20031023 Ver 1_Response to DWR_20040219 (2)

WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
FEB 1 `} ?004
¦
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Response to NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Letter of January 20, 2004, and
Meeting of February 12, 2004
Rocky Point Quarry
Pender County, NC
February 17, 2004
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Materials
Raleigh, North Carolina
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2004
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
? ? ? Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
February 17, 2004
Ms. Noelle Lutheran
N. C. Division of Water Quality ;ROUP
Wilmington Regional Office l( ''
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 FFB -? ) 004
Re: Martin Marietta MaterialsUVA(ER UAL- ?Y SECTION
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ # 03-1023
Dear Ms. Lutheran:
Please find enclosed Martin Marietta Material's response to your letter of
January 20, 2004 and to comments received from the Division during the
February 12, 2004 meeting in Raleigh. Additionally and under separate cover we
have provided copies of the Modified Alternative Pumping Plan to both the
Regional Office and the Wetlands Unit addressing the permit conditions of the
NPDES permit for this facility.
We appreciate your early review of the enclosed material and if there are any
questions, please call either Chad Evenhouse or me at 919-677-2000 to discuss
any such questions or issues. As was emphasized during the recent meeting in
Raleigh, time is very critical for the viability of the mine operations and your
immediate attention to the 401 water quality certification application is
requested.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to hearing from
you very soon.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Harlan K. Britt, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Enclosures (2)
Cc: Mr. Mike Jones (W/O Enclosure
Mr. Horace Willson "
Mr. Alan Klimek "
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

? M Kimley-Horn
= _ _ and Associates, Inc.
Mr. Danny Smith (Enclosure)
Mr. John Dorney (Enclosure)
File (Enclosure)
H:\PN\011185010\DWQResponse Transmtl letter feburary 17 04.doc
• Martin Marietta Materials
Response to NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Letter of January 20, 2004 and
Meeting of February 12, 2004
Rocky Point Quarry
Pender County, North Carolina
February 17, 2004 W?TLAN?? ! ?"? rpQtJP
FEB 1 -, ?004
Overview/Background &TION
Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) submitted an application for an ialplt$ULMU ?hXiit?
pursuant to Section 404/401 Hof the Clean Water Act for expansion of its Rocky Point
Quarry. In addition, MMM has obtained a general stormwater NPDES permit for the
dewatering operations at the quarry and is working with the agencies to comply with the
conditions of that permit (in particular the pumping plan for dewatering activities). A
meeting was held on January 9, 2004 with North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NCDENR) - Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff to discuss
the permit initiatives. Subsequent to the meeting the NCDENR staff, through a letter
dated January 20, 2004, offered comments and requested additional information
regarding the permit initiatives. MMM responded, through its agent Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. (KHA), to the inquiries contained in the NCDENR letter via a February 9,
• 2004 letter. MMM, KHA and NCDENR staff met on February 12, 2004 to discuss the
permit initiatives at which time NCDENR provided clarification of its requests in the
January 20, 2004 letter. Subsequently, MMM agreed to submit clarifications to its
February 9, 2004 response based on the discussions in the February meeting.
The following is MMM's clarification of its response to NCDENR regarding the permit
initiatives. For ease of the reviewer, the response has been reformatted. For each of the
14 items listed in the January 20, 2004 letter from Noelle Lutheran of NCDENR the
following is included, consolidated and formatted:
1. NCDENR's request from the January 20, 2004 letter is included verbatim
(NCDENR).
2. MMM's February 9, response is included verbatim (MMM1).
3. MMM's clarification and additional information is included (MMM2).
For each of the 14 Items, the above information is presented followed by any graphics,
illustrations, figures, or data that is referenced as an attachment within that response.
Therefore, the reviewer will find 14 separate sections to this response.
During the February 2004 meeting, NCDENR requested that copies of previously
submitted information be resubmitted as part of this response. Several sections of this
document will have several attachments to meet that request.
Attachment:
Figure: Project Area Map - 2002 Aerial Photograph with Tracts Noted
0

$I
EWP' ""Y
•
m
v ?^
? b
N Q
1I?«1

?l
0
1

• 1. NCDENR: Your application indicates that Martin Marietta Materials (in the
future) intends to pursue development of the mine site to the south (tract
E). It is the understanding of DWQ staff that areas to the south have
notably fewer jurisdictional wetlands than the proposed expansion areas
(G1 and G2). Please document (provide County zoning letters, landowner
information, DLR correspondence, drilling reports etc.) as to why impacts
to the proposed wetlands may not be avoided by proceeding with the mine
expansion to the south, rather than the east.
1. MMM1: Property south of the existing operations: This property, along with other areas
of the county, has recently been rezoned to the Heavy Industrial category by the County
Commissioners on their own motion. While Heavy Industrial zoning is necessaryfor
mining, MMM must also obtain a Special Use permit from the county before it can begin
mining operations on any land that is not presently covered by such a Special Use permit.
In order to obtain the required Special Use permit, it will be necessaryfor the county to
hold at least one public hearing. It is anticipated that this process, which, based on
experience, will include extensive negotiation on reclamation, will take several months
after the application is filed. The Company has held a meeting with the County Planning
Director to discuss the application, the result of which was that the Company had to
significantly decrease the amount of property it will seek to permit. A draft application
will be submitted in the immediate future to the Countyfor review, which is the normal
practice in this and other jurisdictions. Because there is no guarantee that the Special
Use permit will be granted, MMM believes that it would be highly speculative to launch
into a major effort to obtain the required mining permit prior to issuance of the Special
Use permit, primarily because of the high costs of the studies typically required for
• mining permits in this area. It was, of course, necessaryfor the re-zoning to be completed
before application for the Special Use permit could be submitted.
If mining to the south were available from a mine permit and Special Use permit position,
there are many questions that still must be addressed before impacts to those waters of
the US that exist in that area could be permitted. Given the fact that the local Special Use
permit and the mining permit are not available at this time, it stands to reason that
mining to the south will not be possible within a time frame that will allow existing
mining operations to continue without cessation.
Product reserves in the immediate tract south of the existing operations are currently
being assessed, and that information is and must be considered as industrial trade
information and is believed to not have any bearing on the issuance of the necessary
permit.
In order to proceed into areas south of the existing operations, a mining permit must be
obtained from the Division of Land Resources (DLR). Historically, this process can take
more than six months to complete, particularly in this area. Further, MMM is required to
give notice to the timber company of the pending need to mine. The timber company then
has ninety (90) days to remove their product. They do not want to remove the timber
earlier than necessary, or if no mining will occur, so as to maximize the amount of
harvestable material. Following the removal of the timber, the Company will need to
remove (strip) the overburden from the mineable rock, a process that will take several
additional months. The mine permit process has not begun and should not begin until the
• decision by the local government has been made related to the issuance of the required
Special Use permit.
1-1
• Mine operations to the south have the potential to impact the stream system that has been
identified in what is referred to as Tract E. MMM has spent the last two years
investigating the existence of wetlands potentials in the area that is the subject of the
application, developing a ground water monitoring plan to be approved by DWQ, and
implementing that plan. Given the time this requirement has taken and the questions that
the DWQ may have on mining impacts to the south, it is highly unlikely, if not impossible
from a timing standpoint, to start work on areas that are not permitted by the County,
permitted by DLR, timbered or stripped, without having to shut down existing mining
operations.
In summary, should adequate product (rock) be found on the tracts to the south, it is
anticipated that obtaining approvals and preparing the operation to mine could take up
to two years to complete. The existing operation has less life than that to operate.
MMM2: A copy of the Jurisdictional Determination approved by the Corps for
Tract E is included with the response for Item #12.
MMM believes that adequate information has been provided to demonstrate that
there is no practical alternative to expanding on Tracts G1 and G2. However,
additional information as summarized in our February 12, 2004 meeting is
presented here for your consideration.
The following provides additional support for the conclusions made in the
Alternatives/Avoidance/Minimization text included above and in the permit
• application.
Additional support documentation is attached for the following:
• Agreement between MMM and property owners to the east of the mine.
• Letter from MMM detailing needs, processes and projected timing for
future permitting required for any expansion into Tract E, including Special
Use Permits and NCDENR - DLR Mining Permit.
Also included in MMM's letter is a summary of additional considerations that can
affect the viability and timing for expanding to the south (site ownership, forestry
product removal, identification of location of rock reserves, and operations
sequencing).
Can MMM find a suitable off site location to mine that would have less adverse
impacts and be practical?
This alternative is not practical. As indicated to NCDENR, finding, securing and
permitting a site that would have sufficient product, less adverse impacts and
serve the geographic area served by the existing quarry is not feasible in the time
needed to keep operations running at the quarry. This is a multi-year process. As
discussed, MMM has been working under the assumption that they would be able
to mine in all of Tracts G1, G2, H1 and H2 for which they have secured the land,
secured permits and identified appropriate reserves of product. It is highly
unlikely that a new quarry of the size of Rocky Point would have less impacts
than those necessitated by the expansion being proposed. The restrictions to not
being able to mine the total of the tracts permitted for mining has only recently
• become apparent to MMM. Finding a suitable off site alternative is not practical.
1-2
The question was raised as to whether rock product could be brought to the area
• in lieu of mining at this location. There are currently no other local quarries that
serve this area. Product is being diverted from other areas affecting price and
limiting product supply in those areas. The economics are not there yet in the
logistics part of the industry with hauling rock from long distances to make it
economically feasible in this area. Alternative supplies of rock are not a practical
alternative.
Can MMM find a suitable site adjacent to the mine that would have less adverse
impacts and be practical?
The expansion of the quarry has been determined to only be feasible to the east
and south. To the west of the site is 1-40 and MMM has already agreed to not
mine any closer to the Interstate. To the north is also a state owned roadway.
To the north of the roadway is an extensive wetland system.
The only feasible alternatives to expansion, based on access is to the east and
south. Additional discussion follows detailing why expansion to the south is not
practical.
Expansion opportunities to the east have been minimized and discussed in more
detail below.
Can MMM avoid or minimize the wetlands impacts proposed on Tract G1 or G2?
MMM has avoided and minimized to the extent practical to be able to mine to the
east.
is The agreement with the property owners documents the limited opportunities
MMM has to expand to the east. Per this agreement, MMM will not mine in Tracts
H1 or H2 even though they have identified product there and have secured all
applicable approvals (except Section 404/401) for mining on those tracts. The
agreement also provides for MMM to not mine portions of Tracts G1 and G2
(establishing buffers to Tracts H1 and H2) further minimizing the ability to expand
to the east.
MMM can not reduce the footprint for mine expansion within Tracts G1 and G2
any further. Once the areas proposed as part of the application are complete,
mining at this existing operation will cease unless additional lands are secured in
the future.
The letter from MMM includes information describing the challenges to be able to
mine to the south of the existing mine. These challenges will take significant time
to resolve, time which the quarry does not have in order to keep operating.
In addition to the challenges described in the letter from MMM, to expand to the
south, MMM will likely require an Individual Permit pursuant to Section 404/401 if
the jurisdictional channel on Tract E will be impacted by the mine. It has been
documented that there are jurisdictional wetlands adjoining Tract E. Therefore, an
alternative pumping plan will need to be developed and monitoring data obtained
for these tracts as well. This process can not begin until land ownership and
• product location are finalized. An Individual Permit can take a minimum of 6
months to process and likely longer.
1-3
• NCDENR rules set the standard for alternatives analyses for a proposed activity
to show there is "no practical alternative". "A lack of practical alternatives may be
shown by demonstrating that, considering the potential for a reduction in size,
configuration, or density of the proposed activity and all alternative designs the
basic project purpose can not be practically accomplished in a manner which
would avoid or result in less adverse impact to surface waters or wetlands."
MMM has demonstrated that there is no practical alternative off site that meets
project needs or can be accomplished with less adverse impact to wetlands or
waters. In addition, MMM has demonstrated that the only practical alternative to
expanding at the current pit location is to the east. Further, MMM has avoided
wetlands and waters in the expansion proposal by reducing the footprint of
expansion in the only practical expansion area (the lands to the east that have
been permitted for mining and acquired - Tracts H1 and 1-12). This leaves MMM
with expansion opportunities only on Tracts G1 and G2. These Tracts are closest
to the pit however they contain wetland areas. Further, MMM has minimized
impacts to wetlands by further reducing the footprint for mining within Tract G1
and proposed a pumping plan to ensure these wetlands will not be adversely
affected by future expansion of the pit.
MMM can not further reduce the footprint of mining expansion or pursue other
opportunities without the operations ceasing at this historically productive mine.
The only mine producing product from the immediate region.
• Attachments:
Agreement with Property Owners
Letter from MMM, Dated February 17, 2004
END
•
1-4
•
WESSELL & PANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST O rFICE BOX 1049
WIIZUNOTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
JOHN C. WESSELJL III
Wn& A** A. RANEY. JR.
April 15, 2003
Mr. Paxton Badham
Martin-Marietta Materials, Inc.
2710 Wycliff Road
Raleigh, NC 27607-3033
Re: Martin-Marietta Rocky Point Quarry
Wells, Sloan, Thomas Agreement
Dear Paxton:
T- PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
E-MAILWANDR ICHEI.I.9OUTH.NET
Enclosed is a fully executed original Agreement dated April
2, 2003 between Martin-Marietta Materials, Inc., Five Eagles Partners,
Calvin F. Wells and David B. Sloan, Jr. I have retained one original
and provided one original to wells/Sloan and one to Five Eagles
•
Partners.
I will be in touch regarding the upcoming special use permit
hearing on April 21, 2003.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
'_?> _-?Q
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR: jn
Enclosure
WAR\environ\R01-104-C32
is
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AGREEMENT
.COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
Agreement made this 2 day of 4f 11.4 , 2003, between
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., a North Carolina corporation ("MM"),
party of the first part; and Five Eagles Partners ("Five Eagles"), a
North Carolina general partnership, Calvin F. Wells ("Wells"), and
David B. Sloan, Jr. ("Sloan"), parties of the second part.
RECITALS
a. MM is engaged in mining on several contiguous tracts of land
in Pender County, North Carolina known as the Martin Marietta Rocky
Point Quarry ("Quarry").
b. A portion of the Quarry, approximately 783 acres in size, is
being mined pursuant to leases between Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.,
successor to Martin Marietta Corporation, lessee, and Plum Creek
Timberlands, LP, successor to Georgia-Pacific Corporation ("Plum Creek
Tracts").
C. The Plum Creek Tracts lease consists of two parcels, the
original 573 acre parcel (11573 Acre Parcel") described in an agreement
recorded in Book 977 at Page 59 of the Pender County Registry; and a
parcel of over 200 acres (11200 Acre Parcel") which was added to the
leased premises by document dated August 20, 1990 and which is
described in an agreement recorded in Book 977 at Page 70 of the Pender
County Registry.
d. By deed recorded on March 14, 1995 in Book 1092 at Page 133
of the Pender County Registry, Wells and Sloan purchased from Georgia-
Pacific Corporation the surface rights to the Plum Creek Tracts subject
0 to the mineral rights which were reserved by Plum Creek and which had
.already been leased to MM pursuant to the agreement referenced in c.
.above.
e. Wells and Sloan also own a tract of land adjacent to the Plum
Creek Tracts which is not subject to the mining lease and on which they
maintain a residence and other structures which they use as a second
home and a hunting camp ("Cabin Tract").
f. The Plum Creek Tract borders the Cabin Tract on the south and
east, but the area currently being mined extends only a portion of the
way across the southern boundary of the Cabin Tract and does not extend
at all into the area to the east of the Cabin Tract.
g. 5 Eagles owns a tract of land bordering the eastern boundary
of the Plum Creek Tracts (115 Eagles Tract").
h. MM has acquired permits for its mining activities from
various governmental agencies and continues to be subject to regulatory
controls by such agencies.
i. MM wishes to expand its active mining operations within the
200 Acre Parcel, but such expansion requires a special use permit from
Pender County under the Pender County zoning ordinance.
j. MM, in order to gain the support of the parties of the second
part for its special use permit for mining in the 200 Acre Tract, is
willing to forego attempts to mine in certain unmined areas of the Plum
Creek Tracts and to make certain agreements regarding mining and
reclamation activities in certain areas of the Plum Creek Tracts.
k. The parties of the second part, in order to receive the
benefits from MM's agreements not to mine certain unmined areas and to
undertake mining and reclamation in certain ways, are willing to
• support MM's application for a special use permit from Pender County on
a portion of the 200 Acre Tract.
2
1. A map captioned Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
*herein depicts certain aspects of the Martin Marietta Quarry and has
been marked with the designation of tracts A, B, C, D and E with each
tract being shown by separate color and generally described as follows:
(i) Tract A is the currently unmined areas lying east of the
previously mined area within the 200 Acre Parcel and is
bounded on the north by the Plum Creek 573 Acre Parcel,
on the west by a previously mined area, on the south by
the southern boundary of the 200 Acre Parcel and on the
east by the centerline of an existing dirt road
approximately 3,200 feet east of the southernmost point
of the previously mined area.
(ii) Tract B is the currently unmined area within the 200
. Acre Parcel which is bounded on the north by the 573
Acre Parcel, on the west by the centerline of the road
-which is the eastern boundary of tract A, on the south
by the southern boundary of the 200 Acre Parcel and on
the east by the centerline of an existing dirt road
which runs southwardly from near the corner of the Cabin
Tract to the southern boundary of the 200 Acre Parcel.
(iii) Tract C is the currently unmined area within the 200
Acre Parcel and is bounded on the north by the 513 Acre
Parcel, on the west by the centerline of the road which
is the eastern boundary of tract B, on the south by the
southern boundary of the 200 Acre Parcel and on the east
by the eastern boundary of the 200 Acre Parcel.
• (iv) Tract D is the easternmost portion of the 573 acre
parcel and is bounded on the south by the northern
3
boundary of the 200 Acre Parcel, on the east by the
• easternmost boundary of the 573 Acre Parcel, on the
north by the northernmost boundary of the 573 Acre
Parcel, a portion of which is the run of Strawberry
Creek or Strawberry Canal, and on the east by the
easternmost boundary of the Cabin Tract and by the
centerline of an existing dirt road that runs
southwardly from about the southernmost corner of the
cabin tract to and beyond the northern line of the 200
Acre Tract (if necessary the southern line of the Cabin
Tract will be extended eastwardly to intersect the
centerline of the dirt road in order to allow tract D to
close.
• (v) Tract E is the unmined area immediately south of the
Cabin Tract bounded on the north by the Cabin Tract, on
.the west by a currently or previously mined area as
depicted on the Mine Map, on the south by the northern
boundary of the 200 Acre Tract and on the east by the
centerline of the road referred to as a portion of the
western boundary of tract D.
Tracts A, B, C, D and E collectively include all of the unmined area
within the Plum Creek Tracts lying east of the active mining area or
previously mined areas. The Mine Map is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A°.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, in consideration of the mutual
promises contained herein agree as follows:
• 1. The recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
4
2. The parties of the second part will support the issuance of a
• special use permit by Pender County to MM to allow MM to mine tracts A
and B subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement. To this
end, the parties of the second part will provide admissible evidence at
the special use permit hearing before the Pender County Commissioners
indicating support for the issuance of the special use permit subject
to certain of the conditions specified in this agreement. If such
Special Use Permit is granted, Wells and Sloan will execute said permit
as surface owners if requested by MM; provided the permit does not
impose requirements on the surface owners that would not exist in the
absence of such permit.
3. MM will not engage in any mining on tracts C and D and will
agree to a condition in the special use permit that prohibits mining
within tracts C and D.
Q 4. MM will not mine any new areas within tract E within 500 feet
Hof the southern boundary of the Cabin Tract or within 150 feet of the
(\ centerline of the road that forms the boundary between tracts D and E.
?c
5. Tracts B and E will be subject to reclamation in accordance
with the following terms and conditions:
a. A sufficient quantity of the upper 2 feet of soil will
be removed from the surface of Tracts B and E and stockpiled in an area
or areas where mining has been completed or adjacent to mined areas and
where it can be retrieved for use in future site reclamation. This
quantity will be a volume of soil sufficient to cover all mined areas
above the Projected Water Level on B and E to a depth of 2 feet at the
conclusion of mining.
• b. Martin Marietta has provided a demonstration
reclamation/graded area for tracts B and E which area is located
5
immediately south of the Cabin Tract (Demonstration Area). All mined
areas within B and E above the Projected Water Level will be graded so
that the grades are substantially the same as the grades in the
Demonstration Area which is depicted in photographs attached hereto as
Exhibit 'IBI' and the topographic survey of the Demonstration Area
attached as Exhibit "C".
C. MM will use a reputable consultant and make a good faith
effort to project the average elevation of the surface water that will
exist within the mined areas after mining and dewatering has ceased
?i ("Projected Water Level") and will request that the NC Division of
Water Quality and the NC Division of Land Resources (DLR) project
and/or confirm the water elevation referenced above, but MM makes no
guarantee, representation or warranty that the projection will be
exact.
7p,? d. Within 12 months of the completion of mining within each
of tracts B and E, MM will grade the mined area of the subject tracts
so that the areas above the Projected Water Level are all connected
with a continuous area of upland meeting the following standards:
(i) All areas above the Projected Water Level will rise
to an elevation of at least 6' above the Projected Water Level; and
(ii) No areas will have an elevation higher than the
elevation that existed prior to mining or 8' above the projected water
level, whichever is higher; and
(iii) The terrain will be gradually sloping as depicted
on Exhibits 11B and C11.
(iv) The 12 month time will be tolled during the time
• that the effects of a Force Majeure or Act of God leave the pursuit of
the grading required herein unreasonable.
6
Owill (v) The mined areas above the Projected Water Level
be covered with topsoil to a depth of approximately 2 feet and
will be stabilized with ground cover in accordance with standards
applicable to disturbed areas under the reclamation requirements of the
North Carolina Mining Act, except as specified in paragraph 6.
e. The areas projected to be below the Projected Water
Level must be graded to a slope no steeper than 2H:1V for the first 12
feet measured horizontally from the Projected Water Level. The areas
projected to be below the Projected Water Level must all be connected
by a continuous area at least 6 feet below the Projected Water Level
unless Wells and Sloan agree in writing to creation of isolated areas
not connected to the overall projected body of water. The purpose of
this provision is to prevent isolated bodies of water in the event the
• water table drops for any reason.
f. The northeast corner of Tract B serves as the headwaters
of an unnamed. tributary of Strawberry Creek. Subject to receiving
necessary regulatory permits which Martin Marietta will make a good
faith, bona fide effort to obtain, any mined areas of Tract B will be
reclaimed in such a way that a portion of the body of water that will
exist after reclamation is completed on Tract B will exist within the
former headwaters area or as close to the headwaters area as mining
takes place. Any disturbed portion of the headwaters area will be
graded at the conclusion of mining to the former natural elevation of
the headwaters area such that the lake will naturally drain into the
headwaters and the unnamed tributary if the lake level reaches the
natural elevation of the headwaters area. The headwaters area is
• depicted on Exhibit A with the designation "Headwaters Area". To
provide a replacement water source for 5 Eagles for the flow that
7
previously existed in the tributary of Strawberry Creek referenced
40herein, MM or its contractor will install a 611 well on 5 Eagles
property at a location accessible by a drill truck and specified by 5
Eagles within 6 weeks of the execution of this Agreement or 6 weeks
after the issuance of any necessary permit(s), whichever is later. If
a permit(s) is necessary, MM or its contractor shall obtain such
permit(s) and may obtain such permits in the name of 5 Eagles. The well
will be installed to a depth adequate to provide water taking into
account the dewatering of the mine. At the time the well is installed,
MM will deliver to 5 Eagles the sum of $1,000; this sum is intended to
apply to the cost of installing a pump in the well, but may be used by
5 Eagles for any purpose.
g. Perimeter berms and fences will be constructed, altered
• or removed as follows:
(i) MM will seek permission from governmental
regulatory agencies to eliminate any requirements for constructing any
additional berms around the perimeter of the mine in all locations
adjacent to or within property the surface rights to which are owned by
parties of the second part; and, if such permission is granted, MM will
not construct such berms.
(ii) Any new berms which government regulatory agencies
require to be built will be constructed at a slope on each side of the
berm that is no steeper than 114H:1V" and with a top elevation no higher
than 6 feet above natural grade, subject to approval by DLR.
(iii) MM may construct 3 strand barbed wire fences in
areas where berms are eliminated under (i) above. Gates will be
• installed at all locations where the fence crosses an existing dirt
8
road. The fence will be removed when MM is released from the
reclamation bond required under its North Carolina Mining Permit.
(iv) Subject to receiving the necessary regulatory
permits which Martin Marietta will make a good faith, bona fide effort
to obtain, the existing berm south of the Cabin Tract, will be modified
by MM as necessary to meet the standards in g.(ii) as soon as possible,
but no later than the time specified for completion of grading in 5.d.
Upon elimination of this portion of the berm, MM may install a fence in
accordance with (iii) above. Unless prohibited, the berm lying south
of the Echols tract will be removed or modified to meet the standards
in g(ii) within three (3) months of the time the sump and pump are
removed from their current location, as shown on Exhibit "A", the
Strawberry Branch outfall. A three strand barbed wire fence may be
installed south of the Echols Tract in accordance with (iii) above.
6. As an alternative to the provisions of paragraph EEED
concerning the replacement of topsoil in Tracts B and E, MM may leave
unmined at least 25% of the area constituting Tracts B and E.
7. Subject to approvals and conditions of applicable
governmental regulatory authorities, MM will discharge approximately
one-third of the dewatering discharge that has previously been
discharged into Strawberry Creek/Canal into the headwaters of the
unnamed tributary of Strawberry Creek which exists at the northeastern
corner of Tract B near the culvert under the road that forms the
boundary between Tracts B and C. Appropriate measures shall be
undertaken by MM at the point of discharge so as not to adversely
affect the culvert or the road bed referenced herein. MM will
• immediately pursue necessary government approvals for such discharge
and will make a good faith attempt to secure such approvals. Such
9
discharge will be commenced as soon as feasible after securing any
necessary approvals. All obligations to discharge will cease at the
conclusion of mining and the cessation of pumping.
8. MM will fill and repair in accordance with good engineering
and mining practices and standards any sinkholes that currently exist
or which subsequently appear on the property of the parties of the
second part within 30 days of notification that a sinkhole exists.
This obligation will cease 1 year after the completion of all required
reclamation at the Quarry. This agreement does not constitute an
admission by MM that the sinkholes have been or will be caused by its
activities at the Quarry.
9. Nothing herein will preclude the parties from taking
positions with regard to MM's obligations under any governmental
• regulatory programs regarding the operation, expansion or reclamation
at the Quarry; provided the parties of the second part will abide by
their obligation under paragraph 2 of this agreement to support MM's
application for a special use permit from Pender County.
10. This agreement contains the entire understanding of the
parties and may be waived or modified only by a written agreement
signed by all parties affected by the waiver or modification.
11. This agreement will be construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of North Carolina. In the event any provision or
requirement of this Agreement is prohibited by any local, state or
federal rule, regulation or law, the latter will control and MM shall
not be considered in breach of this Agreement for complying with such
rule, regulation or law.
• 12. The failure by any party to enforce any right arising
hereunder shall not be deemed a wavier of such right.
10
0 13. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties herein have set their hand and
seal effective the day and year first hereinabove written.
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.
BY : ?i G?7G C l? µ?----
S?W0A Viet SCJUUrplr
B
•
WAR\environ\R01-104-050

11
FIVE EAGLES PARTNERS
•
•
EXHIBIT
?$
1
*'I
Exhibit A
o Agreement Between
•
i
3
tin Marietta Materials and
Vells, Sloan & 5 Eagles

UW tt Uu1NU

P - 900'
0 430 900 1800
EXHIBIT A
ROCKY POINT QUARRY
PENDER COUNTY, N.C.
Quarry: R ky Point
l-Z&W ?W ?&M

Martin Marietta Materials
• P.O. Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Telephone: [phone]
February 17, 2004
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1621
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ #03-1023
Dear Mr. Dorney,
There has been a fair amount of discussion about the possibility of mining to the
south of the existing pit as an alternative to disturbing the 6.92 acres of wetlands that
are the subject of the above referenced application. While we believe that it is likely
that at some point in the future we will be mining in that direction, the permitting and
preparation of that area will take an amount of time that well exceeds the life of the
• quarry based on existing reserves of mineable limestone.
This property, along with other areas of the county, has recently been rezoned to the
Heavy Industrial category by the County Commissioners on their own motion. While
Heavy Industrial zoning is necessary for mining, there are other permits that we must
obtain before we can begin mining operations on any new area of land. This list of
permits includes a Special Use Permit from the county, a state mining permit and a
possible modification to its existing NPDES permit.
In order to obtain the required Special Use permit, MMM will need to file an
application after which it will be necessary for the county to hold at least one public
hearing. It is anticipated that this process, which, based on experience, will include
extensive negotiation on reclamation, will take several months after the application is
filed. The Company has held a meeting with the County Planning Director to discuss
the application, the result of which was that the Company had to significantly
decrease the amount of property it will seek to permit. A draft application has been
forwarded to the County for review, which is the normal practice in this and other
jurisdictions. After response from the county, the application will be finalized using
input from the review, and then submitted. Thereafter, the public hearing will be
calendared and advertised. Because there is no guarantee that the Special Use Permit
will be granted, MMM believes that it would be speculative to launch into a major
effort to obtain the required mining permit prior to issuance of the Special Use
Permit, primarily because of the high costs of the studies typically required for
• mining permits in this area.
• Page 2
Mr. John Dorney
February 17, 2004
After the Special Use Permit has been granted, if in fact it is granted, then a Mining
Permit must be obtained from the Division of Land Resources (DLR). Historically,
this process can take more than six months to complete, particularly in coastal areas.
The application for this permit is routed to the Division of Air Quality, the Division
of Parks and Recreation, the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Water
Resources, the N. C. Geological Survey, the Wildlife Resources Commission, the
Division of Archives and History, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and "...any
other federal or State agency that the Department determines to be appropriate,
including the Division of Coastal Management, the Division of Marine Fisheries, the
Division of Waste Management and the Department of Transportation." Depending
on comments received from any of these agencies or other members of the public,
additional information or studies may be required and/or a public hearing may be
held.
After the granting of the Mining Permit, if in fact it is granted, MMM is required to
give notice to the landlord, Plum Creek Timber Company of the pending need to
mine a certain area. The timber company then has ninety (90) days to remove their
• product. They do not want to remove the timber earlier than necessary, or if no
mining will occur, so as to maximize the amount of harvestable material.
Following the removal of the timber, the Company will need to remove (strip) the
overburden from the mineable rock, a process that will take several additional
months. Product reserves in the immediate tract south of the existing operations are
currently being assessed, and that information is and must be considered as industrial
trade information and is believed to not have any bearing on the issuance of the
necessary permit.
Apart from the obligation to obtain a Special Use Permit and a Mining Permit, there
are still questions that still must be addressed before impacts to those waters of the
US that exist in the area could be permitted. Mine operations to the south have the
potential to impact the stream system that has been identified in what is referred to as
Tract E. MMM has spent the last two years investigating the existence of wetlands
potentials in the area that is the subject of the application, developing a ground water
monitoring plan to be approved by DWQ, and implementing that plan. Given the time
this requirement has taken and the questions that the DWQ may have on mining
impacts to the south, it is not possible from a timing standpoint, to start work on areas
that are not permitted by the County, permitted by DLR, timbered or stripped, without
having to shut down existing mining operations because of the limited reserves now
available.
0
• Page 3
Mr. John Dorney
February 17, 2004
In summary, should adequate product (rock) be found on the tracts to the south, it is
anticipated that obtaining approvals and preparing the operation to mine could take up
to two years to complete. The existing operation has less life than that to operate, and
even adding the additional area covered by this application (G1 and G2), we will
barely have enough reserves to last through this two-year period.
Sincerely,
rl"lv' R. Paxton Badham, Jr.
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
•
0
•
E
1

0
• 2. NCDENR: Please indicate whether the excavation and dewatering of the
mine pit may affect adjacent wetlands. This discussion should clearly
explain whether such activities will result in hydraulic gradient alteration,
thereby draining/reducing adjacent wetland areas. (A written account
addressing this issue/information, monitoring data, and modeling used for
this account needs to be submitted to DWQ for use as part of this
application review).
MM1141: It has been discussed on many occasions with the Division that the
dewatering of the mine pit will not remove hydrology from the upper twelve inches
of the soil profile of the adjacent wetlands. Disturbance of the land surface,
installation of drainage ditches and the planting of the pine forests. The signed
Jurisdictional Determinations were based not on the existence of hydrology but
rather were the results of the agreed science and appropriate negotiated areas
with the COE. It has been repeatedly stated that the area within and adjacent to
the proposed mine pit were extensively managed by the timber companies prior
to MMM beginning operations at the site. This extensive management removed
the wetland hydrology years, and in some areas even decades before mining
operations began on the site.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has accepted the use of Drainmod as a
hydrologic model to determine the influence of the forestry ditches that were
installed in the 1970's, long before MMM entered the scene. The Corps has
accepted the results of the modeling and has issued Jurisdictional Determination
regarding waters of the US for tracts E, G1, and G2. In repeated meetings with
• the Division and the Corps, the results of the modeling has been discussed with
the ditch influences being accepted by the Corps ranging from 400 to 500 feet for
the roadside ditches. There has been much discussion and data provided to the
State regarding the soil profiles with the areas of concern. Soil borings
associated with the placement of monitoring wells at locations pre-approved by
the Division of Water Quality have yielded data related to the existence of a clay
confining layer approximately 10 to 12 feet below the surface that provides a
hydraulic disconnect between the dewatering elevations and the surface. This
issue was discussed extensively with the Division in July 2003 in a meeting in
Wilmington which was attended by Regional and Wetland Unit Central staff.
The accepted Drainmod model predicted that the pit dewatering influence was
limited to a zone of influence of approximately 750 feet for the surflcial aquifer.
Monitoring wells in Tract H2 indicate the presence of near surface hydrology.
Please refer to the alternative pumping plan for the discussion regarding plans to
ensure that wetlands will not be impacted in the future from mining operations.
At the specific request of the Division during the July 2, 2003 meeting in
Wilmington, a copy of the monitoring data and the model was provided to Mr.
Danny Smith.
Enclosed is a copy of the modeling data and outputs for the Division's review.
MMM2: Attached is supplemental information regarding this Item. Previous
• information and new information has been consolidated and attached. This
information includes:
2-1
• • Technical Memoranda regarding DRAINMOD modeling - July 9, 2002,
November 13, 2002, November 26, 2002.
• Modeling Input and Output data (this information was provided to Danny
Smith on a CD previously)
A summary of the monitoring gage data has also been prepared and included as
an Appendix to the attached Alternative Pumping Plan (included in later sections
of this response document - Item # 5). The summary includes observations
made based on over one year's data from the site. This summary documents
many of the results used in developing the pumping plan and ensuring adjoining
wetlands will not be impacted by the advancing mine pit.
In addition, a summary of the DRAINMOD modeling results for all tracts modeled
has been prepared and attached as a Technical Memorandum. As requested,
after our meeting of February 12, 2004, Tract F1, Tract F2 and the Mined
portions of Tract G2 were modeled using DRAINMOD. An illustration of the
results from DRAINMOD modeling conducted for Tract F1 has also been
included.
Attachments:
Technical Memorandum - July 9, 2002
Technical Memorandum - November 13, 2002
Technical Memorandum - November 26, 2002
Technical Memorandum: Discussion of DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling for
• Wetland Analysis
END
•
2-2
•
?Kimley-Horn
and Associates Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: February 16, 2004
Project: Martin Marietta Materials, Rocky Point, NC
Subject: Discussion on DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling for Wetland Analysis
Purpose
The following memorandum is prepared to summarize the DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling
for Wetland Analysis on the Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) Rocky Point Quarry in Pender
County, North Carolina. DRAINMOD modeling has been approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) for several Tracts on the site. This technical memorandum summarizes
modeling efforts performed by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for Tracts F1 and F2 and mined
portions of Tract G2 to determine limits of hydrology on the site in 1999 (the effective date of
• NCDENR's wetland draining policy). The Corps approved a wetlands delineation in late 1999
after the NCDENR rule became effective. The following is wetlands evaluation of historic
conditions based on the modeling.
Background - Corps Accepted Methodology
To develop a DRAINMOD model for Tracts F1, F2, and G2, in particular for historical
conditions since the tracts have been cleared for mining, several assumptions need to be made for
inputs into the model. Logical assumptions would be those that have been approved by the Corps
on adjoining parcels that demonstrate similar features as identified in resource maps and aerial
photography. Tracts Fl and F2 and Tract G2 are mapped with similar soils as adjoining parcels,
were documented to have been managed for silviculture in a similar manner, and drainage
management on the tracts can be identified as early as the early 1980's before the mine was
started. The following is a summary of the assumptions and conclusions concurred with the Corps
in using DRAINMOD on this site.

