be taken into consideration for the recommendation to issue, deny,
35 or issue with modifications the subject permit and certification.
Page 7 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1
2 Mr. Rawls then asked Mike Parker to provide an overview of the 401 process. Mr. Parker
3 proceeded with a narrative to place the 401 portion of the hearing into perspective.
4 Mr. Parker indicated that the CWA 404 Permit application (and subsequent need for a 401 Water
5 Quality Certification) for this Individual Permit was described by the U.S. Army Corps of
6 Engineers in a Public Notice issued January 4, 2012. According to the Clean Water Act, each
7 federal permit must have a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water
8 Quality. A 401 Certification is a Certification by the Division of Water Quality that the project
9 will not violate any relevant water quality standards and regulations. The procedures for
10 obtaining a 401 Certification in North Carolina are described in the NC Wetlands Rules.
11
12 Mr. Parker's presentation outlined the basic 401 review process in which DWQ must determine:
13 1) Whether significant existing uses are present in the waters or wetlands and whether the project
14 would remove or degrade those uses.
15 2) Whether the project will result in degradation of groundwaters or surface waters,
16 3) Whether the project results in cumulative impacts,
17 4) Whether the project provides for protection of downstream water quality standards through
18 stormwater controls,
19 5) Whether the wetland and stream mitigation plans (where required) will replace the existing
20 uses of impacted streams and wetlands.
21
22 Mr. Parker indicated that for Individual 404 Permits, the 401 Wetlands Rules require that DWQ
23 will not duplicate the site - specific application of any guidelines used for review by the U.S. Army
24 Corps of Engineers. He described the impacts proposed within the 401 application, including the
25 proposed fill of 58,671 linear feet of jurisdictional man -made ditches and 6.69 acres of
26 jurisdictional wetlands to construct the proposed Martin Marietta Materials Vanceboro Quarry in
27 Beaufort and Craven Counties, North Carolina.
28
29 Mr. Parker noted that the 401 hearing officer would ultimately make a recommendation to Chuck
30 Wakild, Director of the Division of Water Quality. If the recommendation is to deny the 401, the
31 applicant will either need to modify the project to be acceptable for issuance of a 401
32 Certification, or appeal the denial. If the recommendation is to issue the 401 with conditions, the
33 applicant will then need to obtain the 404 Permit. All 401 Certification conditions then become
Page 8 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 conditions of the 404 Permit. If the recommendation is to request additional information in order
2 to make an informed decision, the applicant will be required to provide the information.
3
4 Mr. Rawls then asked Tom Belnick to provide an overview of the NPDES permit and process.
5 Mr. Belnick proceeded to describe the NPDES application. Martin Marietta has requested a new
6 NPDES Permit to discharge up to 9 million gallons per day quarry dewater and stormwater to
7 tributaries to Blount's Creek within the Tar - Pamlico River Basin. Blount's Creek is classified as
8 freshwater Class C, with supplemental designations of Swamp and Nutrient Sensitive Water.
9 Prior to discharge, the wastewater will be treated in 50 million gallon clarification ponds to allow
10 solids to settle out. The NPDES draft permit was developed to ensure compliance with state
11 surface water quality standards for class C waters, as well as federal effluent guideline
12 requirements for mineral mining. The draft permit includes limits for flow, turbidity, settleable
13 solids and pH. Monitoring frequency is set at monthly, consistent with state regulations for
14 mining activities. Special condition A(3) requires the applicant to secure an approved pumping
15 operation and monitoring plan, prior to commencement of mining operations. This plan will
16 ensure that groundwater pumping does not impact the hydrology of adjacent streams and
17 wetlands. As part of the NPDES permit process, the applicant was required to evaluate several
18 wastewater disposal alternatives. Based on this evaluation, a direct discharge to Blount's Creek
19 was determined to be the most economical and technically wastewater disposal option, with a
20 projected 20 -year cost of 3 million dollars. In comparison, a groundwater reinjection disposal
21 option was estimated at 12 million dollars, and land application disposal was estimated at 23
22 million dollars. The potential use of quarry water for public water supply was also evaluated, but
23 there was limited local interest. Only the Town of Vanceboro expressed some interest, but based
24 on current water usage, they would only use up to 5% of projected quarry discharge volume.
