20140356 Ver 1_More Info Received_20140711

ZolyD35(o
WN;t
Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc.
July 3, 2014
WNR Project # TQC -1004
NCDENR, Division of Water Resources, WQP
Wetlands, Buffers, Streams — Compliance and Permitting Unit
Attn: Mrs. Karen Higgins / Mrs. Jennifer Burdette
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617
Re: Request for Additional Information — Response from Applicant
ro
The Quartz Corp, USA —Pine Mountain Mine, 577.1 Acres
DWR #: 14 -0356
Mitchell County (Parcel ID: 0882 -00 -52 -1389) LL"WAT'1,�P, 014 r'
Spruce Pine, Mitchell County, North Carolina
'
�?+JALIT}
Karen /Jennifer: " r8tih
Based on your letter dated June 5, 2014 your agency placed the Pine Mountain Mine Water Quality
Certification permit application on hold until the following information was received:
'T Title 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (a)(6) requires proposed activities provide for replacement of
existing uses through mitigation. Restoration is the preferred method of mitigation. The
compensatory mitigation plan in your application consists of preservation only. Please explain
how restoration is not practical or that the preservation plan is the most ecologically viable
method of replacing the lost functions and values."
Functional Replacement of Mitigation
We are of the opinion that the application, and the subsequent site inspection, supports our position
that the large majority of the impacts are to poorly functioning systems. As detailed below, 88.5 %
of the streams have low ecological functions and values. The mitigation plan and the subsequent site
visit support our position that the mitigation site is highly functioning, within close proximity to the
impacts, and provides in -kind mitigation. Preserving the ecological viability of the Beaver Creek
watershed with high mitigation ratios of high ecological functions is the applicant's preferred method
to replace losses of poor quality systems. The preservation site will be fully functioning and viable at
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -712 -9205 mobile

the time of the impacts and the preservation ensures that the system will continue to fully function
without disruption in perpetuity. In contrast, the onsite and EEP options are not immediately viable
,and are subject to external disruptions both upstream and downstream, thus compromising a
continuum of ecological uplift.
Little Bear Creek and its tributaries are lower quality, streams and have been impacted by historic
activities completed by other companies at the project site. The proposed impacts to streams and
their functions are limited due to the existing low quality; therefore, replacement of function through
restoration is less applicable for this project. Mr. Doug Besler, NC WRC, stated in his comment fetter
that "'Little Bear Creek, in the vicinity and downstream of the Pine Mountain Mine is severely impacted
from sediment and has a depauperate fish community. Given the extent of sediment impacts from
the current mining operations, the proposed alterations to the tributary streams may, over time,
reduce additional sediment impacts in the watershed." The current sediment impacts have occurred
from previous mining operations that begun in 1937.
900 linear feet (73.8 %) of the 1220 linear feet proposed for impacts are related to the °resolution of a
land quality violation that was incurred by an adjacent mining company. The 900 linear feet consists
of`two 450 linear foot impacts on unnamed, poor quality tributaries to Little Bear Creek. The Quartz
Corp has accepted the financial responsibility of resolving this Notice of Violation even, though they
were not the responsible party. While they did give permission to the other company to dump at the
site, the dumping,,method, which created the violation, was not, approved by The Quartz Corp. The
resolution of this violation Includes constructing retaining walls to stabilize the dump area and reduce
erosion within these two poor quality and previously impacted unnamed tributaries to ,Little Bear
Creek. It is likely, and WRC supports this belief, that resolution of the violation will result in an
improvement in downstream channel stability and water quality.
180 linear feet (14.8 %) of the 1220 linear feet proposed for impacts are, a result of the construction
of a, storm water retention pond on a poor quality unnamed. tributary to the North Toe River. This
stream is entrenched and its valley has been used for dumping in the past. The construction of the
pond will help protect downstream water quality. These three proposed impacts total 1080 linear
feet (88.5 %) of the total impacts proposed. These impacts will occur on poor quality and previously
impacted unnamed tributaries to Little Bear Creek and North Toe River. The proposed work at these
locations will very likely improve downstream water quality.
The remaining 140 linear feet (11.5 %) of proposed impacts occur on Little Bear Creek proper at two
different locations and are road crossings necessary to access high ground across the stream. Little
Bear Creek is• a good quality stream. One of these locations has an existing culvert that installed
prior to current design standards which include counter- setting. This culvert is perched at the outlet
and not buried to allow for aquatic life movement or natural substrate within the culvert. This culvert
will be removed and replaced with 100 linear feet of new culvert which will result in 40 linear feet of
new impact at this location. The second and upper road crossing on Little Bear Creek is a new
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -712 -9205 mobile