Tracts B, C, and E
The hydrologic model DRAINMOD was used to evaluate the extent of drainage influence of
• silvicultural ditches in the areas adjacent to the Rocky Point Quarry during the evaluation by the
Corps in the determination of jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the mine.
Initially, the analysis was performed for Tracts B, C, E, G1, G2, H2, and H2 (eastern and
southern parcels). However, it was determined that the initial analysis was appropriate for Tracts
B, C, and E only and that additional parameter information was necessary for the eastern Tracts.
When the model was applied to determine drainage influence in Tract E, the soil property inputs
were unknown. Conservative assumptions as to the soil texture and hydraulic conductivity were
used for the model analysis, and the output results for Tract E were:
• 300+ feet of influence from interior ditches
• 400+ feet of influence from roadside ditches
Tracts G1, G2, Hl, and H2
Additional field investigation and verification by the Corps was performed for Tracts G1 and G2
for application of the DRAINMOD model. It was determined by the Corps that different soil
• types and ditch dimensions were to be used for the eastern tracts (although the land management
and soil mapping are the same as Tract E).
In the time period between the initial analysis (Tracts B, C, and E) and the second analysis
(Tracts G1, G2, H1, 112), DRAINMOD soil parameter datasets were developed by and obtained
from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). These datasets were developed
specifically for the DRAINMOD application and are based on NRCS soil parameter database
information. Using the NRCS soil datasets, and applying the soil types and ditch dimensions
approved by the Corps, the output results for Tracts G1, G2, H1, H2 were:
• 400+ feet of influence from the interior ditch (G 1)
• 600+ feet of influence from the roadside ditches
• 350+ feet of influence from the boundary ditch between GI and G2
The results of the DRAINMOD analysis for the eastern Tracts (G1, G2, Hl, and 1-12) was
presented to the Corps, and agreements on the ditch dimensions were made on a segment-by-

H: IPM0111850100WQ FileDRAINMODORAINMOD FI -F2-G2 final(cwe).doc
segment basis to determine the drainage influence on ditches in G1 and G2 and consideration of
• the jurisdictional determination.
E
Historical Analysis - Tracts F1, F2, and G2
Through discussion with the NCDENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ) it was determined that
additional DRAINMOD analysis would be required to.determine potential wetland areas in the
areas of mine expansion after March 1999 (the date state wetland drainage policy became
enforced) to December 1999 (the date the Corps issued a formal jurisdictional determination on
Tracts F 1 and 172) for Tracts F 1 and F2 and the present for Tract G2. For all three tracts, the areas
of concern have been cleared and/or excavated for mining. Due to their location in the active
mine area, data collection on actual soil types and ditch dimensions is not possible. Therefore,
historical aerial photographs and soil mapping were used to determine the influence of drainage
ditches in F1, F2, and G2. For the analysis, the mine wall was modeled as a ditch dug down to
the impermeable layer as a pre-existing influence on the adjacent areas.
Review of the aerial photography shows that the ditch spacing and land management on F1 and
F2 is similar to E, so the ditch parameters for roadside and interior ditches applied in the initial
analysis of Tract E were used for simulations in F 1 and F2.
The soil survey shows that all of Tracts F1, F2, and G2 are mapped as Murville soil series. The
Murville soil parameter file provided by NRCS was used for soil texture and hydraulic
conductivity values.
The depth to impermeable layer was approximated as 10 feet from the surface based on
stratigraphy data collected during the installation of deeper aquifer monitoring gages installed in
the eastern Tracts.
Table 1 shows the results of the DRAINMOD analysis for Tracts F1, F2, and G2. In summary
the results were:
• 500+ feet of influence in the F1/F2 interior ditches
• 550+ feet of influence in the Fl/F2/G2 roadside ditches (Note that modeling for
Tracts G/H indicated a 600+ feet zone of influence, however, based on
negotiations with the Corps on ditch dimensions a smaller zone was actually
agreed to for jurisdictional purposes.)
•
H. IPM0111850101DWQ FileIDRAINMODIDRAINMOD FI-F2-G2fnal(ewe).doe
• 700+ feet of influence from the mine wall (simulated as a 10-ft deep drainage
ditch)
•
The attached figure shows the drainage ditches in Tracts F1, F2, and G2 and the associated
drainage influence modeled using DRAINMOD.
Using these assumptions, the drainage influence of each drainage feature on Tracts F1, F2 and G2
was mapped on the attached Figure. Based on the mapped influences the entirety of Tracts F2
and the mined portion of G2 are previously drained. In that the mapped drainage influence in
Tract F1 is similar to the Tract E results (i.e. few small non-drained area in the interior of the
tract; for F1 the total area is less than half an acre), the entirety of Tract F1 is also considered
previously drained. Therefore, no wetlands existed on the Tracts (as described above) during the
periods of concern. The source of drainage for each tract existed prior to the state's rule effective
date. Note that on Tract F 1-B and Tract F 1-C there is a small polygon in the center of each tract
that is not contained within the zone of influence as mapped. These areas are approximately 50
feet by 200 feet in size (10,000 square feet). In discussions with the Corps on Tract E, similar
small polygons of less than 1 acre resulted from the modeling. The Corps agreed on Tract E that
these areas were not considered jurisdictional for the following reasons:
• • Mapping accuracies and scales (base mapping) could account for the small areas.
• The modeling assumptions were extremely conservative in that several factors were not
considered that would increase the zone of influence of the ditches.
• Field reconnaissance indicated that there are upland ridges (areas with non-hydric soils;
that is non-Murville soils) within the tracts.
These same assumptions apply to Tract F1. Aerial photography shows signatures consistent with
upland ridges within the center of the blocks on Tract F1. Based on the assumptions used and the
data developed, Tract F1 is effectively drained over its entirety.
End
Attachments -
Table 1: DRAINMOD Simulations for Wetland Hydrology and Drainage Ditch Influence
Analysis
Figure: Tracts F1, F2 and G2 Historical DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
is
H: IPN10111850101DWQ Filel DRAINMODI DRAINMOD FI -F2-G2 f nal(cwe).doc 4
•
a
C
a
7
0
a
0
v
C
rw-l
R
3
w
0
_E
N
0
2
z
•
a
C
a ?U
for
o ? o
z
C7 =ao ?'
lL ? Y O
C V
N °
V C
F a
' O tp '- O O d 0 0 tp N N f? ? W O N O O ,O ? N O N N W ? W d ? N O) O O t7 O d d W N
m 00..

y
" O O O O O ?- O O N N O O O M M 0 0 O N N O 0 0 0 ?- O O O O O N b
3
? &
e
l? O h N O N N O O M O d 1? O M d N O O N N Ol O ;t
N
Ol
W
f0
O)
O
N
O)
O
W
Cl
h
N
R ?

t?t? p .# l ,+f S'? 0 0 ?- O O ? O O N O N N O O O M M O O N ? N O M N O ? O O N ? 0 0 ?- '- O O ?- N ? rv

r

* i { N W « O r'1 N O W l7 M d M N O O) d N 0 0 1? d ?- N N N m N W W y W O h OI O W d 1? W

0 ?- N o N ? 0 0 t7 C) O O N ?- N O l?l N O ? O O N ?- 0 0 ? ?- O O ? N N N
N ]

0 , 0
O
W
N
O
d
n
O
N
CJ
N
O
O
N
d
N
0
('1
N
W
W
d
d
W
O
d
O?
O
1p
N
W
N
o.cf

°
#1

??
?
t O
O
O
O
O
?- O O
N
O
N
N
O
O
O
M
th
O
O
N
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
?-
O
O
?-
O
O
N
-
QO
.
g ?a
`

f? pp rr
? C'?r1?1I
_[?
u6u6 ! O1 N N ,O N
N O O) Cl
N N
? d d N O O d N 0 0 W
N d
N OI
E A N
? N
N Ol N W W y
th O)
.- N N W
? 0
M 0 1? d r W
LL ?•! ?
??
.? -?1?? « O O N O O N ? N N N O O c'1 M O O N ? N O N N O ? O O N ? ? O O ? N N N

y;j :N 1',.,
8 ? n ?- O O N O W N N N h ? O d N N O O N ry 0 0 ' W t? ?- A O N d 0) N 0)
'
N O t? ' W N
?
O
?
'
'
',yy >}
lV3 0 0 0 0 0 ?- O O N O ?- N 0 0 0 ? B O O ? ? O O ? N 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 .- N ? 10
a
j?z2 ?( -.4?..
j
YS N OI N d N 0 0) N O d t? O O N N O O N N N O (7 N W ?- W d d
l?I W N r O? O I? M W N
N
LL
g. o
?
a
LL
8 ss{? " ' ? O O O O N O O N O N N O O O t7 f? O O N ?- O M N O O O O ? ? O ? ? O O « N N
{ N
r a. `.
1'l O W N ,O N N OI C1 M d d N O O 7 1V W d 0) N N N O N W t0 O N N O) O O d d 1? W

t
p Z
F ? q
0. O O O N O O N N N m 0 0 N N O O N N N O N N O O O N .- .- - - - O ? ? N N f0
N
'
ry
V ;

} ._ Si
rn =
m
m u7i
m 3 uN
W ?
rn ur
m O?
m u°
m ? ? 8 ? ? m ? S rn m m m m rn rn rn m m m m ?'m ? o? rn ? m °?rn rn O

F
py0
a
g t
5
° 8 rv
v
a
o ? 5
a m v
? c o
vy
EE
m o
a a «m
n ?? cdo
qo
yL g 5 .C?C T O?
V ? N V p1 L.
C
> E a y
c? m a E - 3
y C J O
a ao
O N
00
z jE
o L° c ? w 3
E
y^EoEv?
on?a3o-
G N N C? E
C O ?-??CCC9 y .?1 T
C a 0
y.? ?E ANY.
Fo R' c $ Xi ? p3?
b-i m? ?g? 3
Fb ? ? O ?y?pi
E$E E'o
:.' JSA
0
L N y O? O C
H? LD
J
OIL o N C q!?;
'Y OS
t? Low
p? v
a { S
a Z a
W z§>
E m ° 5
U y
01
LL
GN
Q
m
3
°o
z °!
e?
o„
Z?
P-
±
r
: .... <. ► _, - _ ._ .. � -_ ••rte•. `• -
v y:
r
y
1� a ;'
1.10 i.i
.syvs-sE- ,.i- �.t .. - `r -y, -,�;. e3. _ -'mow '�, - 'p _•'`' .'R-•: _
r -
3 .
6
•c
' a .' - - " - .'may- -y - - _•. _ + �
14y, '4
+
T
r
r
x ug
.. "y ... , : _. ..." _�, °.=, �_ -- a _'- -... L^m' - �. •�.. _,. - _ _
v.
v
• W_
� y
s
-
-
26
• T.
0' �
f_
r.
500' •-+- .�
. 4
ti
of
` air J� •:..: •. - _
w
-
-
•
-
C.n
III&No
ro
Y �' 500' 500' 00' 500' 500 500'
js t
•. fes' � �
n•
4-� � � � • 550'LA CA'
CA
�\ Q C C" CA
Ditches
Drainage Influence
1 200 411 800 1 200 ...
Feet
G
Aerial flown 1-20-99

Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis Attachment
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: November 26, 2002
Project: MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, Rocky Point, NC.
Subject: Attachment to DRAINMOD Modeling Analysis Summary: Output Files for COE Review
Purpose
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc (KHA) staff (Harlan Britt, Jim Eisenhardt, Chad Evenhouse) met with US Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) staff (Mickey Sugg) on November 11, 2002 to discuss additional DRAINMOD hydrologic modeling
performed on the Rocky Point Quarry site to determine drainage influence of drainage ditches on Parcel G. The following
data summary and attached output files (hard copy and electronic copy) are submitted per the request of Mickey Sugg to
supplement information submitted to the COE at the July 9 and November 11 meetings to be evaluated internally at COE,
or by a third-party reviewer.
000del Assumptions
The following assumptions were used in the DRAINMOD analysis on the Rocky Point Quarry site.
Climate
• Forty-year rainfall and temperature data from North Wilmington, NC monitoring station.
[Weather input datafiles (*.tem, *.rai) provided with DRAINMOD v.5.1)
• Monthly evapostranspiration factors for vegetation typical of a pine plantation forest in Eastern North Carolina.
Reference: Amatva, D.M., R.W. Skaggs and J.D. Gregory. 1995. Comparison of Methods tier [`.s(imating REF-ETA. of
Irrigation &. Drainage Engineering, Nov./Dec. 1995, Vol. 121, No. 6, pp: 427-435.
• Growing season is assumed as the duration of frost-free days approximated as the first and last day of the year
where temperature was 28 degrees Fahrenheit in fifty percent of years (237 days).
[Reference: Soil Survey of Vender County, North Carolina. t.1S Department of Agriculture. 19901
• Wetland hydrologic analysis is set at meeting 5% of the growing season of watertable within 12 inches (30 cm) of
the ground surface (12 days). [Minimum criteria for meeting wetland hydrology as stated in COI: 1987 Manual]
Hydrology
• Drainage ditch dimensions were measured in the field and consolidated to identify typical ditch dimensions for
the study area. These were presented and discussed at the COE meetings (July 9 and November 14).
• Given the high infiltration rate of sandy soil and the disturbed/altered areas of the pine plantation, surface storage
parameters (STMAX and STORRO) were assumed to be minimal (2.5 cm and 0.5 cm respectively).
• Seepage parameters (lateral, vertical, slope) were not considered for initial simulations and were held constant as
zero or none. However, due to the likelihood that these three seepage parameters do exist (see DRAINMOD
•
HAPN\011185010\DRAINMOD dalaTWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DRAINMOD Attachment.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRA/NMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis Attachment
• Analysis Technical Memorandum submitted July 9, 2002), additional simulations were performed for Parcel E
roadside ditch simulations.
Soil
Initial DRAINMOD simulations were performed using the ROSETTA model, created by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service and included with the DRAINMOD model v.5.1 as a utility subroutine to create soil
parameter input files for application in the model. The soil input file was created assuming a uniform soil profile
of a loamy sand using soil texture data from the soil survey. The initial simulations were then performed
assuming hydraulic conductivity values.
During the additional analysis for Parcel G (results submitted to the COE at the November 14 meeting), additional
soil input files for Murville and Torhunta soil series were obtained from Paul Rodrigue, Hydrologist with the
Wetland Science Institute and ARS Sedimentation Laboratory, Natural Resource Conservation Service. The
Murville soil series input dataset was modeled and compared to the previously modeled loamy sand uniform input
file, and the Torhunta soil series input dataset was modeled to simulate the depressional areas within Parcel G. It
was observed during field investigations that these depressional areas have a loamy/organic surface horizon with
similar sandy subsoil as the Murville. It was assumed that the Torhunta dataset would appropriately represent the
finer surface soil properties for these areas.
Additional Field Observations
• Depth to impermeable layer parameter - The initial DRAINMOD analysis was performed without a known depth
to impermeable layer. For the analysis, values for the depth to impermeable of two and three meters were
modeled. Through later field efforts to install ground water monitoring wells, the actual depth to impermeable
layer as was observed and was generally noted to vary between 10 to 15 feet from the ground surface at the study
is area.
Simulation Results Summary
The simulation results were summarized and submitted as Technical Memorandums to the COE at the July 9 and
November 14 meetings.
The analysis performed for Parcel E was intended to evaluate unknown soil property parameters and determine an
appropriate ditch drainage influence for the roadside and internal drainage ditches for Parcel E. Without DRAINMOD
soil input files for Murville soil series on the site, a conservative estimate (based on soil texture and hydraulic
conductivity ranges) of a uniform loamy sand soil input file was created using the ROSETTA model for use in the model
simulations. The analysis proposed an influence of 400+ feet of drainage from the roadside ditch and 300+ feet from the
internal drainage ditches.
For the additional analysis of Parcel G, the soil input files for Murville and Torhunta soil series were obtained from the
NRCS, Wetland Science Institute and were used in model simulations. These soil files are not as conservative, and likely
use more average values for soil properties (texture and hydraulic conductivity) than what was modeled using the uniform
loamy sand soil input file previously. Applying the NRCS Murville soil input data the drainage influence for the roadside
ditch was modeled as 600 feet, 400 feet for the internal drainage ditch (Parcel G), and 350 feet for the boundary ditch
between G 1 and G2.
•
HAPN\01 1 185010THAINMOD data\DWO File1ACOE Review Summary CDtDocstDRAINMOD Attachment.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis Attachment
Offachments
A compact disc containing electronic copy of the DRAD MOD project, input, and output files (*.out and *.wet), as well
as documents submitted to the COE are attached. They are described as follows.
/Docs/
• "DRAINMOD Attachment.doc" - This document
• "DRAINMOD Bullet Summary Parcel E.doc" - Bullet summary of findings submitted to COE on July 9,
2002.
• "DRAINMOD Summary Parcel E.doc" - Summary of findings submitted to COE on July 9, 2002.
• Contains site map figures and parcel boundaries.
• "DRAINMOD Analysis Parcel E.xls" - Excel spreadsheet containing summary tables of model simulation
outputs for the Parcel E analysis, submitted to the COE on July 9, 2002.
• "DRAINMOD Summary Parcel G.doc" - Summary of findings submitted to the COE on November 14, 2002.
• "DRAINMOD Analysis Parcel G.xls" - Excel spreadsheet containing summary tables of model simulations
for the Parcel G analysis, submitted to the COE on November 14, 2002.
/Inputs/
• DRAMMOD input files *.pd (project files) and *.gen (general files) used for the DRAMMOD simulations.
The interior ditch *.pd and *.gen files are not included as the roadside project and general input files from the
roadside ditch simulations were used with changes made to the drainage design and soil input files only.
/Weather/
• North Wilmington Weather Station weather input files (provided by NC State University with the
DRAB, MOD v.5.1 software).
oils/
• Uniform soil profile of loamy sand soil data
• Torhunta soil series input data
• Murville soil series input data
• Soil series descriptions of Murville and Torhunta soils
/Outputs/
/MMA/
/Roadside Ditch/
/Parcel E Interior Ditch/
/G2 Interior Ditch/
/G I -G2 Boundary Ditch/
/Torhunta 1 ft Ditch Depth/
• Simulation output files *.out and *.wet - The *.out files are shown for each change in soil parameter inputs
but not for individual changes in drain spacings (i.e. all inputs are maintained the same with the only change
to the drain spacing parameter to determine drainage influence of 50% years of simulation).
• The Torhunta 1-ft Ditch Depth simulations were performed to approximate the ditch influence within the
depressional areas of Parcel G. It is assumed that the lower elevation of the depressional areas results in a
drainage influence that is more highly influenced by the lower conductivity, finer textured soils near the upper
portion of the soil profile.
End

hl \PN\O1 i 185O1O\DRAINMOD daia\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DRAINMOD AUachmentdoc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
Parcel G DRA/NMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
a Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: November 13, 2002
Project: MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, Rocky Point, NC.
Subject: DRAINMOD Modeling Analysis Summary, Parcels GI and G2
Purpose
Additional DRAIMOD analysis was performed on the Rocky Point Quarry site to address comments and questions posed
by US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) staff (Mickey Sugg) at the July 9, 2002 project meeting. The additional analysis
was performed to include variation in soil type and ditch dimension in the G1 and G2 parcels. The following
memorandum presents the results of the additional analysis.
Background
The results of the DRAINMOD analysis to determine jurisdictional wetland areas on the Rocky Point Quarry site was
presented to Mickey Sugg on July 9, 2002. Summaries of the action items are as follows:
• Parcels B, C, D, and E would not require any additional DRAINMOD modeling. The jurisdictional wetland areas
would be limited to the channelized drainage features as discussed during the on-site field meeting (April 30, 2002).
A jurisdictional determination would be made once the areas were delineated, flagged, and surveyed. A map of the
surveyed wetland areas would be provided to Mr. Sugg, and based on that information, he would determine the need
for additional field verification.
• Parcels H1 and H2 would not require additional DRAINMOD modeling since there are no interior drainage ditches,
and the roadside ditch influence provided at the meeting was sufficient for these areas (i.e. 400 feet from the roadside
ditch). Jurisdictional wetland areas would be determined by delineation based on detailed soil delineation and
mapping of hydric soil types to differentiate between wet flat areas and upland ridges (based on discussion on July 9
and April 30 meetings).
Parcels G1 and G2 have a higher degree of variability in vegetation community, soil, and channel geometry. Mr.
Sugg requested that additional DRAINMOD modeling be performed in order to attribute a distance of influence
affecting wetland hydrology for the interior ditch of G1, and to make a jurisdiction determination. The roadside ditch
influence data presented was sufficient for determination of influence distance (400 ft.) of roadside ditches in the
parcel. Areas not within the drainage influence of the ditches would need to be delineated based on hydric soils
(comments from April 30 meeting).
•
H \PN\011185010\DRAINMOD dala\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel G.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
Parcel G DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
qodel Assumptions
The following assumptions were used in the previous analysis on the Rocky Point Quarry site, and were maintained for
the additional analysis for Parcels G1 and G2. They are:
Climate
• Forty-year rainfall and temperature data from North Wilmington, NC monitoring station.
• Monthly evapostranspiration factors for vegetation typical of a pine plantation forest in Eastern North Carolina.
• Growing season is assumed as the duration of frost-free days approximated as the first and last day of the year
where temperature was 28 degrees Fahrenheit in fifty percent of years (237 days).
• Wetland hydrologic analysis is set at meeting 5% of the growing season of watertable within 12 inches (30 cm) of
the ground surface (12 days).
Hydrology
• Drainage ditch dimensions were measured in the field and consolidated to identify a typical roadside and an
internal drainage ditch dimension. It was evident during field efforts to measure ditch dimensions that the ditches
had not been maintained, and there had been some slumping of banks and filling of the ditch bottom.
• Surface storage parameters were assumed to be minimal when modeling a drainage ditch perpendicular to the
bedding rows... that is, furrows provide improved surface water movement for ponded water and when
perpendicular to the drainage ditch, provide improved surface flow to the ditch. However, beds create increased
storage of ponded water, and act as a barrier to surface water movement when the beds are aligned parallel to the
drainage ditch.
• No lateral seepage is considered (i.e. lateral flow to a lower elevation stream)
• No slope seepage (i.e. lateral flow due to a ground surface slope)
• • No vertical or deep seepage.
Additional soil data was obtained from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), Wetland Science Institute for
the Murville and Torhunta soil series. These soil input files, developed for the DRAINMOD model were not available
previously, and were used for comparison with the previous soil data assumptions. The results of the previous
DRAINMOD analysis presented a uniform soil profile of a loamy sand soil type as an appropriate (albeit conservative)
approximation of the Murville soil series. The same assumptions of a uniform loamy sand was used for comparison with
the soil inputs obtained from the NRCS.
Simulation Results
The simulation results are presented in Tables 1 through 10 (attached).
The typical dimensions of the interior ditch in parcel G1, and the boundary ditch between parcels G1 and G2 are shown in
Table 1. These dimensions are smaller than the other interior ditches of parcels B, C, and E presented in the previous
DRAINMOD analysis.
Table 2 presents additional soil profile data collected in parcels G1 and G2. The soil profile data was consistent with the
mapped Murville soil series, However, it is noted that there are depressional areas where the surface horizon is a finer
texture and does have some organic material. The percent composition of organic material in these depressional areas was
not determined in the field. To model these areas, data from the Torhunta soil series (provided by NRCS) was used to
simulate the low conductivity of the surface horizon. Torhunta soil series is a fine sandy loam, generally with a dark,
histic epipedon. The Torhunta dataset was used due to the proximity of mapped Torhunta soils to the study area.
•
H \PN\011185010TRAINMOD dala\DWO File1ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel G.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
Parcel G DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
Qables 3 through 10 contain results from the DRAINMOD analysis for Parcels G1 and G2. In evaluation of the tables, it
is important to note the results are presented in the format of the model. That is, the model is assuming a ditch spacing
and predicting a water table elevation within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12% (consecutive days) of the growing
season at the midpoint location between ditches. Therefore, the spacing shown in the tables is equal to 2-times the
drainage influence of the ditch (i.e. 800-ft spacing is equal to a 400-ft ditch influence).
Roadside ditch
Table 3 contains results from simulating the drainage influence of the roadside ditches adjacent to parcels G1 and G2
using the same assumptions as presented in the previous analysis (i.e. uniform loamy sand soil). The assumptions
contained in this simulation, as discussed in the previous analysis summary, is a conservative approximation of site
conditions. Based on the conservative assumptions, an appropriate distance of drainage influence is 400 feet from the
ditch. However, by using the NRCS dataset for Murville soil series, the ditch influence is greater at approximately 600
feet of influence (Table 4). Table 5 shows the results of modeling the NRCS-Torhunta dataset on the roadside ditch. The
drainage influence of the ditch modeled using the NRCS-Torhunta dataset is similar to the NRCS-Murville results
(drainage influence of 600 feet, or ditch spacing of 1,200 feet). This is likely due to the depth of the ditch being deep
enough that the highly conductive sub-soil has a greater influence on the lateral water movement than the surface soil
horizon.
GI Interior Ditch
Tables 6 through 8 show the results of modeling the G 1 interior ditch. Table 6 shows results of modeling the uniform
sandy loam soil dataset, Table 7 shows the results of modeling the NRCS-Murville dataset, and Table 8 shows the results
of modeling the MRCS-Torhunta dataset. Using the conservative assumptions of the uniform loamy sand soil, the
drainage influence was approximated as 275 feet form the ditch (i.e. 550-feet ditch spacing, see Table 6). The NRCS-
"urville dataset simulations resulted in a ditch influence of 400 feet (i.e. 800-feet ditch spacing, see Table 7). The
CS-Torhunta dataset simulations, as discussed above, resulted in a higher drainage influence than the Murville dataset
since the ditch depth was within the highly conductive sub-soil, and resulted in a drainage influence of 500 feet (i.e.
1,000-feet ditch spacing, see Table 8).
Torhunta Soils
In evaluation of the results of applying the Torhunta soil dataset to the study parcels, it was noted that these soils are
located in the study area in depressions. Therefore, it may be inappropriate to simulate the Torhunta dataset with the ditch
dimensions measured in the study parcels. For comparison, a ditch depth of one foot was assumed and modeled using the
Torhunta dataset. This was approximated from field observation of the depth of the ditches and the topographic change
observed in the depressions. Table 9 shows the results of the simulations of the shallow ditch when the drainage influence
is controlled by the lower hydraulic conductivity of the surface soil horizon. The drainage influence under these
assumptions in a Torhunta soil is approximated as 160 feet (i.e. a ditch spacing of 325 feet, see Table 9).
Gl -G2 Boundary Ditch
The soil datasets, uniform loamy sand and MRCS-Murville, were modeled assuming the ditch dimensions of the boundary
ditch between parcels G1 and G2. The results are shown in Table 10. The drainage influence of the boundary ditch
assuming the uniform soil conditions is 225 feet (i.e. approximately 450-feet ditch spacing). The drainage influence of the
ditch using the NRCS-Murville dataset is 350 feet (i.e. approximately 700-feet ditch spacing).
Conclusions
The previous DRAINMOD analysis was performed from a conservative baseline condition based on a set of assumptions.
The result of that analysis was that the drainage influence modeled was conservative and likely an underestimate.
Modeling the G1 and G2 parcels with the NRCS Murville dataset supports that assessment.
•
HAM011185010TRAINMOD data\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel G.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
Parcel G DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
•
The additional analysis compared soil datasets. However, there are other factors that contribute to the drainage influence
of the ditch network that were not evaluated, but by considering that they likely do exist, it is reasonable to assume that
the drainage influence distances summarized above are still likely to be underestimates of actual conditions. Other factors
include:
• Growing season - 5% of the growing season was used to evaluate wetland hydrology. If a range of 5 to 12%, as
stated in the COE 1987 manual, had been used for the analysis, the drain spacings would have increased based on the
number of years meeting hydrology criteria (i.e. 5% is 12 consecutive days; 12% is 28 consecutive days).
• Surface Slope - The analysis assumed that the field flat with microtopographic depressions providing storage. It did
not consider that there is a general surface slope across the study area which would provide some later seepage to the
drainage network.
• Ditch Dimensions - A typical ditch dimension was used for analysis purposes. In many areas on site, the actual ditch
dimension may be significantly greater. This is especially true near the outlets of the parcels evaluated. In addition,
the dimensions that were measured are likely less than what was originally constructed due to the lack of maintenance
over time.
• Lateral Seepage - The parcels drain to streams at their outlets. The elevation of the base flow of the streams may be
considerable lower than the bottom of the drainage ditches. This would create lateral seepage to the stream in
addition to the lateral drainage to the ditch.
• Soil Properties - The soil properties of a loamy sand soil were used for evaluation purposes. There may be areas on-
site where the soil type is more sand (as the soil series description for Murville soil series indicates) than loamy sand.
This would affect both the soil retention and conductivity properties, expanding the ditch spacing evaluated.
• Land Management Activities - G1 has been and currently is under silvicultural land use management. This parcel
• has been bedded for pine plantation establishment. The simulations were performed assuming the ground surface as
the bottom of the furrow. The actual ground surface is a wavy boundary that is an additional 12 to 18 inches in
elevation accounting for the beds. In these areas, it is likely that the furrows improve surface water movement, and
the disturbance to the surface soil horizons has increased infiltration capacity.
Based on the available MRCS-Murville dataset, it is appropriate to attribute a drainage influence of at least 600 feet from
the roadside ditches, at least 400 feet from the G1 interior ditch, and at least 350 feet from the G1-G2 boundary ditch.
The depressions in G 1 near the drainage ditches are assumed to have an organic/loam surface, and due to the drop in
topography, are not as influenced by the ditches. In these areas, the 1-foot ditch depth analysis result of a drainage
influence of 160 feet is proposed.
•
H `,PMOt 11850100HAINMOD dala\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOO Summary Parcel G.doe
Kimley-Horn
?? and Associates Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: July 9, 2002
Project: MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, Rocky Point, NC.
Subject: DRAINMOD Modeling Analysis Summary
Purpose
The DRAINMOD analysis on the Rocky Point Quarry site was performed per the request of the
US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) staff (Mickey Sugg) during on on-site field review of
potential wetland areas on Tracts E, G1, G2, H1, and H2 of the Rocky Point Quarry site (Figure
1). During the on-site meeting, held April 30, 2002, is was stated by Mr. Sugg that an appropriate
hydrologic model, such as DRAMMOD, could be used to show the drainage influence of
silvicultural drainage ditches on hydric soils, which would in turn determine the extent of drained
• areas (non jurisdictional).
Background
The hydrologic model DRAINMOD is applied to model the soil water dynamics on a field scale
at a location midway between parallel drains. The model is a time-step water balance of the near-
surface soil column. The model is built on approximations of hydrologic processes of surface and
subsurface hydrology.
For the purposes of the Rocky Point DRAINMOD modeling exercise, the simulations were
performed to provide a planning level approximation of drainage influence of ditches to provide a
rationale for addressing wetland management/permitting issues. The results will provide a basis
for planning future field efforts and in preparation of a permitting approach.
For the most part, the site is mapped as Murville soil series (Figure 1), and the analysis was
performed for Murville soil only. Parcels E, G1, G2, Hl, and H2 are the study area for the
DRAINMOD analysis. Figure 2 shows the most current available color infrared aerial
photography (1998) of the project area with parcels identified and ditch locations.
The Murville soil series, as stated in the Pender County Soil Survey, is a sandy soil, poorly
drained and generally located on wet flats or stream terraces. The NRCS OSD database
description of the Murville soil series states,
"The Murville series consists of very poorly drained soils that have rapid permeability in
the A horizon and moderately rapid permeability in the Bh horizon. The soils formed
• from wet sandy marine and fluvial sediments. They are in flats or in slight depressions on
HAPM011165010TRAINMOD data\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel E.doc Page 1 of 7
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
• broad interstream areas of uplands and stream terraces in the Coastal Plain. Slopes are
less than 2 percent."
The series is a Spodisol (taxonomy - Sandy, siliceous, thermic Umbric Endoaquods), and is
typified by a weakly cemented soil horizon (spodic horizon) that may have developed from
saturated conditions in the upper portion of the soil profile. However, neither the OSD database
description, nor the Pender County Soil Survey, includes mention of a weakly cemented horizon.
Murville soils also typically have a thin organic soil layer at the surface, also indicative of a high
water table and saturation at the soil surface.
Therefore, based on the mapped soil type and geomorphic setting of the Rocky Point Quarry site,
it is assumed that areas mapped as Murville on the site are areas historically likely to have
contained wetland hydrology. However, the area has been altered by silviculture activities prior
to mining activities. Surface drainage was improved through the establishment of beds and rows
for planting and pine establishment. The organic surface layer described in the soil series
description is not present due to disturbance of the surface and oxidation of the organics (i.e.
rows/beds for pine establishment are generally 12 to 18 inches higher than furrows). Subsurface
drainage was improved through the construction of roadside and lateral drainage ditches.
Model Assumptions
An impermeable layer near the soil surface is assumed as part of the geomorphic setting (i.e.
maintaining wetland hydrology assumed for Murville soils) in order to support wetland
hydrology, however, this impermeable layer was not evident within ten feet of the soil surface
from soil profiles taken in Parcels E, G1, G2, and H1.
• In order to run the model, assumptions were made to provide a starting point (conservative) to
identify data input needs. They are:
Climate
• Forty-year rainfall and temperature data from North Wilmington, NC monitoring station.
• Monthly evapostranspiration factors for vegetation typical of a pine plantation forest in
Eastern North Carolina.
• Growing season is assumed as the duration of frost-free days approximated as the first
and last day of the year where temperature was 28 degrees Fahrenheit in fifty percent of
years (237 days).
• Wetland hydrologic analysis is set at meeting 5% of the growing season of watertable
within 12 inches (30 cm) of the ground surface (12 days).
Soils
• Soil property data estimated from soil texture modeled using ROSETTA (USDA)
• Assumed uniform soil column of loamy sand texture (actual texture ranges from fine
sand to loamy sand with some inclusion of a thin, weakly formed spodic layer).
• Hydraulic Conductivity values estimated based on ranges as published in the Pender
County Soil Survey for a Murville soil series. The ranges are 6-20 inchesihour for a
sand, and 2 to 6 inches/hour for a loamy sand. Simulations were performed using 5
cm/hr (-2 inches/hour), 15 cm/hr (-6 inches/hour), and a parameter sensitivity check
using 25 cm/hr.
• Ground surface for the soil profile is assumed as the base of the furrows. The actual
ground surface is an uneven surface with beds and furrows.
is
HAM M I I B5010TRAINMOD dalaDWQ HIMCOE Review Summary CD\DocsTMOD Summary Parcel E.doc Page 2 017
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
• Hydrology
• Drainage ditch dimensions were measured in the field and consolidated to identify a
typical roadside and an internal drainage ditch dimension. It was evident during field
efforts to measure ditch dimensions that the ditches had not been maintained, and there
had been some slumping of banks and filling of the ditch bottom.
• Surface storage parameters were assumed to be minimal when modeling a drainage ditch
perpendicular to the bedding rows... that is, furrows provide improved surface water
movement for ponded water and when perpendicular to the drainage ditch, provide
improved surface flow to the ditch. However, beds create increased storage of ponded
water, and act as a barrier to surface water movement when the beds are aligned parallel
to the drainage ditch.
• No lateral seepage is considered (i.e. lateral flow to a lower elevation stream)
• No slope seepage (i.e. lateral flow due to a ground surface slope)
• No vertical or deep seepage.
Simulation Results
1) Testing of Hydraulic Conductivity and Depth to Impermeable Layer Inputs (Table 1)
Simulations were run to compare the unknown parameters of depth to impermeable layer and
hydraulic conductivity. The simulations are grouped by trials, where each "Trial" represents a
hypothetical soil column. All trials assume a uniform loamy sand soil type (LS) and the
following variables are the depth to impermeable layer (2M or 3M), and then hydraulic
conductivity (Ks5, Ks 15, Ks25). Simulations were run for ditch spacings of 10,000 ft. (to
simulate pre-ditch conditions), 1,000 ft. (actual lateral ditch spacing in Parcel E), 600 ft., 400 ft.,
• 300 ft., and 200 ft (1/2 the distance of the drain spacing represents the distance of ditch influence
in evaluating wetland hydrology criteria). Additional spacings were modeled for specific soil
columns to identify the drain spacing where hydrology criteria was initially met. All simulations
assumed the ditch dimensions and surface hydrology conditions of the roadside ditch. "Drained"
areas are assumed for distances where criteria for wetland hydrology (water table within 12
inches from the ground surface during consecutive days totaling 5% of the growing season) is
met in at least 20 of the 40 years simulated.
Observations:
• Drain spacing of 10,000 feet showed no influence of drainage ditches (i.e. 36 out of 40 years
met hydrology criteria) regardless of trial (confirmed parameters as appropriate for analysis
in that they supported an hydric soil under simulated "natural" conditions).
• All trials show some ditch influence beginning at 1,000 spacing.
• At 1,000 ft. spacing, hydraulic conductivity has greater influence on wetland hydrology than
depth to impermeable layer.
• At 600 ft spacing, LS-3M-Ks 15 soil is well within the drainage influence distance from the
ditch to not meet hydrology criteria (14/40 years). Other trials do meet hydrology criteria,
with LS-2M-Ks5 showing minimal influence. This spacing shows the greatest difference in
response to the drainage ditch spacing due to soil parameters.
• At 400-300-200 ft. spacings drainage influence continues to increase for all soil trials.
• Approximate distance of drainage influence for soil trials (roadside ditch dimensions, no
seepage losses):
LS-2M-Ks5 - 125+ ft. LS-2M-Ks15 - 225+ ft.
LS-3M-Ks5 - 225+ ft. LS-3M-Ks15 - 400+ft.
• LS-3M-Ks25 - 500+ ft.
HAPN\011185010WAINMOD dafa\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel E.doc Page 3 of 7
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRA/NMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
• Discussion:
LS-2M-Ks5 was assumed as a starting point where all soil property parameters are the most
conservative. The actual soil column on the site varies in texture between a sand and loamy sand
at various depths. Soil profiles were taken in the field to identify the depth to the impermeable
layer. All data points, taken on Murville mapped soils, were lacking an impermeable or semi-
impermeable soil horizon within 10 feet from the ground surface. Lastly, hydraulic conductivity
values were approximated from the soil survey data. Using the ROSETTA model to approximate
soil parameters, a loamy sand soil is approximately 5 cm/hr, which is consistent with the
minimum value in the soil properties index in the survey. However, for a sand, the soil survey
has values as high as 20 in/hr (-50 cm/hr). Therefore, 15 cm/hr is a conservative estimate, and 5
cm/hr may be over conservative. A check using 25 cm/hr shows that ditch influence is greater
than 500 feet from the ditch with the assumptions above. The variation in soil properties
significantly affects the simulated ditch spacing necessary to affect the hydrology to the point of
not meeting wetland criteria.
2) Comparative Analysis of Interior/Lateral Drainage Ditch (Table 2)
The previous analysis assumed an average dimension of the primary roadside ditch located on the
site. The second analysis was performed to identify drainage influence of the interior lateral
ditches. Again, an average dimension was input based on field measurements. The soil property
parameter inputs were assumed as LS-3M-Ks 15 based on the previous analysis, and simulations
were run comparing ditch spacings of 800 ft., 700 ft., and 600ft.. Table 2 contains results from
the interior lateral ditch simulations. In addition to changing the ditch dimensions from the
previous analysis, surface storage parameters were increased to account for the storage affect of
the beds and furrows that are aligned parallel to the interior ditches. In actuality, surface water
• (rainfall exceeding infiltration capacity of the soil) will likely flow along the furrow to the
roadside collector ditch rather than laterally to the interior ditch. This is not accounted for in the
simulations of the interior lateral ditches. Instead, the surface water is assumed to pond and
infiltrate over time.
Observations:
• Wetland hydrology criteria is initially affected when the drain spacing is located between 700
and 800 ft (i.e. 350 to 400 feet drainage influence from the ditch).
Discussion:
• Influence of the change in ditch dimension appears to be minor (+/- 50 feet of drainage
influence distance), and the ponded surface water is not likely affecting the results due to the
very high infiltration rate of the loamy sand soil.
3) Analysis of Ditch Spacing Including Vertical Seepage Inputs (Table 3)
LS-3M-Ks 15 was assumed for an analysis of the influence the vertical seepage input may have on
ditch spacing and wetland hydrology criteria. A ditch spacing of 1,000 ft. was assumed for all
simulations, and vertical seepage was varied by incremental orders of magnitude from the
hydraulic conductivity value (15 cm/hr). The vertical seepage inputs were 0, 0.0015, 0.015, 0.15,
and 1.5 cm/hr.
Observations:
• The minimum vertical seepage input evaluated affected hydrology enough to reduce wetland
hydrology criteria by 2 years over the study period.
• • Vertical seepage of 0.015 cm/hr reduced the number of years meeting hydrology criteria to
14, compared to 36 years assuming no vertical seepage.
H1PNt011185010TRAMMOD dala1DWQ File1ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs1DM00 Summary Parcel E.doc Page 4 of 7
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRA/NMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
•
Discussion:
Assuming even a minimal amount of vertical seepage significantly affects the ditch spacing and
the number of years meeting wetland hydrology criteria.
Conclusions
The simulations were performed from a conservative baseline condition based on a set of
assumptions. Critical soil parameter inputs (soil moisture retention, hydraulic conductivity, depth
to impermeable layer) were approximated based on ROESTTA (MRCS) modeling and soil survey
data. Additional inputs (climate, vegetation, drainage design, etc.) were developed from
DRAINMOD literature, field observation, and professional judgement. There is a high degree of
variability of the soil properties of Murville mapped areas on the Rocky Point Quarry site.
However, for planning purposes and preparation of permit applications, the modeling draws the
conclusion that a drainage influence of 400+ feet from the ditch (total corridor of influence of
800+ feet) is a reasonable approximation, and may be an underestimate.
The analysis evaluated critical soil property parameters and provided a starting point for
evaluating drainage influence. There are many other factors that contribute to the drainage
influence of the ditch network that were not evaluated, but by considering that they likely do
exist, it is reasonable to assume that they would provide a greater influence distance. For
example, vertical seepage was included in a few model simulations and had a significant effect on
drain spacing evaluation. It is reasonable to expect that other factors would provide similar
influence (to varying degrees) on the drainage influence. Other factors include:
• • Growing season - 5% of the growing season was used to evaluate wetland hydrology. If a
range of 5 tol2%, as stated in the COE 1987 manual, had been used for the analysis, the drain
spacings would have increased based on the number of years meeting hydrology criteria (i.e.
5% is 12 consecutive days; 12% is 28 consecutive days).
• Surface Slope - The analysis assumed that the field flat with microtopographic depressions
providing storage. It did not consider that the there is a general surface slope across the study
area which would provide some later seepage to the drainage network.
• Ditch Dimensions - A typical ditch dimension was used for analysis purposes. In many
areas on site, the actual ditch dimension may be significantly greater. This is especially true
near the outlets of the parcels evaluated. Also, the dimensions that were measured are likely
less than what was originally constructed due to the lack of maintenance over time.
• Lateral Seepage - The parcels drain to streams at their outlets. The elevation of the base
flow of the streams may be considerable lower than the bottom of the drainage ditches. This
would create lateral seepage to the stream in addition to the lateral drainage to the ditch.
• Soil Properties - The soil properties of a loamy sand soil were used for evaluation purposes.
There may be areas on-site where the soil type is more sand (as the soil series description for
Murville soil series indicates) than loamy sand. This would affect both the soil retention and
conductivity properties, expanding the drain spacings evaluated.
In addition to the factors above, another issue to include in conclusions is that all areas evaluated
have been and are currently under silvicultural land use management. All areas have been bedded
for pine plantation establishment. The simulations were performed assuming the ground surface
as the bottom of the furrow. The actual ground surface is a wavy boundary that is an additional
12 to 18 inches in elevation accounting for the beds. For those areas, it is appropriate to assume
• that the furrows perform as miniature ditches draining the adjacent beds.
H1PN0111850100RAINMOD dalalDWO HOME Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel Edoc Page 5 ol7
Title: Pender County Soil Survey (Survey
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
HAPN1011165010TRAINMOD MOM File\ACOE Review Summary CD1Docs1DMOD Summary