25 There have been concerns raised about the potential impact on downstream waters. Based on
26 water quality modeling, the proposed discharge is likely to raise pH in the immediate discharge
27 location to pH 6.3 to 6.9, which complies with Class C water quality standards. The model does
28 not predict any significant change in pH or salinity in the downstream estuary. Hydraulic
29 modeling was also conducted for the headwaters of Blount's Creek. These results indicate that
30 stream velocities will increase during low flows due to the additional quarry discharge, which
31 should remain below maximum permissible values. Also, the quarry discharge is projected to
32 have a minimal effect on the one -year peak flow hydraulics of Blount's Creek. In conclusion, the
33 Division believes the draft permit will be protective of state Water Quality Standards for Class C
Page 9 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 waters, and is consistent with the North Carolina administrative code, as well as federal effluent
2 guidelines for mineral mining.
3
4 Mr. Rawls then provided instructions for continuing the public hearing; he indicated that
5 individuals would each be allowed 3 minutes each so that everyone who wished to speak on the
6 record would have an opportunity. He asked that speakers identify their affiliation or who they
7 were representing if desired. He indicated that written comments, at any level of detail desired,
8 would be acceptable for an additional 30 days. He indicated that oral statements from every
9 individual who signed up to speak at the front table would proceed in the order of registration.
10
11 Mr. Rawls, prior to recognizing individuals offering public comment, indicated that each speaker
12 has a desire to offer their opinions and information to be treated with respect. He therefore
13 requested that there be no applause or shouts for support from the audience. In turn, the audience
14 and all speakers then proceeded to voice their comments in a very articulate, respectful, and
15 orderly manner. The following provides a narrative of talking points expressed by each of the 22
16 speakers. The full speeches are not transcribed, as a recording was made and is available to
17 anyone wishing to listen to the entire hearing.
18
19 Just prior to calling speakers, Ms. Karoly noted that the file materials, as well as all comments
20 received by the Division, will be scanned into laserfiche and available to the public via the
21 internet. The instructions for submitting written comments, as well as for viewing the materials
22 online, are described in the public notice of the hearing. Abundant hard copies of the notice were
23 available at the hearing.
24
25 Speakers:
26
27 Dick Hamilton, Coastal Fisheries Reform Group, NC Wildlife Federation.
28 Sport fisherman, from Belhaven, with many friends on Blount's Creek, which is a
29 treasured resource to all. Representing over 2000 members in Coastal Fisheries Reform Group as
30 well as over 30,000 outdoor enthusiasts in NC Wildlife Federation. The proposed discharge will
31 deplete the aquifer, and degrade biology of Blount's Creek. Suggest more study is necessary
32 prior to issuance of permits. Pamlico River downstream will be affected. Many estuarine fish are
33 located in vicinity, more than shown in 2 day study described in application. Blount's Creek is a
34 popular and productive sport fishery important to the County. We should protect aquifers, the
Page 10 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 best source of fresh water to coastal NC. The stakes are too high, don't roll the dice on Blount's
2 Creek.
3
4 Billie Mallison, Self, Citizen, Beaufort County.
5 30 -year resident of Blount's Creek area. From opening speeches, it sounded like the
6 permits were already planned to be issued, and the hearing is just a formality. Heard reports that
7 this company had a project in Florida where some blasting agents hadn't exploded, and then
8 contaminated groundwater. Not sure of which chemicals the NPDES process considers. The
9 discharge point into a freshwater swamp is too short a distance from the creek. It will be like a
10 daily flood. We can't prove that the discharge won't harm Blount's Creek. We rely on the river
11 as our greatest resource second only to our people. Concerns about flooding, sediment, turbidity,
12 estuarine health, fish behavior. There's a lot we don't know. It's difficult to find or do a
13 comprehensive scientific study with limited government resources; therefore, the comments of
14 local citizens who see the system every day should be considered Also have concerns about the
15 Castle Hayne aquifer, like quantity and salinity concerns.
16
17 Dave Schwartz, Conservation Co -Chair of Cypress Group of Sierra Club.
18 Representing over 1,000 members of Sierra Club Cypress Group, including 24 counties
19 in northeastern NC, including Beaufort County. Sierra Club is one of the largest, oldest, most
20 influential organizations for protecting communities and wild places. The Supreme Court has
21 ruled that corporations can be viewed as people, therefore Martin Marietta should be held to the
22 same rules as others living, working and recreating on Blount's Creek. An alternative to the
23 proposed discharge should be found so that the project won't violate Water Quality Standards.