culvert and is necessary for construction of a haul road to access a waste dump site. This culvert will
also be constructed to allow for aquatic' life movement. These culverts will also be designed to
provide in- stream habitat of the naturally occurring stream bed such as cobbles, gravels, and sands
therefore significantly limiting the ecological and functional impact of the proposed activities.
In terms of a restoration alternative, apportioning a, small amount ofthe mitigation requirement to a
restoration component would be ecologically insignificant due to the small scale. The Beaver Creek
preservation project has a larger, watershed scale and thus the most ecological benefit. Any amount
of the mitigation that is apportioned to restoration will impact the opportunity to preserve the entire
East Fork of Beaver Creek watershed and possibly render it infeasible because there would not be
enough mitigation, required to justify doing the full extent of preservation. Preserving only a portion
of the streams within the East Fork of Beaver Creek would be much less ecologically significant and
would result in the loss of a watershed -based approach. Additionally, the Beaver Creek preservation
project has strong mitigation ratios compared to the proposed stream impacts. The ratios will be
12:1 to 15:1 compared to the guidance that requires 10:1 for permittee- responsible preservation,
and 5:1 for in -lieu fee and mitigation bank projects.
Discussion of'the on -site restoration option and EEP credit option 'is below.
The Beaver Creek preservation project provides a higher ecological benefit ,relative to any other
option.. WRC prefers using the Beaver Creek preservation project for the mitigation of impacts at the
Pine Mountain Mine. According to the WRC comment letter "The quality of the aquatic and terrestrial
habitat within the [Beaver Creek] watershed is very high with unique wetland ,and hydrologic
communities and, in our opinion, represents- a unique opportunity to mitigate for mine impacts by
preserving very high quality habitat that is in close proximity to the actual impact. We prefer this
option over EEP credits in this circumstance because the EEP' credits would be at a more distant
location that would probably not have the biological potential of the upper Beaver Creek watershed."
Mitigation Hierarchy and Selection of Beaver Creek Preservation Project
The Beaver Creek preservation project was selected as the most appropriate and ecologically
significant form of mitigation, in accordance with the Federal 2008 rule, as follows:
1. Bank Option
There are no mitigation banks in the project area.
2. EEP Option
• EEP restoration credits are available in the 8 -digit HUC from three sites. However, none of the
sites are located in the local watershed (12 -digit HUC) of Pine Mountain, Mine.
• The Beaver Creek preservation site is located much closer_ to Pine Mountain Mine than the EEP
sites; in fact, it is the adjacent watershed. See the figure below.
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -712 -9205 mobile

• The Beaver Creek preservation site provides the closest in -kind mitigation compared to the
EEP sites in terms of more similar stream slope and habitat, stream order and elevation, and
watershed area. Beaver Creek reflects the ecological character of Little Bear Creek watershed
before it was impacted by historical mining activities, whereas the EEP sites are in farm fields
located in valleys, which are different in character from the impact site
• The Beaver Creek project provides the highest ecological benefit compared to the EEP sites
due to its high ratios, large size, watershed approach, and biological significance (high quality
cold water stream habitat, known trout populations, unique wetland /seep habitat, and rare
natural communities and species), and is a state - recognized conservation priority.
• The Beaver Creek project would have the added societal benefit of permanently protecting a
municipal water supply.
• As noted above in the previous section, apportioning some of the mitigation need to EEP
credits would challenge the feasibility of preservation the entire East Fork of Beaver Creek
watershed. Mitigation through the Beaver Creek preservation project would be completed in
advance of issuing the permit, whereas the EEP projects are not yet closed, and have no
guarantee of success.
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -712 -9205 mobile

3. On -site Restoration /Enhancement Option
• The 2008 federal rule states a preference for a watershed -based mitigation approach over an
onsite mitigation approach. The Beaver Creek preservation project takes a watershed -based
approach.
• Given the existing conditions at the mine site and proposed continuation of mining, the
restoration of a small section of stream onsite would be ecologically insignificant. WRC
concurs, stating in their comment letter, "We feel that on -site mitigation would be extremely
expensive and relatively insignificant given the totality of impacts at the Pine Mountain Mine."
• The location in which on -site restoration could be done is already existing sedimentation
basins and therefore already provides some positive benefit to downstream water quality.
Therefore, additional functional uplift by stream restoration would be limited
• Controlling storm water and additional sedimentation from mining activities is the primary
driver of water quality and stream function. This is already being addressed through the new
mining permit in the number of sediment and water quality basins being required. There are
over 75 basins shown on the mining application master plan. In- stream restoration would have
limited added benefit.
• There is another mining company plant and other infrastructure facilities downstream of Pine
Mountain Mine. Therefore, the benefits of restoration upstream would be limited, constrained,
and possibly reversed by downstream future actions. See the figure below.
• Mitigation through the Beaver Creek preservation project would be completed in advance of
issuing the permit, whereas onsite restoration would be completed after the fact, with no
guarantee of success.
• For these reasons, the onsite restoration option is less practical and less ecologically significant
than the Beaver Creek preservation project.