1990, Aerial Photograph Dated: 1983)
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
Date: Scale: KHA Project No. Figui
6/13/02 NA 011185010 1
Pape 6 o17
I i F - i
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
77'
z
CD
"v
N
0
't
ce)
z
CD
M
N
0
It
CO
z
N
0
d
M
Z
CD
p
co
N
o
M
71
U
r:
0

Z
_
M
It
N
0
A
Z
N
0
'a.
C7
Z
M
N
0
Title: Study Parcels
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
Kimley-Horn Rocky Point Quarry
and Associates Inc. DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
Date: Scale: KHA Project No. Figure:
II 6/13/02 1"=1,500' 011185010 2
H. M01I W90100RAMMOD data\DWO FUe1ACOE Review Sumrery CDOocs1DMOD Sumir ery Parcel E.doc Pepe 7 of 7
Parcels Active Mine Area N
n
®®® Culverts N
0 1,500 3,000
E G H ? Drainage Features Feet
Kimley-Horn Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
? and Associates, Inc. July 1, 2002
• DRAINMOD Modeling Analysis Summary
Purpose
To apply the hydrologic model DRAMMOD to evaluate the distance of hydrologic influence of drainage
ditches on Parcels E, Gl, G2, H1, and H2 of the Rocky Point Quarry site.
Background
• DRAINMOD is a field-scale model that approximates surface and subsurface hydrologic processes.
• Primary soil type for the areas modeled is Murville series. The NRCS Official Series Description
database states:
"The Murville series consists of very poorly drained soils that have rapid permeability in the A
horizon and moderately rapid permeability in the Bh horizon. The soils formed from wet sandy
marine and fluvial sediments. They are in flats or in slight depressions on broad interstream areas
of uplands and stream terraces in the Coastal Plain. Slopes are less than 2 percent."
• Taxonomy: Sandy, siliceous, thermic Umbric Endoaquods.
• Study area mapped as Murville is likely to have contained wetland hydrology historically.
• Study area has been altered by silviculture activities prior to mining activities (bedding, removal of
organic surface horizon, installation of drainage ditch network).
Model Assumptions
Climate
• Forty-year rainfall and temperature data from North Wilmington, NC monitoring station.
• • Monthly evapostranspiration factors for vegetation typical of a pine plantation forest in Eastern
North Carolina.
• Growing season is assumed as the duration of frost-free days approximated as the first and last
day of the year where temperature was 28 degrees Fahrenheit in fifty percent of years (237 days).
• Wetland hydrologic analysis is set at meeting 5% of the growing season of watertable within 12
inches (30 cm) of the ground surface (12 days).
Soils
• Soil property inputs (moisture retention) estimated from soil texture modeled using ROSETTA
(MRCS)
• Assumed uniform soil column of loamy sand texture (lacking organic surface due to silviculture,
texture ranges from fine sand to loamy sand with some inclusion thin fine texture layers).
• Hydraulic Conductivity values estimated from Soil Survey (published range of 6-20 in/hr for
sand, and 2-6 in/hr for loamy sand). Values used were 5 cm/hr (-2 in/hr), 15 cm/hr (-6 in/hr),
and a parameter sensitivity check using 25 cm/hr.
• Ground surface for the soil profile is assumed as the base of the furrows. The actual ground
surface is an uneven surface of beds and furrows.
Hydrology
• Typical roadside and internal ditch dimensions were used based on field measurement.
• Surface storage parameters were minimal when furrows allowed transport to the ditch (roadside
ditch) and were higher when beds act as barriers to surface flow (lateral ditch).
• No lateral seepage is considered (i.e. lateral flow to a lower elevation stream)
• No slope seepage (i.e. lateral flow due to a ground surface slope)
• No vertical or deep seepage (initial assumption... later simulations evaluated vertical seepage
influence on outputs).
•
H1PN0111850100RAINMOD dala\Summary CDtDocstDMOD Bullet Summary Parcel E.doc 1
Kimley-Horn Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
??? and Associates, Inc. July J, 2002
• Results
#1 - Based on variability and unknown soil property parameters, an assumption of a loamy sand soil type,
15 cm/hr for hydraulic conductivity, and 3 meters depth to the impermeable layer is consistent with field
observations and DRAINMOD simulations.
#2 - Assuming the soil property and profile assumptions above, a distance of drainage influence from the
ditch of 300+ ft for lateral ditches, and of 400+ ft for roadside ditches is appropriate (i.e. a lateral ditch on
the Rocky Point site would influence hydrology in a corridor of approximately 600+ ft. width centered on
the ditch).
#3 - The assumptions above are conservative in that they do not consider other parameters likely to have
significant influence on the drainage influence of the ditch. Vertical seepage was evaluated as to the
modification it had on ditch spacing with regards to wetland hydrology criteria (i.e. assuming a 1/1000
ratio of vertical seepage to hydraulic conductivity, the simulated "natural" condition had 14/40 years
meeting wetland hydrology criteria compared to 36/40 years assuming no vertical seepage).
Other parameters not considered, but with potential to influence drainage influence distance:
• Growing season - 5% vs 12%
• Surface Slope - a sloping ground surface improving drainage and lateral seepage.
• Ditch Dimensions - many ditch dimensions may be significantly greater, especially near outlets.
• Lateral Seepage -elevation of the base flow of the streams may be considerably lower than the
bottom of the drainage ditches creating greater lateral seepage
• Soil Properties - actual soil profiles may have a higher sand component than what was modeled.
• Summary
The DRAINMOD simulations provide a rationale for attributing a zone of influence with the drainage
ditches on the Rocky Point site. A conservative estimate is that the interior, lateral ditches influence 300+
ft. from the ditch (total corridor width of 600+ ft.), and the larger, roadside ditches influence 400+ ft. from
the ditch. These estimates are conservative, yet provide for considerable area of drained land due to the
silviculture management practices. If consideration is given to other parameters which affect the distance
of drainage influence (i.e. slope, seepage, etc.), it is likely that areas under silviculture management have
ditch drainage influence distances greater than 400 feet from the ditch.
E
H1PN`A11185010\DRAINMOD data\Summary CD\Docs1DMOD Bullet Summary Parcel E.doc
•
3
0
C]
• 3. NCDENR: Please clearly indicate the amount of buffer to be established
around the mine edge and the respective wetland edges (show the buffers
on a plan). Are there wetlands that are not proposed to be impacted
located within this buffer? If so, will these wetlands be drained from the
gradient change and pumping of the mine? Specifically, explain whether
the wetlands on tracts G1, G2, H1 and H2 and beyond Martin Marietta
Materials property line will be impacted by mining and mine dewatering?
MMM1: Enclosed is a copy of the proposed mine map that depicts a 50 buffer to
remain around the pit wall. As a minimum, this buffer will be retained between the
pit wall and any wetlands that are to remain in Tracts G1 and G2. There are no
wetlands existing within the proposed pit buffers. The model predicts that the
unaltered zone of influence from the pit dewatering operations will be
approximately 750 feet. The existing roadside ditches were modeled to have an
influence of 500 feet. The location and hydrologic barrier or influence of the forest
road along with the water management plan for Tract G 1 and the ditch along the
western side of the forest road will reduce the dewatering effects to much less
than the predicted influence area. Therefore, the dewatering plan along with the
proposed pumping plan should not affect any wetlands others than those for
which a permit to impact has been applied. MMM proposes to place monitoring
wells along a transect in Tract H2 to monitor future ground water elevations.
MMM2: To clarify the proposed buffer limits described above, a buffer line has
been added to Figure 3 in the Alternative Pumping Plan. There are no wetlands
in the buffer. The buffer is set back from the closest wetlands limit to the pit.
• Attachments:
NONE - refer to Alternative Pumping Plan included with Item # 5.
END

3-1
•
C!
r
E
C:
• 4. NCDENR: Provide a wetland delineation for tracts known as 1-11 and 1-12.
MMM1: MMM proposes to provide a groundwater monitoring plan in Tract H2 to
determine future ground water elevations. The existing monitoring wells located
in Tract H2 have consistently shown the existence of wetland hydrology. The
modeled influence of the pit dewatering is approximately 750 feet. The effective
distance of that influence will be less than 750 feet considering the effects of the
forest road and the water management plan as proposed in the alternative
pumping plan being provided to the Division. If for some reason there is a
negative change in the hydrology within H2 then MMM in concert with the
Division will investigate and take appropriate water management alterations.
1141141142: As noted on Figure 3 of the Alternative Pumping Plan, the Corps has
approved a wetlands assessment for the western boundary of Tracts H1 and H2
and the southern boundary for Tract H1. This determination was based on the
results of DRAINMOD modeling for Tracts G1, G2 and E as well as site
reconnaissance on Tract H1 and H2.
As discussed in the Alternative Pumping Plan, due to the drainage influence of
the existing ditches on these tracts being greater than the modeled influence of
the current pit wall and future pit wall, adjoining wetlands on Tracts H1 and H2
are not anticipated to be affected by the pit. MMM will not be mining Tracts H1 or
Tract H2. Therefore, a formal wetlands jurisdictional determination for all of Tract
H1 and H2 is not warranted. MMM is proposing a detailed monitoring plan for
Tracts H1 and H2 to determine if future mining operations have affected adjoining
is near surface hydrology on these tracts which is also detailed in the attached
Alternative Pumping Plan.
However, attached is a wetlands assessment (delineation) prepared for Tracts
H1 and H2 which was previously submitted to NCDENR to identify locations for
potential wetlands to be monitored in developing the pumping plan. The wetland
delineation was based on field reconnaissance and aerial photograph
interpretation. The Corps had approved of the locations of these areas. The
delineation reflects two wetlands parameters (hydric soils and hydrophytic
vegetation) but not wetland hydrology. Monitoring in Tract H2 indicates that
wetlands hydrology is supported currently at the monitoring location and supports
the general identification of wetlands in this location. MMM believes that this
delineation is appropriate for assessments for future monitoring on the adjoining
tracts.
Attachments:
Figure: Eastern Expansion Parcels - Wetlands Areas Delineation
END
•
4-1
'This delineation of potential wetlands
was prepared for preliminary discussions
with NCDWQ to determine monitoring
pat ions. The figure shown is a portion
he site figure previously submitted
NCDWQ (Figure 3, "Technical
Memorandum: Mine Dewatering;
Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Plan", dated May 9, 2002).
The following note was included in
the original figure:
Note: Suspected Wetland/Upland
boundaries, as depicted here, are
approximate (based on 1998 aerial
photography and field review) and
are for planning purposes only.
Monitoring locations for wetland
hydrology were selected based on
on-site discussion with COE on 4130102
N M, 41 4k
PICA '[.
t
f f

imp
_1. 1
14
?( ,?wdHt?¢ 1i1?p
El
¦
tt
{

Wetland Evaluation Features 1 inch equals 612 feet
FSuspected Areas of Concern l? parcels
till per COE Recommendation (see Notes) _ .' Active Mine Area ; I 600
Kimley-Morn Drained Hydre Soil (Upland) and Associates. Inc .y Upland Ridge Feet
Flown Spring

rJ
0

• 5. NCDENR: A pumping plan must be provided and an implementation
schedule that clearly explains how wetlands within G1 and G2 will be
maintained through the mine dewatering efforts. A monitoring plan must
be included as a part of this plan.
MMM1: A copy of the pumping plan is enclosed. It is proposed to relocate a
monitoring well set in the area of the wetlands that are to remain in G1 with
annual reports being prepared. MMM proposes to retain the monitoring well
locations within G 1 & G2 that are not to be disturbed by the proposed mine
expansion to the east.
MMM2: Refer to the Alternative Pumping Plan Technical Memorandum for more
details on the plan for providing hydrology to the portion of Tract G1 that will not
be mined. The permit application includes the removal of all existing wetlands on
Tract G2 so wetlands do not need to be maintained on Tract G2. A detailed
monitoring plan has been included in the Alternative Pumping Plan.
In summary, regarding wetlands to be avoided in Tract G1, hydrology will be
provided through series of activities. Discharge currently being directed to
Strawberry Branch will be redirected to the Unnamed Tributary which forms the
border between Tract G1 and Tract G2. The water will be routed to the existing
ditch along the west side of the forestry road and head south to the Unnamed
Tributary. In addition, the existing culvert for the Unnamed Tributary will be raised
to an invert elevation of 16.0 feet MSL. The wetlands in the swale (named
wetland F) will be inundated by the backup of water. In addition, it is believed
• that the inundation will also back up into wetland D as historical aerial
photographs show. However, MMM is proposing to also direct flow to the western
end of wetland F and wetland D via the perimeter ditches on Tract G1. The
ditches will be maintained to a bottom elevation of 15.0 feet MSL to provide for a
one foot depth of standing water in the ditches. The perimeter ditches transect
these wetlands and will provide an alternative connection to the wetlands. This
plan is illustrated on Figure 4b in the Alternative Pumping Plan.
Attachments:
Technical Memorandum: Alternative Pumping Plan, February 17, 2004
END
•
5-1
•
Technical Memorandum
Modified Alternative
Pumping Plan
• Rocky Point Quarry
Pender County, NC
February 17, 2004
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Materials
Raleigh, North Carolina
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2004
0
Kimley-Horn
0 and Associates, Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: February 17, 2004
Project: Martin Marietta Materials, Rocky Point, NC
Subject: Modified Alternative Pumping Plan
Background
Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) has been operating the Rocky Point Quarry under a mining
permit since 1983 and a NPDES permit since the rules were established. A general permit,
NCG020000, became effective on 12/1/1999. One of the conditions of the general permit is that
should there be a potential to affect wetlands adjacent to the operation, that pumping plans that
require alternatives to pumping for three days and ceasing pumping for seven days need approval
from NCDENR (NPDES Permit #NCG020166, dated December 17, 1999). MMM has
• managed dewatering of the pit through an alternative pumping regime since its inception. That is
the operation has required continuous pumping in order to mine in the dry. As the mine has
expanded, questions on potential wetlands to the east of the mine (in the direction of proposed
expansion) which are in the areas approved in the mining permit necessitated the evaluation of
the pumping plan. MMM has prepared an alternative pumping plan for NCDENR review and
approval.
This modified Pumping Plan for the Rocky Point Quarry is presented to the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) as part of
MMM's efforts to comply with NPDES requirements for operation of the mine at the Rocky
Point Quarry in Pender County. The dialogue between Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA),
representing MMM, MMM, and DWQ regarding the Pumping Plan has been a process of
investigation, analysis, and modification of the Pumping Plan as new information has evolved
and the project has conformed to the status of regulatory requirements for the project.
MMM has proposed expansion of the quarry eastward to continue mining operations, and is in the
• process of meeting Section 404/401 water quality permit requirements for the proposed
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17/04
• expansion. The determination of jurisdictional wetlands through the US Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) has been a separate, however concurrent process through the evolution of the
Pumping Plan, and is applicable to the Pumping Plan to the extent only of identifying wetlands
areas which may or may not be influenced hydrologically through dewatering of the mine.
To address the issues of the NPDES permit conditions, Pumping Plan, and wetland regulations,
KHA and MMM met with DWQ staff in early 2002 to discuss data needs to support an
alternative Pumping Plan and the monitoring approach of adjacent wetlands. Follow-up meetings
were conducted to clarify the methodology and to determine the near-surface (wetland)
hydrology, and deeper aquifer hydrogeology of the site. This groundwater monitoring component
of the Pumping Plan was established through meetings with DWQ and updated through the
process of implementing the monitoring. A Technical Memorandum (dated May 9, 2002) was
submitted to Mr. Rick Shiver, DWQ to document the monitoring methodology. Subsequent
correspondence was provided to DWQ (letter dated July 10, 2002) to clarify the monitoring
locations and figures included in the Technical Memorandum. A letter from Mr. Shiver dated
July 17, 2002 stated that DWQ approved of the monitoring approach, locations, and
0 methodology.
Technical Memorandums regarding the Alternative Pumping Plan, submitted to DWQ, are
attached as appendicies.
Groundwater monitoring gages (deeper gages, and near-surface gages) were installed in the
summer-fall of 2002, as well as topographic survey of drainage features, soil delineation and
profile descriptions, pump/discharge calibrations, and installation of an on-site rain gage. A
Technical Memorandum (dated November 6, 2002) was submitted to DWQ to provide an update
on the field efforts, gage installation, and preliminary data collection from the monitoring gages.
A meeting between KHA, MMM, and DWQ was held on December 13, 2002 to specifically
discuss the site history and "Drainage Chronology" of the mine operation (i.e. pre-existing
drainage ditches and pumping discharge locations), and the implications for discharge locations
and pre-existing drainage networks in place for timber management purposes.
A Technical Memorandum dated April 30, 2003 was submitted to DWQ to update the status on
the monitoring plan and data collected to-date. The Technical Memorandum was discussed at a
• status meeting between KHA, MMM, and DWQ on July 2, 2003. At the meeting, KHA provided
2
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17104
updated monitoring gage data and observations on the stratigraphy of the site, and its
• hydrogeology. The following are meeting notes from that meeting regarding the hydrogeology of
the site:
"The meeting initiated with a summary by Bruce Cutright, KHA on hydrogeology of the site
and a summarization of the deeper groundwater monitoring gages. Field investigations and
groundwater monitoring data collected over the past nine months lead KHA to believe that
there is an impermeable/semi-impermeable layer approximately 10 to 12 feet from the ground
surface that separates the groundwater regime of the site into a surficial aquifer, and a
deeper aquifer. The surficial aquifer is predominated by climate and precipitation-
evapotranspiration inputs and outputs. The deeper aquifer is affected by the pumping and
dewatering from the mine, and based on the data collected to date, is believed to have an
influence of approximately 1,300 feet to 2,300 feet east from the mine.
The dewatering is not affecting the surficial aquifer except for the area immediately adjacent
to the mine. Approximating the mine as a very deep ditch using the DRAINMOD model (more
on the model later), it is estimated that the influence of the ditch of the surficial aquifer
through subsurface drainage is approximately 700 feet from the mine. Also, dewatering of
• the deeper aquifer may have some influence on the surficial aquifer, but only during extended
drought conditions (considering that the component of deep seepage across the impermeable
clay layer is a minor portion of the overall water budget of the surficial aquifer under normal
conditions). Sink holes are likely localized areas where there may be a discontinuity in the
impermeable clay layer. Mr. Shiver agreed that the marine clay ("marl" or "gumbo') is
likely continuous in that area and that sinkholes associated with discontinuities in the
subsurface layer are likely to have only localized affects on the surficial aquifer.
The monitoring gage data were presented (updated through end of June 2003) and referenced
during the discussion of the groundwater regime of the site. Danny Smith and Rick Shiver
requested that the updated data be provided (in color) to them after the meeting. "
Action items from the July 2003 meeting were that KHA would continue to monitor gages
through the fall of 2003 to complete data collection through the growing season to observe the
full hydroperiod cycle. Once the monitoring period was complete, KHA was to prepare the
modified Alternative Pumping Plan to address the results of the monitoring efforts. In
preparation of the Pumping Plan, KHA requested an additional meeting with DWQ in November
• of 2003 to discuss the preferred alternative for the Pumping Plan prior to submittal. A copy of
3
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17/04
• the monitoring gage data (August 2002 through January 2004) and a summary of observations
regarding the data is included in the appendicies.
That meeting between KHA, MMM, and DWQ was held on January 9, 2004, and the following
Pumping Plan is prepared considering the monitoring data, modeling, site assessment and
analysis, and agreed to methodology through cooperation with DWQ and the Corps through the
evolution of this project.
Approach
The preferred alternative Pumping Plan is prepared with the intent to protect wetland areas
adjacent to the mine from drainage influence of the mine wall to the surficial aquifer. It was
presented to DWQ that based on the observed stratigraphy of the site, and supported with
monitoring gage data, the hydrogeology of the site is separated into two systems: the surficial
hydrology, and the deeper aquifer.
A preconceived notion, based on previous discussions between MMM, KHA, and the agencies, of
the site was that there were extensive wetland areas adjacent to the mine and that these wetland
• areas were hydrologically influenced (sufficient to remove wetland hydrology criteria) through
pumping and dewatering of the mine pit. These discussions were based primarily on the soil
survey mapping and the limits of hydric soils. The monitoring program and initial discussions
regarding the Pumping Plan were initiated under this understanding. These potential wetland
areas were identified on a broad scale through a site visit with the Corps to establish monitoring
locations to initiate the monitoring program. Through subsequent detailed site assessment by
KHA and field verification by the Corps, it was determined that much of the adjacent areas are
significantly drained and influenced through ditching and forestry land management activities and
do not constitute jurisdictional wetlands. These activities existed prior to site disturbance and
dewatering associated with the mine, and land management for timber production has continued
on the adjacent properties. Documentation of the extent of wetlands and the site history
(Drainage Chronology) were previously provided to DWQ.
In summary, the goals of the Pumping Plan are fourfold:
17?
4
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17/04
• 1. Provide an alternative pumping plan such that dewatering of the mine may be
accomplished through periods of continuous pumping (as needed) in order to continue
mine operations.
2. Create a hydrologic barrier to subsurface drainage from the eastern parcels (H1, H2, and
the avoided portions of G1) to the proposed mine limits.
3. Offset surficial aquifer drainage on depressional wetlands in G1 (west of the forest road)
to be avoided as the mine is expanded into G1 and G2.
4. To redirect a portion of the dewatering discharge currently directed to Strawberry Branch
to the drainage way east of the mine between 111 and H2 (Unnamed Tributary to
Strawberry Branch) per agreements with the adjacent property owners.
Therefore, with more accurate site information and supporting hydrologic data, the Pumping Plan
approach was modified to address the drainage influence of the mine wall on the surficial aquifer
only, and which meet the goals outlined above. Controlled drainage in the roadside ditch (west of
the forest road) between G2 and H2 is proposed to create a hydrologic barrier to subsurface flow
in the surficial aquifer by maintaining a water elevation in the ditch and driving head such that
• drainage influence of the mine would be limited to the area between the forest road and east of
the mine. That is, the mine drainage influence in the surficial aquifer is to be limited to no further
east than the existing forest road, or at a minimum, the limits of the drainage influence of the
ditch on the east side of the road. In addition, to offset surficial aquifer drainage to wetlands in
G 1 (avoided wetland areas that exist west of the forest road in G1), the outlet culvert under the
forest road between G1 and G2 will be modified (raised to an elevation of 16.00 feet MSL) in
order to raise water table elevation in G1, and to supply hydrology in the depressional wetlands of
G1.
Ditches in G1 will be maintained at a ditch bottom elevation of 15.0 feet in order to provide a
constant head elevation around the entire border of the avoided portion of G1, and to provide
hydrology to the western portion of the avoided wetlands in that area.
In addition to supplying hydrology to the depressional wetlands of G1 and creating a hydrologic
barrier for drainage from H2, MMM has an agreement with adjacent property owners to the east
of the mine that discharge will be maintained through the duration of mining operations in G1 and
62 at the modified culvert outlet in order to supply hydrology to off-site tracts to the east. This
• discharge will be redirected from the current discharge at Strawberry Branch. Approximately 1/3
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17/04
• of the current (Strawberry Branch) discharge will be redirected to the modified outlet. The
discharge will be to the drainage swale previously referred to as the Unnamed Tributary to
Strawberry Branch. The discharge will ultimately flow into Strawberry Branch northeast of the
quarry.
The following figures are included for interpretation of the proposed Pumping Plan:
Figure 1: Rocky Point Quarry Mine Map
The mine map is the most recent, approved mine map submitted to the North Carolina Division of
Land Resources (DLR) in September 2002. The Mine Map shows the location of the existing
sump locations and discharge outfalls. Outfall 001 is located in the southwest portion of the mine
(gray shaded area) and discharges south of the mine in a roadside ditch between parcels B and C.
Outfall 002 is located in the northeast portion of the mine (gray shaded area) and currently
discharges north to Strawberry Branch. The proposed Outfall (shown as Outfall 000) is located at
the 002 sump however; it splits the pumping discharge and directs flow east to the roadside ditch
along the forest road. It is intended that the roadside ditch will be improved with water control
structures installed (discussed below). It is proposed that the split of flow will be 1/3 of the
is current pumping volume at Outfall 002 to be redirected to the new outfall location. The quantity
of 1/3 discharge is an agreed-to quantity per the request of the adjacent property owners.
Recalibration of the pump discharge was performed by MMM and submitted to DWQ at the July
2003 status meeting.
Figure 2: Monitoring Gage Location Map
This figure is the same figure that was submitted to and approved by DWQ in July 2002 in
finalization of the groundwater monitoring program. The figure shows locations of the
piezometers (1-ft depth), shallow monitoring gages (3-ft depth), overburden gages (15-ft depth),
and deeper aquifer gages (approximately 30-ft depth) which were monitored in developing the
Pumping Plan. Designations of the Parcels G1, G2, H1, and H2 are also shown.
Figure 3: Pumping Plan Map
This figure shows the proposed location of the pumping discharge pipe/ditch, energy dissipater,
controlled drainage ditches (western roadside ditch between Gl/G2 and H1/H2 parcels, as well as
• the perimiter ditch around the avoided area in G1), approximate normal pool footprint at the
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17/04
• modified culvert outlet, and relocated shallow water table monitoring gages. In addition, the
figure shows the jurisdictional wetlands in G1 and G2, both those proposed to be impacted
through mine expansion, as well as those to be avoided in G1. Note the relocated shallow
monitoring gage locations are those gages which are proposed to be moved as the mine expansion
removes monitoring locations 1 and 9.
Figure 4a: GI/G2 Topography and Modified Outlet
This figure is a lager scale view of the modified outlet/culvert location under the forest road and
the proposed footprint of the normal pool. This footprint represents an approximation of
delineation of the 16.00-ft contour in G1/G2. It is approximated that most of the ground surface
within this area will be inundated with less than 12 inches of water the deeper water areas (greater
than 12 inches of ponded water) will be generally contained within the ditches. It is estimated
that maintaining a ponded area at 16.00 MSL through pumping will maintain saturation within
the upper 12 inches of the depressional wetland areas (determined by the Corps) for sufficient
consecutive days during the growing season to meet Corps wetland hydrology criteria. Note: the
delineation of the inundated area is approximated from elevations developed through
photogrammetry. The final footprint extent may change based on actual site conditions.
•
Figure 4b: GI Ditch Cross Sections
This figure shows additional survey (cross sections) of the roadside and interior ditches of G1.
Note that the culvert to be modified (refer to figure 4a) is surveyed as well.
Based on the additional elevation data of the ditches in G1, it is proposed that the perimeter
ditches around the avoided portion of G1 will be maintained and improved such that the ditch
bottom elevation will be approximately 15.00 ft and that a constant head of one foot of water will
be maintained in the perimeter ditch in G1. A survey of the existing ditches of G1 show that
actual elevations range from 15.00 to 17.00 feet, and that the elevations of the western portion of
the avoided wetlands in G 1 are at approximately 15.00 to 16.00 feet.
Figure S: Pre-Mine Surficial Drainage Cross Section
This figure shows the historical drainage influence of the roadside ditches in G2 and H2. The
extent of the drainage ditch influence is presented based on the results of DRAINMOD
hydrologic modeling analysis performed for the Corps' determination of jurisdictional wetland
is areas in G1 and G2, and in the evaluation of roadside ditch influence in H1/H2. The stratigraphy
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17104
• shown in the cross section is that observed through installation of the deeper aquifer monitoring
gages, as well as observation of the mine wall (i.e. observation of the marine clay layer as a
continuous stratigraphic unit).
Figure 6: Proposed Surficial Drainage Cross Section (without Controlled Drainage)
The drainage influence of the mine to the surficial aquifer is approximated by applying the same
methodology and parameter assumptions for determination of the drainage influence of the
ditches approved by the Corps. Essentially, the mine wall is modeled as a deep ditch dug to the
depth of the impermeable clay layer. Note that consideration of a buffer and access road around
the mine wall, ditch widths, road width, and drainage influence of the eastern roadside ditch, the
drainage influence of the mine determined through modeling is approximately the same distance
in H2 as pre-mine drainage influence from the ditches.
Figure 7: Proposed Surficial Drainage Cross Section (with Controlled Drainage)
This figure shows the approximated drainage influence of maintaining a water depth and
hydraulic head in the western roadside ditch through water control structures. The intent is that
• the ditch will function as a recharge of the surficial aquifer and reduce the drainage influence of
the mine to the area between the ditch and the mine by creating a hydrologic barrier to subsurface
flow from H2 towards the mine. Note that the relocated shallow water table monitoring gages are
installed to monitor the water table profile of H2 from the roadside ditch to evaluate the water
table profile in H2 as the mine expands eastward.
Monitoring and Contingency
The groundwater monitoring program initiated in 2002 will continue through mining operations
in G1 and G2 except for locations 1 and 9 which will be removed through expansion of the mine.
The removed shallow monitoring gages will be relocated as shown in Figure 3 along a transect
perpendicular to the roadside ditch in H2 and online with the monitoring location 7. The shallow
water table monitoring gage data in location 7 has shown that wetland hydrology criteria has been
met in areas of H2 through the monitoring period to date, and it is proposed as a control wetland
to compare to the additional gages to be installed in H2 once the mine is expanded. Based on the
data to date and DRAIN-MOD analysis, it is believed that the control wetland at location 7 is
beyond drainage influence of the mine and drainage ditches under normal climate conditions.
is
8
Rocky Point Quarry Pumping Plan
2/17/04
• The rain gage located in G2 was vandalized after installation. The gage will be replaced in an
appropriate protected area onsite. In the interim, daily manual rainfall readings have been
collected at the scale house at the quarry. Rainfall data collection will continue through the
monitoring period.
Pumping volume and discharge locations will continue to be monitored and documented in status
reports per this Pumping Plan.
Hourly water table data, as well as daily rainfall, will continue to be collected by the monitoring
gages and rain gage. Monthly datalogger downloads, and site inspections/maintenance will
continue through the monitoring period.
If after one growing season under normal climate conditions, monitoring data indicates that
drainage influence sufficient to remove wetland hydrology (per Corps hydrology criteria),
extends beyond the 500-ft influence of the roadside ditch in H2, and is attributable to the mine
dewatering, then an alternative pumping plan will be developed in cooperation with DWQ and
through guidance by the Corps as to additional (as needed) monitoring locations.
•
END
Attachments:
Figures 1 through 7
Appendix A: Technical Memorandum: Mine Dewatering, Surface and Ground Water Monitoring
Plan (May 9, 2002)
Appendix B: Additional Figures submitted to DWQ to supplement May 9, 2002 submittal
Appendix C: Memorandum: Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Gauge
Installation Update; Quarterly Status Report (Nov. 6, 2002)
Appendix D: Summary of Rocky Point Drainage Chronology (1983 - Present) (Dec. 13, 2002)
Appendix E: Meeting Minutes from DWQ/MMM meeting regarding the Drainage Chronology
Appendix F: Technical Memorandum: Quarterly Report Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic
Monitoring (April 30, 2003)
Appendix G: Meeting Minutes from DWQ/MMM meeting on July 2, 2003
Appendix H: Draft Meeting Minutes from DWQ/MMM meeting on January 9, 2004
Appendix I: Technical Memorandum: Summary of Monitoring Gage Data through January 2004
• H./PN/011185010/Tech_memo-Pumpingplan_2-17-04_Final.doc
•
•
rvMLLf Tpr
au uacuuu
rraYto ?.cmotautmnmmoYm
d
,n.
/7/
/
11 ?II
NOTES:
Ovc6ukm i. bvek00ed imo pit
' Pimion=trot at aiumg pit vAR mmot of
dir a & 9d1 d-onge and mmQbvck imo pa
' Ad*=pmp-y -,.k. rxom 1995 S-y
.fW,IWSlom Ttmi.
SCALE : P' =1200'
0 d00 1700 2400

`
7 /

/A--

r. 00
? 7-

?__ I 1t
iik
Sp \ 1` 1

} It

ti.t.r•r
\ m

... naro®noocr
wvr m ?..v+r?rw
I .? ??\ i ) 0'00
`.•ama Ivo4C.n
fEaero: Approved by Land Quality ' S-' \
ruweou.axr - - - ^ wee
r on September 13, 2002 NmM Yx RA=GHupma N.C
cuu, m 0
/ %on ? ML9G
?. a
MI
. ? _ -? _ NE MAP
t M1? an tmcq¢s we oNrxac ® ROCKY POINT QUARRY
nwm4autw.w ,,,,N.? PENOERCOUNTY, N.C.
smnsenon eexv ? QUARRY: ROCKY POINT QUARRY
wxta - i v,
T
rm„vcrw
4
J?vyl3M
CCI,NN .
aY?.wy,rwbr,als
ie..mnmxm r.:sYimm
Rocky Point Quarry
Martin Marietta Materials /eVA\ Pumping Plan
Figure 1
Rocky Point Quarry Wetlands delineation shown has been superceded
Mine Map since the filing of the mining permit map.
Locations of the installed monitoring gages, shown
"Pra ert is portion of
p y
here, are consistant with the proposed locations
780-acre parcel, which
shown in Figure 6, submitted July 10, 2002. *
c 4?,
tl
also includes stud
area
?
f
P
y
parcels F1, F2, G1, G2,
The location symbol, previously shown as 0 was A
-
}
t
H1, H2, and onions of
t, ?' _ ??''• ' " 4? p
changed to the call-out symbol shown here to be able vS
i- - _ { the mine area.
ore det
to show m
il of the monitoring location.
j
i
`
- y
?• ! t
a
,
??
1
r , , .
?L
Ilk
j
.?-"'
a t 4. KZ41
' ,ter Location 8 1
F
? ;,tt .,? ? ? , i ' e ,?>: w ; ? - s,? -fit « -: ?•??` •~,r? , A tT , ? s?? _
?
'
M?
Y
,
+1 ,i?I' C'
? €.'
' /. ?
gn
+?'• i ? 4 4 .. ?r yl ,?'.k +.
i #.,- ,
`y R `?77
4& 4#
MMM. f., !tl:: '`' _ , f11.', ,,
s`, '?,.";`?,"" t ,.,, +?, yE r-_., 1[ •?
V=: - t' - a? R
i
ms
,
ll
'g. f ? Y}i 4 r p,? ? ,??',??°7 +'?? 1?;. a,i *r: b'? Moue wi`i '_ t ? •. ,?r1 _
Location 7 r'x. a
'
? .1j.,,f 1'J..a. y ,"t .- '{ Ala + ?. + _-
r d" s
/4' r y{ - T:+• 'r (y`'?."? ?
Active Mine Area
?` .
- {•'
M 1 .r !
,
r -:
'
'
'
° x
<
r
.
?M
rwr % '% r.. ! .
a(t
yI
1,
py
LIY R r?
•.?.r /• .. %R - p
?.
. I 2 ,' ; 'era. - n 1'°'
, a? •'
.? ?! •?
? +1
?..
T
F
4
1
L
* )
yt
sr?
i P
- a[2L'?
:'
?g
i
'3
r
.
•
e
VAY ti;
Location 9
fir. -'.A t
iTA
"' .•.i .. IR r ?,as. 7YC .j? ?, .?"X1X't`->?#y F• j /- 1? +
`"`?' h Jr k? s1' a +a-,•i+,V', Location 3 /
14
Rain Gage ra qty'. I
•R'4
e

t rM ?++ ?` s.. ,fi.
2- or
,zi
?r?`
j'?
J
st?
i • _ N
yt Locat on 6
?l• ?
11 !