24 We need better pH protections and more fish studies. Suggested that Martin Marietta should take
25 steps to be a better potential neighbor, watching out for people and critters where they want to do
26 business.
27
28 Heather Deck, Riverkeeper, Pamlico Tar River Foundation.
29 PTRF has also submitted comments electronically, and will submit more during the 30-
30 day comment period. Disagree with Division's conclusion that the proposed discharge will
31 comply with Water Quality Standards. Also disagree that the least damaging practical alternative
32 has been identified for the NPDES or the 401. NC Administrative Code says that standards shall
33 be normal for waters in the area, where pH is typically in 6 to 9 range but may be as low as 4.3
34 for swamp waters if resulting from natural conditions. Consultants for company found pH in the
Page 11 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 4 to 5.5 range in the discharge area of Blount's Creek. Points to best usage classification
2 narratives which require balanced indigenous communities, similar to reference conditions.
3 Because of this, the Division cannot approve NPDES permit which would result in aquatic
4 community unlike reference conditions. As for 401, it is possible to find alternate configuration
5 to reduce impacts. Because of swamp water designation for Blount's Creek, have not shown
6 minimal adverse impacts to surface waters. It is clear that limited studies of fish species have
7 been conducted. Hope that at a minimum, the Division will request more information from the
8 company in this regard. PTRF written comments will include information and data gathered in
9 Blount's Creek in partnership with East Carolina University. Reiterated that the Division must
10 deny the NPDES permit and the 401. Believes it is possible to find an alternative with lesser 401
11 impacts. Recommends denial of NPDES and 401.
12
13 James Cabe, Self, Lot Owner, Yeats Creek. Tributary to Blount's Creek
14 Also submitted written comments with detailed critique of CZR consultant report
15 regarding discharge impacts on Blount's Creek. CZR report contains conclusions not following
16 proper scientific method. Citations in CZR report do not provide appropriately supportive
17 information for conclusions drawn about Blount's Creek. CZR report makes claims that the
18 discharge will actually have a beneficial effect on the Blount's Creek ecosystem, specifically
19 related to supposedly problematic elevated aluminum levels which do not even exist. The
20 injection of mine water into Blount's creek will lower salinity in Blount's Creek all the way to the
21 estuary. We need to consider the salinity requirements of native fish species, such as speckled
22 trout, in analyzing effects of the discharge.
23
24 Warren Tripp, Self and Family, Property Owner, Worked in Quarry Industry for Part of Career.
25 We need to be good stewards of our waters and aquifers. Essence of question is whether
26 we should remove natural groundwater and dispose of it in a concentrated area. Noted many
27 groundwater pumping effects on ecosystems as documented in various areas of the state.
28 Beaufort County already familiar with the impacts of mines. PCS discharges into much larger
29 area, and even in that case many effects on the aquatic ecosystem have been documented. This
30 discharge will have a detrimental effect on the tax base of Beaufort County, and core elements of
31 the lifestyle. Need a sound plan for the excess water disposal. With minimal job creation, this
32 project will otherwise be a bad investment for Beaufort County.
33
34
Page 12 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 Bill Tucker, Self, Property Owner.
2 Retired here with wife three years ago to enjoy the pristine area. Cited healthy ecosystem
3 thanks to clean water, which they enjoy with their grandchildren. Invested life savings in
4 retirement home, where Beaufort County was advertised as a pristine area. Property values will
5 decline if the creek declines. Believes there are alternate ways to handle the wastewater
6 discharge, which will introduce aluminum and other chemicals and minerals into the system.