4. Off '-site Restoration /Enhancement Option
• The Quartz Corp does not own other property as close to the Pine Mountain Mine as the
Beaver Creek preservation project that has the potential for stream restoration /enhancement.
• By using the Beaver Creek project, The Quartz Corp will not be the responsible party for
providing the mitigation and the mitigation will be completed prior to the proposed stream
impacts taking place.
• The Quartz Corp is not aware of any other property within the 12 digit HUC code that contains
candidate streams for restoration appropriate for mitigation.
• The Beaver Creek preservation project streams are more comparable to the streams at Pine
Mountain Mine than other stream restoration sites, which are likely to benn an
agricultural/valley ,setting.
Consistency with NC IRT 2012 Preservation Guidance
The NC Interagency Review Team (NC IRT) issued a guidance entitled "Use of Stream Preservation
as Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina" (NC IRT, 2012), which is based on guidance in the
2008 Federal Mitigation Rule (USEPA, USACE, 2008). The Beaver Creek preservation project meets all
of ,the primary criteria and many of the secondary criteria as shown in the tables below. It is
therefore consistent with the 2012 Guidance and 2008 Federal Rule.
Primary Preservation Criteria from 2012 Guidance
Primary''Preservation�Criteria
Does_EPro_jectMeet Criteria ?.
The resources to be, preserved provide
Yes; the project watershed provides a
important physical, chemical, or biological
municipal drinking water supply, and high
functions, for the watershed.
quality habitat for a number of rare
spec ies and natural communities.
Yes;'the project will protect an entire sub -
The resources to be preserved contribute
watershed and encompass seeps,
significantly to the ecological
headwaters, and unique natural
sustainability of the watershed.
communities, thereby supporting
ecolo ical' sustainabili .
Determined by DE; preservation is
Preservation is determined by the district
appropriate given the limited nature of the
engineer to be appropriate and
impacts, proximity to the impact site;
"in-
practicable.
streams being kind" and higher quality
than the impacted streams, and ecological
im ortance/ watershed approach.
Yes; the watershed has threat from
The resources are under threat of,
logging, damming, spring development
destruction or adverse modifications.
and other extractive use. See "Threats"
section.
Asheville Office
775'Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -712 -9205 mobile

The preserved site will be permanently Yes; the preserved site will be
protected through an appropriate leg_ al permanently protected through a
instrument. conservation easement.
Secondary Preservation Criteria from 2012 Guidance
Secondary_Freservation- Criteria -
Does,Project Meet Criteria ?'
Streams in a watershed that contains an
Yes; the, project watershed is an
SNHA as identified by the NC NHP
"Outstanding" quality SNHA
Streams in a watershed that is known to
Yes; there are ,multiple, state and federally
provide habitat for state or federally listed
listed species both observed and expected
endangered or threatened species.
to occur in, the project watershed.
Streams in �a watershed that High Quality
Yes; the project watershed, Js WS -I Water
Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters,
Supply Watershed, High Quality Water,
Trout Waters, or Water Supply
and Trout Water
Watersheds.
Streams in a watershed that contains
Yes; the watershed has unique and high
unique and /or high quality habitat that is
quality habitat and is adjacent to Spruce
adjacent or within an area experiencing
Pine, the largest town in the County.
an increase in population or development
Spruce Pine, while small, has seen steady
trend.
growth over the last decade.,
The guidance further notes that, while preferable for preservation to be done in conjunction with
restoration and /or enhancement activities, this "requirement may be waived by the district engineer
where preservation has been identified as a high priority using a watershed approach." It continues,
"Stand-alone preservation projects ... may be allowed in special circumstances and should only be
proposed for sites that are of exceptional quality or have been identified as unique or high priority
areas." The proposed project is a special circumstance for the'reasons described above, and the
proposed preservation is of exceptional quality, unique, and a high priority.
Threats to Beaver Creek and Existing Level of Protection /Buffers
The Town of Spruce Pine can legally log within the Beaver Creek watershed and has considered it
due to the high value of veneer timber present within the watershed. Logging is allowed within WS -I
watersheds provided that forestry Best Management Practices (BMP) are followed. These BMP's
suggest a 50',stream buffer. The restrictive covenant is'not surveyed and appears to only provide a
buffer to streams shown on the USGS topographic map, as shown in Exhibit B of the covenants
previously submitted with the IP application package. The buffered areas do not include tributaries
and stream /seep complexes. The proposed mitigation project would extend a'300' permanent buffer
to these areas, in addition to the USGS streams.
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -712 -9205 mobile