,
r
F2 -A
sti " r
L
i
2
yaR
ocat
on
';rat i
I
r .
1
,? t l i'
k+ i f\ ` ArMYcr. t R
'x3 ?, ti - t R A.
y''+ D
yT
+
?
'
"
_
„
!
nNN

Location 1 ? - ?=`
n«,i
F1 r
Location 4
+
•
- ?• a ? . May,
t; k
?i -x7??i
rt
r 1
T
r r
nN%24 Location

w

7
!
IiL
Figure 6: Ground Active Mine Area 0 Rain Gage o . N 0 600 1
200 Martin Marietta Aggregates

_ ,
Cut Lines • Stream Gage o .
Imley-Horn Water Monitoring 0Study Area o Piezometer o Deep Well Feet I Rocky Point Expansion:
Monitoring Plan
nd Associates, Inc. Gage Locations OAdjacent Not to scale Color Infrared Aerials Flown Spring 1998

Fi
ure 2
Rocky Point Quarry g
Martin Marietta Materials Pumping Plan Monitoring Gage Location
Map
M (as submitted to DWQ
)
2 ..?.?,. Kart 011185010
• • •

rn r. r S..'
0
as
3
p o
_ B
x /1
s ?
O
O
N
0
O
m I H O
0)
O
O

?Q
D v 3
a

o y
O?
° C

a C

_a
CL

m

D
N
?.
d
d

m
>
y >
N
7 0O
N

n 3
? I
a

OL
N
x v
0

N
O

3
d
z
d

w
N

r
a
O
H
N
N
x•
N
O

X N ?O
O
Q
n
C ?
N

? K

h ?
w
I-'
e x w
O
U/
V/
0
N

D w: N
C
'0
CL O
CD
(0
O
c .v D

?
CL N

O

O
N

w W

L
o m

vi m
a?
0 n.
N
O p
7 y
01 N
Op
m o

? to g
D
.
O ? . w
CL
m n
go
CL

-?
N
O
vm
w co
m
m
i
J
G O. N y°° N N o m m 7 t.
703 N,y c1O Z?m°o? ?? ' , % t
O
°Cy °?dod N?p•< !?i f n i
EL
. f. 19 m
dNa3 QN m<n°?' i ( 1??
cry ?' 0 3 ci
on- oo. WT
:E No
-SfD° ?caac?oC° `, o n
C N N -. A ? S° rT n? !? 1
?? oD o a? ° ?m m aTn o If
N °' 3 `N< N J ,K
FL T 10 ?' F d < N V 3 Ol •-? ?'
mnNm m ?o°I.$N 10
n .d. N •° I°
O' ?•
C ' c \\\
m 0 (((1'''???`
m 3
N N N ? O `?
O O
x. u. K r?
CD N ??-
N
N lP I I
`l
o !
v
~?? ' It t-n
a
i t-
a
J
N N N J'?? r-`
O O N
w m O
N
x
0
0
o?
D W J
k k k '
? ? lP
J
V1
x
J
T
w
pZ
r-•
rn
• w
J
w' J

H ..
7<
O

J
00
iJ !
J
i \\
1? H
rn
it
IJ N co
r
! v1
m
ul
0
O
2a
m
Q
x•
n
c °
m
0
C
N
. J rn
w o
?
x
?
13
• I 1 • 0
?i 8 P
.1 .

a

CROS9•SECfION 11

I I 1
y3

t
?•
of
t 3' ??
1

'I
3 CROSS-SEMON lp

l 0#a
i
' ? '1 2• cuP
%N a. 3:r

.2349Cill
V6 R ?
'

d ilCliV v
CROSS-M-[.
az• cur ?,?S c,
?
'

-
al
,r te
71 I "M 99
'
ainol
1 J?
.2343043.3! N6
ws ? 1 S
;
LNUMS"3MMIL4 17 W -All
I ,

Ala 71i
? w
y
2 -TO= OF 9ANX •ll
1
6
3 ,

A , GIM-NAIURAL GROUND SHU
L Cf 01 TM TO -MP OF RAW
} CUDIMI•l OF MM
3 '
d 1
? I
1

N
I '
I
? ?
08 g I
•,
FARCE

o •.? I
o
'L
_u 0 ? 7dYd I I , ?o
,
7,
= 0 CRC]58•SRB,CnoN S C
L . e
W
96. 1

tv c ',
? tv
SL NTW
lift! ,w I
20
low

CR0S3-880:10N 7

=r -n CROSS-SEC MN 3

I
? c
U) CID , I , lppe K le
Cn [i7 • aa CROSS"SECI•ION4 I
lo•
n a.a •?•'

TWA Cxi1355EC[tONS Ins; 40. 06
, ` .
0 yip

n
i?l • r
LROSS".•.CZZON a dM 1200•7 •? 14,11 !OY
OlOlol 10.
CROSS-SECTION 6°
0 Tn

„?G
DD oo>v?°J?9 wra»z
N

N m
2zDD?jgTIll
C °.Gn133 rp Vlay
,' ,
lan,°g?6?n.
oco
y
U, '? l
o
3
•Z ?' me c O m ,gyp
j
N 7
o p
N
d'
3 ?m3c'° d °3
o CL
n 0 a
d -
7 W g p N O N
p C
N
y O y d n ry O. ••
° ?.3pN?»ryp?rR_E

N» S d `G O N S -•
? °• 'o,?y.oa
P.
CD a)
G Y1 `? O N O n N O' ?I

"
m
ua 3
3 to ,o
n m
0? tF^d
i
D
d 0
M 2= j N
o? ago ro
o
1
z d a O

G w
m
e
c m
01 ° v
a m 0
N N

• • s
3Y4R
R!p
a?A O
-ff a
2
D o_
? I
t?
U) N
PE
?€ 1
yz x
<`< I I
<,< I I,j
< < I I `• II
< < I I o i' c ?
ISO' D
N D N
O
<<< I I ? m
< III m
?{ ; D z
O? Cf) Cn
--A N F-
c C) \ Y q
Cf) ;
o m 0 Z
0 " /.
v I II ci m
a
' ° I! p
?
-0 p <? <
c?? !, " 2
Cn
i C
?\ ? IIII n
D
= r
N
' hI I?
CD ? ,
<X
?CD < <
cn ? <;< I I z
CD o
;v
j o
n°i \,, < III •
< I?
CD
Ij
,III i
liil+l
si
0 0 0
4
fill
3gg S ?
q}8 y
6?R¢
cy3
rg,
g;a m
p9 ?
a; O D
U) ;a
m m
N
O
lr
O
=? r > O
m I
1<<< v z
\? .
o a c
O
-0 z
m
zz -I Z7
>
O c
M 70
y
D ;n ! r N Z m r
C/)
O C11
cr z N m
m m o
a z z
co ()??? C) X m
U1
< <I,? Q O
?n Z
rn
-Do
77 U)
O
lyi
-u <
?a)
N ?.<
CIO
II'`'I 114. \, y
I ?.
< 2
U),8
CD c/) V1
CL 0 a° III O
U)21 O
mourn
CD
CL
S
9
0 0 9
ass
4i
eta
6 ¢
X98
?3p
O Z FrI
O D
Lf) ;7
Frl o D 2
N
=E I
4i ? O
? x DTJ O
14? m IV
C/)
t\\
d <?,? ? II III
M
?Ilis? O?x
cn Z -i0-Di ?
0
Z Cn N) p pm M
U) O li II - r -
Q r Z N
fTl? I 1 ?I N frl O
can (n X M
o _ cn
C7 O O D D
-u 0
X ? ? 0
o mO
cc ?. <;< I I c cr zo
00
s,
-1 h, ?>
D
Z :. r D O
N) x (A FrI
<<< 1 1 D m z
z ?
114 n m
=z
?< I?I ?M
E3
` cn
_0,?
o n a ` p
co co
CD C: a:)
CLn
L 5 -4
co
N II
< <
< , I III''
N
O
O
>OD
M-M
cn o ?u
?;u r-
zm
a O m
r
• C,=FJ Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: May 9, 2002
Project: MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, Rocky Point, NC.
Subject: Mine Dewatering, Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Plan
1.0 Introduction
Martin Marietta Aggregates (MMA) operates a limestone aggregate quarry in Rocky Point, North
Carolina. MMA, in cooperation with and in response to a request from the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality
• (DWQ), will document its dewatering and monitoring program to provide information on the
present and future mine operations and mine expansion. The requested modifications from DWQ
were detailed in a letter from Mr. Rick Shiver, DWQ to Mr. Robert Winchester, MMA, dated
March 5, 2002, and clarification on April, 16, 2002 meeting with DWQ/MMA staff. This
document has been prepared to address the issues requested in the March 5 letter, and as clarified
during the April 16 meeting.
2.0 Background
2.1 Site Setting
The Rocky Point quarry has operated in its present location since 1984. Figure 1 provides a
general location map of the quarry and Figure 2 presents an aerial photograph of the quarry as of
February 2002. The quarry produces approximately 4,000 tons per day of product from the
Eocene age Castle Hayne limestone, a semi-consolidated sandy limestone ranging in thickness in
the quarry area from 5 to 18 feet. The product zone is overlain by sands and clayey sands ranging
in thickness from 20 to 30 feet. Below the producing zone is a thin confining unit that separates
the Castle Hayne limestone from the underlying Peedee aquifer. The confining unit is composed
of clay, silty clay and sandy clay ranging in thickness from, on average, 25 to 35 feet. The Cape
•
HAM I1850101Pinal_GW_Monilodng_Plan.doc 1 of 10
May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
• Rocky Point Quarry
Fear River is located to the east and south of the quarry area, a distance of approximately 1.5 to 2
miles from the active boundary of the quarry. The topography of the area is generally of low
relief, ranging from 25 ft. above mean sea level (msl) on the western side of the quarry to a low of
5 ft. msl near the Cape Fear River. The areas east and south of the quarry are generally poorly
drained soils and well-drained sandy ridges. There are some wetland areas and/or drainage
swales that are all part of the Cape Fear floodplain area or tributaries to the Cape Fear River.
2.2 Local Hydrogeology
Water table elevations in the area occur from ground surface in the wetland areas near the Cape
Fear River to 3 to 10 feet below ground surface in the upland areas as reported in MMA ground
water monitoring well records. The hydraulic connection between the near-surface water table,
water levels within the overburden and water levels within the limestone is somewhat variable.
From a regional perspective and over seasonal time scales, these three zones respond to ground
water changes predominantly as a single hydrogeologic unit. However, their properties are
sufficiently different that in the short term, and in local areas, strong vertical gradients can
• develop and the units can respond quite differently to changes in ground water pressures.
Trexler, B. D., (1974) provides a good description of the hydraulic properties of the Castle
Hayne formation and Giese, G. L., J. L. Eimers and R. W. Coble (1997)2 provide a regional
discussion of the major water-bearing units of the North Carolina Coastal Plain which includes
the Rocky Point Quarry area.
3.0 Purpose of the Dewatering, Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Plan
Operation of the quarry requires dewatering of the overburden and the Castle Hayne Limestone.
This generally results in depression of the water table within the quarry area to an elevation of 2
to 5 ft. msl. The cone of depression created by dewatering extends outside of the active mining
front.
Trexler, B. D., 1974. Petrography, Porosity, and Hydraulic Conductivity of the Castle Hayne Aquifer,
CastleHayne, North Carolina. Master's Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
2 Giese, G. L., J. L. Eimers and R. W. Coble, 1997. Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in the Coastal
• Plain Aquifer System of North Carolina. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1404-M.
H:\PM0111850101Final_GW_Monitonng Plan.doc 2 of 10
May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
• Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ, in their letter of March 5, 2002 regarding compliance with NDPES permit conditions and
potential impacts on nearby wetlands, requested the following (paraphrased):
¦ Develop alternative site specific pumping and monitoring plans. The pumping plans should
consider ways to minimize the impacts of dewatering. The monitoring plans must depict the
cone of depression associated with the mining and future mine expansion.
¦ Install monitoring wells along a transect or in several directions from the dewatering location
to detect the effects of pumping.
¦ Consider the utility of alternative methods of hydrating areas effected by pumping, such as
spray irrigation or other alternatives.
Pursuant to the April 16 meeting, MMA agreed to, among other tasks, prepare a ground water
monitoring and pumping plan that would include the above as goals and specifically include:
¦ Target monitoring well locations,
¦ Develop frequency, goals, and methods for monitoring, and
• ¦ Identify reporting format and frequency.
This Technical Memorandum presents a ground water monitoring and pumping program, target
well locations, and monitoring frequency to provide information on the shallow and intermediate
ground water levels outside the active mine area.
The monitoring program, presented herein, assumes mine operations will continue their
expansion to the east and south, but this will be dictated by the mine reserves and economics. If
the mine operations plan is modified, the pumping and monitoring plan will also be modified to
achieve the above goals.
The specific goals of the monitoring program are:
1. Monitor shallow and intermediate ground water levels outside of the mine area to provide
background information on water table elevations prior to mine expansion.
2. Monitoring the extent of the cone of depression created by mine dewatering.
•
HAPN101118501 Winal_GW_Moniloring_Plan.doc 3 of 10
May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
• Rocky Point Quarry
3. Monitor water levels outside of the proposed perimeter recharge ditch(es) to monitor and
manage recharge to the shallow ground water system and to monitor the efficiency of impact
minimization for areas outside of the mine area.
4. Monitor shallow ground water levels near areas suspected to be wetlands.
5. Manage pumping, discharge points and recharge ditches to minimize impacts from mine
dewatering.
6. Monitor hydrological affects of pumping.
3.1 Pumping and Dewatering Plan
Present Dewatering Methods and Operations: Dewatering for the present mine operations is
accomplished by float-controlled pumps set in two sumps located near the eastern perimeter and
southern perimeter, inside the mined-out area (Figure 3). Trenches along the base of the mining
face direct seepage toward the sumps and maintain a relatively dry working environment for the
mining equipment. The pumps are activated based on level-controlled floats, and estimates of
total pumpage are made from the pump capacity and hours of operation.
Total pumpage is estimated to vary from 3 to 5 million gallons per day (mgd). The eastern sump
is scheduled to be moved farther south and east to better control the ground water levels in areas
G1 and G2 (Figure 3). Discharge from the east sump currently is to Strawberry Branch (east of
the mine). The southern sump is positioned to dewater areas F1 and F2 and to provide water for
product washing.
Pumping and Dewatering Plan: The goals of the proposed pumping and dewatering plan are:
1. Dewater the mine face sufficiently to allow the equipment to operate efficiently and
safely.
2. Minimize the amount of water necessary to be pumped consistent with goal Number 1.
3. Limit the spread of the cone of depression from dewatering activities to the planned
mining area using perimeter recharge ditches and discharge management.
4. Use discharge points to minimize hydrologic impact to adjacent streams and/or wetlands
from dewatering activities and to promote natural hydroperiod and hydrologic fluctuation
in those areas.

HAPN1011185010\final GW_Moniloring Plan.doc 4 of 10
May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
• Rocky Point Quarry
Methodology: Figure 3 illustrates the existing dewatering sumps and the proposed new east
sump location. It is proposed that the current pumping regime (location of pumps, location of
discharges) continue through the initial phase of the monitoring. MMA is proposing a new
pumping plan with a discharge to the original discharge location and monitoring the effects of the
relocation. By phasing the pumping plan during the initial monitoring plan collection of baseline
data can be initiated immediately while the appropriate measures to implement the proposed
pumping plan can be undertaken (relocation of pump, maintenance of existing ditches,
construction of new recharge ditches and potentially installation of water control and dissipation
structures).
For the proposed pumping plan, the new east sump will be located to the south (of the present
sump location) to better focus dewatering activities in the G1 and G2 areas. Discharge from the
new east sump will be directed into a new recharge ditch (typical section contained in Figure 3)
that forms the northern border for area G2. This recharge ditch will confine the dewatering cone
of depression to the areas south of the ditch and isolate the Strawberry Branch area from the
dewatering activities. Surface water discharges from this ditch will be directed into the unnamed
tributary to Strawberry Branch to support and maintain its hydroperiod to the extent practicable
• during mining activities.
The south sump provides dewatering of the F1 and F2 areas, and provides some overlap with the
new east sump area of influence in the boundary area between areas F and G. Ground water
derived from the south sump will be directed into a perimeter recharge ditch that parallels the
western and southern boundary of area F1, and then directed northward to be discharged into the
unnamed tributary to Strawberry Branch or directed southward to maintain hydrology and/or base
flow to adjacent areas. Figure 3 provides the planned location of the sumps and recharge ditches.
The results of the initial monitoring plan will be evaluated to determine appropriate recharge
ditch cross section and any potential amendments needed to the proposed pumping plan.
Implementation of the Plan: The following specific actions will be implemented to initiate the
pumping and dewatering plan:
1. The east sump will be relocated to the new, more southerly location.
2. The discharge point for the new east sump will be directed into a new recharge ditch as
shown in Figure 3
•
14 :1I'N10111850101Final_GW_Moniloring_Plan.doc 5 of 10
May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
is Rocky Point Quarry
3. The new recharge ditch will be constructed along the northern boundary of area G2, and
continue along the eastern boundary to the unnamed tributary of Strawberry Branch (see
typical section on Figure 3).
4. The pumping volume will be accurately recorded for the old and new east sump as well as the
existing south sump.
5. A rain gage will be used to provide on-site precipitation data.
6. The discharge point for the south sump will be modified to direct excess water not needed for
product washing into the recharge ditch along the western and southern border of area F.
This recharge ditch will be inspected to determine if unobstructed flow can occur along the
entire planned pathway to the unnamed tributary, or if control structures on side culverts are
necessary to maintain head levels and flow within the ditch.
7. Records of quantities pumped from each sump will be maintained on a daily basis on site for
later consolidation and presentation in an annual report format.
3.2 Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Plan
• The goal of the surface and ground water monitoring plan is to gather sufficient information to
identify the area of influence of the dewatering activities and to provide information for
management of the dewatering and recharge activities so as to minimize adverse impacts from
dewatering outside of the mine area.
Methodology: In order to accomplish the above stated goal of the monitoring program, a series
of ground water monitoring wells and monitoring well nests will be installed. Figure 4 illustrates
the three types of wells planned. These are:
1. Shallow wells, generally less than 10 feet deep, designed to monitor shallow ground water
levels in suspected wetland areas to document hydrodynamics for these systems.
2. Overburden wells, generally installed to a depth between 10 feet and 20 feet from ground
surface. These wells are designed to monitor the local ground water table surrounding the
mine area, monitor the expansion of the cone of depression from the pit dewatering and to
provide information on the efficiency of the perimeter recharge ditch.
3. Limestone wells, installed into the limerock unit being mined to provide vertical flow
• information, when used in conjunction with the overburden wells, monitor the extent of
HAPM011165010Tinal_GW_Moniloring_Plan.doc 6 of 10
May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
• Rocky Point Quarry
expansion of the cone of depression from the dewatering activities, and provide information
on the hydraulic head relationship between the overburden and limestone units.
Shallow aquifer monitoring locations are proposed in areas G1, G2, H1, and H2 (Figure 5). Each
monitoring location will consist of a free-water surface monitoring well to monitor for wetland
hydrology, and a "nest" of 3 to 4 piezometers (depending on soil stratigraphy) to assess soil water
movement and vertical/horizontal flow gradients in the areas of suspected wetlands. The
objectives of the monitoring nests are to 1) document the presence, or lack thereof, of the water
table near the surface sufficient to meet wetland hydrology criteria, and 2) correlate groundwater
flow with the deeper aquifer monitoring wells to demonstrate the relationship (if any) with the
deeper groundwater systems in these geomorphic features. A sketch of the monitoring well and
piezometer "nest" is shown as an inset in Figure 4. All monitoring wells will be installed using
appropriate methodology to meet applicable regulatory requirements for hydrologic monitoring
purposes. All wells installed will be surveyed and tied to permanent benchmarks.
The data from the monitoring well and piezometers will be collected daily and on a limited basis
is by continuous recorder dataloggers attached to each well/piezometer. The units will be
programmed such that readings will be collected daily. The dataloggers will be downloaded on a
monthly basis, at a minimum, to inspect proper function of the monitoring equipment.
The shallow monitoring locations were identified through a field evaluation meeting with the US
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) staff (Mickey Sugg) held on April 30, 2002. The areas visited
during that meeting identified by the COE as suspected wetland areas are those included for
shallow aquifer monitoring on parcels G1, G2, H1, and H2. A jurisdictional determination (JD)
as to the extent of wetland areas was not performed at that time, so monitoring locations were
determined as the closest approximation to location as discussed in the field. Additional
information regarding the influence of drainage ditches on suspected wetland areas and the extent
of hydric/non-hydric soils is required by the COE to determine wetland boundaries. Wetland
delineation efforts are on-going and may supplement the proposed plan (contained here) as
necessary.
The overburden and limestone wells will be located in two transects of 3 well nests each, oriented
east and south of the F and G areas. Each well nest location will include a well screened in the
0
H APN10111850101Final_GW_Moniloring_Plan.doc 7 01 10
May 9, 2002
• Martin Marietta Aggregates
Rocky Point Quarry
overburden and a well screened in the limestone unit. This configuration will provide both
horizontal and vertical definition of hydraulic gradients, and in combination with the information
on unit hydraulic conductivities, will provide quantitative information on ground water flow rates.
Each of the overburden and limestone monitoring wells will be measured daily. A limited
number of shallow water table wells will also be instrumented with continuous recorders but,
because of the number of monitoring locations, and the number of peizometers, manual
monitoring on a monthly basis may be performed to supplement water table well data with the
piezometer data.
The physical location of the wells will be dictated by the planned mine expansion. At this time, it
is anticipated that mining operation will continue in F1 and is intended to expand into areas G1
and G2. Based on this planned development, the two transects of overburden and limestone wells
and the shallow wells should provide sufficient information to closely evaluate the impacts of
mine dewatering. This proposed plan may be modified, however, if the mine expansion plans are
• modified or if analysis of the ground water data indicate that changes are necessary in the
monitoring program.
Scheduling of installation of the monitoring network will be determined in conjunction with mine
operators and DWQ regulatory personnel to meet the necessary terms for permit compliance and
sound environmental management. Figure 5 illustrates the planned location for the monitoring
wells and Table 1 provides the planned monitoring well designation, monitoring frequency and
construction details.
4.0 Summary
The above dewatering, surface and ground water monitoring program will provide information on
dewatering activities, impacts and ground water table elevations near sensitive suspect wetland
systems, provide information on the regional ground water table, monitor the impacts of mine
dewatering on the overburden and limestone geologic units surrounding the mine and provide a
method of managing the perimeter recharge ditches to minimize the expansion of the cone of
depression in the water table aquifer from mine dewatering activities. The program includes two
• transects of overburden wells and limestone wells and areally distributed shallow wells based on
H1PM0111850107inal GW_Moniodng_Plan.doc 80fto
May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
• Rocky Point Quarry
the planned mine expansion program. The location and timing of well installation may be
modified based on mine operations and permit compliance needs. The results of the monitoring
plan will be used to assess the proposed pumping plan and to develop amendments to the plan, if
necessary.
•
•
H1PN1011185010>final_GW_Monitonng_Plan.dm 9 of 10

May 9, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
Rocky Point Quarry
Table 1: Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Well Program
Rocky Point Quarry, Pender County, NC
•
•
Notes: OB = Overburden Well
LS = Limestone Well
SH = Shallow Water Table Well
PI - Piezometer
DM = Daily Measurement
PM = Periodic Measurement
R^ -'C

L,66= 1To A

Well Type
1'?afinecLTotal

D6 0th ft
% 1 l v
Screen l(Jen,

t Y ...
Momtoring '

requency"
1 OB 15 5 DM
1 LS 35 5 DM
2 OB 15 5 DM
2 LS 35 5 DM
2 SH Varies Varies DM
2 PI Varies Point location PM
3 OB 15 5 DM
3 LS 35 5 DM
3 SH Varies Varies DM
3 PI Varies Point location PM
4 OB 15 5 DM
4 LS 35 5 DM
5 SH Varies Varies DM
5 PI Varies Point location PM
6 SH Varies Varies DM
6 PI Varies Point location PM
7 SH Varies Varies DM
7 PI Varies Point location PM
HAPN\01118501ffinal_GW_Monitoring_Plan.doc 10 of 10
•
•
•
' HO Y SHELTER 5TATE
\Malppss Comer WaBiea store W LIFLV MANAGEME 1T AREA,
Rooks' amacraw Twin Oa Holly Rim
Porrtt 1100, 1 Hig?smith Ashton, { f:
' Casweg -.?
`:•. f. d a Little Kelly
Currie k
I
?. ar The Monta94P• ?41 L Rocky Poir M 2
Blilfl, E Boroug(hu° t Greek
Long Bluffer Cunnjfi`VBlutt? H 0 R H
Landing Land4l; MoSretor
1j-4
Clarks
T HRdden Bluff
Landing ? -eLanding '(`133
!a r
Maribor
Cowpen ??? tlK I
Greenbank s Landing. o,tCastle toot)
Landing
o'
Pridgeons Landin" 4e. (4211 { Hayne
Gooseneck `.
Richards
r Crossing
0
Hooper Hill
,Northwest ?_ f 13z
## ' ? ? V?Y,?htsbord,
e Phoenix QCreS _ EAuiraysville
b? 1 Cedar Hill, SAifles ° / -- I,- I ;t
Sandy Creek o -
j Eastbrook Coun Heights i ?Y,? o+l J Ogden
c' N w Han v,
Malmo
? ?t74, eland Navessa lq'mati n b`NAI dale
i # + I` pod tarora Ella 04721
i ? f r.-.
(1438) _o ,132}2
e Hil M In VNnte? 1\;d Wri Y
Easy
7
LanvaleQ = p? ag
.?' apyr'p?n ?? I Jvd.I J91,frll,'[ps? i?r ?r,a??rr i - ?`?f i r 's.ia?n !w rJlrfJh'rJ 7 .c

/,d

Topsail
ocky Point Quarry
? ...
in nt
'-
T
a y
Brown Town

1611
- tn'
3• ter:
+
rti1 Scotts HIII
,d i?
17{ r cr ,. '

(14037 ? "+
+?J,
, F
rx
Title: Site Location Map
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
Kimle Horn Rocky Point Expansion:
y' Proposed Monitoring Plan
and Associates, Inc.
Date: Scale: KIIA Project No. Figure:
5/9/02 NA 011185010 1
•
•
0
•

E
•
li I liii llli
5hallow Water Table Monitoring "Nest" Typical:
Piezo meter Weil Piezo meter
r
Ground Surface
Water
plable Soil Layer
Soil Layer 2
(Restrictive)
Soil Layer 3/4
Title: Monitoring Well Schematic
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
Kimle Horn Rocky Point Expansion:
Y-Proposed Monitoring Plan
• and Associates, Inc, Date: Scale: ICHA Project No. Figure:
5/9/02 NA 011185010 4
0
0
N 9PJII..t f; 'W PC., tl:
j!" Ifk Y",
C"
",A
""q CL
L
_V,
.O Im. .,I,L ;)q
-t o b
N � � j 8
(n
2ro
. . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . r 0 U)
0
0
0 C
CL M
2
m
1L
E.%

•
Appendix B
Supplemental Figures to the
May 9, 2002 Technical
Memorandum, Submitted to
• DWQ
40
•
17-?
•
I I I I
G
i
•

•
Q , -
P r, fir'` p.'
ti
-Ile
a)
M d U) d .c c
r O a N d
c cc d '?. O N 'D
3 00 O N 0 a s c y C1
0 O Cl (0 W V:E U Ct 3) "a ?A
N O d .. c0 c c0
.c,N3 ` .O U 0 3 o to-0 2s
c? c o?i c c°-p 0 3 DO U_
m °o d a0 3 2 y'v O U) H ov
co
3 0 adi'0 C fop 0 L. ? ? ?? ? a? Gs ? 0 r-
.0 'r. CL
NC 8 i.y V!H'Cww} 16 'D 7
U)
L yj ,O• s 'c 3 v
5M v tcp 0 E O L
d a M 0) N t0 .. c Vl x ?L
E c0 D i o *'p C t v Oy V O
to 'x rn? o- 0 r'v c 3 v` ac R
C O O O c O y V c0 0 0 A M 7 c0
0 am 6. Z M M 0. cC 2 r O 2 ... o .O, a0. O c0 c c0 0
LL

oa#
c c
cm -C
o
?W c
20
c a
U-
LL
O
Z
?yy
G z2
7
w
u g
o0? a
wa
o
V t
IV
3 9 "@
p? a
00??
N
a ? 3
ga`r
3 3
o s
m?
t?
N ? N
O C
? O
CL rn
iri F C
o
Or-
E32
¦
II i
•
•
0
•
•
•
? C
a
6 .2
1 _- rn
J'? Q x«
m w
t k r {? .: C 20
y?l
V""'A
t y .` o a
1 N awe
? m
Q
r"•
o Er:mE
S ? ?vfizaL
? a??n:cgc
by Sd?
1 F-- _ E a8s?G[
11 ?i1 C h 210 O {S p
1 ?E'?E
8
C U A y C?
ti ? ?? C 1 ???v?oL'
t m L? U _
t O It
,/ 11 O Ij a H m O N ry C G
?11 L L r H 0 A- F 9
L 9 m -
5 ? ? I L r ?
tm
Qf
C Q
C13 x R
: W m
N
? y ? C y
C. CL
ui a 'L
M i °'
N
J t• ?
„ ?ro
r=FJ Kimley-Horn
• and Associates, Inc.
M e m o r a n d u m
Date: November 6, 2002
Project: MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, Rocky Point, NC.
Subject: Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Gauge Installation
Update; Quarterly Report
This memorandum provides status report for the implementation and installation of water table
and deeper ground water monitoring gauges at the Martin Marietta Aggregates Rocky Point
Quarry in Pender County, North Carolina.
As stated in the Mine Dewatering, Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Plan (May 9, 2002)
and in supplemental information (submitted July 10, 2002), goals of the monitoring program are:
• 1. Monitor shallow and intermediate ground water levels outside of the mine area to
provide background information on water table elevations prior to potential/proposed
mine expansion.
2. Monitor the extent of the cone of depression created by mine dewatering.
3. Monitor water levels outside of the proposed perimeter recharge ditch(es) to monitor
and manage recharge to the shallow ground water system and to monitor the
efficiency of impact minimization for areas outside of the mine area.
4. Monitor shallow ground water levels near areas suspected to be wetlands.
5. Manage pumping, discharge points and recharge ditches to minimize impacts from
mine dewatering.
6. Monitor hydrological affects of pumping.
To initiate the monitoring program and collect pre-mine expansion water table data, water level
monitoring gauges with continuous recording data loggers were installed on the site. The type of
monitoring gauges varied. They are as follows:
E
I . Surface Piezometers, generally 12 to 18 inches deep, designed to identify the presence of
• a restrictive soil horizon (i.e. a spodic horizon) near the soil surface, which may provide a
perched condition for wetland hydrology.
2. Shallow Water Table gauges, approximately 4 feet deep, designed to monitor shallow
ground water levels in suspected wetland areas to document hydrodynamics for these
systems.
3. Overburden wells, installed to a depth of approximately 15 feet from ground surface,
but above the limestone. These wells are designed to monitor the local ground water
table surrounding the mine area, monitor the expansion of the cone of depression from
the pit dewatering and to provide information on the efficiency of the perimeter recharge
ditch.
4. Limestone (Deeper Ground Water) wells, installed into the limerock unit (generally
between 25 and 35 feet deep) being mined to provide vertical flow information, when
used in conjunction with the overburden wells, monitor the extent of expansion of the
cone of depression from the dewatering activities, and provide information on the
hydraulic head relationship between the overburden and limestone units.
Monitoring locations are shown in the attached Figure 6: "Ground Water Monitroing Gauge
• Locations". The figure is similar to the amended Figure 5: "Proposed Shallow Water Table and
Groundwater Monitoring Locations", submitted in July which showed proposed locations.
Figure 6 displays the actual GPS survey locations of the monitoring gauges and stream level
gauges, and uses a new nomenclature to identify the locations by the identification number of
each monitoring gauge. To establish and instrument the monitoring site the following was
performed.
• Horizontal control of the monitoring gauges was obtained by survey with sub-meter
accuracy GPS equipment by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA).
• Vertical control (+/- 0.01inch) was established by Martin Marietta in-house survey team
by tying to the existing topographic survey and North Carolina Geodetic Survey
monuments through traditional survey methods.
• Deep aquifer wells and overburden wells were installed by licensed contractors (Carolina
Drilling, and A&D Drilling; Appendix A).
• Shallow water table gauges and piezometers were installed by KHA staff following US
Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station guidelines for the installation
of gauges and piezometers in wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1, 1993;
Appendix E).
• • A tipping bucket rain gauge with continuous recording data logger was installed on-site.
Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
• Stream water level gauges were installed (Strawberry Branch, and Unnamed Tributary to
• Strawberry Branch).
The following is included to document the field efforts to implement the monitoring program.
• Figure 6 (attached) shows the surveyed locations of the ground water monitoring gauges,
stream level gauges, and rain gauge.
• Table 1 contains soil profile data for the monitoring locations.
• Table 2 contains elevation data for the groundwater and shallow water table monitoring
gauges.
• Table 3 contains elevation data for stream level monitoring gauges.
• Appendix A contains the well certification data forms provided by the well contractors
(installed July-August 2002).
• Appendix B contains site photographs taken by KHA staff during installation.
• Appendix C contains technical information on the Infinities, Inc. pressure transducer
water level recorders used for the shallow water table, piezometer, and stream gauges
(installed by KHA staff August-September 2002).
• Appendix D contains technical information on the NovaLynx Tipping Bucket Rain
• Gauge (model 260-2501) (installed by KHA staff October 2002).
• Appendix E contains a copy of the WRP Technical Note for the installation of wells and
piezometers in wetlands.
Water level data is programmed to be collected on an hourly basis for the monitoring gauges and
stream level gauges shown in the attached figure. Rainfall data is recorded by each rainfall event
(total rainfall and duration of event). Rainfall data prior to installation of the rain gauge will be
collected on a daily basis by Martin Marietta staff at the Rocky Point Quarry location. The
monitoring locations will be visually inspected on a monthly basis, and logger data will be
downloaded on a monthly basis. The water table and rainfall data will be compiled and presented
in a status report every three months.
As stated in previous communications, the shallow monitoring locations were identified through a
field evaluation meeting with the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) staff (Mickey Sugg) held
on April 30, 2002. During that meeting, it was determined that before the COE could make a
jurisdictional determination, additional information regarding the influence of the drainage
ditches on suspected wetland and the extent of hydric and non-hydric soils would be determined.
• However, to initiate the monitoring plan, monitoring locations on Parcels G1, G2, H1, and H2
Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatenng, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
were selected based on the COE field visit for suspected wetland areas. Wetland delineation and
• modeling efforts are on-going. An on-site COE meeting to determine jurisdictional wetland
boundaries is scheduled for mid-November. Supplemental wetland information and amended
mapping will be provided after the jurisdictional determination by the COE is made.
Summary
Installation/implementation of the groundwater monitoring plan agreed to with the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has been completed.
No deviations from the plan were necessary. Data is being collected and will be tabulated,
analyzed, and summarized for NCDENR review. Baseline data will be collected until the new
sump/discharge to the Unnamed Tributary is completed. Once construction is complete, data will
be reviewed, the pumping plan will be developed, and any amendments to the monitoring plan
will be discussed. A memorandum/report will be prepared at that time to submit to NCDENR for
review prior to initiation of the next phase of the project.
•
Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatedng, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
L
•
•
j
I ! i
1 111 1 Ills
Table 1: Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Gauge Program
•

Rocky Point Quarry, Pender County, NC
Location 1 (Overburden Gauge Installation, 2' split spoon samples every 5')
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
3 - 5' 10 YR 7/1 Fine sand
8 - 9' 10 YR 5/2 and 10 YR 7/1 mixed/streaked Fine sand
9 - 10' gleyed Sandy clay ("gumbo")
13 - 15' no sample, spoon plugged with clay
15 - 20' no sample, spoon plugged with clay Sandy clay
Comments: There may have been a sand and clay layer between 10 and 13 feet. Saturation/water table was
identified at-13 feet depth. Rock was located at 19'.
Location 2 (Overburden gauge installation, observation from auger)
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0 - 2' 10 YR 2/1 to 10 YR 3/2 (hand auger) Loam/Loamy sand
2 - 10' Fine sand/sand
10 - 12' Clay
12 - 15' Sandy Clay
Comments: The profile was taken from observation of gauge installation and feeling for textural changes in
the soil. Split spoon samples were not available, and emphasis was on identification of depth of
the clay layer. Near surface soil horizons are similar to other profiles observed in the area such
as a dark loam /sand surface horizon underlain with sand subsoil.
Location 3 (Overburden gauge installation, 2' split spoon samples every 5')
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0 - 2' 10 YR 2/1 (hand auger) Loam w/ some organic
content
3 - 5' 10 YR 4/2 - 10 YR 5/1 Sand/Loamy sand
8 - 10' 10 YR 3/1 Sand/Coarse sand
13 - 15' gleyed Clay ("gumbo")
Comments: The first spoon sample fell out of the sampler since the sand was so dry. Clay layer begins at
13.5'.
Location 4 (Overburden Gauge Installation, 2' split spoon samples every 5')
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0-11 10 YR 2/1 Loam w/ some organic
content
3 - 5' 10 YR 2/1 - 10 YR 3/1 Loam to Sandy loam
8 - 10' 10 YR 5/1 to 10 YR 7/1 Sand
13 - 15' 10 YR 5/1 to 10 YR 7/1 Sand/Coarse sand
Comments: Sand to very coarse sand sampled at this location, often falling out of the spoon sampler. There
is some organic content at the surface, however this would need to be analyzed in the laboratory
to determine organic content. No clay layer identified within 15' from the surface.
Location 5 (Manual installation/hand auger of shallow water table monitoring gauge)
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0 - 20" 10 YR 2/1 Loamy sand w/ some
organic content
20 - 50" 10 YR 2/2 Loamy fine sand
50 - 72" 10 YR 4/2 Fine sand
Comments: None
• Madin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewetenng, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
Table 1 (continued)
•
•
Location 6 (Manual installation/hand auger of shallow water table monitoring gauge)
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0 - 18" 10 YR 2/1 Sandy loam
18 - 24" 10 YR 5/1 Fine sand
24 - 56" 10 YR 5/4 Coarse sand
56 - 84" 10 YR 7/1 fine sand
Comments: None
Location 7 (Manual Installation/hand auger of shallow water table monitoring gauge)
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0 - Y Undecomposed root
mat and litter
3 - 22" 10 YR 2/1 Sandy loam
22 - 38" 10 YR 4/2 Sand
38 - 71" 10 YR 5/1 Sand
Comments: None
Location 8 (Manual installation/hand auger of shallow water table monitoring gauge)
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0 - 20" 10 YR 2/1 Organic
20 - 42" 10 YR 2/1 - 10 YR 3/2 Loam/Loamy sand
Comments: Loamy sand would not stay in auger bucket. Water table located at
6" from the surface during installation
Location 9 (Manual installation/hand auger of shallow water table monitoring gauge)
Depth Hue/Color/Chroma Texture
0 - 8" 10 YR 2/1 Loam
8 - 20" 10 YR 3/1 Sand loam
20+" 10 YR 4/2 Loam sand
Comments: Soil profile taken in G2, south of the actual monitoring location.
• Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
Table 2: Rocky Point Quarry Groundwater and Shallow
• Water Table Monitoring Gauge Location Elevation Data
•
Monitoring Location 1 2
Monitoring Gauge Type Piez SH OB D Piez SH OB D
Monitoring Gauge ID NW15 NW18 NW22 NW23 NW4 NW11 NW21 NW26
Elevation Top of Casing (ft) *all elevations MSL 24.90 25.53 25.46 24.62 19.42 19.98 19.57 19.31
Elev. Ground Surface 20.71 20.63 20.91 20.41 14.63 14.57 16.56 14.73
Depth to Bottom of Casing (from top of casing) (ft) 5.81 9.08 19.54 28.75 6.13 9.00 20.13 30.77
Elevation Bottom of Casing (location of probe) (ft) 19.09 16.45 5.92 4.13 13.29 10.98 -0.56 -11.46
Monitoring Location 3 4 5
Monitoring Gauge Type Piez SH OB D OB D Piez SH
Monitoring Gauge ID NW3 NW17 NW20 NW25 NW19 NW24 NW2 NW10
Elevation Top of Casing (ft) *all elevations MSL 17.06 17.15 17.60 17.07 23.76 21.87 21.74 21.72
Elev. Ground Surface 12.43 12.38 12.59 12.65 18.82 18.10 17.19 17.01
Depth to Bottom of Casing (from top of casing) (ft) 6.04 8.96 29.50 36.00 20.71 36.58 6.17 9.10
Elevation Bottom of Casing (location of probe) (ft) 11.02 8.19 -11.90 -18.93 3.05 -14.71 15.57 12.62
Monitoring Location 6 7 8 9
Monitoring Gauge Type Piez SH Piez SH Piez SH Piez SH
Monitoring Gauge ID NW1 NW6 NW12 NW9 NW14 NW5 NW13 NW16
Elevation Top of Casing (ft) "all elevations MSL 21.72 22.57 24.48 24.26 8.84 10.00 24.52 24.48
Elev. Ground Surface 17.26 17.73 20.23 20.07 4.23 4.30 19.79 19.69
Depth to Bottom of Casing (from top of casing) (ft) 6.08 9.19 6.02 8.83 6.08 9.02 6.13 9.04
Elevation Bottom of Casing (location of probe) (ft) 15.64 13.38 18.46 15.43 2.76 0.98 18.39 15.44
Piez - Piezometer monitoring gauge
SH - Shallow water table monitoring gauge
OB - Overburden ground water monitoring gauge
D - Deep/Limestone ground water monitoring gauge
Table 3: Rocky Point Quarry Stream Level
Monitoring Gauge Location Elevation Data

Monitoring Location 3
(Unnamed Tributary to
Strawberry Branch 8
(Strawberry Branch)
Monitoring Gauge Type STIR STIR
Monitoring Gauge ID NW8 NW7
Elevation Top of Casing (ft) *all elevations MSL 17.53 14.69
Elev. Ground Surface 12.69 5.27
Depth to Bottom of Casing (from top of casing) (ft) NA NA
Elevation Bottom of Casing (location of probe) (ft) 12.69 5.27
STR - Stream level monitoring gauge
• Marlin Manetfa Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewafeong, Shallow Wafer Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
•
Appendix A
Well Certification Data Forms
•
0
•
\ WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
\
North Carolina - Depanmem of Lnvirunnrcnt and Natural Rc •ot cc - Division of Water Quality - Groundwater Section
s
?C?
??
/
WELL CONI R.AC'IOR(INDIVIDUAL) SAME (prlnr) Iw
_ - C'f:R'tl Pll'A'1'WN
N
?
^ -
?^
y
?
p
?
(
1VEt.1,CQV rIb\CfOlt ('OM PA?I NANE•? ???1 v' „? r?1
P110SE a oof, x
- STA'(E\VEI.1. C.'ONS1 RUC1`10N PERNIlTil. A&MOCIATED WQ PERMrI't,.-__--. -
-
- 61'aprilicable) lifapplicable)
I WELL USE (Check Applicable Box)- Residential ? Municipal/Public ? industrial ? Agricultural El
- Monitoring K, - Recovery ? Hear Pump Water Injection ? Other ? If Other, List Use -
2 ; WELL LOCATION: Topographic/Land setting
Nearest Town +t?j?_3_?ry)pArCounty
-ez-. ?Ridge ?Siope ?vallcy POW
` ?l
ti ..`L?4r •,>, N?IGCir} ffGi'S. 'A-"-'-__ (check xpp,,,pri.tc ta,z)
fS t N.»af. Nxmt", ('-.- ty, SUbdivlyidl, Lot Nq. Zip Codo L
atitudellongilt'dc )f well location
?
to
- 3. OWNER;_ ,?jY"b.t-t_G.1j4R- r?5 ..?.!?L.??. tkerocsrminutes,xran)r)
n Address I_nu)ude/longitudu source:?GPS91.Topographic Imp
iSl,<) ur Rom ) lcheck bun)
DRILLING LOG
Coy a,r..n s„tr tip C,nk Front c'1'o 1',91ation Des?cr bn
AreA code- Phone number Q C
4. DATE DRILLED ( 15 r
a?
?
y
?L
-
~a
f-` "wt--
5. TOTAL DEPT H(_
-
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES ? NO Ja
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: --FT,
~^?'- --- --
~.
p)xn","ir Ahnve Topof Caningl
- 8. TOP OF CASING IS I`I'. Above Land Surface' '----? - ..T°-?
••fnp xreulna navminxteJ xr/er below IrnJ wrrarerrynlres • ------^---- -----!r-- '
?rlxnn In nccordxam Winn ISA NCAC 2C .ol tt. ---._..._ __?._
9, YIELD(Spin):__ _.._METHOD OrTEST^--A_ ----._--
16. WATER ZONES (depth):
LOCATION SKETCH
11. DISINFHC'TtON: Typo--&A --._.-- Arnount Show direction rind distance in miles from at least
12, CASING: Wairmiciamm two State Roads or County Roads. Include file mad
Dcpth 1 Di ivwr ar N4i hvl 1. Malarial numliers and common triad names,
t
WC
?
TrmtrLL Tn /_. rl_._2>__?.,
Qu?.s o t, . t? ;tonN?
-C k (Stc.? C'
11
Front _- To
• -Vm-
From _ Tn _ l l,? L 6rv, 4- nc\n
_ ??
-
13. GROUT: Ikplh Kocrial
Mci of
F
From 0__ FL _-' '?- -
(c c
Over bue el
, r (-le 11
-
Frum__ To
...._..-..r_ Ft._
?
Slot Size Material
14. SCREEN: Depth Dittmeter
Pmm_T?_-- I`r..l..f__u). O tllQ in. ,-
From-----hn'-------- f'i -----m.
15 . SANI)!CiRAVEi_ PACK:
Dc ub tit;c Tiaryy, il
From-.k'f-..-_ to, li µ. -. .`.?.•,:??.(r 'r. '.`??
From To Ft.
16. RF.NIARKS:.
1 DO HFRFBY CERTIFY I I1A1' 71115 WELL WAS CONS'TRUC11,I) IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NC'AC 2C, WFLI.
CONS'I'i(l!( )N S'TANUAILU'. A. )'I'HA' A COPY OF TINS RECORD HAS BIfEN PROVIDED 101111; WELL OWNER