7 Signatory to petition with over 550 signatures requesting that the Division not permit the
8 discharge.
9
10 Frances Bradley, Self - employed, Cotton Patch Marina and Landing Campground, Blount's
11 Creek.
12 Do not oppose quarry, but concerned with dumping water in Blount's Creek which would
13 change everything about the creek. Noted that at present, 106 families are visiting their business.
14 Many of these visitors have traveled over 100 miles to enjoy the fisheries and other natural
15 resources. They spend a lot of money in Beaufort County during these visits. Ms. Bradley cited
16 numerous other businesses who profit from visitors to Blount's Creek. Beaufort County recently
17 spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to build a new landing at Blount's Creek. The
18 proposed discharge may be the cheapest disposal alternative, but other ways must be possible
19 which would keep the discharge out of Blount's Creek. She suggested purchasing land to create a
20 lake with the discharge, possibly as a water supply for the area. Recommends prudence in
21 consideration of the alternative and all the impacts to the community, not just the interest of the
22 mining company.
23
24 Bob Boulden, Captain, Miss B. Charters, Retired Environmental Engineer, Property Owner.
25 Noted that studies contain assumptions based on computer models and information from
26 referenced publications. Noted lack of local knowledge and common sense in analysis of
27 impacts. Report contains a lot of words like "expect, assume, and not likely" but will the
28 company be required to post a bond to clean up Blount's Creek if their assumptions turn out to be
29 wrong? Why was there no environmental impact statement prepared? My understanding is that a
30 project can't be allowed to change the pH of the waters. The pH and aluminum conclusions in
31 the application try to justify the discharge. They are proposing to add 7 pounds of aluminum to
32 the ecosystem on a daily basis, 1.25 tons annually. Will the aluminum settle to the bottom of the
33 creek? Not opposed to the quarry itself, but concerned about the discharge into Blount's Creek.
34
Page 13 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 Bob Daw, Blounts Creek Property Owner.
2 Not opposed to the mine itself, but doesn't want any of the discharge going into Blount's
3 Creek. Has 20 years experience with fisheries at Blount's Creek. Publishes weekly fishing report
4 about Blount's Creek, distributed to 175 people. Many visitors come a long way to enjoy the
5 fishing at Blount's Creek. Over the years, have taken many pictures of fish caught in Blount's
6 Creek. Estimates that 80% of them are saltwater species which would be impacted by the
7 freshwater discharge. This is the last pristine body of water south of the Pamlico. If the
8 discharge is allowed, the fishery will die.
9
10 John Blount, M.D., The Pamlico River.
11 As a physician, knows what heavy metals do to people. 68 -year resident of the area.
12 Cited numerous companies which introduced pollutants into the air and water in the area, many of
13 which then got fined and had to put in treatment facilities. We can't take any more pollutants in
14 the river. All corporations lie. Tourism is our only hope for the area. We must keep it clean.
15 There are many toxic pollutants in the ground which would be brought up by the mining activity.
16
17 Sammy Deans, Self, Pamlico River.
18 Shares concerns of others about the health of Blount's Creek, but spoke more specifically
19 about the water level to result from the discharge. Lives near discharge location. Showed photos
20 of home during Hurricane Irene, when water came to within a few inches of the house. What
21 would happen with a large daily discharge? Not opposed to the mine, but there must be a better
22 way to deal with the water.
23
24 Mack Simpson, Self.
25 Previous speakers expressed my own sentiments much better than I could, so I'll take a
26 pass.
27
28 Byron Bateman, Self, Blounts Creek.
29 Many problems will result from the proposed discharge. Other speakers tonight have not
30 yet emphasized that the permit would allow up to 12 million gallons per day discharge. This will
31 undeniably impact the physical, chemical and biological character of Blount's Creek, as well as
32 the flow regime. The new low flow would equal the existing moderate flow. The fish population
33 is adapted to slightly acidic water. They will be impacted by changes in pH and salinity. Many
34 native fish will be forced out of the creek, impacting many local businesses which rely on the
Page 14 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 fishery. We should take the discharge off the table, and consider other alternatives such as land
2 application or aquifer injection.