The restrictive covenants legally could be revoked or re- negotiated in the future by the Town of
Spruce Pine, such as to reduce 'the buffer to allow logging to within 50' of the streams. A
conservation easement could' not be revoked or re- negotiated 'in the, future without significant legal
merit. The restrictive covenants are based on common law doctrines and as such are much easier to
revoke or renegotiate than a conservation easement, which is authorized by state statutes. Common
law doctrines can allow a landowner to 'have the covenants terminated based on factors such as
economic hardship, whereas a conservation easement has the weight and enforceability of state law
in perpetuity.
The restrictive covenants do not require monitoring and `stewardship, so their enforcement is
questionable.
The watershed, though a WS -I, is now under private ownership. Following discussions with DWR, it
is unclear whether this classification and associated protection could be retained if a future landowner
were to petition for a, reclassification, given that state rules describe the WS -I classification as
applying to watersheds in public ownership.
Summary
To summarize, 1080 linear feet (88.5 %) of the proposed stream impacts occur on poor quality
streams which are lacking function and habitat. The proposed work and structures at these
locations will very likely improve downstream water quality over time. A very minimal amount, 140
linear feet (11.5 %), of the stream impacts are necessary for two road crossings to access a mine
waste area. Habitat will be- improved at one of these road crossings due to improved culvert
design, and should be minimally affected at the other road crossing given the design and method
of installation during construction. Removing a portion of the preservation to allow for a
restoration component will diminish the exceeding high value of the preservation mitigation plan.
The preservation plan is offering higher mitigation ratios than are required.
The, Beaver Creek preservation project is the most appropriate and' ecologically significant form of
mitigation available for this project. There are no available banks in the HUC. Multiple benefits of
the Beaver'Creek preservation project outweigh'EEP, on -site restoration, and off -site restoration.
Beaver Creek is a very unique opportunity for a mitigation site, which will not likely be duplicated
anywhere else in the State. The NC IRT 2012 Preservation Guidance and 2008 Federal Rule are
being met by the proposed mitigation plan at Beaver Creek.
Threats of logging, water bottling, additional ponds, and development are a real possibility at
Beaver Creek. The Town of Spruce Pine could allow logging within the Beaver Creek watershed up
to within 50' of the streams. The level of protection under a conservation easement will, be much
greater than the current protection within the watershed under the restrictive covenant, and will
add additional areas not currently protected.
With the application and all supporting data we have established that the average impact areas are
low quality streams and that the entirety of the preservation area is of the highest ecological
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -712 -9205 mobile

value. We submit that the preservation of Beaver Creek replaces the historic uses that were ,lost
within Little Bear Creek basin and its tributaries during the life of the mine. The impacted streams
likely supported brook trout (specifically in Little Bear Creek) and pollution Intolerant small stream
aquatic life prior to the mining operations which commenced in 1937. The aquatic life that once
thrived and propagated within these streams- is present at the Beaver Creek Site which is an
immediate and viable replacement. Strengthening the environmental protections will insure that
these systems remain in perpetuity. The existing uses are limited to the propagation and survival of
sediment tolerant species. The remaining reaches of streams at Pine Mountain Mine will see a
functional uplift with the implementation of the sediment controls and storm water controls
associated with the new mining permit. Essentially the implementation of erosion control practices
will provide a level of restoration within the Little Bear Creek basin and that the Beaver Creek
preservation site will provide additional immediate replacement of existing and lost functions.
While the all preservation mitigation plan at Beaver Creek may not be justified for all projects, it'is
overwhelmingly justified for the impacts at Pine Mountain Mine. Beaver Creek ,and its tributaries is
the most ecologically viable site because it most closely replaces the functions and values that have
been lost at the mine site and that are not available to be restored elsewhere. Historically speaking,
the smaller streams in high mountain valleys were left undisturbed by agriculture and therefore there
are no 'identified opportunities'to replace these functions through restoration. What makes Beaver
Creek a viable option is that the preserved areas are high quality areas that have benefited from a
limited amount of protection as a water supply watershed. The high value of these streams is found
on no other preservation site because most preservation is incidental -to preserving on site streams
that cannot be impacted. Unlike the EEP sites, the Beaver Creek site protects upstream waters and
better ensures the survival of pollution intolerant species. The valley type ,restoration conducted by
the EEP serves different specific functions and values; none of the EEP sites support just brook trout
or protect intact headwaters stream and seep systems. The patchwork restoration conducted by the
EEP does not control pollutant inputs from upstream waters nor does it replace the lost functions of
the `streams at the impact areas and therefore we find it less ecologically viable of replacing the lost
functions and values.
For clarification purposes the Pine Mountain Mine permit boundary is 577.10 acres as opposed to
755 acres. Please correspond if we need to provide any additional assistance or information
necessary for your review and, if possible, expedite the issuance of this permit authorization request.
Please feel free to call with any questions or comments.
Best regards,
�M+ d"�,,
Jennifer L Robertson
Asheville Office
775 Haywood Road, Suite D
Asheville, NC 28806
828 - 712- 9205,mobde