SIGNATURE OF PERSON CONSTRUCTING 1 HE WELL DAl"Ii
Sobmil the original to the Division or water Qualify, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mail Service Center- Raleigh, INC -
27699.1636 Phone Nn: [phone], wllhin 30 clays. GW-I REV. 07/2mi
• Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewalering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
•
WELL CONSTRucriON RECORD

• • es 'visi n of Water Quality - Groundwater Section
North Carolina - Department of f ri iranmunt and Natural R D
I
1 *ICA
WELL CONTRACT Ott(INDIVIDVAL)NANIF
priat) 'G /S?C'.1. .-
?
??
MIID?Y
?
'°
'
?
.
_
....__?_
t7NtPAN\ vAD1F,?
fRA<T()RL
?/--
q'ELI.C01
--=-i
STATE WELL CONMUCTION PERNTITX AS )Clr\TED WQ 1 ERNiI'rX
if applicable) (rspplicabtc)
I. W'L'1.L USE (Check Applicable Box)- Residential E3 Munieipal/Puhlic.0 Industrial 0 Agricultural 0
,Monitoring 19 Recovery D Heat Pump Water Injection 0 Other 0 If Other, List Usc
1. WELL LOCATION: Topographic/Landsetting
ul
Co
M
13V
li
Pool
k
a
u
aine
o
Nca[cst Ta t n _ CG_
C ..__
Y ORidge
cy
t i..?.,
en% U- ;checkopteynlateMixl
)N f \?C
Aet .
?7 r cti«
_
;sneer Nun,. N -I,-, Cam pity. Subd raion. rig No.. Z,p 0xie) atitod%lgngiiltude araU lVi iii
?? `S1OYJ

?y1 (1'?a; 7 ,?,u,t..{dc1rtcdmuwwN>!etaWtt
3, OWNER?
Addre++ 91L) i J•G?:S p __ -? Lniiiode/lot;gimdosource:130PSOTopugraphicmap
-
-- ?
Dare Nu.l ieMeck iwx)
ind
IS
?ts1 ?JC- 71a47 DEPTH DRILLING Cuyor awn Stow Zip Cate From To ForumfloriDescrLOG
iptlon
-J '
-
Area dt Phalle nun Nr 1 t
4. DATE DRILLLD ---
?
?c J - ! !r
5. TOTAL MPTH I C _ I _
6, DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES 0 NO Its
7. STA`rIC WATER LEVEL Below Top or Casing: ^„______,17.
It.lse "+' it AL..v Top i f C.ing)
S. TOP OF CASING IS 171'. ALxove Land Suriuce•
,r _......___._..-.-
`Top or basing Iermin9trd ar/or brim, ICnd sonic, regolres
ioaet IN oeeardxn ewhY 15\ NC NC 2C1 OIIS. -_.-
z
4. LD(gpm): ? NIVHOD Of -.----
10. WATER ZONES (depth): --
L OC ATION SKETCH
V-? Amount Show direction and distance in miles from at Ieasl
It, DISINF!iCPION: TYpc;
_-
C'ASINGi Wall Thickness two State Roads or County Roads. Include the rand
12
.
Mpth / Diameter m 4Wcight fl. Material numbers and common road manes.
,
J
o
ev)
f
"
S
Zr.
,
o
- it._?,
TTo-i
(avcsr)- 6,k
Fro
• m -
Fmm 7 0____-__ t t._.
Front__ ro , I t. ) GY n tom .2
,
13. GROUT; Depth Material Method
r OVccbv< ttle.it
From Q 'roFl;r„r]?i-J'j. _.lea:Aa
Frain To- Ft.- _
14. SCREEN: th:pili O;mncter Slot Size Material
tram„_•To f! Ft._„n.._in. Mb
Froth To- Ft-in. in,
15. SAND(GRAVL'L PACK:
Depth Size Material
From -__To_._L5?._ A.,.4

IL. RI-.MARKS:
I DO HEREBY CLRTIFY THAT`nits N1`FLL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH I3A NCAC2C. WELL
CONSTRUCTION TAND DS, ( i TA COPY OF T1113It FCORI I1AS BFPN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER

SIGNATURE OF PERSON CONS"I'RUCTING 1'14C WELL. DATE
Submit the original to the Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Moil Service Center • Raleigh, NC
27699.16361'Lanc No: (919)73.1-3221. within 30 days, 0W.1 REV. 07/2001
• Marlin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
•
E
•
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina - Depannncnt of Environment end Natural Rey n es - Diyi ion`f Water Quality - Groundwater Section
C ChUrt IFiC0T70N MJL32k?
"
'
fR,\CIOR IINUIYIM;AL) NAME (print l._.
N
E41: COD
'
' (/?2
ilwo, a
rRACTOIt COMPANY NA+IE
N
F.I.1: CO\ p
SI"A IEN'M:1.I. C'O,NS1 KVC I ION PERMITe_._,w?_ __._._.__AB80CIAf6b wQ PCRDII'ro _
(If applicahle) (irapplicable)
1. WELL USE (Chock Applicable Box): Residential O M(micipai/Public O Industrial t3 Agriculturat O
Monitoring F Recovery ? heat Puntp Water Injection O ot her? IrOlher, List Use______
2. WELL LOCATION:
Nearest Town :_,I ___ p0\ n4 owtly s-r?n Topographic/Land selling
?Ridgc Mope OValley 91Flai
5±. ?sSL_/ eLr1 tv .
lia3? Owl, awMnaMMxa
_
15rreei Naive: NureMas. Canmun ty Suhd,,nim. Lit No.. lip Crdei 10 gi}pd or%Vli 10ca
La111
?4p
?
7
-7
3, OWNI--R:.V..k'+% -1 S.4G SC Sg ?snC. J]
,
ndsl
(rkypeournnu
Address 271 ?zta Lattmdcllongiludesource:OGPSopogruphicmap
(Sir-[ a aura Nn.l - tahack fiox)
Y 2?{??
2j++t
,? DEPTH DRILLING LOG
-r,,,.-
--
Cny lr'tp l•n Swrc Zip Cak From 'to Formation Dotcription A
Arias k. PMnR number . s' CINy kin,
4. DATE DRILLED="T s 1 T- e -a?
5. TOTAL DEPTtI /? l??;lq r
6. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YLS O NO
7. STA'T'IC WATER LEVEL Below TopofCasingr
(llxc "?" {f Alq,t Top ofCasinP)
8. TOP OF CASING IS `J I`f. Above Land Surface.
1 'up of tesing trnnlnated atlor below land surface regnirer a
,'atlases IN attordante wit ISA NCAC 211.01111. ' - --- -
9. YIELD(gpln): A METHODOFTEST - -
10. WATER ZONES (depth):
LOCATION `hKUTC11
11. DISINFECTION. 1'ype Amount Show direction and distance in miles from at least
12. CASING: Wall Ihickpcss two State Roads or County Roads. Include die roast
Depth Diameter or WeighUHt, Material nunbors and common road mums.
from ,L,_ To-l-I-_Ft._ ?G KtS G •.- i?" ky pn.-'r. C k.+r,rr?, &a u', rvlc+.?{rm
Frmn _ To- FI. r M
From,.,-_-_ To- F1. _
-?
L tX r. ? . r r 3
Method
13. (TROUT: Depth r Material
Prilm-.1>.._.Tu_._--.- CeS22? _?.a.QJGc.L cb.Nrte lUtd?
from To__----ht.
Diante r Slot Sine Material
14. SCREEN: Depth
r
Fronl_.5/.'I'o._/y._ in. QUID in PVC
Frarn___,-'ro Ft, in.
IS. SAND/GRAVELPACK:
Ihpth 4 , StYC tatcnal
Q
r
,
/
Z_ ea
Eton, 1f---- i u_?- FI'. t
From 'I'n,-.`- ff.
16. REMARKS:
-I DO HERLOY CERTII'Y TN T THIS WEI L WAS CONSTRUC'TEU IN ACCORDANCE WITH I SA NCAC 2C, WELL
CONSTRL'CTIONSTAND DS,ANDT1 T PY FThli$RECORI7IIA5I)EENPROVIDE'DTOTHEWBEEpWNER
_ SIGNATURE.OF IERSONCONSTRP(MNG THE WELL DATE
Submit the original to the Division orwater Quality, Groundwater Section, 1636 Mall Service Center - Raleigh, NC
27699.1636 Phone No. (919)133-.1221. within SO days. OW-1 REV. 0712001
Martin Mariefla Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewafenng, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
•
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD
North Carolina - Dcpuiltucpt of ri'virdnment and Natural R o reas Divviisliiotti ooff W ater Quality - Groundwater Section
WELL CONIRAC'1 Olt INDIVIDUAL) NAT1E(/j',F}la?n ?, 42L?.1.C.?..- ceRTrviCA'I?O?A ?
. W9LLCONTRACTORCOAlPANY NAli"- ?"h Lt Pli07iCMLI..
STATE WELL C&STRUCPION Py.RMITN ASSOCIATEI) WQ PERA11TN.
Fltytiplk6tikr FiYapplie'ab]e) --
I. WELL USE{ClROCk Applicable Box): Residential O Municipah,Public ? Industrial O Agriculture) O
Nlonlloring f Uftccovery 0 )feat Pump Wilier injection O Other 0 1 f Other, I-)st Use
2. WELLLOF ATION: Topographic/Land setting
Nearest To?w?n:w y y x t Cotmty P)e_ Midge, OSlopa OValloy "at
?x r r/ t V, MA. i e ?.. r'e&t t (check Lipp w6tac k.)
(Sueal Nanm.?Numbers. C.ommunky, Suhdivhion, Let Nn.,210.Code) Lali dclongitu"t}e f,Wb1110c?ItiUt?r.
3. OWNER: ? u T?Le KrT 6.L1G?-]` y,'MC, ?(dvarce?m' icalrecaidr)
Address Latitudollongitude sconve: GPS;dTopographic map
(Simi a Rude No.) (ehak box) -
9&k 1.!, " (\ Y'- DEPTH DRILLINQ LOG
City a T, - sale zip Code From To Forinatlon Description
Arta code. l'lwneuumber
4, DATr DRILLED. ©Z _.-L• -LT- F .sr?y S?_ . sE
5. TOTAL DEPTH:
6. DOES WELL REPL.ACEEXISTING WELD YES O NO }i( d
7. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Casing: FT.
(lief"?'if Ab-TopofCadoa) --
8. TOP OF CASING IS 14 FT. Above Land Surface"
-Top of casing tersa)pated attar below land surface reyuirrs a
vaillaate fa -ordonee with 115A NCAC IC.0118. - --
9.YIELD(gpin),UA_MET {ODOFTEST-_
10, WATER ZONES (depth): .G r, -
LOCATION SKETCH
It. DISINFECTION; Type Amaunl Show direction and distance in miles front at leant
12. CASING: ` Wall Thickness two'Stato Roads or County Roods. Include the road
lkpth Di Icr Weit1q) M argil panthers and common road names.
• From r .L. To_?, ? FL t? 3: 'K?
Frotit Ta
Fiat I :'fo 1'L L TCp
11 GROUT: Depth t Material Method
FronL : Ta_a _FL ?o In Pkire VlX'Cbc?roLCv vI?GC
From " To Ft.
14. SCREENN:: ( tkpih I Diameter Slot Sim Matcriul
From 'ru-?-_Ft.,,q m. Of0 in. P_Vif
FrorloTo 1'L.,,:_::._.-in. __ in,
15, SANDIGRAVEL. PACK:
Depth - We talertaI
Fron_Tu 1y__- FL _ r dr??Er?
Fiom___ro FLr_----
16. REMARKS; ,_ ._._._...----
DO HEREBY CIsR7lI Y THr -1 THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUL-MU IN ACCORDANCE Wfllf 1 SA NCAC 2C, WELL
CONS1 RUCTION S9'AND S AN?D1 A Y OA 'Y O - 1113 RECORD HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER
--------Y-? - - SIGNAtt!RE OF PERSON CONSTRUCfING i BL WELL DATE
Snhnlil Ibe original Us the Division of \Vuler Qmlllly, Groundwater Sect inn, 1636 Mail Service Crater- Raleigh, NC
27699-1636 Phone No. [phone]. within 30 days. ( W • I REV. 0712001

•
Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
deep Well iq Z?
• Norar Cwoena • Department of IrMrowsm! and Natural Resouroo9.ONWOn at Water Quality- Qrowwwater Section
163E Matt 6erv4e Cenror • Rtdepn N.C. 279881 g36 Pncro (918) T3&3MI
..df?fef ??GL3lJd???S3dG1?_
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD DRILLING DnNTnACToR:
DRILLGA REGISTRATION e: t T
STATE WELL CONMUCTION:PERMTTw1
1. WELL USE.M&apptaataMali: Residw*0110 f wosi E2 Irwurdsi ]
m
L
' Auriculhimi ? Montbdno
Q Other E ff Other,
ist Use:
p Water In)odiion
Recovery Heat Pu
2. WELL LOCATION: alto* thtf locedon below)
?
NrJtr-
Nostam Town. Y 7` Cpunry:_
(Road Owlrafift or 9401001MA11 im No, REPTH - DRILLINGM
3 l
ls. =yc, Exam To
OWNER lnerfiy''+?Arn I Fotmadon,DeaarlpMon
J
?
ADDRESS 7/G "18 n? ?Si(Y Q : 8
(E4EItefFbUte H0.)'-.- ?.I.
;
bkri
a76o
,
A„L
a
l
hr -- s
4. DATE DRILLED
S. TOTAL DEPTH 4K
6. CUTTINGS COLLECTED YES NOEJ
7. DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTIN13 YES ? N0B -
8. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of CiWnp: FT.
Na •.• a ?oow rev of C+at+cY
9. TOP OF CASING IS FT. Atiove land Su"aw
casing rerWhavd ¦Ver bobw Yml galaw Is glop unMaa a vrtanw a laauad
In aapwdenee with ISA NCAQ IIC .0114
10. YIELD (ppm): METHOD OF TEST
11. WATER ZONES (dop4h):
12. CHLORI NATION, Type Amoursiln additonai apace is noedo0 we bath of iornl
13. CASING:
Wal ThIMou LOCATION SKE'YOH
Depth D*VWA# w %Wvh ft Malertal (Sliow dkeo9on end dlatrnce from at least who State
From -0 To 1- FL --2 _221- Abads, or othw rap rsfwaMa PdiMa)
From. --- To Fl.
Ftwn To Ft.
• 14. GROUT:
Depth ?MMattel
From C_ To 17 FL ?r ortal?_
From To FL
15. SCREEN:
Depth Dlameter Slot Size Mststial
From 12_ To _21-Ft 2 in. 0,o1 In, pYt?
From -To -Ft. In - -in.
From - To - Ft, In. - In.
16. SANDIGRAVEL PACK:
Depth Size Mater w
F,. _ 1_Cry _ To -25-- Ft. -
Fran To Ft.
17. REMARKS:
,Do HEREBY CERTIFY T1+AT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH t6A NCAC 2C; WELL
CCNSTRUCTION STANDARDB• AND THAT A QQN OF" RE HAS SEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER
SIBNATUREOFC*jRART ORAQENT GATE
_..,._..._........ Suotrhed9MlbDMabnOlWatmfhiukyendtopYlowslo+ewpW1 REV. Wall
• Martin Maneffa Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewaforing, Shallow Wafer Table and Deeper Grovnd Wafer Monitoring Plan
Veep Well
• North Carolina - Department of Ejndromnent and Natural Resourm - Diviswnof Water Qua-ty, Groundwolet Section
1898 Mail Service Comer- Rafeyh,MC. 27699-1606-Phom (1114) 7339.."21
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD DRILUNQCONTRACTOR:
DRILLRR REG"ATKIN M:
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERM TA: ---- -
1, WELL I9LCheckAllowbteBooRuldenttai[ MldWpal? Irldu9trlel[3 A9rlwnurwO -MontorkvCR
Recovery Heat Pump Wafer Injection [3 Weer [3 If Other, List Uae:
2. WELL LOCATION: akefc of the location below)
NevestTowrr Y Nf CounH: C'?o1YGrZ?r
(Road, Cenmn-fy`, o,?r- 9u,p?Nafy and tof w.) DEPTH DRILLING LOG _
3, OWNER mu .i.: r44 . -k- Jg! may.uc • Frain To Fon"Wn Dwilpetin
ADDRESS- f1Jr.r1t{ _ b - ) fT- - 4-.4x1? 9224 Bya Rowrfo.) f3' `r]5 Ltd
Ro?Lo? )uer4, Cux&rA 2a z
oily or'Tdoo 6tete Dp cdde
a. DATE DRILLED E b2
S. TOTAL DEPTH
Q CUTTIN03 COLLECTED YE52S NO?
7, DOES WELL REPLACE EXISTING WELL? YES 0 NOM
8. STATIC WATER LEVEL Below Top of Ceeing: FT.
luw . a Above Top of Catlnp)
9,; TOP OF CASING )S FT. Above Land Surface'
• ?NlIM TsnnlnNed Wor Wow W* svrtsea fa 111*90 unfws ¦ vaNllnae Is faeued
Ia olmm tlrswfej 144110AC 90 Aa-e
10. YIELD (ppm): METHOD OF TEST
11. WATER ZONES (d6pth):
•
12. CHLORINATION: Type Amount
13. CASING:
wo Tn dwu
Depth 01MMor ar Walphtvt.
From 0 To js FL-=-
From- To Ft
From To Ft.
14. GROUT:
Depth Materlpa Mothod
From _ Q To 1.S Ft. B&AAW 9,
From To Ft.
15. SCREEN:
(f add.601MI apace is needed uaffhetlt of form
LOCATION SKETCH _
(Show drocuon and dWfnce hom at tout two State
Roads, or other neap reference poMw)
rtccDepth Diameter Slot Size 141111611114
From ?-To _2L Ft -9 In. 0-0( In. C-
From -To-FL- in -In,
From To FL- In. _ in.
16. SANWGRAVEL PACK:
Depth Slz® lei
from ?_ To Ft.
W
From To Fl.
17. REMARKS:
100 HEPEBY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH I SA NCAC 2C, WELL
F.R
0
CONTMUCT10N STANOAROS, AND THAT A C Y OF THIS REC NA9 BEEN PROVIDED TO THE V/Ell OWN
SiGNATUREOFCONTRACTOR AGENT. DATE
a bwtoepimlisQlO"dfWater 06MeNaNlMY19W"0"llic
10Nr-1 REV, 41=
Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
2&p W?
• NoM Cardna- DepmtmeM of EmMOnrnon and Natural Rasourm • OnlsIon of Water Quality • Groundwater Section
IMe Mall Service Collar • Ral90A.C. 276".1636•Phorw [phone]
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD DRILLINOCONIRACTOR:
ORILL6R RIQISTRATION tI:
STATE WKLL CONSTRUCTION PERMtTF.
1. WILL USE CMAt Appilmars eoay Residential [3 Munlelp l ? Industrial 0 Agricultural ? Moniforinp?
Recovery o Neat Pump Water InwtlCn ? Other d h Other, List Use:
2. WELL LOCATIOUShow skalan the location below}
Newest Tom f{2exy -Pnl;v'h winty: ?Aealer'

(R o. Cemm»w, or SubBvWon and Lot No.) DEPTH OR&UNG LOO
3. OWNER ... InXtNU MIL;I&WCL Maidiln}.f , X.VG. prom. To Formation Dam mom
AODREaa _2710 W,IPI;A` R-49 0 z _- 1AWS
tsir N sowti No.) 2.14 W Glrn&+ *QA1V
?o lle,'d. h CnrdtAkL c1? ?G SQ -
txy :let. VPCods?
4. DATE DRILLED OQ
5. TOTAL DEPTH 31 -
E, CUTTINGS COLLECTED YES= NOM
7. DOE$ WELL REPLACE EXISTINO WELL? YES (? N02
6. STATIC WATER LEVEL Bartow Top of Casing: FT.
(uae '-'V Above Top ty Owing)
9. TOP OF CASINO IS FT. Above Land Surface'
Casing Tam*mod sitar bww lead surface b btsad writes avar4nce Is Issued
inaccords" with 1SA11CAC2C All$
10. YIELD (ODM): METHOD OF TEST
11. WATER ZONES (vepth):
12. CHLORINATION: Type Amount If aadrtlonal spate is needed use bnk of Iorrn
13. CASING:
WO T,kimara
Depth Diunsar orwelpldriti M isom
From Q To -2-- Ft. _
From To Ft.
From To Ft.
1a.13R61'1T'. ,ui?e.
Depth Materiel Method
From To "_Ft. BedWilk-
From To -_.Ft.
16. SCREEN:
Depth Otamoter
From 21--To 31 Ft _R__- In
From Te Ft. ?. In
From To Ft. in
16. SAN=AAVEL PACK:
Depth Size
Slot Size Mawfld
QQ1__ in. PYe-
--- In.
.?
In
Material
LOCATION SKETCH
(Show dirool on and dfatanca iron at least Mn State
Roads or otnar map reference Pointe)
Fnxn.? _ To 3_ Ft.
From To ___ FL _
17. REMARKS:-
I DO HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN AOCOAOANCE WITH 1SA NCAC 2C. WELL
_ CONSTRUCTION 8TANDARDS, AND THAT Tf?l$ R , O W OVEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
P_ V_ 0a
._.-_.__.____ 540"TUR6 OF CONTRACT R.M3ENT LATE
.. _ .._. _ _ __. `..., BuWNt ayam b DMWen q KlIM pyeFty antl eeay to veal MYnN.
ow-i REV. woo
• Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewalering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitonng Plan
• Noah Ceropna - D,perbnent of Envkonrt ent and Netural Resources • D.Hslon of Water Ouft - Groundwater Seotlon
IM Mail 8etNOSCenler.Relelph.KG.27694-tg9g.Phane(P18))33.322t
WELL CONSTRUCTION RECORD DRILLING CONTRACTOR:
DRILLER REOWRATION Y:
STATE WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
1. WELL USK (Char Appli ibte Souk Rellldendr.l © Munlaipal 0 Industrial © ? Agricultural ? MonRoft
RAcovefy ? Heat Pump Water InIodon © Other C) It Other, List USe;
2. WELL LOCATION:J,?how Ion?y( the location betdw) I
NeareatTOwrc ?jv ?$iArl" County:.
vgMiA Oo4enuttty, of tWhdsWurl and IAt Hal DEPTH
9. OWNER -.?'atCr From To
At>pI?EBS 2? G - 17
orRoul,NOJ tr7, _ +?.?
??Aie;? ?'nrt?l faZ?'160? .fe
orvow" eta* ZIP Coda ?2,
4. DATE DRILLED-V o2 11
5. TOTAL DEPTH
a. CUTT?Nt3SCOLLECTED YEBE NOM
7. 0098 WELL REPLACE EXISTING ELL? YES © NOM
6. STATIC WATER LEVEL Eelow Top' of Caaklg: FT,
(Use'-•I Abu, Top at CSynpl
9. TOP OF CASING IS FT, Abow Land Suidtce•
•caWyTw*kt verbelewon+,urfeieanroarrnlw.,?.d.ea.MN.u.d
Mre,wrdeberwWi11"N"020 Ails
10. YIELD (pptrl): METHOD OF TEST
11. WATER ZONES (depth);
ORILLING L013
Fammlbn pesabdon
cla W-10
12. CHLORINATION: Type Amount n additional apace to needed use back of Wnn
13. CASING:
wu 7miciu e?s LOCAT1 ON SKETCH
Depth Diameter v weynrri. ya? ?o?af (Show direction and distance from at laaot two State
From 0 TO -?- Ft. - 2 yUL Roads, or other map rcferonoo points)
From_.__ To Fir
From To Fl.
• 14. GROUT:
Dapth?f Ma,t,e'.h.a11l Method
From ?1 ?_ To ? 21 1.E Fr.
From TO Fl.
1S. SCREEN:
??faDepth Diameter Slot Size M?aatterrIal
1r. o, c? In. PAC.
From $_ To U Ft
From ?...To Ft In, W_..._ In.
From To FL In, In,
16. SANDIGRAVE. PACK
Depth Size Material
From .2 To 3Q Ft.
From To Ft.
17. REMARKS:
100 WRE13Y CERTIFY THAT THIS WELL WAS CONSTRUMO IN ACCORDANCE WITH 15A NCAC PC, WELL
CONSTRUCTION' STANDARDS. AND THAT A COPY OF THIS RECOR SEEN PROVIDED TO THE WELL OWNER.
$*NATUREOF00NTRACTORO EW OATS
Submit oaeem to OvIslon at Waist OMW and WW to wen owner.
RW-1 REV. Vas
• Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
•
Appendix B
Site Photographs
•
• Marlin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan

U
t
J
+
t
i
11
v
r
,
s +
!
rl
r
?
t qt
,
tee
\J 4 ? 1 1
, 11,
.i?; )
?
t? ) ?
f
???fi'
Ql
?
??
??

1 /
..
.
?I .
; i d
.
....
. {: 1.
i
_._
I'hoto 1: "typical soil profile (Murville soil series) taken at Location 5 during installation of the shallow water table monitor .
I
ing gauge and piezometer.

y r, pk
N r

q rr r:

"
r;r'?
r `.I /. ? y_1 ? -1 +r?=_.J 1? ?^'? 7`*e' ," t'I,A?II?? ?`•

1A
Photo 2: Dense clay layer (Location 1) that was generally identified at 12 to 16 feet among the monitoring locations.
Title: Ground Water Monitoring Gauge Installation
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
- Kimley-Horn Rocky Point Quarry Expansion

d A
i
t
i Pender County, North Carolina
na
an
ssoc
a
es,
nc. D S
l P
N
ate: ca
e: roject
o.:
October 31, 2002 NA 011185010
i -`

•
G r.

P { it a ?; ? '
1

1 w
?
r' ! .tkY ?
l Xr y
'Y.
t'?id?? s Y
k
?
`+
`
•
?'
h
t""'
?,?
-
'
??
i^
'+
i
s.
;
1
i.w.
.
i,'t
;
,
..
.•.,..:
.. ?rls.
.
+,
rJiRM
.t
Photo 3: Overburden gauge installation, Location 4.

I'
+S y
t

Photo 4: Overburden gauge screen installed at Location 4.
Title: Ground Water Monitoring Gauge Installation
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
- Kimley-Horn Rocky Point Quarry Expansion

i
d A
i Pander County, North Carolina
ates
nc.
an
ssoc N
, Date: Scale: Project
o.:
October 31, 2002 NA 011185010
Merlin Marlette Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewstering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan

•
?'?1l
b?nr?h' ly{•N ,'l
r? i
^
, x
.t

41
Photo 5: Deep aquifer/limestone well installation, Location 1.

r
A
'Vat
M.??•. i y

`????M1 ?.? r`?. ?ty? ?1 ??l ?yy?}# 1?? t¦yM1 ?,p?1}'?''??yM, ,r

Photo 6: Completed overburden ground water well prior to installation of data logger, Location 1.
Title: Ground Water Monitoring Well Installation
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
- Kimley-Horn

i
i Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Pander County, North Carolina
ates,
nc.
and Assoc D S
l t N
P
j
:
ate: ca
e: ro
ec
o.
October 31, 2002 NA 011185010
Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewaterlrrg, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan

Ir

RN {'
+' ?r 4 : ?
I
'
4
n
l
kyF ??
A
?? T J
? +t P

f? B`P A ??, r r. A! A
?J
° d c.
9
,t
?? J 9 7 '141 1 ..
Y

`1_
'!
A
3 s ' #
+r 11
r
?-
• -
. .
.
h IMr.
rta
Photo 7: Infinities, Inc. pressure water level data loggers installed, 1
. x .. . ., _ t
Location 3. Metal casings were fitted to enclose the units once the loggers were
installed. The concrete pad for the deeper ground wa ter well (left) was also completed after this photograph was taken.
.I
N

r f'P11?
? ,? ? , >„ t
I

Photo 8: Shallow water table monitoring gauge installation, Location 9.
Title: Ground Water Monitoring Gauge Installation
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIN Kimley-Horn Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
C
t
I
d A Pender County, North Carolina
an
ssocia
es,
nc' D l
S P
N
ate: ca
e: roject
o.:
October 31, 2002 NA 011185010
Martin Madefla Aggregates: Rocky Point Duany Expansion
Mine Dewafering, Shallow Wafer Table and Deeper Ground Wafer Monitoring Plan
Photo 9: Pressure water level data logger, shallow water table gauge, Location 9.
Title: Ground Water Monitoring Gauge Installation
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
Kimley-Horn Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
? and Associates, inc. Pander County, North Carolina
Date: Scale: Project No.:
October 31, 2002 NA 011185010
Merlin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dawatedng, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
I
i
fli ? I
•
Appendix C
Ground Water Monitoring Gauge Data Logger Specifications
1 7-?
• Marlin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewatering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
• INFINITIES USA, INC. DATA LOGGERS
1648 Taylor Road, #139, Daytona Beach, Florida 32128
Call Toll Free 1-888-808-5488 or call 386-679-7863
info(d)-infinitiesusa.com
Specifications for Pressure Water Level Data Loggers
Number of measurements in memory: 3,906
User programmable interval: 1-reading/second to 1-reading/6 months
User interface to Logger: PC or opt. HP 48GX or 48G+ Calculator w/ software
Data Logger power: Four AA alkaline batteries
Data Logger battery life, typical: 4 years
Data Logger range: 0 to 11.5 ft, 0 to 34.5 ft, 0 to 69 feet, 0 to 115 ft, 0 to 230 ft
Ranging environment: inside 2" diameter or larger pipe
"Temperature compensation: 0 °F to 120 T
Humidity: to 100%
Accuracy: +/- 0.1 % of pressure sensor range
Resolution: 0.01 inches
Data Download rate: 150 measurements per second
Download medium: serial cable
Hewlett-Packard 48GX storage: multiple Data Loggers, 40,000 measurements

• Manin Manelta Aggragales: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Muu+ Uewalunnq. Shallow Water Tablet and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
L
Appendix D
Rain Gauge Specifications
•
•
Marlin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewafering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
NO 4
• 260-2501 Rain Gauge
The Model 260-2501 Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge was
designed for the National Weather Service to provide a
reliable, low-cost tipping bucket rain sensor. Its simplicity
of design assures trouble-free operation, yet provides
accurate rainfall measurements. The tipping bucket
mechanism activates a sealed reed switch that produces a
contact closure for each 0.01 ", 0.25 mm, or 1 mm of
rainfall. The gauge has an 8" orifice and is manufactured
of powder coated and anodized aluminum. The funnel
screen prevents debris from entering the gauge. Shipped
complete with mounting brackets and 25' of signal cable.
Specifications
Sensor type: Tipping bucket
Output: 0.1 second switch closure
Switch: Sealed reed switch
Sensitivity: 1 tip per 0.01", 1 tip per 1 mm, or 1 tip per 0.25 mm
Accuracy: t2% up to 2"/hr
Contact rating: 3 watts, 0.25 amps, 175 Vdc
Size: 8" dia x 13.75" high
Mounting: 3 legs, %" diameter bolt holes on 9%" diameter bolt circle
Weight/shipping: 3.5 Ibs/5 Ibs
Ordering Information
• 260-2501 8" Rain Gauge, 0.01"/tip, includes 25' cable
260-2501M 8" Rain Gauge, 1 mm/tip, includes 25' cable
260-2501M.25 8" Rain Gauge, 0.25 mm/tip, includes 25' cable
330-0220 Additional Signal Cable, per foot
260-2595 Rain Gauge Calibrator
260-2596 Digital Event Counter
260-950 Rain Gauge Mounting Plate
260-952 Rain Gauge Wind Screen, 24" legs
260-953 Rain Gauge Wind Screen, 36" legs
260-954 Leg Extender Kit, converts 260-952 to 260-953
260-955 Wind Screen Mounting Kit, flange adapters and
#12 x 1-1/4" wood screws
•
Precipitation
Rain Gauge Accessories
The Model 260-952 Rain Gauge Wind Screen
minimizes the formation of strong updrafts that can
distort the trajectories of precipitation particles falling
toward a gauge. The screen also generates turbulent air
motions over the gauge orifice to break up streamlines
and thus improve the catch. Use of a wind screen is
recommended with all precipitation gauges located in
windy areas. The screen consists of 32 free-swinging
galvanized metal leaves, evenly spaced around a 48"
diameter. Each leaf is fabricated from 22-gauge sheet
metal, 16" long, 3" wide at the top and 2" wide at the
bottom. One of the quadrants swings out to permit easy
access to the gauge. Two lengths of legs (2' and 3') are
available due to variations in gauge height. A mounting
kit is available for mounting to a wooden platform.
The Model 260-950 Rain Gauge Mounting Plate is an
easy and convenient way to mount your rain gauge. The
mounting plate is sized to fit the 260-2500 and 260-2501
rain gauges. Welded to the bottom of the plate is a hub
that will accept a standard 1" (1.34" o.d.). pipe. Hardware is
supplied for mounting the rain gauge to the plate. The
plate should be leveled prior to installing the gauge.
Specifications
260-952
Material: 22-gauge sheet metal, galvanized
Size: 48" Dia x 24" H (1219 x 610 mm)
Weight/shipping: 45 Ibs/48 Ibs
260-950
Material:
Size:
Weight/shipping:
NovaLynx Corporation PO Box 240 Grass Valley CA 95945 www.novalynx.com 147
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] USA Toll Free: 1-800-321-3577
260-2501 Rain Gauge with 260-950 Mounting Plate
260-952 Wind Screen with 260.2500E Electric Rain Gauge
C7
Appendix E
Installing Monitoring Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands
WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3
August 1993
E
•
Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Mine Dewafering, Shallow Water Table and Deeper Ground Water Monitoring Plan
WRP Technical Note HY-IA-3.1
• August 1993
_ Installing Monitoring Wells/
Piezometers in Wetlands
PURPOSE: Wetland regulatory personnel frequently need quantitative information about shallow
hydrologic regimes of wetlands and adjacent uplands. Monitoring wells and piezometers are some of
the easiest instruments to use to determine depth of shallow water tables. Most of the literature on
piezometers and monitoring wells, however, deals with installation to greater depths than needed for
wetland regulatory purposes. This technical note describes methods of construction and installation of
monitoring wells and piezometers placed at depths within and immediately below the soil profile using
hand-held equipment.*
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS AND PIEZOMETERS: Monitoring
wells and piezometers are open pipes set in the ground. They passively allow water levels to rise and
fall inside them. The difference between a monitoring well and a piezometer is where along the pipe
water is allowed to enter (length of perforated area).
Shallow monitoring wells allow penetration of water through perforations along most of the length of
the pipe below ground. Therefore, the water level in a monitoring well reflects the composite water
pressure integrated over the long, perforated portion of the pipe. This kind of well sometimes is
called an "open-sided well," "observation well," or a "perforated pipe."
• Piezometers allow penetration of water only at the bottom of the pipe, either directly into the bottom
or along a short length of perforation near the bottom. Consequently, the water level in a piezometer
reflects the water pressure only at the bottom of the pipe. Piezometers are sometimes called "cased
wells."
The difference between monitoring wells and piezometers is significant because monitoring wells
generally extend through more than one water bearing layer and therefore cannot be used to detect
perched water tables, whereas piezometers can. Water pressures in the soil vary in response to
several factors, including depth, differential permeability of strata, and wateF flow. These different
factors can be isolated and interpreted independently with groups of piezometers. These factors
cannot be differentiated with a monitoring well because different water pressures are intercepted at
many depths within the same instrument and cannot be sorted out.
SELECTING INSTRUMENTATION: Before installing instruments, it is vital to define study
objectives to avoid gathering unnecessary or meaningless data.
To investigate when a free water surface is within the top foot or two of the soil, 2-ft deep monitoring
wells are sufficient. Deeper instruments are not necessary and may yield misleading information if
improperly chosen and situated.
• The methods described herein do not apply to water-sampling studies. Researchers needing to sample water from wells
should refer to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Document EM 1110-7-1(FR): Monitor Well Installation at Hazardous and
• Tonic Waste Sites and ASTM D5092-90: Design and Installation of Ground Water Monitoring Wells in Aquifers.
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
• When trying to characterize water flows into and out of a wetland or differences in water pressure of
soil horizons, clusters or "nests" of piezometers are needed. Most mitigation and evaluation studies
require nests of piezometers with instruments located at depths ranging from a couple to many feet.
Each piezometer in a nest should be installed at the same surface elevation and within a couple meters
of the others. This arrangement allows answering questions about ground-water discharge and
recharge, direction and rate of water flow, and water flow in different strata.
Zones of possible perching or water flow must be identified after study objectives are determined.
This requires soil profile descriptions to the depth of interest -- often 6 to 10 ft. The profile descrip-
tions should include horizon depths and information from which significant differences in permeability
can be inferred: texture, induration, and bulk density.
If only shallow monitoring wells are used, they should be placed above the first slowly permeable
horizon that could potentially perch water. Piezometers, on the other hand, should be installed both
above and below horizons of low permeability to verify perching. Sand strata should also be moni-
tored. Instruments should not be located at uniform depths around a study area unless the soils are
uniformly stratified.
Typical well configurations include a shallow monitoring well through the A and E soil horizons and
piezometers in the B horizon and C horizons. Deeper piezometers are often included, particularly if
there are significant changes in grain size distribution in the lower soil profile. Soil studies usually
include piezometers to 80 inches, the arbitrary lower depth of soil characterization in most parts of
the country. Soil profile characteristics are available from the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
• CONSTRUCTION OF PIEZOMETERS AND SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS: Monitoring
wells and piezometers consist of four parts. Starting from the bottom and working up, these are
(1) the well point, (2) the screen, (3) the riser, and (4) the well cap (Fig. 1). Other items that may be
used in installation include (5) sealant to prevent water flowing along the sides of the pipe, (6) sand to
ensure hydrologic contact and to filter out fines that move toward the well, (7) filter sock of geotex-
tile to further filter out fine materials, and (8) concrete protection pads.
• The well point keeps soil from entering the well from the bottom. This may happen by sloughing
during periods of high hydraulic head, particularly in sands and highly dispersive soils. Well
points are bought separately if the wells are constructed of PVC pipe. Otte should drill holes or
saw a slit in the bottom of a commercially manufactured well point to prevent the closed well
point from holding water and giving false readings during drought.
• The screen allows water entry into the sides of the pipe. In shallow monitoring wells the screen
extends from the bottom of the pipe to within 6 in. of the ground surface. In piezometers, the
screen is the perforated end of the pipe, usually 6-12 in. in length.
Commercially manufactured PVC well screen consists of finely slotted pipe. Screen with 0.010-
in. width slots is adequate for most situations. In dispersive soils with high silt contents one
should use 0.006-in. slots and a sand pack of 40-60 mesh silica sand.
The slot size of the well screen should be determined relative to the grain size analysis. In granu-
lar non-cohesive strata that will fall in easily around the screen, filter packs are not necessary.
The slot size should retain at least 90-99% of the filter pack (ASTM D-5092-90).
•
2
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993