3
4 Dianne Overton, Self, Wilmar Community.
5 Shares concerns about water quality impacts, but used opportunity to bring up other
6 impacts which would be introduced by the mine. Voiced concerns with noise disturbing
7 tranquility, road destruction, and impacts on wildlife and hunting tourism.
8
9 Carolyn Harding, Citizen.
10 Totally opposed to this operation. Common sense dictates that a 9 million gallon
11 discharge of fresh water into the mouth of the creek would harm or destroy native species, and
12 increase water levels in the creek. Also voiced concerns related to drawdown of the aquifer, and
13 potential effects on water supply wells.
14
15 Tom Kramer, President of Windsong III Homeowners' Association.
16 Residents of subdivision are concerned about the mine discharge, as well as the aquifer
17 drawdown. All of their residents are on private wells. Will there be saltwater intrusion in water
18 supply wells from the drawdown?
19
20 William Risk, Blount's Creek.
21 People who write these reports claiming there won't be harmful changes in turbidity, pH,
22 and water levels should be prosecuted. Come to see the creek for yourself. Blount's Creek is too
23 small to stand 9 million gallons per day discharge. This project won't help anybody but Martin
24 Marietta. The reports should have disclaimers to make them tell the truth. We rely on you in the
25 agencies to protect our resources.
26
27 Joe Mangum. Retired Freight Train Conductor.
28 Relayed bad experience from exposure to sulfur dioxide during temperature inversion
29 caused by an accident at a Texas Gulf facility. Also noted concerns with groundwater impacts
30 from nuclear facility near Wilmington. Mentioned several other cases where industries caused
31 problems but there was no one to enforce the rules to address the problems caused. His main
32 concern seemed to be with follow -up enforcement of permit conditions should the mine be
33 constructed.
34
Page 15 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013

Martin Marietta Materials - Vanceboro
Hearing Officers Report
1 Eban Bean, Engineering Professor at East Carolina University, Institute for Coastal Science and
2 Policy.
3 Involved in study of two water quality monitoring locations including water quality
4 metrics. Results and data will be provided in formal report to be submitted in April during the
5 comment period. Has questions regarding the erosion of the upper headwaters of Blount's Creek
6 resulting from the mine operation. Where will the sediment end up? The channel is already
7 constricted by a culvert near the railroad. The discharge may create stream stability problems as
8 well as railroad maintenance issues not yet considered. Pointed to potential flaws with the flow
9 levels as described in the models. Noted that if the discharge is supposedly to help improve water
10 quality as claimed in the consultant reports, what will happen to water quality when the mine
11 closes?
12
13 Chuck Boklage, Blount's Creek.
14 Wishes to confirm earlier speaker's assertion that the science described in the
15 consultants' reports has nothing to do with Blount's Creek. There is no reason to suppose there is
16 an existing problem with salinity or aluminum. The law forbids the creek to be changed into a
17 whole different ecosystem. The cynicism expressed in the consultants' reports is appalling. This
18 permit has to be denied.
19
20 John Chrystal, Pamlico Beach.
21 Over the last few years, there's been a tremendous increase in the loss of seafood
22 companies relying on the fisheries in the area, due to impacts on the resource. Such companies
23 will be impacted if there are impacts to Blount's Creek. The Castle Hayne aquifer is down over
24 ten feet. At fifteen feet, saltwater intrusion will occur. It takes over 100 years worth of rainfall to
25 replenish one foot of the aquifer. With PCS already having a large impact on the Castle Hayne,
26 we really need to think about how the demands on the aquifer can be met without leading to
27 saltwater intrusion.
28
29 Conclusion:
30 Paul Rawls asked if there were any additional speakers, and hearing none he closed the hearing
31 but reminded those in attendance that the record will remain open until April 12, 2013. He
32 expressed his appreciation to all present for their attendance. He reiterated that the final decision
33 will be made by the Director, within 60 and 90 days of the hearing for the 401 Certification and
34 NPDES Permit, respectively.
Page 16 of 16
Memorandum: Kathy Stecker to Chuck Wakild May 7, 2013