•
e CLOSED CAP CLOSED CAP e
RISER
SCREEN
RISER WELL POINT
SHALLOW WATER WELL
SCREEN
WELL POINT
PIEZOMETERS
Figure 1. Parts of piezometers and shallow monitoring wells
•
3
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
• • The riser is unslotted pipe that extends from the top of the screen through the ground surface and
into the air to allow monitoring access. Riser of PVC is sold separately from the screen in 2 to
15 ft lengths. Sections of PVC riser may be screwed together to extend the riser to the length
desired.
The diameter of pipe used in piezometers and shallow monitoring wells depends on the purpose of
the well and monitoring devices used. Pipes with an inside diameter (ID) of 1 in. or less are pre-
ferred. Small water samplers and automatic monitoring devices are available to be used in the
small diameter pipes. If not, larger diameter pipe will be necessary, the size depending on
method of sampling or monitoring.
In shallow monitoring wells the riser should extend from 6 in. below the ground surface to the
top of the pipe above ground. In piezometers the riser extends from the monitoring depth to the
top of the pipe. Height above the ground surface depends on local needs such as visibility and
access. Shallow pipes should not be extended more than a couple feet above the ground surface
because of the great leverage that can be applied to the above-ground riser.
• The well cap is placed on top of the pipe to protect the well from contamination and rainfall.
Well caps should fit tightly enough that animals cannot remove them and should be made of
material that will not deteriorate with exposure to the elements. Threaded PVC caps meet these
requirements in commercially bought wells.
Well caps can be easily constructed from PVC pipe of larger inside diameter than the outside
diameter of the piezometer. The larger ID pipe is cut to 6-in. lengths; one end of the 6-in. cylin-
der is then closed by gluing on an appropriately sized PVC cap (Fig. 2). Inverted plastic bottles
or tin cans should not be used because of the ease with which they can be removed by animals or
wind and because many such objects rust, degrade in sunlight, or break when frozen.
Well caps should allow air pressure inside the pipe to equalize with that outside. Some PVC well
caps are manufactured to allow air passage through a joint. Others should be modified so they
cannot be threaded on tightly; this modification can be accomplished by closing the lower part of
the threads with a bead of epoxy. If a vent hole is drilled in the side of the riser it should be too
small for wasps to enter.
After reading, well caps should not be secured so tightly that the shallow pipe must be pried and
jostled to remove the cap. If surface water may overflow the tops of the pipes, caps should be
secured so they will not be lost.
• Sealant is placed above the sand filter. This prevents water flow along the sides of the pipe from
the ground surface and through channels leading to the pipe. If the well screen is below the water
table at time of installation, the annular space above the sand is filled with bentonite to the top of
the water table; grout is used to fill the annular space above the water table and to the soil sur-
face. If the well screen is above the water table, at least 6 in. of bentonite is placed above the
sand filter and grout is filled in above it.
Bentonite is available in either powder or pellet form from well drilling companies. Pellets are
easier to use in the field. Fine pellets can be dropped directly down the annular space above the
sand filter. If this zone is already saturated with water, the pellets will absorb water in place,
swell tight, and seal off the sand filter from the annular space above. If the bentonite pellets are
•
4
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
•
2" PVC CAP
i
2" PVC PIPE
GLUE TOGETHER
W/PVC GLUE
6"
Figure 2. Homemade cap made of oversize PVC piping
• dropped into a dry annular space it is necessary to drop water down, too, so the pellets can swell
shut. The purpose of the bentonite collar is to prevent grout from flowing into the sand filter.
After the bentonite has been installed, grout is mixed and dropped down the remaining annular
space up to the soil surface. The recipe for grout is 100 pounds of #2 Portland cement, 5 pounds
of bentonite powder, and 7 gallons of water. The grout provides the primary protection from side
flow down the riser because (1) it penetrates the surrounding soil matrix better than bentonite and
(2) it does not crack during dry seasons.
• Sand is placed around the entry ports of the screen. Clean silica sand is commercially available
from water-well supply houses in uniformly graded sizes. Sand that passes a 20 mesh screen and
is retained by a 40 mesh screen (20-40 sand) can be successfully used with 0.010-in. well screen;
finer sized 40-60 grade sand is appropriate for use with 0.006-in. screen. If available, the finer
sand and screen should be used to pack instruments in dispersive soils with silt and fine silt loam
textures.
ASTM-5092-90 recommends that primary filter pack of known gradation be selected to have a
30% finer (d-30) grain size that is about 4 to 10 times greater than the 30% finer (d-30) grain size
of the hydrologic unit being filtered. Use a number between four and six as the multiplier if the
stratum is fine. This recommendation may not be achieved in clayey soils, in which case filter
socks should be used.
• Filter socks are tubes of finely meshed fabric that can be slipped over the screened end of a well
• to filter out silt and clay particles that may be carried toward the pipe in flowing water. These
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
• should be used in conjunction with sand packs in highly dispersive soils. Filter socks are avail-
able from engineering and water-well supply houses. Results of multi-year studies indicate that
geotechnical fabric may clog up with microbial growth. In long term projects, filter socks must
be monitored.
Protective concrete pads are often poured around the pipe at the ground surface. They serve two
purposes: (1) if large enough, concrete pads can prevent run-off water from channeling down the
sides of the pipe, and (2) in many states they are required on all water wells to protect sources of
drinking water from contamination.
Accurate ground-water monitoring requires that instruments be isolated from incursion of surface
run-off down the sides of the pipe. A large sloped concrete pad (3 or more feet in diameter) will
usually prevent run-off from collecting around the pipe and preferentially running down it. How-
ever, water channels can develop underneath hastily installed concrete pads. Poorly constructed
concrete pads will crack as the soil underneath settles or heaves with shrink/swell and freeze/thaw
cycles. Installation of a tamped and wetted bentonite sleeve around the pipe and proper mounding
of soil around the base of the riser at the ground surface will prevent side-flow more effectively
than an improperly constructed concrete seal.
Some states require that all monitoring wells be isolated from surface flow with a concrete pad.
This regulation is intended to protect drinking water sources from pollutants in surface run-off.
State regulations should be observed at all sites despite the inconvenience of transporting materials
to remote locations. A copy of the state's water well regulations must be obtained and proper
forms for each pipe must be filed. For shallow instruments that are many meters above aquifers
• or aquifer recharge zones it is recommended to consult with the appropriate state agency for an
exemption. Most of the time common sense will prevail and such pads may be omitted from the
design of very shallow wells.
INSTALLATION OF SHALLOW MONITORING WELLS AND PIEZOMETERS:
• Shallow Monitoring Wells. Installation method is for 2-ft deep monitoring wells.
Uses: Shallow monitoring wells may be used to determine when the shallow free-water surface is
within depths required by jurisdictional wetland definitions. These depths have historically varied
from 0.5 to 1.5 ft and are shallower than the shallowest slowly permeable zone in most soils.
Therefore, 2-11 deep monitoring wells are sufficient to detect water tables in most soils if the only
information needed is whether a jurisdictional wetland is present. To know how much the water
table fluctuates during the year at least one deeper pieaometer should be installed next to the
shallow monitoring well. Deeper wells with 3 or 4 foot screens require that horizons have similar
permesbilkies.
Construction: Shallow monitoring wells used for wetland jurisdictional determinations should
have 1.0-1.5 ft of well screen. Enough riser should be added above the screen to allow 0.5 ft of
riser below ground and 0.5 to 1.0 ft of riser above ground. The above-ground portion of the
riser should be kept to a minimum to protect the surface seal from disruption during accidental
jostling. A vented well point should be added to the bottom of the screen and a well cap to the
top of the riser.
The total length of the instrument will be approximately 3 ft: 1.5 ft of screen, 0.5 ft of riser
• below ground, 0.5 ft of riser above ground, and 0.5 ft of well point and cap. The well should be
6
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
•
•
•
constructed of 1-in. ID PVC pipe with threaded joints unless water sampling or automatic moni-
toring devices require wider pipe.
Installation: A shallow monitoring well should be installed by (1) auguring a 2.5-ft deep hole in
the ground with a 3-in. bucket auger, (2) placing 6 in. of silica sand in the bottom of the hole,
(3) inserting the well into the hole with the vented well-point into but not through the sand,
(4) pouring and tamping more of the same sand in the annular space around the screen -- this
should be at least 6 in. below the ground surface, (5) pouring and wetting 2 in. of bentonite above
the sand and (6) pouring grout to the ground surface. A final mound of grout prevents surface
water from puddling around the pipe unless a concrete pad is required. Installation is illustrated
in Figure 3.
CAP
BENTONITEAND
/jl \ SOIL MLXTURE
6" RISER GROUT SEAL
BENTONITE SEAL
12-18"
SCREEN
SAND PACK
WELL POW
3"
AUGER
HOLE
• Standard Piezometers.
Installation method is for
standard piezometers.
Uses: Standard piezometers
are the preferred instrumen-
tation for monitoring water
tables. This method should
be used whenever results
may be published or liti-
gated. Even in most juris-
dictional studies involving
shallow monitoring wells, a
few standard piezometers
should be installed around
the project site to learn how
deep the water table drops
during the dry season.
Construction: Standard pie-
zometers consist of 0.5-1.0 ft
of screen, enough riser to
extend above the ground,
well cap, and vented well
point. The total length of
the piezometer will depend
Figure 3. Shallow monitoring well on the depth of the zone
being monitored. Pipe diam-
eter should be one inch unless sampling or monitoring instruments require wider pipe.
Installation: Installation of a standard pieaometer entails (1) auguring a 3-in. diameter auger hole
to a depth of 6 in. greater than the below-ground length of the piezometer; (2) dropping and
tamping 6 in. of sand into the bottom of the augured hole; (3) inserting the well-point and pipe
into the sand; (4) tamping sand around the length of the screen and 6 in. higher along the riser,
(5a) if the sand filter is below the water table, pouring bentonite pellets into the annular space
from the sand filter up to the water table, or (5b) if the sand filter is above the water table, pour-
ing bentonite pellets at least 6 in. above the sand filter and wetting with water; and (6) pouring
7
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
•
•
CAP
BENTONITEAND
SOIL MIXTURE

GROUTSEAL
S" BENTONITE SEAL
SAND PACK B'
SIX INCHES
ABOVEAND
BELOW
SCREEN 6" SAND PACK
WELL POINT
3"
AUGER
HOLE
Figure 4. Standard piezometer
The following is a list of equipment necessary for
dard piezometers to depth of 10 ft or shallower.
grout down the remaining annular
space to the ground surface (Fig. 4).
The diameter of the auger hole should
accommodate the pipe and an annular
space of at least 1 in.; this will allow
sufficient room to tamp in sand and
pour bentonite without risking cavi-
ties in the sealant. The part of the
hole that will be occupied by sand
should be scarified if the soil is moist
and smeared by the auger.
In deep sandy soils the bentonite and
grout sleeves are not necessary
because water flows through the
entire soil matrix almost as quickly as
down the sides of the pipe. The
annular space around the riser is
simply backfilled with sand that was
removed during auguring. If the
natural sand is fine enough to enter
the slots of the piezometer, a sleeve
of 20-40 grade sand should still be
installed around the screen. If a less
permeable layer is intercepted -- for
instance, a spodic horizon -- that
layer should be sealed with bentonite.
0 Equipment Needed. Equipment
needs will vary with depth and diam-
eter of piezometers to be installed.
installation of shallow monitoring wells and stan-
PVC well screen, riser, well points, and caps
bucket auger 2 in. wider than the OD of the pipe
auger extensions
pipe wrenches for auger extensions
tamping tool (0.5-in. thick lath 2 ft longer than the deepest well works well for wells up to
4 ft deep; 0.5-in. diameter metal pipe is necessary for deeper wells)
bentonite pellets
#2 Portland cement and bentonite powder (10015 ratio)
bucket for mixing grout
water for grout and bentonite
silica sand
steel tape long enough to measure deepest hole
permanent marking pen to label pipes
concrete mix, water, wood forms, etc., for construction of concrete pads, if required
•
8
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
• • Checking for Plugged Pipes. After the pipe has been installed it is necessary to assure that it is
not plugged. For pipes installed above the water table fill the pipe with water and monitor rate of
outflow; for pipes installed below the water table pump the pipes dry and monitor rate of inflow.
If the screens are plugged one should re-install the pipes. This test should be performed every
few months throughout the study.
READING WATER LEVELS: Numerous methods have been devised for reading water levels in
shallow piezometers and wells. The simplest method is to mark a steel tape with a water-soluble
marker and insert the tape to the bottom of the well. The only equipment needed with this method is
the tape, marker, and a rag to wipe the tape dry after reading.
Other methods involve use of various devices at the end of a flexible tape. All suffer from the lesser
accuracy obtained with a flexible tape rather than a rigid one. Most also suffer from inconvenience
or complexity. Some of the variations are: (1) floating bobs on the end of a flexible tape (these must
be calibrated to correct for length of the float and for displacement of water); (2) electric circuits that
are completed when a junction makes contact with water; and (3) devices that click or splash when a
flexible tape is dropped down the well (there is always uncertainty about the exact depth at which the
noise was heard).
Water levels may also be monitored continuously with down-well transducers and remote recording
devices. These cost around a thousand dollars per well but may be necessary for some study objec-
tives. Automatic recording devices may pose special limitations on pipe diameter or construction, so
the recording instrumentation should be investigated before pipe is bought. Because automatic
devices may be re-used in many studies, cost estimates should be prorated over their expected life
• rather than assigned only to one study. If study objectives require frequent readings at remote sites
an automatic recording device may be the only option available.
One method of reading water levels that should be avoided is insertion of a dowel stick down the
pipe. Dowels displace enough water to give significantly false readings, particularly if the pipe has a
narrow diameter and the dowel is inserted the entire length of the pipe. A steel tape also displaces
water, but not enough to cause significant error.
When reading water levels height of the riser above the ground surface should be noted. Monitoring
wells and piezometers may move as much as 3 in. in a season in clayey soils that undergo wet/dry or
freeze/thaw cycles.
Frequency of reading will depend on study purposes. When determining consecutive days with water
tables at a particular depth for wetland delineation purposes, daily readings may be necessary once the
"growing season" starts. Daily and even hourly readings may be necessary to monitor tidally influ-
enced wetlands. Longer term studies are usually adequately served with biweekly readings during
most of the year and weekly readings during periods of water-table rise or draw-down. Long breaks
between readings may cause ephemeral fluctuations due to intense storms or floods to be missed. If
the study is important enough to be published or litigated, readings should be frequent and regular.
SOURCES OF ERROR: The following are significant sources of error with piezometers and moni-
toring wells: (1) side-flow down the riser, (2) plugged screens, (3) movement of pipes due to shrink/
swell and freeze/thaw cycles, (4) water displacement during reading, (5) infrequent readings,
(6) incorrect instrumentation, (7) pipes of too large a diameter, (8) faulty caps, and (9) vandalism.
E
9
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
• • Side Flow. Erroneously high water heads can be recorded in piezometers and shallow monitoring
wells if water is conducted to the screen faster than it normally would be through the soil. The
most common source of this water is surface run-off channelled down the sides of the riser. It is
critical that wells and piezometers fit snugly into the ground and that a collar of soil be mounded
and tamped around the base of the pipe at the ground surface. 71is is the primary reason that the
standard piezometer installation described here is preferred over simply driving the pipe into the
ground; bentonite and grout seals are more secure than natural soil contacts along driven pipe.
With piezometers, an additional source of error is subsurface water conducted to the pipe via
cracks, root channels, or animal burrows. These problems will not be significant in all soils.
When present, the only protection is an adequate sleeve of bentonite and grout around the riser.
In montmorillonitic soils with high shrink-swell potential, one may never be able to eliminate
cracks. In this case it may be necessary to auger soil samples from depth and determine water
contents gravimetrically throughout the year. Such gravimetric determinations should certainly be
made whenever false readings in piezometers are suspected.
• Plugged Screens. The slots or holes in screens may plug up, particularly in dispersive soils that
are saturated for long periods of time. Algal growth can also plug up screens of instruments
installed at biologically active depths. Plugged screens can give artificially dry readings during
wet periods and artificially wet readings during dry periods. They will impede water flow so that
fluctuating water tables can be missed even with frequent readings.
Plugging of screens is most easily prevented by using an appropriately sized sand filter. One can
• check for such plugging by pumping wells dry on a regular basis and noting if they fill back up
again.
If shallow monitoring wells plug up, they should be re-installed. Deeper piezometers may be
unplugged by pumping the wells dry several times and discarding the muddy water pumped out.
If they continue to plug, they should be re-installed with 40-60 grade sand and 0.0064n. screen or
with a filter sock.
• Movement of Pipes. Shallow pipes move much more than one would expect. Concrete collars
can be lifted several inches above the ground in soils with clayey texture. This movement is
caused by soil expansion during wetting or freezing. There is little one can do to prevent this,
but one should monitor such movement by noting the height of the pipe out of the ground when
reading water table depths.
Pipes that move a lot and experience inundation as well probably no longer fit snugly in the
ground and therefore experience side-flow down the riser. Gravimetric water contents should be
checked whenever one suspects false readings due to side flow. If these problems persist,
piezometers should be re-installed.
• Water Displacement. As mentioned previously, water levels in wells should not be read by
inserting a dowel stick down the pipe. The dowel will displace its volume in water and thereby
give an artificially high reading. A marked steel tape should be used instead.
• Infrequent Readings. A common source of error in many long-term studies is missed or post-
poned readings. Before the study is started one should arrange for sufficient help to make
• readings on schedule and frequently enough to answer study questions. It is all too easy for
10
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
• professionals with many other responsibilities to delay a trip to the field because of intruding
obligations. Yet, gaps in a data set will call an entire study into question. If budgets allow,
automatic recorders may solve the problem.
• Incorrect Instrumentation. Piezometers are preferable to shallow monitoring wells for most ques-
tions more complicated than simple presence or absence of water tables in the rooting zone.
Water levels in monitoring wells are composites of the hydrologic head at all depths intercepted
by the well screen. Consequently, perched water tables will usually be misinterpreted if monitor-
ing wells penetrate the drier substratum beneath.
Readings from improperly placed piezometers can also be misinterpreted. Piezometers should not
be placed at uniform and arbitrary depths without reference to soil horizon differences. Piezom-
eters placed at arbitrary depths are likely to straddle horizon boundaries or entirely miss highly
permeable horizons with significant subsurface flow.
• Large-Diameter Wells. Piezometers and wells should be as narrow as practical. The wider the
pipe, the greater the volume of water that has to move in and out of it in response to changes in
hydraulic head. Consequently, a large-volume monitoring well will respond more sluggishly than
a small-volume well. This is more critical in soils with low permeability and for studies that
require monitoring several times a week or shortly after major precipitation events.
Most wells can be successfully constructed from 1 or 1.25 in. pipe. Use of 4 or 6 in. pipe should
be avoided unless study conditions require the larger pipe. An excessively large annular space
should also be avoided, for the same reasons.
• Faulty Caps. Commercially manufactured caps often fit too tightly on PVC riser, necessitating
excessive force to remove them. The resultant jostling can disrupt the seal between the pipe and
the sealant, allowing water flow along the side of the pipe. To avoid this, threaded caps - if used
at all -- should be screwed on the pipe loosely. Avoid caps made of materials that deteriorate
and break in sunlight or frost, can be nudged off by animals, or blown off in the.wind. Most
such problems can be alleviated by use of home-made caps constructed as described in Figure 2.
• Vandalism. Often vandalism cannot be avoided. Three approaches to the problem are (1) to hide
the wells, (2) to shield them, and (3) to post them and request they not be disturbed. Simple
signs stating "Ground-water pipes: please do not disturb" have been used successfully. In some
communities it may be better to hide the pipes. Padlocks may keep out the curious. A second
and larger pipe surrounding the above-ground portion of the monitoring well may offer protection
against gunshot. Still, pipes probably cannot be protected from the malicious. Extra equipment
should be bought at the beginning of a project so that vandalized wells -can be replaced.
INTERPRETING RESULTS: As mentioned previously, data from shallow monitoring wells are
ambiguous unless the well is very shallow (2 ft or less), or the soil is highly permeable or unstrati-
fied. A 4-ft deep well that traverses a profile of A-E-Bt-C is likely to miss the slightly perched water
table that rests on top of the Bt and in the E. The most permeable horizon contributes the most water
to a water well. If the bottom of the well intercepts an unsaturated horizon of higher permeability,
then water can actually be wicked away from the well.
Piezometric data can also be confusing unless one is familiar with principles of water flow. If water
is static in unstratified soil, water levels in all piezometers should be the same (Fig. 5). However, if
•
11
WRP TN HY-IA-3
August 1993
•
Figure 5. Instruments in unstratified materials with static water-table
0 differentially permeable strata are present or if water is moving up or down the soil profile, then
piezometers will record different water levels at different depths.
A perched water table can be inferred from higher piezometric levels in the A or E horizon than the
C (Fig. 6). For soils of uniform permeability, downward water movement (aquifer recharge) can be
inferred from higher piezometric levels high in the soil and lower piezometric levels low in the soil
(Fig. 7). Upward water movement (aquifer discharge) can be inferred from lower levels high in the
soil and higher levels low in the soil (Fig. 8). Water moves from a zone of high pressure to a zone
of low pressure, even against gravity, if the pressures are great enough. Proper interpretation of data
requires some knowledge of soil horizonation and likely water sources.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION:
Aller, L., T. W. Bennett, G. Hackett, R. J. Petty, J. H. Lehr, H. Sedoris, and D. M. Nielsen.
1990. Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-water Monitor-
ing Wells. National Water Well Association, Dublin, OH.
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1990. Standard Practice for Design and Installation of
Ground Water Monitoring Wells in Aquifers. Designation: D-5092-90, Philadelphia, PA.
Driscoll, F. 1986. Ground Water and Wells. Johnson Division, St. Paul, MN.
Gamble, E. E., and T. E. Calhoun. 1979. Methods of Installing Piezometers for Soil Moisture
• Investigations. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, unpublished technical note.
12
•
•
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
0 13
Figure 6. Monitoring instruments in stratified materials with perched water-table
Figure 7. Recharge system with water flowing downward
WRP TN HY-IA-3.1
August 1993
•
• Figure 8. Discharge system with water flowing upward
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Manual of Water Well Construction Practices, Office
of Water Supply, EPA-570/9-75-001.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Steven W. Sprecher, USAE Water-
ways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, Phone: (601) 634-
3957, author.
is
14
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
• Summary of Rocky Point Quarry Drainage Chronology (1983 -
Present)
The following is a chronology, based on personal account and aerial photograph interpretation, of drainage
and discharge associated with the Rocky Point Quarry in Pender County, North Carolina. The account
focuses on the area of the quarry (2002 limits) and drainages to the east of the pit (Strawberry Branch (SB)
and Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Strawberry Branch).
Pre-1983 - Prior to construction of the quarry, the existing drainage network of silvicultural and
agricultural ditches, as well as natural drainage features, primarily drain to SB. There is a small drainage
area for the UT, however, based on the earliest available aerial photographs, the area of the pit and future
expansion primarily drains to SB.
1983 to 1989 - As the quarry expands, the sump is installed and discharge is directed south via a pit
drainage ditch (PD 1) to the Georgia Pacific (GP) property ditch (D2), then north to D1 and directed to SB
at outfall 01.
May 1989 - Discharge is rerouted to the SE corner of the pit to D2. Flow is south to D2, then turns east for
approximately 3,500 feet, and then is directed north back to SB. Aerials 1-17-89 and 1-15-90 (Figures 5
and 6) show the installation of a culvert (C1) on D2 to convey the redirected flow, as well as the
construction of the "J-road" (RI) and the eastern access road (R2) were constructed for silvicultural
purposes during that time. From personal account of the current plant manager (Doug Pope), no culvert
was installed in the eastern access road (R2) at that time to direct flow into UT, and all flow was directed
north to SB (02) via the D3 ditch.
• March 1990 - Established a new pump station in the SE corner of the pit with continued discharge to D2
and eventually north into SB (02) via the D3 ditch.
March 1992 - Aerial photograph shows drainage ditch (D3) north connecting to SB through the Wells-
Sloan property along R2.
1994 to 1995 - The roadside ditch (133) along R2 was improved with the replacement of a culvert north of
the property (Wells-Sloan property) to maintain vehicular/equipment access to the adjacent property, as
well as maintain flow (pumped discharge from the pit) to SB. Also during that time period, a culvert (C2)
was installed in R2 (by Martin Marietta at the request of the property owner) in the location of UT,
however, the elevation of the culvert was set above the ditch bottom elevation so that flow continued to be
directed north to SB, and only peak flow/storm events flowed to UT.
May 1997 - The pump station at the SE corner of the pit is relocated north to the Hall property with
discharge directed to SB (03). Discharge form the pit to the east via D2 is terminated.
In Summary, the pumping from the pit has been routed to Strawberry Branch since construction on the pit
began. Only a short period (1995 to 1997) was any part of flow from the pit directed into the Unnamed
Tributary. This flow was likely only peak storm flow since the drainage ditch (D3) was maintained
allowing most of the flow to be directed to Strawberry Branch (03).
Therefore, due to the land management activities prior to construction of the mine and influence of the
drainage network, infrequent and minimal flow was received by the UT east of the R2 road.
E
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc Prepared 12/12/02
1 of 14
i
C M„ KimleyHorn i
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
i
•
•
is
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
2of14
Prepared 12/12/02
• Ditches and drainage system in location of the future quarry area appear to drain drains to Strawberry
Branch (SB) towards the Northeast.
•
•
0 Drainage from the expanding pit directed to SB in the NE corner of the site to Outfall 1 (01).
C _ I, Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
•
is
E
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
4of14
Prepared 12/12/02
• Sump (S1) with discharge directed to PD 1, D2 (not pictured), and D1 to the O1 outfall.
• Pit drainage ditch (PD 1) is installed in the SE corner of the photograph connected to D1 and conveying
discharge flow from the pit to SB at outlet 01.
C M„ Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
•
•
•
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
5of14
Prepared 12/12/02
then to the North in D1 to outfall 01 into SB. Even though D2 continues east, past D1, there is no
connection or culvert in D2 at this time.
•
•
•

• Forest roads R1 and R2 constructed for silvicultural purposes and access. Construction of R2
disconnects natural drainage to the UT (southeast of the photograph) since no culvert was installed.
• Discharge from the pit continues to be directed to O1.
t
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
6of14
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
U
•

• R2 is extended to the North beyond the Wells/Sloan property, as well as the ditch (133), which
connects to the SB floodplain at the new outlet (02).
• The sump is relocated to a new location (S2).
• Discharge from ditches D1 through D4 are routed to 02.
• Another pit drainage ditch (PD2) is installed to provide conveyance for pit drainage to D4 and
discharge to 02.
• Outfall O1 has been removed.
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
7of14
Prepared 12/12/02
i I .
r M JFJ Kimley-Horn
•
•
•
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
8of14

Prepared 12/12/02
t
C _ I, Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
•
•
•
• Similar conditions to Figure 7.
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
9of14
Prepared 12/12/02
C _ I, Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
•

0 Similar conditions to Figure 8.
C _ F, Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
r M rj Kimley-Horn
•

f ?
•
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc Prepared 12/12/02
11 of 14
• Similar conditions to Figure 9.
C _ I, Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
•

•

• Culvert (C2) installed in R2 at location of UT (not pictured)
• Discharge continues to D3 and 02 except for high flows which flow to UT through the elevated
culvert at R2.
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc
12 of 14
Prepared 12/12/02
•
•
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc Prepared 12/12/02
13 of 14
• Sump is relocated to the north to a new location (S3) with discharge (through pipe) to SB at outfall 03.
• Other drainage ditches (D 1 - 134) continue to drain to 02.
•
•
• Continued pit expansion eastward with pit drainage from S3 directed to 03.
I '
}
•
H:/PN/011185010/Drainage Chronology Final.doc Prepared 12/12/02
14 of 14
C _„ Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc. As presented to NCDENR December 13, 2002
Martin Marietta Aggregates
• Rocky Point Quarry Expansion
Rocky Point, Pender County, North Carolina
Meeting with the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
December 13, 2002
Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) attended a project status meeting regarding the Rocky Point Quarry
with the NC Department of Natural Resources (DENR) on December 13, 2002 on behalf of Martin
Marietta Aggregates (MMA).
Attending:
Rick Shiver, DENR Division of Water Quality, Wilmington Office
Danny Smith, DENR Division of Water Quality, Raleigh Office
Horace Willson, MMA
Harlan Britt, KHA
Chad Evenhouse, KHA
Jim Eisenhardt, KHA Consultant
Purpose:
To discuss a drainage chronology and historical account of discharge from the quarry in preparation of an
alternative pumping plan to comply with water quality permitting requirements, as well as status of the
monitoring plan and monitoring gauge installation efforts.
Summary:
KHA presented to DENR an aerial photograph history and chronology for the Rocky Point Quarry to
identify the pre-quarry drainage patterns, both natural and man-made, and to present the historical
management of the quarry discharge into nearby Strawberry Branch. The objective of the meeting was to
• identify the proposed discharge location(s) for an alternative pumping plan that appropriately discharged to
the natural systems offsite/adjacent to the quarry (i.e. Strawberry Branch, and to the Unnamed Tributary to
Strawberry Branch east of the quarry site).
The drainage chronology and historical aerial photograph analysis concluded that discharge, both natural
drainage and pumping discharge from the quarry, has historically been directed to Strawberry Branch, and
that very little flow was directed to the Unnamed Tributary. This includes natural drainage and altered
drainage due to forestry management on the site prior to the quarry, as well as through drainage
management and operation of the quarry after 1983. The Drainage Chronology document discussed at the
meeting is attached to this memorandum.
Meeting Notes:
Jim Eisenhardt opened the meeting with a discussion of activities to date and a summary of status on the
Alternative Pumping Plan. With the installation of the groundwater monitoring wells (shallow water table,
and deeper aquifer wells), the focus for efforts on the project is coordination with the US Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), Mickey Sugg, to determine jurisdictional limits for wetlands on the adjacent areas to the
quarry. A jurisdictional determination (JD) had been approved for the southern parcels (B, C, and E) by the
COE at the most recent project meeting between MMA/KHA and COE, and a tear sheet approval from
Mickey Sugg was forthcoming. The parcels east of the quarry (G1, G2, H1, and H2) are still in a review
process by the COE (Mickey Sugg is scheduled to review the soil properties of the site with the Natural
Resource Conservation Service soil scientists on December 18, 2002). A final JD for the eastern portion of
the study area will be presented to DENR upon approval by the COE. As it relates to the pumping plan, the
focus on providing a pumping plan to DENR requires a final JD from the COE, and a determination of
natural and pre-quarry discharge to identify the appropriate alternative discharge location for the pumping
plan.
Instead of addressing the meeting with two separate topics (1 - discharge location(s) for the alternative
• pumping plan, and 2 - wetland hydrology of adjoining lands), the issues were discussed together with the
wetland hydrology issue brought to the forefront of discussion.
• Mr. Shiver asked the question, what was done prior to mine activity regarding jurisdictional determination
of wetlands? Mr. Willson and Mr. Eisenhardt answered that no JD was determined prior to the mine. The
initial mine location was located on agricultural fields (cotton) in uplands, and MMA subsequently
presented "inch along" monitoring well data to the COE prior to mine expansion. In addition, Tract F was
delineated and determined to be upland by the COE prior to expansion.
Danny Smith mentioned his concerns for wetland hydrology south and east of the mine, and brought up the
point of wetland types and his concern of hydrological processes in the different wetland community types
(i.e. wet flat versus riparian wetlands).
Rick Shiver summarized the issues and refocused the discussion...
(Rick Shiver): There are two issues... 1) The JD is made by the COE and DENR will accept the COE's
determination regarding the mine expansion and adjacent properties. Potential impacts and issues
regarding wetlands and mine activities prior to the 1996 regulatory rule change is outside the jurisdiction of
DENR, and they (DENR) will not counter the COE's determination on the parcels south of the mine (B, C,
and E) if the JD has been made. However... 2) DENR is looking at the parcels east of the mine and DENR
is concerned with maintaining/preserving the hydrology for the natural systems there and addressing the
concerns of the adjoining property owners. Of the new information presented in the drainage chronology,
an important note according to Mr. Shiver, is that the man-made drainage management and ditching pre-
dated the mine activity, but elements also occurred during the time of mine expansion.
KHA stated the findings of the drainage chronology study gathered from the aerial photographs, and from
personal account from the quarry plant manager, indicated the discharge from the mine, as well as natural
drainage and pre-quarry ditches, primarily flowed to Strawberry Branch. The study focused on the
hydrology of the Unnamed Tributary to Strawberry east of the mine, and concluded that there was a small
• drainage area for the tributary, however, this drainage was rerouted north directly to Strawberry Branch
prior to the mine expansion for forestry management purposes. Following several mine expansions, flows
were subsequently discharged directly towards the tributary, and then redirected north along the forest road
and to Strawberry Branch rather than to the tributary. A culvert was later installed in the forest road, but at
a higher elevation so that flow that was directed to the tributary was likely only peak flow from storm
events, and most of the drainage was directed to Strawberry Branch. Therefore, based on the aerial
photograph interpretation and personal accounts gathered to date, we believe that the alternative
pumping plan for the mine should reflect the 1996 discharge to the drainage systems east of the mine
and discharge should continue to be directed to Strawberry Branch rather than to the Unnamed
Tributary.
To conclude the meeting, the issue of wetland hydrology in the adjacent land east of the mining activities
was brought back into the discussion.
The additional information from the well installation is that there is a dense clay layer at a depth of ten to
fifteen feet from the surface in the parcels east of the mine, as observed during installation of the deeper
groundwater monitoring wells in parcels G1/G2 and HI/H2. Although COE determination of wetland
limits have not been determined in the G1/G2/HI/H2 parcels as of yet, wetlands (to some extent) are likely
to exist. However, these systems are different in their hydrological processes. The groundwater
monitoring data will provide additional evaluation opportunities and will be summarized/presented to
DENR with the quarterly status report (February 2003).
End
Attachment: Summary of Rocky Point Quarry Drainage Chronology (1983 - Present) as discussed at the
meeting.
0
Kimley-Horn
EM" and Associates Inc.
0 Te c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: April 30, 2003
Project: MARTIN MARIETTA AGGREGATES, Rocky Point, NC
Subject: Quarterly Report Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic Monitoring
1. Introduction and Purpose
The U. S. Army Corp of Engineers has directed Martin Marietta Aggregates at their Rocky Point
Quarry location, to investigate and monitor the surface water, shallow groundwater and deeper
groundwater on and surrounding the quarry area. Of particular interest is the potential impact of
their dewatering activities on the nearby wetlands, shallow and deep groundwater systems. At the
request of Martin Marietta Aggregates, Kimley-Horn and Associates have established a
monitoring network to address the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers concerns. The monitoring
network includes stream gauges, shallow monitoring wells, deep monitoring wells, and records of
• quarry dewatering operations. Rainfall data is acquired from a nearby NC State Climate Office
weather monitoring station (Horticultural Crops Research Station, Castle Hayne, NC) as well as
an on-site monitoring point.
This technical memorandum presents the quarterly monitoring report compilation of data.
II. Monitoring Methods and Systems
The monitoring gauge installation was completed in September 2002 for both the groundwater
and surface water monitoring locations. Data from the gauges are downloaded by Martin
Marietta Aggregate staff on a monthly basis. Kimley-Horn and Associates staff performs
periodic site inspections and maintenance as needed for each of the data logger instruments.
These maintenance visits occur as needed, but generally on a monthly or bimonthly basis. Well
maintenance occurred in mid to late November to redevelop the wells and remove accumulated
fines that had migrated through the well screens. The field notes documenting the maintenance
and monitoring procedures are included on the attached figures.
1. Climatology and rainfall
An on-site rain gauge was installed adjacent to the active mine pit at the beginning of
• this study. Manual rainfall data is also collected at the scale house near the mined
entrance. Rain gauge data is incomplete during the monitoring period. The rain
H:\MM 185010TWO File\Tech Memo Olrry Rp104 08 03(m).docREVISION Il.doc
gauge was damaged due to vandalism and the local rainfall data was lost. The
manually collected rainfall data from the scale house area is included in the attached
• figures.
2. Shallow Water Table Monitoring
Shallow water table monitoring points, including monitoring wells and piezometers,
we installed at eight (8) locations in September 2002. The purpose of the shallow
gauges was to compare the local surface hydrology with the shallow water table.
Information collected from the shallow water table monitoring wells and piezometers
is included in the attached figures.
3. Deep Groundwater Monitoring System
The deep aquifer and overburden monitoring points were installed to an average
depth ranging from 22' to 33'. The purpose of these wells was to provide
information on the water table within the overburdened and production zone for the
aggregate mine and to be able to compare the water levels within these units to the
shallow water levels monitored by the shallow monitoring system. The attached
figures present the data collected from the deep aquifer monitoring wells.
4. Stream Water Level Gaines
Two stream level gauges were installed for the monitoring program. They are
• located at monitoring locations 3, the unnamed tributary to Strawberry Branch, and
monitoring location 8, which is located at Strawberry Branch downstream from the
unnamed tributary. The gauges are pressure trandusory units similar to the
groundwater monitoring well instrumentations. Pressure units are suspended within
PVC casing open at the bottom to the stream depth. The intent of these data
collection points is to provide information for comparison to water flow fluctuations
in the shallow system, in the deep system, and with the pumpage records from the
mined dewatering activities.
5. Mine Dewatering
A monthly summary of pumping rates from the mine pit is included as attached
figures M through N. The actual pumping rate varies, but the total quantities of water
withdrawn from the pits is tabulated by Martin Marietta material staff. The methods
for these calculations are presented in a letter from Mr. Steve Whitt, included as an
attachment to this report, that presents the methods of calculation for total
withdrawals.
6. Problems Encountered and Solutions Implemented
• The following problems have been encountered during the monitoring period and
solutions implemented:
HAPNa11185010\DW0 FlIeJech Memo Olrty Rp104 0803)cwe).docREVISION Il.doc
? Vandalism to rainfall collection data. In November, 2002, the rainfall gauge
located near the mined pit was vandalized and local records were lost. As a
• back-up, there is a manually recorded rain gauge located at the scale house
near the mined entrance. In addition, the NC State Climate Office maintains
a climatological station approximately 5 miles from the mine site where
temperature and rainfall data are collected. This national weather service
data is included as an attachment and is considered a useable supplement to
on-site data.
? Silt clogging of monitoring wells. Following installation of the monitoring
points in both shallow and deep systems in September 2002, it was
discovered that not all wells were responding appropriately to changes in
water levels. Investigation of this problem revealed that silt had clogged a
number of wells and that removal and redevelopment of the wells was
required. This was accomplished in mid to late November 2002 and it is
believed that the wells are responding appropriately now.
? Spurious data and erroneous readings were found in some of the deeper
gauges. These deep groundwatering monitoring wells were investigated for
the source of the problems and it appeared that they originated from the
• excess pressure transducer cable length being coiled in the well and crimping
the cables such that an incomplete connection occurred between the pressure
transducer and the data recorder. This excess cable was removed from the
wells and later monitoring indicated that this solved the problem.
•
H \PNV 118S010\DWO File\Tech Memo Otrl Rpt 04 08 03(cwe).docREVISION Kdoc
rI
Appendix F
Attachments provided with
the April 30, 2003 Technical
Memorandum included
? Monitoring Gage Data
(through March 2003).
Refer to Appendix I for
Updated Monitoring Gage
Data (through January 2004).
0

•
•
14F4A7
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
M e m o r a n d u m
DRAFT
Date: January 9, 2004
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry
Pender County, North Carolina
Subject: Meeting minutes from the project meeting to discuss mine permitting issues and the
proposed pumping plan for the Rocky Point Quarry in Pender County.
Attendees: Rick Shiver, NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Ed Beck, DWQ
Danny Smith, DWQ
Noelle Lutheran, DWQ
Lillette Granade, US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
Horace Willson, Martin Marietta Materials (MMM)
Harlan Britt, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)
Chad Evenhouse, KHA
Jim Eisenhardt, AMEC
The following contains a summary of the project meeting with DWQ and the COE regarding the
dewatering issues and permitting implications, as well as an update on the status of the Pumping Plan for
the Rocky Point Quarry in Pender County, NC.
Discussion Items:
1. Status of the 404/401 Individual Permit application and Public Notice responses.
2. Status of the Pumping Plan.
Meeting Minutes:
4041401 Issues
• Danny Smith started the meeting presenting DWQ's comments/issues regarding the 404/401
Individual Permit Application submitted by MMM for the Rocky Point Quarry. DWQ has reviewed
the application and public notice and in the process of compiling a request for additional information
from MMM/KHA.
January 9, 2004
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ/COE Status Meeting

Kimley-Horn DRAFT
and Associates Inc.
• • Lillette stated that she has not received formal comments on the Public Notice from
regulatory/environmental agencies, but has had informal discussions with various agencies and will
consolidate those comments/concerns for MMM along with DWQ comments.
• The only formal comment was from the adjacent property owners (Wells and Sloan) submitted in a
letter by their lawyer (Raney). No specific comments were included in the letter, just a general
request to for proper care in the processing of the permit. A copy of the letter was provided to
MMM at the meeting.
• DWQ and the COE are going to request additional information regarding avoidance/minimization
for the mine expansion and the proposed wetland impacts. Specifically, DWQ/COE question why
MMM does not expand the quarry south (Parcel E) rather than east (Parcels G1/G2), and additional
information is required demonstrating that eastward expansion is the preferred alternative.
• MMM/KHA communicated that expansion south was not feasible as the property was not
owned/controlled by MMM, nor was the parcel appropriately zoned for mining at this time. It was
discussed that the timing of securing the parcel would not be practical, and that the mine would
likely close down without moving to east (already secured mineral rights and proper zoning).
• MMM/KHA reiterated previous discussions regarding the on-going dialogue with the adjacent
property owners (Wells & Sloan) and that agreements have been made on the limits of expansion
• (H1/H2 parcels were preserved) and a 150-foot buffer is to be preserved along the forest road
between G1/G2 and H1/H2.
• Danny Smith presented his concern about previous mine expansion areas in F1, F2, Although a
Jurisdictional Determination (JD) was made by the COE on F1/172 as uplands, DWQ is questioning
whether they have jurisdiction of potential impacts since 1996, and are concerned about assessing
cumulative impacts for the project with the recent permit application. Additional assessment to
determine the historical extent of wetlands in F1/F2 was requested in order to determine cumulative
impacts. This assessment will be based on historical aerials, soil mapping, and DRAINMOD
modeling to determine wetland extent.
• MMM/KHA requested that DWQ discuss with KHA specific methodology and assumptions for the
evaluation/modeling application prior to proceeding with any additional assessment.
• MMM/KHA reiterated the historical extent of drainage ditches and timber management practices
pre-existing the mine.
• DWQ stated that consideration of jurisdictional areas would be dated post-October 1996, and that
the hydrologic influence of the mine would be a preexisting condition prior to DWQ jurisdiction.
• Danny Smith stated that he wanted to see a timeline of mine expansion versus drainage on those
areas and to provide more supporting documentation regarding potential impacts. These impacts
would then be added to the cumulative impacts for the current permit application and would require
January 9, 2004
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ/COE Status Meeting
2
?M Kimley-Horn
and Associates Inc.
DRAFT
• additional mitigation. He stated that although undefined in extent, he expected to see some
additional wetland impacts associated with F1/F2.
• It was agreed that Corps would make determination on jurisdictional status for the historical dates
and DWQ would accept those determinations.
• Regarding mitigation, on-site mitigation is preferred by the COE and DWQ rather than buying
mitigation credits from the NC Wetland Restoration Program (WRP) fund. On site mitigation was
defined as locations on the site and in the immediate vicinity of the site. Components of the mine
reclamation plan may be part of the mitigation plan if the benefit is documented.
• Lillette stated that a 1:1 ratio for mitigation would be required for the proposed impacts due to the
limited quality/function of the existing wetlands to be impacted.
• None of the parties were aware of any mitigation banks in the area that could be used for this project.
Pumping Plan
• MMM/KHA presented the preferred alternative for the pumping plan to maintain wetland hydrology
of the adjacent wetlands in Parcel G1 and H1/H2 through modifying the culvert/outlet. In order to
appease an adjacent property owner (Thomas), MMM agreed to maintain at least a third of the
pumping volume to be directed to the culvert at the boundary between G1/G2 and Hl/H2. MMM
is also proposes to elevate the culvert inlet elevation in order to maintain a normal pool depth sufficient
to maintain wetland hydrology in adjacent wetlands in G1. It is intended that the ditch between
G1/G2 and H1/H2 will convey flow to the modified outlet, as well as reduce the zone of influence of
the pit face in the upper 10-12 feet of the soil surface (i.e. the soil profile above the impermeable
layer) to minimize hydrologic impacts to H1/H2.
• DWQ requests that a pumping plan be formally submitted, however Rick Shiver has expressed
concerns of the infiltration ditch/control structure presented by MMM/KHA. To address the
concerns about the approach for sustaining wetland hydrology of adjacent wetlands, a contingency
plan for the Pumping Plan to be modified needs to be included with the Plan should the monitoring
show that wetland hydrology is not maintained.
• Danny Smith expressed a desire that a JD be required on parcels H1/H2 in order to monitor adjacent
wetlands. KHA reiterated that the monitoring gages were installed in 2002 per the direction and
discussion with DWQ to address the potential impact to adjacent wetlands.
• Monitoring gage data through December 2003 was provided to DWQ at the meeting.
Summary bullets per Danny Smith:
• Additional information on alternatives needs to be presented to DWQ/COE regarding the feasibility
of expanding the mine to Parcel E.
•
January 9, 2004 Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ/COE Status Meeting
3
L
•
.7
Kimley-Horn DRAFT
??? and Associates Inc.
• Fl/F2 and possibly G2 historical assessment of 404 and State wetlands jurisdictional areas needs to
be included to assess cumulative impacts.
• DWQ will prepare a list of requested information/data and forward to MMM.
• DWQ will be very specific as to any monitoring requirements of adjacent wetland areas
• Pumping Plan detail needs to provide more specific detail of the modified outlet and approach for
maintaining wetland hydrology.
• DWQ will require verification of all outfalls and discharge rates, and may recommend weirs/water
level controls in ditches.
• DWQ will require specific details as to the duration and volume of pumping and how this will be
monitored.
END
January 9, 2004
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ/COE Status Meeting
4
•
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
M e m o r a n d u m
Date: July 3, 2003
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates: Rocky Point Quarry
Pender County, North Carolina
Subject: Notes for the project meeting to discuss mine permitting issues, summary of
data/findings regarding mine dewatering, and status of the pumping plan.. July 2, 2003
Attendees: Rick Shiver, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
Danny Smith, DENR
Noelle Lutheran, DENR
Bruce Cutright, Kinley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)
Chad Evenhouse, KHA
• Jim Eisenhartd, AMEC
The following contains a summary of the project meeting with DENR regarding the dewatering issues and
permitting implications, as well as an update on the status of the Pumping Plan for the Rocky Point Quarry
in Pender County, NC.

The meeting focused on three primary topics. They were:
1. Description of site stratigraphy and hydrogeology based on updated surficial aquifer and deeper
aquifer monitoring data and field investigations.
2. Wetland permitting/jurisdictional issues and an update on recent meetings with the Corps of
Engineers (COE) to determine jurisdictional areas on the site.
3. DRAINMOD application for determination of pre-existing (i.e. prior to the mine activities)
surficial hydrology and influence of drainage ditches in evaluation of wetland areas on the site,
and implications for the proposed pumping plan.
July 3, 2003
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ project meeting notes
1
•
Stra tigraphy/Hydrogeol ogy/Dewatering
The meeting initiated with a summary by Bruce Cutright, KHA on hydrogeology of the site and a
summarization of the deeper groundwater monitoring gages. Field investigations and groundwater
monitoring data collected over the past nine months lead KHA to believe that there is an
impermeable/semi-impermeable layer approximately 10 to 12 feet from the ground surface that separates
the groundwater regime of the site into a surficial aquifer, and a deeper aquifer. The surficial aquifer is
predominated by climate and precipitation-evapotranspiration inputs and outputs. The deeper aquifer is
affected by the pumping and dewatering from the mine, and based on the data collected to date, is
believed to have an influence of approximately 1,300 feet to 2,300 feet east from the mine.
The dewatering is not affecting the surficial aquifer except for the area immediately adjacent to the mine.
Approximating the mine as a very deep ditch using the DRAINMOD model (more on the model later), it
is estimated that the influence of the ditch of the surficial aquifer through subsurface drainage is
approximately 700 feet from the mine. Also, dewatering of the deeper aquifer may have some influence
on the surficial aquifer, but only during extended drought conditions (considering that the component of
deep seepage across the impermeable clay layer is a minor portion of the overall water budget of the
• surficial aquifer under normal conditions). Sink holes are likely localized areas where there may be a
discontinuity in the impermeable clay layer. Mr. Shiver agreed that the marine clay ("marl' or "gumbo")
is likely continuous in that area and that sinkholes associated with discontinuities in the subsurface layer
are likely to have only localized affects on the surficial aquifer.
The monitoring gage data were presented (updated through end of June 2003) and referenced during the
discussion of the groundwater regime of the site. Danny Smith and Rick Shiver requested that the updated
data be provided (in color) to them after the meeting.
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Jim Eisenhardt presented a status of the jurisdictional determination (JD) of wetlands on the site. The
southern parcels (referred to as parcels "B, C, and E") JD was approved by the COE and contain
jurisdictional headwater streams only. The parcels have been managed and maintained for timber
production and contain drainage ditches. Danny Smith had questions regarding the JD and stated that he
would meet with Micky Sugg, COE, to discuss.
is
July 3, 2003
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ project meeting notes
2
•
Jurisdictional issues on the eastern parcels, G1, G2, H1, and H2 were then discussed. Jim Eisenhardt
updated DWQ on the current dialogue and agreements between MMA and the adjacent property owners.
Included in the agreement, MMA has agreed to not pursue mining rights on Parcels H1 and H2. In
addition, they have agreed to maintain a 150-ft buffer along the forest road between H1/H2 and G1/G2
into the G1 and G2 parcels.
The current situation regarding the JD application on the G 1 and G2 parcels has focused on determination
of soil types, and drainage ditch influence from the prior timber management activities. DWQ was
updated that the discussions with the COE were on-going, and that a JD request and 404/401 permit
application was being prepared. Again, DWQ stated that they would have follow-up discussions with the
COE regarding the JD on the eastern parcels of the site.
DRAINMOD
Through the discussions on the wetland JD for the southern and eastern parcels, the application of the
DRAINMOD model to determine drainage ditch influence and jurisdictional wetland areas was
questioned. KHA presented that the DRAINMOD hydrologic model was performed using conservative
• estimates of parameter inputs and the best available data provided by the NRCS. Danny Smith wanted to
see the documentation on the DRAINMOD analysis and said that he would contact the COE to obtain the
documents related to the DRAINMOD application on the site. KHA stated that they would provide all
analysis and documentation to DWQ with the COE's approval.
Action Items
In summary of the meeting, the action items from the meeting are for KHA to provide to DWQ updated
groundwater monitoring data (as presented during the meeting, through June 2003), and to include a more
detailed analysis and conclusions with the next status report. It is anticipated the next report will include
an entire year of monitoring data, and will be provided to DWQ in Fall 2003. KHA will also provide the
DRAINMOD analysis and documents provided to the COE, pending COE approval.
DWQ was going to meet with COE staff to discuss the JD on the southern parcels, as well the status of the
JD on the eastern parcels.
END
H:\PN\01 1 1 850 1 0\DWOmeeting minutes 7-2-03(CWE).doc
•
July 3, 2003
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ project meeting notes
3
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
is T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m
Date: February 16, 2004
Project: Martin Marietta Materials, Rocky Point, NC
Subject: Summary of Monitoring Gage Data through January 2004
Purpose
The following memorandum is prepared to summarize observations on the data through January
2004 for the Rocky Point Quarry groundwater monitoring program. Updated figures presenting
groundwater data for each monitoring location are attached for review. Refer to the "Ground
Water Monitoring Gage Location" figure provided in the Pumping Plan.
Background
The shallow water table and deeper aquifer monitoring gages were installed between August
2002 and November 2002. The objectives of the study were to:
• .
1. Provide baseline data to develop an appropriate alternative Pumping Plan to dewater
the mine and maintain quarry operations.
2. Observe the hydrogeology of the parcels east of the mine.
3. Collect baseline data to determine wetland hydrology criteria in the same areas and to
determine if dewatering of the mine had an influence on wetland hydrology in these
areas.
The following observations are presented as discussed at project status meetings with DWQ.
Observations
1) The Study Area is separated into two-groundwater systems - the surficial and deep aquifers.
It was observed and documented during the deeper aquifer monitoring gage installation that there
is a dense clay impermeable layer in the site stratigraphy approximately 10 to 12 feet from the
surface. Observation of the mine wall confirms the presence of this stratigraphic unit.
0
Evaluation of the monitoring data shows the hydrology of the site as two separate hydrologic
systems: the surficial aquifer of the upper 10-12 feet, and a deeper aquifer. As an example,
• monitoring location 1, approximately 200 feet from the mine wall, demonstrates that the surficial
aquifer (see the overburden and shallow water table gage data, attached) maintains hydrology,
responding to rainfall input and recharge through the non-growing season. Comparitively, the
deeper aquifer gage demonstrates that the deeper aquifer, close to the mine, is nearly dry
throughout the monitoring period due to dewatering of the mine. Monitoring Location 2 also
demonstrates similar hydrology of the two systems (maintained above the clay layer, underlain by
an unsaturated zone in the deeper unit). Note that location 2, approximately 1,200 feet from the
nearest point of the mine wall, does show sustained water level in the deeper unit.
2) Dewatering influence in the deeper aquifer extends 1,300 to 2,300 feet from the mine.
In evaluation of the deeper aquifer gages on a transect east of the mine (locations 1, 2, and 3), it is
estimated that the mine dewatering has an influence of 1,300 to 2,300 feet from the mine within
the deeper aquifer below the clay layer.
3) Hydrologic response to rainstorm events are recorded in the surface gages, however, wetland
hydrology criteria is not met in Locations 1, 5, 9.
• Refer to the attached monitoring gage data (Piezometer and Shallow Water Table Monitoring
Gages) for each location. Crimping on the pressure tubing for the unit is a periodic maintenance
issue on piezometer gages at locations 1 and 9, as well as the shallow water table gage at location
5. However, the remaining gages demonstrate that while there is temporary saturation of the
upper 12-inches in response to rainfall events, the water table is not sustained for duration
sufficient to meet wetland hydrology criteria. For discussion purposes, the minimum wetland
hydrology criterion is estimated as consecutive days totaling..5% of the growing season for a
normal year (approximately 12 days based on published climate data in the Pender County Soil
Survey). Note that locations 1 and 5 are located in areas mapped as hydric soils and may have
historically maintained a higher water table before alteration to the landscape (i.e. ditches, beds
and rows, change in vegetation, etc) for timber management.
4) Sustained Wetland Hydrology Criteria is observed at Locations 2, 3, 7, & 8.
For the purposes of this monitoring program, it is assumed that the minimum hydrology criterion
is 12 consecutive days of saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil during the growing
season based on the Pender County Soil Survey climate data. The twelve consecutive days is a
is little more than 5% of the growing season.
H:IPM0111850101MonitoringlTech Memo_MonitoringData through 1-31-04.doc
The attached monitoring gage data shows that piezometer and shallow water table monitoring
gages demonstrate wetland hydrology is sustained during the growing season for locations 2, 3, 7,
• and 8 for periods that well exceed the minimum criteria. Some of these areas have sustained
periods of inundation.
Note that Locations 2 and 3 are along the depressional swale east of the mine; Location 8 is in the
Strawberry Branch floodplain; and Location 7 is located in the wet flat area of H2. Location 7
(H2), a wet flat on mapped Murville soils, has sustained water table elevation throughout the
growing season. This area is particularly unique as it may present a control wetland in the wet
flat areas, and may be representative of the pre-forestry and pre-mine surface hydrologic
conditions in parcels G1, G2, and H1.
5) Minimum Wetland Hydrology Criterion is met for Location 6 in response to a series of large
rainfall events, however is predominately dry otherwise.
Location 6 water table data is unique compared to the other locations in that it obtains minimum
wetland hydrology criteria during response to large rainfall events in April and May 2003, but is
drained/dry throughout the rest of the growing season. Compared to Location 7 (similar soil type
and topography) the water table elevation before and after the rainfall in late spring is well below
• the ground surface. The primary difference between these two locations is the land use and
vegetation. Location 6 contains beds and rows with planted pine trees. Location 7 is a cut-over
area (no beds/rows) with natural successional vegetation. Note that the wetland hydrology
criterion used is conservative (i.e. 5% growing season rather than 12.5% as stated in the 1987 US
Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation manual), and when considered in context, the
event is likely a localized response to a rainfall event rather than description of the general
surface hydrology of the site.
6) Surface water flow is observed at Location 3.
In addition to the groundwater monitoring gages installed in Location 3, a surface gage was
installed to collect data on periodic water surface flows. Location 3 does not contain a stream
channel, but rather is a depressional swale typical of a headwater system. The drainage swale in
Location 3 demonstrates that it is periodically inundated and likely flows in response to rainfall
events.
End
• Attachment - Rocky Point Quarry Ground Water Monitoring Gage Data, August 2003 to January
2004.
3
H: WWI I 185010IMonitoringlTech Memo_MonitoringData through 1-31-04.doc
N
d
d
L...A
E
R
d
L
N

c
ca
a
rn
c
d r
p) O
Q f6
CY
d r
0 0
0 0
o
N v
.L r
sm d (-ISW anoge 49a l) Iana? JajeM
Y
m 0
(satlaul) pe;uieb
0
O '- N Cl) V LO c0 t- aO O ?

cam
- 0
c

0
0
?

* c

ti o
_

m a
ca
-i

--1

_._

? L
V
C
m cV
c_
L m
d
d
f0 ? ?I ?
I N ? ?
>
?, m cn
I ? L la
7 d ? O
? ? 11w
L T
M Z
? I
c0
V
O
J
VOl£Zl L
4016/ L
£0/9Z/Z L
EO/Z NZ L
£0W4 L
EONL/L L
COIL£/OL
CO/L L/0 L
MUM
£0/6 L/6
£01916
£O/22/9
£0/9/9
EO/9Z/L
EO/LLIL c
EOILZI9 N
£0/£L/9 j
C
£OIO£l9
EO/9L/5 N
O
£0/Z/5 cV
co/907 V
rn
£0/1711 Q
£O/LZ/£
m
O
COIL/C
EO/ L Z/Z
CO/LIZ
£0117Z/L
L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZONE L/Z L
ZO/6Z/L L
ZO/9 L/L L
ZO/L/L L
ZOl8 LIO L
Z01410 L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/9
0
0
d
d
4
E
m
d
r
cn
E
c
R
IL
rn
c
d
CA O
Im
Q
`o
i
7
Q
` 0
Y
m 0
2 It
m
cl
I
Y
C
t m
0
r 4) .?. o
m BFI
3 J
m EE
ao E mo
r-
.0 v
d
O
J N
wy
T
z
II
I I
(segoul) pe;uiea
0
O ? N Cl) [F ? co t? co 0

m

- o
..._! o

m

? -

- .
c c
N o
E
m 2

1 is m
0 E -

O 00
v rn
(-JSw anoge pej) lanai Ja;eM
i
i
i
VO/EZ/L
40/6/ l
EO/9Z/Z L
co/ZL/ZL
COW/L L
£0/K/L L
£0/L£/OL
EO/LL/OL
£0/E/0 L
CO/6 L /6
CO/9/6
EO/ZZ/9
£0/9/9
E0/9ZIL
£0/lL/L `c
C
EO/LZ/9 c
c
Eo/EL/9
i
MOM
£0/9L/9 ?
C
Coos c
£o/n/b °-
EO/b/b ?
£o/LZ/£
£0/Ll£
EO/LZ/Z
CO/LIZ
EO/4Z/ L
MOLL
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/£ L /Z L
ZO/6Z/ L L
ZO/9 L/L L
ZO/L/L L
Zo/s L/O L
Zo/4/0 L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/9
0
0
v
c
0
a
.r
•
c
A
d
c
A
g0
o
QO1 ?`
O
T+ '
e
d
G Y
r ?
(sayaul) I1elule2l
0
O r N Cl) V t!> t0 I.- O m
0
co
w
w
N
d
a
AL,
U.
c
c:
'a
LL
¦
I
- -- -- - - - - - -- --- --- a m - - --- -
- - -- - --- - -- (D
N '-
__- _._.. a
._?...-.___-___. ._-...-- ...._. __.. .__._.._._.1. __...-_.._.yy
Lr, O.
......_ ..__. _ .. _.. __.. ___. - - ___. _ C O)
.. .-_.... _. __. .. - _. _ . _ __ I ---- CL
'q

0

-
- -
-
-
--
-

c

--. -- ' v E m - -- -
o ?,? c c
- -
C
a - -.- c? _. - -
w
Vl i ? N
- - °' E o v -
-
y

o o y
(1) c
.. N a
w

- - -
- w c G)
a (D m
c to
-o

I E

Of
p
p
-0
0 0)

1
-4

O 00
N N
(ISW GAoge;ea,J) lene-1 JOIBM
40/£Z/ L
40/6/ l
£0/9Z/Z L
£0/Z L/Z L
i
CO/9Z4 L
£0/bL/LL
£0/L£/O L
I
£0/L L/0 L
£0/£/0 L
£O/6 L/6
£0/9/6
£0/ZZ/9
£0/9/9
£0/9Z/L
£0/L L/L
£0/LZ/9
£0/£L/9
c
£0/0£/5 1",
0
£0/9L/9 QN
£0/Z/9 F
£0/9 L/4
vl
£0/LZ/£
£0/Ll£
£0/ l Z/Z
£0/L/Z
£0/tlz/ l
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/£ L/Z L
ZO/6Z/ L L
ZO/9 L/ L L
Z0/l/LL
ZO/9 L/0l
ZO/4/O L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
0
0
LO
a
v,
a?
rn
C
'C
O
C
rn
c
0
0
co
z
CL
x
c
0
F
0
C
m
C
r
'c
0
f
•
e
a
c
.c
C
m ?
Ol ??
Q IOC
= c
0
a
C ?
E u
2 w
(S040ul) Ile;ule21
0
O ? N M V Lo (O t- 00 QI
0
O?
la
d
la
m
3
O
is
t
O
f?
N
ul
3
z
I N 1

1
I -.

--? --?

_-

? v1
w E
w -

1

-? ? - a a-

. ._.. .... ..._
_
co 1

-_ i
c0 O
w
N
- 1
t -
- - N
C

_.._
_ co _
_ r
? .+ O 7w
m-?a)mo
v 2
i
1
-oE
o
--? -

r
- c
a 0) Id c o
U) _
-
L m
_ >r
?
i .i y a o m I rn
o c
,o„?,
r
?..
- m
- 4 m a r c 1
1 _ ._..
? 1

0
0
Uri
N
0
0
N
(-JSW 9noge 490j) lanai laleM
VO/£Z/L
170161L
£0/9Z/Z L
£0/Z L/Z L
- 60/6Z/ L L
COWL L L
£0/ L£/O l
60/L L/O L
SOON
60/6 L/6
60/5/6
60/ZZ/9
£0/9/8
£0/9Z/L
£0/LL/L
£0/LZ/9
co/mg
c
EO/0£/S
0
60/9L/9 N
£0/8L/17
of
£0/17/4 Q
£0/LZ/£
D
60/L/£
£0/LZ/Z
£0/LIZ
60/17Z/ L
L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/6 L/Z L
Z0/6Z/ L L
ZO/S L/L L
ZO/ L/ L L
ZO/9 L/0 L
ZO/17/0 L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
°o
5
x
N
d
C9
C
.Q
c
0
rn
c
0
0
o`
0
0
z
Q.
x
C
O
Oil
C
0
'c
0
E

C
A
IL
OI
c
(n 0
?o c
22
rn
Q ?`o
z c7
(sayaul) Ile;ulem
0
O ? N M V Lo O rl- 00 O
GN
A
C
N
E
0

i

I

- i

i_?_......

41

C)

- c 0
(D L

N
'-
o
N
(0 N

L
- > m o -

5 .-
2
y
5.2

_.
_.. _.. d, g SR '2
.. .
.
. _..
N N 2 N .

? E
o
z
.
.

-- --

-
o `
- o-
- ??
E
=

`.

^I

-
o o
2 c0 $ a a
- .
.

0
T
o
0
.,
N
E
i
a?
R
U)
7
O
(7
N
}
N
N
z
(-JSW anoge;aaj) lanai J04eM
b0/£Z/ 4
b0/6/ 4
£0/9Z/Z L
£0/Z L/Z L
£0/8Z/ L L
£0/b 4/ L L
£0/ L £/0 L
£0/L l/0 L
CO/C/O 4
CO/6L/6
CO/9/6
EO/ZZ/8
£0/8/8
£0/9Z/L
v
EO/lL/L °o
N
£0/LZ/9 z,
£0/E L/9
£0/0£/9
O
£0/94/9 w
0
EO/Z/9 N
£0/8L/ti
rn
SO/t7/17 Q
EO/4Z/E a±
EO/L/E
EO/4UZ
CO/LIZ
CO/17Z/4
CO/0L4
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/E 4/Z L
ZO/6Z/ 4 4
ZO/9 W 4 l
Z0/L/L L
ZO/8 4/0l
ZO/4/0 4
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/8
00 00
Sri o
w
A c
d pueg /weol/weol Apueg/weol ,te10 Guo?s -
Rely APueS/PueS
o
C v -said
00 00 °o °0 00
C) lf) o ri o
co N N
N
X
N
N
co
01
C
O
0
m
c
0
0
0
0
aD
0
z
0-
m
c
O
v
O
O
o?
c
c
O
f
•
c
m
IL
m
c
y
c
SD
rn
Q`u
m
c
c
m O
CL
aC >%
r6
2w
(sayoul) Ile;uleb
0
cli U) 00
m
c
aci
a?
U
O
0
O
I-
a?
w
0
d
v
c
O
0
M
m
m
0
rn
c
m
m
U
0
E
0
0
00
0
c
0
a'>
w
a
c
a
i
u
z
c
c
C
b
LL
i

b0/£Z/ 4
M6/4
£0/9Z/Z 4
co/ZL/Z4
£018Z/ 4 4
£0/b U 4 4
£O/ 4 £/0 4
£0/L 4/0 4
£0/£/04
£0/6 4/6
£O/S/6
£0/ZZ/9
£0/9/9
£OISZIL
£0/44/L o
0
N
£O/LZ/9 Z,
m
£0/£4/9
c
£0/0£/S n
O
£O/94/S N
0
£O/Z/S N
£O/84/b
rn
£O/4/b Q
£0/4Z/£
£OILI£
£0/ 4 Z/Z
£0/L/Z
£0/17Z/4
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z 4
ZO/£ 4/Z 4
ZO/6Z/4 4
ZO/S 4/ 4 4
ZO/ M L
ZO/8 4/0 4
ZO/b/0 4
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
°o 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 00
o N o o u7 0 o
m N N
(lSW 9noge;99.1) 19n9-1 j94eM
pues 6elo
o auojsaw1q pues
a

C
r
O

c
a
v?
C
N O
« c
to
CM 0
Q ?`o
d
m ?
? O
CL
? V
s
a
(9940ui) 11e;ulea
0
M <l Lo f0 r- co 01

- o

E c -

v
m '

-- -- - Q --

_._. _.. ... _ __ ... __ - .... - ...___. - ._...?. .-.. _ ..?- r
o -
_' - - _.... _.

1
6

`

v j?

-- - E
v o - - --
N w -
:3 a
g

1

Z

VO/EZ/L
tr0/6/ L
£0/9Z/Z L
EO/Z L/Z L
EO/9Z/L L
EO/t+L/L L
£0/ L EIO l
COIL L/0 L
EOI£/0 L
£0/6 L/6
£0/5/6
£0/ZZ/9
£0/9/9
EO/5Z/L
£04WL $
£0/LZ/9
EO/El/9
COMM
0
EO/91/9 04
EO/Z/9
CO/9 L/4
Comm,
£O/LZ/£
D
£0/Ll£
SO/ L Z/Z
£OILIZ
£OIbZ/L
£0/0 LI l
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZONE LIZ L
ZO/6Z/ L L
ZO/9 Ll l l
ZO/ LI L l
ZOl9 L/0 L
ZO/tF/O L
ZO/OZI6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
$ °o C?
p O
04
(-JSW enoge1e9:1) JGAGJ J910M
N
N
X
Of
.t'
c
rn
'c
0
O
r
co
0
z
a
x
N
C
O
J
0)
C
O
.C
O
a
•
C
O
CL
o?
c
(A 0
R
??
Q ?`o
d
d ?
'C .
O
IL
(S040ul) 11e;ulea
0
O ? N ch 't In O r O O
9
'C
U
M
c
co
0
?l
i

O
F
3
3
0
To
t
N
m
U
l0
t
0
c
0
i
m
w
b0/£Z/ L
b0/6/L
£0/9Z/Z L
£0/Z L/Z L
£0/HZ/L L
£0/bl/L L
£0/L£/0 L
£0/L L/0 L
£0/£/0 L
£0/6 L/6
£0/9/6
£0/ZZ/9
£0/8/8
£0/9Z/L
£OILL/L
£OILZ/9
£OI£L/9
e
MUG
O
£0/9L/9 N
0
£0/Z/9 r
COMA,
£0/to,
£0/LZ/£
D
£0/Ll£
£0/ L Z/Z
£0/L/Z
£0/VZ/ L
l
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/£ L/Z L
ZO/6Z/L L
MGM L
Z04/LL
L
MOON
ZO/b/O L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9I6
ZO/£Z/8
°o C0 °o
N
N O
(-JSW enoge;aej) Iana-1 JOIBM
N
it
O
I
M
C
O
C
O
2
•
c
a
a?
c
C
d
Q ?`a
O 7
N a
O
a
t V
(sa140ul) liebuieN
0
O ? N c'7 V u7 0 r aD 01
aci
m
U
0
a
0
I-
m
w
0
d
a>
lC
c
d
V
6.
m
O
a?
U
(0
U)
a
c
z
0
C7
a?
f
Ni
Z
I
00 00 00 00 O O
V1 0 6 o ui o
N N (-JSW anoge joe j) 19na-1 JajeM
pueg au!-q/pueg Rweol/weol 4elo /elf Apueg
YO/CZ/L
h0/6/L
EO/9Z/Z L
£O/ZL/ZL
CO/8Z/ L L
CO/4M L
COIL M
COIL L/0 L
£0/C/0 L
CO/6 N6
£0/9/6
£0/ZZ/8
CO/8/8
E0/9ZIL
E04 UL
c
N
EO/LZ/9
m
CO/CL/9
CO/0£/9
0
CO/9L/9 N
O
£0/Z/9 N
CO/8L/V
C
SO/17/t? Q
CO/LZ/C
m
EOILIC
EO/LZ/Z
COILIZ
£0/bZ/ L
CO/O L/ L
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/C L /Z L
ZO/6Z/ L L
ZO/9 L/ L L
Z0/L/LL
ZM L/O L
ZO/b/0 L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/8
0
0
u?
N
N
X
N
(D
N
cr)
m
c
O
.C
O
m
c
`o
.E
0
0
0
U')
ao
0
z
d
x
N
C
O
i
C
?L
C
O
2
•
c
?a
a
C
d 0
too r
m ?
Q t`o
O O
C1
d C
o
a
V
2 w
(sayoul) Ile;ulea

O 0
r N M V' U7 O r O m

? to/64

£0/9Z/Z L

-_ ? - _ EO/ZL/ZL
EOI8Z/L L

EOItL/ll

C EO/LE/Ol
(,
COIL 00 L
Cl)
--
- -
`o - MEIN
t
o
F
____. ___..._-_?_
CO/6L/6
w •.?? _ - - £0/4/6
- EO/ZZl8

_?- - EO/4ZIL
E04 WL
0

-- _ £O/LZl9
wi -? _ m
EOI£L/9

o

- 0£l4
-?
£0/
i ?
-- --- - _+ _ o
o ! ? ?
.. £O/9l /4 a
d _.. _ _ ,.
r+ c N

c
Comm,

O w
co/t,/t7
?I t - Q
CL ii I

?
£OIIZIE

N
_ f _ __
- A
£OILI£ °

m
0 ? - -- _ _ _. EO/LZ/Z
£OILIZ
U) I
j -0 - EO/tZ/ L
? -- - - -
o - - MOM

- °o ZOILZ/Z L
a?
w ?
- ?? m cn
_ ._ . o s _
ZO/EL/Zl
l a
o
w
m
ZO/6Z/L L
T U 9
? c
M £ ZO/4L/LL
I ? _ o °w _ o
L ZO/ML
N ? _ m
?I ? N?? o° o o ZO/8L/OL
z

c
d C
o
a T
'

ZO/t/OL
I ? ' . m
n
d3-5 m d
Q a or
77

?? t
z°
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9I6
I
/8
ZO
£Z
°o °o °o o °o o
` n o ui o o ui o u
N N
(-JSW anoge 199:1) lanai aa1eM
d
v auo?sawi?
o (AeIo/pues) uapinqjanp
a
N
X
N
N
01
N
'C
O
c
0
rn
`0
'0
0
0
00
z
a
x
'
c
O
al
0)
c
C5
O
•
c
to
a
o?
c
y •?
l"'0
a?
a
c
'o
CL
(Se4oul) Ileluleb
0
O ? N M V LO CD I? CO O
Gy
C7
CL
0 0
(JSW 9noge 399.1) len81 JOIBM
tro/£Z/L
40/6/L
£0/9Z/Z L
£0/Z L/Z L
£0/9Z/ L L
co/VML
£0/ L£/0 L
£0/L L/o L
£0/£/O L
£O/6l/6
£0/5/6
£o/ZZ/9
£0/8/9
£0/9Z/L
£O/LL/L
£0/LZ/9 n
£0/£L/9
COMM
0
£o/9L/9
£O/Z/5 ?y
£0/9L/4
SWIM?
£o/LZ/£
0
£0/Ll£
£0/LZ/Z
£0/L/Z
£0/4Z/ L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/£ L/Z L
ZO/6Z/L L
ZO/9 L/L L
ZO/L/LL
ZO/9 L/o L
ZO/b/o L
Zo/OZ/6
Zo/9/6
Zo/£Z/9
0
M
R
vi
c'
0
C
'C
CO
.O
c
0
c
O
a
0
a

M
0)
c
.o
O
2
E
C
m
a
Cl
c
U) `O
c
R
Q R
a
? c
O
?a
Y

H
3
O
t
N
(S040ul) I1elule2l
0
O
O .-N co ? In to r-- co

I
I
I

I y O

i? -
I

r

Z r
O

?z _
' o

e
l
I

'o

_ f° o c

O
.0 y 0 V= rn r
l0 y NN y
..
I
1
? I
I
I

40/CZ/L
40/6/ l
£0/9Z/Z l
CO/Z L /Z L
COW/ L l
£0/V M L
CO/ LC/O L
£O/L L/O l
CO/C/O L
£0/6 L/6
CO/9/6
CO/ZZ/9
£0/9/9
CO/SZ/L
£0/LL/L
£0/LZ/9 N
CO/£L/9 I
c
CO/OC/9 -1,
O
£0/9L/9
H
£0/Z/9 g
C%l
MOM,
O
£0/4/4
CO/LZ/C A
D
£OILI£
£0/LZ/Z
COIL/Z
CO/bZ/ L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z l
ZO/£ L/ZL
ZO/6Z/L L
ZO/9 M L
ZO/M L
ZO/9 L/0l
ZO/4/0 L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
0 0 0
(lSW enoge 199:1) 18ne-1 J948M
M
in
R
d
'C
O
c
c0
C
c,
c
c
o_
OD
0
a
2
M
C
O
1/ F
c
O
C
O
2
E
c
co
a
a?
c
0 O
? c
d ?
Of
Q m
m
d ?+
R O
a
c ?
? V
(sayouI) Ile}uiem
0
O r N M V LO CO I? ao 0) ?
4)
Im
AS
c
m
V
3
m
O
b0/EZ/L
b0/6/ L
£ol9Z/Z L
£o/ZLIZL
£0/9Z/L l
£o/VL/L L
£OILEIOL
EO/L l /O L
£O/£/0l
CO/W6
£0/9/6
EO/ZZ/9
£0/9/9
EO/9Z/L
£0/LL/L c
£OILZ/9
A
E0/£ L/9
c
EO/0£/9
0
£o/9LI9 N
O
£0/Z/9 N
co/em,
rn
£0/b/U Q
EO/LZ/E
m
£O/L/E
£0/ L Z/Z
£OILIZ
£0/bZ/L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/E L/Z L
ZO/6Z/ L L
ZO/9 L/L L
ZO/L/L L
ZOl9 L/0 L
Zolb/OL
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/9
O O O O O O O
L6 6 L6 ci L6
N N (-JSW anoge;aa:j) Jana-j Ja;eM
m pueS auijipues Aweol/weol ReIO
a it
M
N
X
U)
m
m
CD
rn
C
.C
0
'c
0
rn
c
0
c
O
a
b
C2
Q
z
a
x
M
C
O
I
tm
C
.O
O

•
C
IL
c
u> O
N
c
mO
2
rn
o
Q ?
d
O c
o
IL
(sayoul) Ile;urea
O N M d' LO f0 f- 00 CP
m
c
in
0
w
I 1?I
of
E
0
O
0
of
w

U
-0
C
3
o l
V
7
mi
LLJ
f
b0/£Z/L
h0/6/L
EO/9Z/Z L
£0/Z L/Z L
COW/LL
I
WtvWLL
EO/L£/OL
EO/L L/O L
EO/£/O L
CO/606
CO/9/6
EO/ZZ/8
so/9/8
£0/9Z/L
EO/L OL o
0
£0/LZ/9 N
m
£0/EL/9 z
c
£0/OM I
O
EOI9l/9 a
0
EO/Z/CJ N
£0/8LItt, >
EO/b/V
Q
EO/LZ/£
EOILIE
£0/ L Z/Z
SO/LIZ
EO/bZ/ L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/E L /Z L
ZO/6Z/ L L
ZO/9 L/L L
MULL
ZO/S L/O L
ZO/t7/0 L
ZO/OZI6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/8
o °o 00 00 00 C0 °o, °o 00
o o LO o u? o vi o
N N
(-Jgw anoge;aa l) lanai aa;eM
d
pueg auo saiui? pueg
a

r-

a
? L
f C
-
?
p UL ..
2 L
• C I..
_... _._ ..
O?
O N O C
E a c
_ _ _..._...
ID 0
N ,
... _. __... -
._

_.-. -
.- -... ... N
r r y .- ._....__ _
_ Z ? r ? a 21
. ..

f .

-_r

M
N
X
41
O
0
rn
C
.O
C
O
rn
c
.Q
'c
0
0
0
z
a
x

c
0

c (sayoul) Ile;idea
r O N Cl) V LO O n N CD
40/£Z!L
a
-+ - -. - co
40l64
c
-
EO/9Z/Z L
O/Z

£0l8Z/Ll

• -
__ C: c
N ° EOl4L/LL

c ? E _
_
£0/L£/Ol

o E COILLIM
? . _ .. - - - -
MOO L
a
-.?--- • - - ---
-
CO/6 L/6
CO/9/6

? - £OIZZ/9

_ `L N
CL Q) £OI9ZIL
rn ? Y+. E; N _
o
S04 UL

i
a
a 0
£OILZI9 CV

o ,

E
• U
rn
c
' SOME
4) 0 -- _ D
m

cm
co -
- - o
c o •.. 3 £O/Z!9 N

v
-
w
_ • • -
• o £0/b/b Q
convc

? CO/LIE
U .
f - - - - EO/LZ/Z
!--r-? - - 4 £O/LIZ

p MOM

- - ZO/LZIZL

- i ZOI6Z/LL
__ ZO M4
lei-
_
ZO/I/L L

ZO/4/0L
V) 0
---
N .
_
-
ZO/OZ/6
81 0 CPQ ZO/9l6
m -_- • ,?

p? 4.6
ZO!£Z/9
Co °o °o, °o O ° °o Co

d M N N O O
(-JSW anoge;aaj) lanai aa;eM

0
CL
°'
c

pueg asjeoo/pueg eui jlweol /pueg/weol
?
? V o. I

c
0
C
O
c
O
2
•
C
l6
a
rn
a O
o r
d ?
Q m
ca ?
O
m S
o
a
V
m O
2 w
(say?u?) ??e;uiea
0
O ? N c'7 V LO (D I? aD 0)
m
v
U
n
H
W

c
U
0
No
1?0 0
`o
d Q
lC M >
>y
3 W
v
c
0
0
O.
d
d
o
iD
0
i?
w
iITW
1
3
Z
I
i
c
1
3 __
o ?

rn
c c
C. 0
..._ ?...-__ -.
c ._. L

?

i

i

? n

?_ -.o _. -. v K E
Zoo

--- 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 o O o 0 0 0
o U) o to o u? o
N
(-IgW anoge;aa:j) Jana J03eM
v
pueg bap auo?saunj p
a ueg
y0/£Z/ L
60/6/L
£O/9Zlz L
£O/Z L IZ L
COW/ L L
£o/K/L L
CO/ L £/0 L
COIL L /O L
EOIE/O L
C0161/6
EOIS/6
EO/ZZI9
£018/8
E019Z/L
£0/ L L IL
v
£O/LZ/9 °o
co/mg m
m
EMUS
EO/9L/S w
O
CO/Z/9 N
1
MOM,
£olyly
m
£onvc
Eo/LIE
£o/Lz/z
£0/L/Z
MAIM
MOM
ZOILZ/Z L
zo/£ L/z L
ZO/6Z/LL
ZO/S U L L
zo/Lll L
Zo/8 L/O L
z0/y/0 L
Zo/OZI6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
0
0
0
O
1
J
c
O
2
•
C
R
c
? r
as o
Q
`a
i
x C'!
d r
c
'o
a
R 0
(so4oul) Ile;ulea
O N M V Lo (D t` co O)
m
a?
U
c
?l
T
r
d
E
0
aNi
a
U
U)
c
p
C7
a?
IU
I

=tea
r

0
A

-- ' w
>
r_
__?•
. -
_
co _
0
? _. _ - _ - ._ (D-Z_.- - -
o
-
_0 .

U _

,

,
s _ : •

_.. __..
- ... . _ N
c co a .. __.-- . _.._
_.. .. _._._ ... LT
(0 O N
7 d N
-?- Eo3oc1p - r-- - c?

co
c
N T f0 p
O a)
om. pr
o
m .. ?. E
_. _ _._ N N N O (D

L
O
W. ..
Lo U 6) N O
-._. Ip C N O E
__ _ _.._ N a •_ rn
z

W J c > c O c
(n

_. _ ._ -
-. N Z O 01 N
0ma
?mm
y
a N o OM) m

f
I

N (ISW OAoge;aTaj) lanai Ja;eM
h0/£ Z/ L
40/6/L
£0/9Z/Z L
£0/Z L/Z L
£0/9Z/ L L
£0/4 L/ L L
£O/ L £/0 L
£0/L L/O L
£0/£/O L
£O/6 N6
£O/9/6
£o/ZZ/9
EO/9/9
£0/9Z/L
£0/ L UL
0
£0/LZ/9 N
£O/£ U9
7
£0/0£/9 Im
£O/9 L/9 c
0
04
£0/Z/9
rn
£0/9L/b 0)
Q
w
£0/LZ/£ G
£0/L/£
£0/ L Z/Z
- £O/LIZ
£OPoZ/ L
L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/£ L/Z L
ZO/6Z/ L L
ZO/9 L/ L L
ZO/L/L L
ZO/9 L/O L
20/4/0 L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
0
0
04
N
X
N
N
c
0
m
O
O
C
o`
0
0
co
0
z
a
2

c
o
(sayoul) Ile;ulea
w
O r
N
Cl) V' N c0 n
W 01
O
_ -. - -- bo/EZ/L

- -- - t70/6/L
O
£0/9Z/Z L
O
£o/ZL/ZL

- _ _ COW/ l L
-
I -- - - -- - --- - £o/VL/LL

-£O/L£/OL

- EOILL/OL

£0/E/o L

U =?
CMU6
£0/9/6

j EO/ZZ/8
-. ?i ? - - I O £0/9/9
+ ?
- - _ .. - - E019ZIL
o.

6oILZ19 N

M o
- - c? EO/£ Ll9 M
N -- i COMM
?
m
O
N
L O
r O O
y
CMW7
O ?_ ..

£0/LZ/E iu

_. m - - ---- EO/L/E
-? _ T

i
Z 0 0 a) cm
0 m
co v
C
n
a - - - E>, _
E ?' _ _ - - -- ? £OILIZ

-? -
-
° 1° °'
-- in
m n
T
? -

-
r

t

- m .
co/tz/l
. V
N

j
.._ . . _ _ _. T r 7 'O
_
y U-) lC .0 N 0) _ - ... -- -"---..- - - --_....
'p E -
N C

?

MOM
ul - -? - 5 o m m 10 w a aai Y ZO/LZ/Z L
i
O f0 N

E N
c -

C o ao
y m - - - U u ZO/6Z/ L L
----- --- .. a
a -------- - -----1--- - -
ZMM?
? Z044 L
Z -
Zo/8 L/O L
so
C1 O

o

-_

ZOAVOL
d g ? `' -
;? 1 ;
O O = 2019/6

m

O
o CL
C)
C!
o

o
Y
t
- N

(-JSW anoge 199j) lana-I ja;eM
m 0
C
O
4V
J
C
C
O

•
n.
U) 0
r
C
?0
i
Q c`a
?a
•? c
o.
Y
L)
0
(D
tm
m
d
E
O
N
0
.1
(seyoul) 118juiem
0
O ? N M '7 In co h co O r

-

?

'
r _.--_-_

C
?
V) 0
Ln U
E c -------

_-
y _ -

v

c

o - - ??

it _ ..
?
_iW ? ...

r

'o 'a
_.-
° -T 2 03

° a o co
(D
p

C
U E ._.
U) U
_..
..___
_...
__.-.__ L ..
C
7 (p O -i (p ? T....._._ N N U
- L
D __ Vl N ?' c0
n N
(n 4)
c
o
>
co M
a) -
?-
11 fn (n
?-?
U) CU LD -D -0
0
(j' c°
p o
E

p C J N d
ai o in
V

z
(
00 00
N I?
N (-JgW enoge;aa.1) 1ene-1 J8jeM
b0/CZ/ 4
b0/6/ L
EO/9Z/Z L
EO/Z L/Z L
COW/
CO/17 L I L L
£0/LE/OL
£0/L L/0 L
CO/C/O L
£0/6 L/6
CO/9/6
EO/ZZ/8
£0/818
E019ZIL
EO/LL/L c
EOILZI9 04
EO/E L/9
c
EO/OE/9
0
£0/9 L/9 N
0
£0/Z/9 N
E0/8L/b 7
£0/b/b Q
£0/LZ/£
O
£OILI£
£01 L Z/7.
£OILIZ
£0/bZ/ L
£0/O L I L
ZO/LZ/Z L
ZO/£L/zL
ZO/6Z/L L
MGLILL
ZO/ ML
ZO/8 L/0 L
ZO/b/O L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/8
0
0
N
O
X
N
a!
°i
m
c7
°i
c
0
C
O
C
_O
C
0
0
00
00
0
z
a

co
C
O
so
J
w
c
O
2
•
C
a
c
U) 0
w ?=
is =
d 2
tm ?,
Q <La
CY
d ++
L
• 2 a°
0
2 w
(sayou?) ??e;uiea
0
O ?- N Cl) LO O r 00 m
c
1
as
.c
m
U
'0
c
a7
a)
le
m0
d a
me
cv
? CO
L C
Q) c
M O
cc
a
3 LL
O i
co T
t

o
, p

-
-- -
- O
_0
- ---
,

, C C

10 E
,
,

,

U) -0

,

}

-? - m n
p
ttz - Co c
E
O
m o _.-_-
>, c a7 a) O 0)

N 00 LE 2 15
c

- -
N p •• m
.__. .._ ._.
c
a)
crw 3 a)
a)
15
r-
c :n' .2 o -a '0
N o
-
E
_
- o
; 0
•
o o a) ro (D
w
p c J ql 'C O) C7 a0 -
U ° o (n o)
i

_
cl)
? ?

-
- 0 6
0
C0 0
o LO
N (-JSW anoge;aaj) Ian81 aa;eM
b0/EZ/ L
b0/6/L
£0/9Z/Z L
£OIZ L/Z L
co/9M L
60117 0 L L
£o/ L E/o L
£OI L UM
MOO L
60/6L/6
SO/9/6
EO/ZZ/9
EO/9/9
EO/9Z/L
CO/ L UL
EO/LZ/9 0
0
EO/E M
3
MOM
CO/9L/9
C
co/z/9 c
CO/9L/t7
CO/t7/t7 t;
to
EO/L/E
EO/ L Z/z
CO/LIZ
co/17M
MOLL
ZO/LZ/Z L
ME L/z L
ZO/6Z/L L
ZO/9 L/ L L
zol M L
z0/9 L/0 L
ZO/b/0 L
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/9
0
0
0
X
(n
a)
0)
aJ
O
c
.c
0
0
m
c
.o
c
O
0
0
0
z

ti
c
0

O)
O
C
O
2
•
c
IL
c
0) O
a?
o c
O
Q m
lC ?
Cl
Q
O
a
_c >
? v
co 0
(segoul) Ile;ulea
0
O '- N Cl) V LO O r co 61 ?

m - - - b0/6/ L
o
£0/9Z/Zl
c - a

1 7
a _ EO/8Z/LL
C --
m o - £0/bL/LL
.Ln
? - - I _ ?w EOMM

= i D E E0/LOOL
_
£0/E/OL
_ ?.?? _. -_ _ CO/6L/6

-- CO/916

? - ;
77 £0/ZZ/8

_ .

zO
£0/8/8
Q
_ d) EO/9Z/L
-- `_
Cl) -'o
z C04 UL
c
_. _ _ -z o c
£0/LZ/9

--?
._
- m
o _-
_.. -
-
i _ - ... _ ?__
I _. m EO/£L/9 C
E 1 - £0/0£/9
m° :+

__.. Eo/9L/9 N
4 - . . _ .... _. ,.. .. p
v -? ? ?_ _ _ _ Eo/Z/S N

£0/8L/t7
Q
_ Co/t7/t7

W _.._.__ __-___-?. £014Z/E
14.
EO/L/£

_- ?__ CU (D
-
_._..._ T _
_ _
-_
£0/LZ/Z
o cc)
?m -
- - - - o
. c m

a) -

£0/L/Z
_
c
o

o
__-
----- a
m
o
2'
- -
---
t.-
'.. _.. __ -

L)
. _ ?. N Eo/bZ/ L
._.__._.
N t o - N
.5 - N r MOM
W ..-,. --.'?_ __-. .a an O
a
°
y -
-° er
7
?._ t n -
_..C y_. ._
_0O ZO/LZ/Z L
p
0 M
a> OI C .? 0 _ ZO/£L/ZL
i -- - ?cma?
a
y - E Q>
, r
ZO/6Z/L I
'
o v m E B U c
a m ° ZO/5L/LL
Z04M
Z
?
- Zo/9 0M
; ZO/b/OL
?
.. _. M ; ZO/OZ/6
N ; ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/8

0 0
0 00
LO
(-Jgw anoge; o
aa.1) lanai Ja;eM
V
N
d
E
O
N
G)
a
ti
C
O

V
?C
O
2
•
C
to
a
rn
C
tll O
m
m c
d ?
Q c`o
co ?
N d
L ,
o
a
V
(sey3ul) fle;uieb
0
O ? N M ?t Lo O ? co 01
I

' o
I
, y

.. I c
rn o

_ m w
to E
I ;
I I
I
a

0 a)
? _ E
- t
_
---?
?r l.. _._ _
? W
.
>
I
? - - - - ._ ._ o
-Z- L

_
.
. .
._. I_. _ .__ -._ _ _._... _._ ?_
..?.. . _
_. _ __..
_ .

' i
I

w

n
-t o m m
'D •D
m
-
r c

o
_.?_.
- _ - rn
c c
i
N J Z U Q
m
CC M
O N
N C
(D U
O O
(D

N

- U)

3 m
U
c r
7 p
n .L..
-0

_ N 0
J. c0 ----- O
?
E
...
m a?'.
O L m 1
I o
rn
o m E ?a
U C7

_ `
O
L c
a? co

-

z
- I
j
-

01
N
`
40/EZ/6
40/6/6
£0/9Z/Z 6
EO/Z 6/Z 6
WWII 6
£0/b l/ 6 l
EO/6£/O6
£0/L 6 /0l
£0/£/06
£0/66/6
£0/9/6
EO/ZZ/8
CO/g/8
£0/9Z/L
£0/66/L c
0
£0/LZ/9 N
£0/£6/9
C
COMM O
EO/9 6l9 a
0
£O/Z/9 c°?
£0/86/b
o?
£0/b/V Q
EO/6Z/£
£OILI£
co/6Z/z
CO/LIZ
EOAD1.
EO/06/6
ZO/LZ/Z 6
ZO/£ 6/Z 6
ZO/6Z/ 6 6
ZO/96/66
ZO/6/6 6
ZO/8 6/0 6
ZO/4/06
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
O o 0
0 0
N N Lo
(-JSW enoge;e0j) Jene-1 J8jeM
N
X
N
N
m
CC
c?
rn
c
O
O
rn
`o
'c
O
O
O
Lo
O
0
Z
a
x
co
C
0
rl'-..?
rn
C
c
0
2
•
c
a
c
U)
M 'c
00
Q t0
M d
C c
-to.
2w
d
m
m
0
d
E
O
aNi
a
(segoul) Ile;uiea
0
O ? N M V lCY (D I- co O ?

u
0
- ---- - -- - - - - - - c

0

-* --

-. - -- --
O
f
-i n
m -
-? -- o E

r
? _._ i Q E
•
_ U,) -0
- • _ ? - o
z

i

U
m -
- ?_ - n'

C C
01 m

_-_- E
m
N O
--_
? N m
i
._ . o
N -

*
o
c
O 'C ?
?? CL r-

O 00
(-JSW 8noge400:1) JOAO-1 J84BM
40IEZ/ L
b0/6/L
Eo/9Z/Z
Eo/Z L/Z L
so/8Z/ L L
COWL L L
EO/LE/OL
EO/L LIO L
£o/E/0 L
£0/6 L/6
£0/9/6
EO/ZZ/8
£0/8/8
E0/SZ/L
EO/L L/L c
0
£OILZI9
EO/E L/9
c
OWN m
0
Eo/9L/S w
O
COOS N
£O/8 L/4
rn
EOMO Q
£0/LU£
CO/L/C
EO/ L Z/Z
£0/L/Z
- EO/4Z/L
COMM
ZO/LZ/Z L
ME L/Z L
ZO/6Z/ L L
Z0/S L/ L L
ZO/L/L L
Zo/8 L/0 L
ZO/b/O L
ZO/oZ/6
ZO/9I6
ZO/EZ/8
0
X
N
O
c
co
D7
C
O
c
0
O)
C
.o
0
0
00
00
0
Z
IL
T-
O
c
L
C
O
•
C
m
a
c
d r
C> O
L
vs ?,
Q i`a
wa
m ..
.r C
ou
d '
l0
m
H i
L
W
O
?o
t
N
(say0ul) lle;uiea
O .-- N ch cY to co f- co O

Co
- - --.---- _ _
r
c

r 0
r --
_._
r -_-

__?._..____.._ ..-____ _..__..__ .___._.__..._-__.. __.. .._.._....-...._. N O
.
E a
co 12

-? __? _._. _ _ p E

z?
U<J Q)

' z o

'
r

r
r T

-
r

c O
Co 0
me

--
o E
c c.0
-- - - - - -1 ?' Co

?..+-.-.?.. _. .. -. _. ._.._.. ._._.__-._.__ -
___..
-.. ._. __.?......
r 7 O N
U) L
r
y U N
O t c
' d y N

r

1
r
_

o lO
(-JSW anoge;aaj) 18AOI aa;eM
- b0/£Zl6
40/6/6
£0/9Z/Z 6
£0/Z 6/Z 6
£0/8Z/ 6 6
£0/b 6/ 6 6
£0/ 6 £/0 6
£0/L 6/0 6
£OI£/O 6
£0/66/6
£0/9/6
£0/ZZ/9
£0/9/9
£0/9Z/L
£0/66/L c
0
£0/LZ/9
£0/£ 6/9
c
£0/0£/9 )
0
£0/96/9 j
O
£0/Z/9 N
a.
EO/86/ti 2
rn
£0/b/b Q
£0/6Z/£
£0/Ll£
- £0/6Z/Z
- £0/L/Z
£0/4Z/6
£0/O 6/ 6
ZO/LZ/Z 6
ZO/£6/Zl
ZO/6Z/ 6 6
ZO/9 6/ 6 6
ZO/6/66
ZO/8 6/0 6
ZO/4/0 6
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/£Z/9
co
0
22
N
X
N
O
m
m
C
O
O
O)
c
`o
0
2
0
0
co
co
0
Z
a

C
O
07
C
o
C
O
2

C
A
a
rn
c
N O
O !'
0 C
mO
?
a1
Q c`o
m
? d
d C
t
t U
2 w
(sayOul) Ile;ulem
0
O ? N c7 V' LO CO r- 00 0)
N
at
is
L
r
d
E
O
N
d
IL
h0/£ZI l
t0/6/ L
£0/9zlz l
EO/z llz l
CO/8Z/L L
£o/1441
£o/ l CIO L
EO/L L/0 L
£O/£I04
CM U6
E0/9/6
£OIZZ/8
CO/e/8
CO/9Z/L
£0/LL/L o
0
CO/LZ/9 N
Z
EO/ELI9
c
£0/OCI9
0
£0/9l/9 a
O
£0/z/9 N
£0/8l/V 7
a
£olvlr a
EoILZ/E
0
COIL/C
so/ L Z/Z
CO/LIZ
£0/VZl l
L
MOM
ZO/LZ/Z I
Zo/E l/Z l
Zo/6Z/L I
ZOl9 L/L L
Z0/l/l L
ZO/8 L /0 L
Zo/b/0 L
Zo/OZ/6
Zo/9I6
Zol£Z/8
00 °o °o
ui o ui
N (-JSW anoge;aaj) lanai JoleM
N
X
N
N
c
co
rn
O
.C
O
m
c
0
'c
O
0
0
w
0
Z
EL
x
C
0
c
0
2

c
m
a
as
c
d0
or
0
Q M-
m 0
m Cc
.*t(.)
2 0
d
rn
d
A
H
l6
3
O
R
t
N
z
_J
(Se4oul) Ilejuiem
0
O N m V LO (D r- 00 m

-°° 0 _

? m

w

_r
- - z
Q E .
w n>
>
z
4? z 0
O 6
o ? -

_ cn -0 (2)
O C N
N
o O N
0) 0) co
E r- 0)
E o
A m o c
_ m
Vl 0
(D

_.:?

-
i y N N
.. C w C
'-
Co -..

- L
3 0 .... -._

- --..
°
n C,
m z?
;- j T C (0 j
E .o a -0 - N°
M E
O
2 U Z U N 0
- O N f9 N
E t
o J y CD
a
--
i '
CL .2 2

i
?

N (-JSW anoge IoUj) lano-j JOJeM
r0/£Z/L
40/6/1
£0/9Z/Z l
EO/Z l /Z L
£O/82/1 L
MAIM L
COMM[
COIL L101
£O/£/01
EO/6 L/6
£0/9/6
Eo/ZZ/8
£o/8/8
EO/9Z/L
£0/11/L c
0
£0/LZ/9
co/£1/9
c
EO/O£/9 A
0
Co/9L/9 cV
O
EO/Z/9 N
£0/81/4
rn
EO/b/4 Q
EO/1Z/E
£O/LIE
£O/1Z/Z
£O/LIZ
co/17M
£0101/1
ZO/LZ/Z 1
Zo/E L/Z L
ZO/6Z/L L
ZO/91/L L
20/1/11
Zo/81/01
ZO/b/01
ZO/OZ/6
ZO/9/6
ZO/EZ/8
0
o?
X
N
O
01
co
O)
0
C
O
o
.E
0
0
0
N
0
0
z
a

r:

0
•
6. NCDENR: It was explained that Martin Marietta Materials is intending to
• pump water to a neighboring tract to create an impoundment. Please
provide plans, and account of this activity, the pathways for conveying the
water to the site, frequency of pumping, volume of pumping, and the
location of this proposed activity.
MMM1: A copy of the pumping plan is enclosed and provides the location of the
proposed impoundment and the pathway for water to reach the impoundment.
The impoundment will be located in Tract G 1 and not on a neighboring tract as
suggested in your letter. This information was discussed in the January meeting
in Wilmington.
MMM2: Based on our discussions in February 12, 2004 meeting it is clear that
the intent and proposal for diverting discharge to the Unnamed Tributary of
Strawberry Branch was not clear and once discussed all concerns were
alleviated.
In summary, MMM proposes to divert discharge that is currently being directed to
the western end of Strawberry Branch to the Unnamed Tributary of Strawberry
Branch. The diversion is being done pursuant to an agreement with the land
owners (copy of agreement between MMM and the land owners is attached with
the response for Item #1). The volume of diversion is based on this agreement.
The diversion will be routed to the Unnamed Tributary via the roadside ditch on
the western side of the existing forestry road which forms the border between
Tract G and Tract H. The water will pond/inundate the low areas to the west of
• the road on lands leased by MMM. The water will cross the road and head east
onto Tract H (leased by MMM) via the culvert in the road once sufficient water
elevations are reached. The diversion will be directed to the channel. Ultimately
the discharge will follow the swale between Tract H1 and Tract H2 and reach a
lower section of Strawberry Branch. There will be no ponding of water on the east
side of the forestry road. The intent of the redirection is to provide additional
water in the lower reaches of the channel to adjoining property owners to the east
for their withdrawal for other uses. It is MMM's understanding that the adjoining
property owner is currently withdrawing water from downstream and pumping it to
off line ponds for recreational uses.
The volume of water to be redirected is based on a historical analysis of the
potential drainage area that was directed to this area prior to the man made
activities (forestry alterations/mine/etc.). No ponding is expected on adjoining
lands from the redirection of the water to the tributary it historically traveled.
Attachments:
NONE - Refer to Alternative Pumping Plan included with Item #5.
END
is
6-1
E
7
0

7. NCDENR: Please provide a wetland monitoring plan for the tract.
• Specifically, data is to be collected to insure wetlands that are proposed to
be avoided are adequately monitored. This plan should address the tracts
G1, G2, H1, H2 the jurisdictional areas within tract E, any areas that are to
be "re-hydrated", and a "control" wetland site (that must be located 5000
feet or further form the mine edge).
MMM1: MMM developed a monitoring plan, which was approved by Rick Shiver,
to monitor the hydrology in Tracts G1, G2, H1, & H2 as a part of preparing the
requested alternative pumping plan and wells were installed approximately 18
months ago. Data from those wells has been supplied to the state on a quarterly
basis and the results of the data have been discussed with the state staff.
The wells in H2 indicate the presence of hydrology sufficient to support a wetland
ecosystem while the data from wells in H1 indicate the hydrology is absent. The
forestry land management in H2 is very different from the forestry land
management in H1. H1 has the typical beds and furrows which disturbed the
upper zone of the soil and with drainage ditches the past forestry land
management removed the hydrology from the upper zone of the soil profile in this
area. The land in H2 was not disturbed compared to H1 and the hydrology at the
monitoring well location is present. Clearly the pit operations have not removed
the hydrology from the well location in H2.
The road side ditch along the forest road has a modeled influence of 500 feet.
MMM believes this influence, along with the compacted road bed between the
ditch and the pit, has created a barrier that reduces the pit influence. The ditches
along the subject road were constructed more than twenty years ago by the
forest products company and the ditch influence is not the responsibility of MMM.
MMM proposes to relocate a monitoring well cluster into the area near the
wetlands that will remain in Tract G 1 and retain those wells that will not be
affected by the mine expansion and additionally provide a monitoring system
along a transect into H2 extending out to the existing wells in Tract H2. The
proposed monitoring system will provide information regarding any near surface
hydrology changes in the future and will serve as the "off-site" control. We
believe that it will be next to impossible to find a wetland located 5000+ feet from
the mine that is not influenced by other man-made or natural circumstances that
is a comparable reference system.
There are no plans to re-hydrate any areas around the quarry. The alternative
pumping plan requested by DWQ will provide a discharge to the unnamed
tributary to Strawberry Branch that exists between tracts H1 & H2. It is proposed
to create a small impoundment area upstream of the culvert under the forestry
road. This impoundment will provide ponding of water in Tract G 1 resulting in the
flooding of areas previously drained by the forestry land management practices.
MMM2: Details of the monitoring plan for Tracts G1, G2, H1, H2 are included in
the attached Alternative Pumping Plan Technical Memorandum.
• MMM does not currently own or lease Tracts B, C or E. In addition, the Corps has
determined that there is only one jurisdictional feature on these tracts. This
7-1
feature is a jurisdictional channel located on Tract E. MMM conditionally agrees
• to include a stream monitoring gage in the channel on Tract E similar to that
which is being monitored in Strawberry Branch. Installation is conditioned upon
approval being provided by the adjoining land owner. Should this gage be
installed, data will be collected in a similar manner as with Location 8 stream
gage in Strawberry Branch.
As discussed in the Alternative Pumping Plan, adjoining wetlands will not be re-
hydrated but rather, a hydrologic barrier has been proposed to eliminate any
potential future dewatering of the advancing mine pit of existing adjoining
wetlands since to date the data has shown that the pit has not dewatered any
adjoining wetlands.
MMM proposes a control wetland on Tract H2 which we believe is the most
appropriate location for a control (rather than finding another wetland off site over
5000 feet away on land that MMM can not control). H2 serves as an appropriate
control based on soils, geographic setting, topography, wetlands classification
(wetland flat which is comparable to other relict and existing adjoining wetlands),
existing data (have over one year of monitoring to date) and proximity to the
drainage features (Strawberry Branch, UT to Strawberry Branch).
Attachments:
NONE - Refer to Alternative Pumping Plan included with Item #5.
END
•
•
7-2
9

E:,
0
8. MMM: A rain gauge station must be developed for the proposed mine site
• and a "control" wetland site. You must provide an account explaining how
the rain gauge will be properly maintained, daily information recorded, and
the results maintained. Please provide a map depicting where the rain
gauges will be safely and properly positioned.
MMM1: A rain gauge will be maintained on the mine site near the existing scale
building. This location was selected to reduce vandalism which has occurred in
the past. The gauge will be a continuous gauge with data being provided to the
state upon request. The location of the rain gauge is indicated on the attached
mine map.
MMM2: Details of the rain gage station are included in the attached Technical
Memorandum, Alternative Pumping Plan. In summary, one rain gage will be
monitored. The rain gage at the existing scale house will continue to be
monitored. The second rain gage requested assumed a control wetland some
5000 feet from the site. As discussed in Item #7, a control wetland has been
proposed on Tract H2 which is on the MMM site. Therefore, a second rain gage
is not necessary. The rain gage location is shown on the map included in the
Alternative Pumping Plan.
Attachments:
NONE - Refer to Alternative Pumping Plan included with Item #5.
•
•
END
8-1
0
s
0
0
9. NCDENR: As a part of the monitoring plan, a map must depict the
• landscape position of all wetlands, ditches, proposed well placement,
borrow areas, stormwater controls, and the mine footprint. The plan must
include an account of the frequency of wetland physical monitoring (efforts
to periodically reaffirm the presence of the jurisdictional wetland line and
soils) well data collection, well inspections and maintenance, data analysis,
and reporting. (Note: Monitoring must continue for a period of 5 years
post mine pit closure).
MMM1: Enclosed is a copy of the mine map depicting the location of wetlands
on the mine site, ditches, proposed well placement, and mine areas. There are
no borrow areas or storm water controls associated outside the mine area. The
monitoring wells will be inspected on a monthly basis and data will be collected
and reported on an annual basis for a period of five years. The mine pit closure
may not occur for several decades and it is not reasonable to continue the
monitoring program after this area of the mine is reclaimed.
MMM2: The mine map is attached. Refer to the Alternative Pumping Plan
Technical Memorandum included with this response for the other requested
details of the monitoring.
Attachments:
Figure: Mine Map
• END
is
9-1
0
•
10
0
10. NCDENR: This monitoring plan must specifically include a clear account
• (methodology) of how monitoring data will be analyzed to determine
whether wetland hydrology persists or if the wetland has been
concentrically reduced within the given wetland polygons.
MMM1: The monitoring data will be reviewed and data that indicates a change in
the near surface hydrology will be discussed with the agency and addressed
appropriately at that time.
MMM2: Refer to the amended Alternative Pumping Plan regarding monitoring
and contingencies.
Attachments:
NONE
END
E
•
10-1
0

11
0
11. NCDENR: If monitoring results indicate impacts to the avoided wetlands
that are being "hydrated" please explain how these impacts may be abated.
(Martin Marietta must included contingencies in the pumping plan
necessary to abate unauthorized impacts to wetlands.)
MMM1: The alternative pumping plan will provide supplemental discharge to the
intermittent unnamed tributary to Strawberry Creek through routing of pit
dewatering via a new pipe system. The discharge from the new system will be
impounded above the existing road culvert as previously discussed. The purpose
of the impoundment is to maintain hydrology in those limited areas of Tract G 1
that the USCOE has determined as jurisdictional waters of the US. It is not the
purpose of the impoundment to re-hydrate any areas previously drained by the
forestry land management of years ago. MMM does not anticipate impacting any
jurisdictional wetlands in the future. If monitoring does indicate an alteration in
wetland hydrology in areas that are contiguous with the mining operations, and
there is conclusive evidence that such alterations are the result of the mining
operations, then MMM will work with DWQ and the USCOE to develop an
appropriate response to the situation.
MMM2: Refer to our previous discussions above regarding this item.
Attachments:
NONE
is END
•
11-1
0
•
12
0
12. NCDENR: In order to address cumulative and secondary impacts, and to
• account for wetland standard concerns associated with tracts F1, F2, and
the mined portion of G2 please address the following:
a. When (dates) did the USACE make Jurisdictional
determinations for Tracts F1, F2 and the mined portion of G2;
b. Provide aerial photographs that predate and postdate the
USACE Jurisdictional determination of F1, F2 and mined
portions of G2;
C. Provide an account of the wetlands that were impacted by the
mine face. That is, explain and provide a total acreage of
wetland impacts that were impacted by the mine (excluding
the influence of forestry and road side ditches) from October
1, 1996 to present for tracts F1, F2 and the mined portion of
tract G2. Cleary explain how this determination was made
(e.g. DRAINMOD, aerial photos, soil surveys etc);
d. Respectively, address how you plan to replace the impacts to
wetlands (e.g. on-site restoration, WRP, etc).
MMM1: The Division's Regional Supervisor has repeatedly expressed that it was
the Division's position that the determination of wetlands was a function of the US
Army Corps of Engineers and that the State would not replicate those activities.
The COE has always been consulted related to advancement of the mine
operations and the COE has issued confirmation that no wetlands existed in
areas where the mine had requested approval to expand. MMM has received
• correspondence from the COE stating that there were no jurisdictional wetlands
in Tracts F1 & F2.
MMM presented to DWQ in December 2002 a photographic history of the site.
Those photos clearly show the location of drainage ditches, dug by Georgia
Pacific in the 1970's. The COE has agreed that the use of Drainmod was
acceptable to demonstrate the drainage influence of the forestry ditches. The
locations of the ditches in F1 & F2 are the same as those that existed to the
south where extensive modeling has been performed. The COE accepted the
modeling results and when one applies those results to F1 & F2 it is clear that
the near surface hydrology was removed many years maybe even decades
before October 1996.
Prior to 1996 the mining operations in the area of Tract G2 was well developed.
The area was dissected by various ditches and roads; the land was intensively
managed by the timber company as was the case in F1, F2, & G1. However, the
influence of the pit dewatering, as modeled, did probably have an influence of
approximately 750 feet. The land in Tract G2 consists of a series of ridges and
flats that may have contained some wetland areas. While the exact location and
existence of any wetlands that may have existed in Tract G2 and within 700 feet
of the old mine pit is unknown, the removal of the hydrology by any pit influence
was not a violation of any rule or stature in existence at that time. MMM has
received a Jurisdictional Determination of the wetlands in Tract G2. MMM has
stated the need to impact wetlands that are the subject of the COE
• determination. It is the approval to remove part of those wetlands that is the
12-1
subject of the application and therefore MMM believes all appropriate actions
• have been taken to address wetlands in G2.
MMM2:
a. Jurisdictional determination letters/tear sheets and signed plats from the
Corps are attached as follows:
• Tracts B, C and E -Copy of JD plat dated January 24, 2003.
• Tracts G1/G2 - letter dated November 17, 2003. Copy of JD plat
dated November 17, 2003.
• Tracts H1/H2 - as part of the letter and determination for G1/G2,
the Corps approved the drainage influence of the ditches on Tract
H1/H2 but not the entire tracts.
• Tract F1 - CESAW Form 566 (Tear Sheet) dated December 22,
1999.
b. Aerial photographs of the site from 1983 to 2002 were provided to
NCDENR as part of the document titled "Summary of Drainage
Chronology" (attached as an appendix to the Alternative Pumping Plan in
Item #5). A 1999 photograph and 2000 photograph showing the areas to
the east and south of the existing pit have also been attached to
supplement the photographs provided in the chronology. The January,
1999 photograph will predate the Corps determination on F1/F2
(determination in December 1999) and the February 2000 photograph
and 2002 photograph will postdate the Corps determination for F1/F2.
is All photographs will predate the Jurisdictional Determination for G1/G2
since that determination was received in 2003. There are no available
photographs documenting site conditions after the Jurisdictional
determination was received.
c. This comment references October 1996 date as reference for NCDENR
jurisdiction. As concurred in our February 12, 2004 meeting, the reference
date for NCDENR jurisdiction is March of 1999.
There were no wetlands impacted by the mine post March 1999 on Tracts
F1/F2 or the mined portion of G2.
MMM obtained a jurisdictional determination from the Corps in December
of 1999 indicating that there were no wetlands on Tract F1 prior to mining.
There was only 9 months time between assumption of NCDENR
jurisdiction over drainage of wetlands and the Corps Jurisdictional
determination for Tract F1. In addition, the pit ceased advancement to
the east in 2002. MMM had coordinated with the Corps through
groundwater monitoring on tract F2 and obtained letters from the Corps
that they were continuously advancing in uplands. MMM had mined the
majority of Tract F2 prior to March 1999.
Copies of a January 1999 and February 2000 aerial photographs are
attached documenting the limits of the pits at these times. Also attached
• is a Technical Memorandum: Discussion of DRAINMOD Hydrologic
12-2
Modeling for Wetlands Analysis which provides a summary of
• DRAINMOD modeling for Tracts F1, F2, and G2. The summary includes
an historical analysis of the pit advancement and drainage around the
date of NCDENR assumed jurisdiction over drainage to wetlands.
Results of DRAINMOD modeling for Tracts F1, F2 and G2 are shown on
a 1999 aerial photograph which is also attached as a figure in the
Technical Memorandum.
d. During a February 12, 2004 meeting with NCDENR, it was concurred that
the appropriate form of mitigation for NCDENR would be an in lieu fee
payment to the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP).
During the meeting MMM and KHA discussed analysis of potential on-site
mitigation opportunities that are being presented to the Corps as part of
the Corps' compensatory mitigation program. A February 9, 2004 letter
submitted to the Corps by MMM which outlines MMM's intended
mitigation on-site for the Corps is attached.
Attachments:
Copy of JD plat (Tracts B, C, E) dated January 24, 2003.
Corps CESAW Form 566 dated November 17, 2003 regarding Tracts G1 and
G2.
Copy of JD plat dated November 17, 2003.
Corps CESAW Form 566 (Tear Sheet) dated December 22, 1999 regarding
Tract F1.
is Figure: Aerial Photographs of Site dated January, 1999 and February, 2000.
Technical Memorandum: Discussions of DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling for
Wetlands Analysis (See Attachments Response Item # 2)
END

12-3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
• Action Id. 200301159 County: Pender Quad: Mooretown
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Applicant: Martin Marietta Materials Agent: Chad Evenhouse
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Address: Post Office Box 30013 Post Office Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013 Raleigh, NC 27636
Telephone: [phone] [phone]
Zone: 18 UTM: North: 3810244 East: 236708
Size and Location of Property (water body, Highway name/number, town, etc.): The property is located in the existing
Martin Marietta Materials Rocky Point Quarry, approximately 1.5 to 2 miles northwest of the Northwest Cape Rear River,
adjacent to a tributary of Strawberry Branch, at the end of NC State Road 1636; east of I-40, in Rocky Point, Pender County,
North Carolina.
Basis of Determination: Determination is based on information provided by Chad Evenhouse of Kimley-Horn and Associates,
Inc., and a field visit by Lillette Granade on August 26, 2003.
Indicate which of the following apply:
There are wetlands on the above-described property, which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed. The
surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps 'will make a final jurisdictional determination on
your property.
Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and delineation of your wetlands cannot
be accomplished in a timely manner. You may wish to employ a consultant to obtain a more timely delineation of the
• wetlands. Once your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps staff will review it, and, if it is accurate,
we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final approval by the Corps. The Corps will not make a final
jurisdictional determination on your property without an approved survey.
X The wetlands on your lot have been delineated and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have been explained to you.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may he relied upon for a
period not to x d five ears from the date of this notification.
There are no wetlands present on the above-described property, which are subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed three years from the date of this notification.
X The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army permit is in most cases a
violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is not required for work on the property restricted
entirely to existing high ground. If you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
Lillette Granade at [phone].
Project Manager Signature
O 4e_ e'
Date: November 17,003 Expiration Date: November 17, 2009
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND DELINEATION FORM MUST
BE ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM.
CESAW Form 566
0
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
•
Action ID: County:
22
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property owner/Authorized Agent AAA&4,, 1NkP-r, -4,a, gc,4A?eS c/b• oiU x?fTT _
Address F05 r ??i'l?cc 13ox 39013
Re, [cL-?-_,_PC 276 ??-Lbf3
Telephone Number
Size and Location of P"r?opperty(waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.)
e [fL? T,! 5 Inc.-r-? oh 50 Pest G9 ?h cc a? 7 `{D
N? a I D ?-}ef s ec,T? . ale (nt?dw u s `fie, ?u?za, -Ea N C<o ?? ?e Q
Indicate Which of the following apply:
' There are wetlands o the above describe roperty which we strongly suggest should be delineated and
re the Corps will make a lnal
surveyed. The su eyed wetland lines st be verified by /dn
jurisdictional de rmination on your pr erty.
• Because of th size of your property nd our present worklofication and delineat' n of your
wetlands c not be accomplished . a timely manner. You mploy a consulta to obtain a
(• more tim y delineation of thew tlands. Once your consulta wetland line o the property,
Corps aff will review it, and, ' it is accurate, we strongly ret you have the ne surveyed for
final proval by the Corps. e Corps will not make a fina eterminati on your property
wit out an approved surv
' e wet
lands on your 1 have been delineated/andt mits of Corps jurisdict' n have been explained
to you. Unless there ' a change in the law or oregulations, this de rmination may be relied
upon for a period n to exceed three years fro of this notificatio
(V`S? There are no we lands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed three years
from the date of this notification.
fA5? The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of
Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in. wetlands on this property without a Department of the Army
permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A permit is
not required for work.on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. jf you have any
questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory rogram, please contact
at 910) P S71-`f 6 I I
Property owner/Autho ized A e t ignature o/I?,,,d Cyt?K
Project Manager Signature
Date (?-?? 95 1 " Expiration Date /12-a0-;?Oprf
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE WETLAND
DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM.
4 Kam. ID-19-99
CFSAW Form 566
1 Oc'r 92

O
1-' ?
6,
N j6'41"?M E
651.73'
j
J ? j A
j P
?[rc? N =
7 j• f
? I
Z
.34• w
*1?
363,00.
1
l
f -?
P R. 0. Y/N57F,{0 I
J
E
?7Qd8.

1ccc-?-_
N 87'28-00-- w
s
S
87
00.
11
I GEORGIA-PACIF7e CORP.
17, P. 12
r

z 4oco -
N
`?..
T??T
&ap5