20031023 Ver 1_Response to DWR_20040219

WETLAND`
¦

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.
C2 = Kimley-Horn
= F1 and Associates, Inc.
February 17, 2004
WETL/
FEB
¦
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
Ms. Noelle Lutheran WATEK `.
N. C. Division of Water Quality
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 4b
Re: Martin Marietta Materials
Rocky Point Quarry WATER ()UALIIY SECTI014
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.
?C
Harlan K. Britt, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Enclosures (2)
Cc: Mr. Mike Jones (W/O Enclosure
Mr. Horace Willson "
Mr. Alan Klimek "
¦
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
A
Kimley-Horn
?j and Associates, Inc.
Mr. Danny Smith (Enclosure)
Mr. John Dorney (Enclosure)
File (Enclosure)
HAPN\011185010\DWQResponse Transmtl letter feburary17 04.doc
•
Martin Marietta Materials
Response to NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Letter of January 20, 2004 and
Meeting of February 12, 2004
WETLANDS 1401 rr^? ItRocky Point Quarry
Pender County, North Carolina FED I I_U?14
February 17, 2004
1NATER QUALITY SECTION

Overview/Background
Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) submitted an application for an individual permit
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
C]
N
d
r
rt
l6
d
L
10
19
m
•
0
0
g
a
R
Q W
8
k
," i '
0
x a
P
a
a
z
i
Z?
to
cu z
e.
E

as
3 :,Z
Cl
C
C O
O
0o
CL L
?d
?C V
0 c
O 4)
wa
U
C
C [0
00
2 0
mQ
E -D
Y cu
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
is 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.
• 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 1-12) 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
•
WEssEi z & R.ANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OraicE Box 1049
WIT-terTNGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
JOHN C. WESSELL. III
Wrrz AM 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:
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAx [phone]
E-MAILWANDRL01RICra pOUTH.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
0
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
• COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER
Agreement made this 2 day of
AGREEMENT
1fw_ , 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
is support MM's application for a special use permit from Pender County on
a portion of the 200 Acre Tract.
2
*herein 1A map captioned Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated
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
• b
d
f
h
easternmost
oun
ary o
t
e 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 nort hern
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
of 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.
?r
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
Oareas 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 "B" 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
("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.
?? 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 "B and C".
(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
(v) The mined areas above the Projected Water Level
Owill 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
Opreviously existed in the tributary of Strawberry Creek referenced
herein, MM or its contractor will install a 61, 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
is 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 5concerning 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.
C
BY: "ell / G e-G C? ?---
swi(co- VIGt S?DLr 1
B
•
WAR\environ\R01-104-050
C
11
FIVE EAGLES PARTNERS
•
•
° EXHIBIT
?j
i
•
•
•

i
3
1e-900'
0 450 900 1800
4
`•11
h
Exhibit A
;o Agreement Between
tin Marietta Materials and
Vells, Sloan & 5 Eagles

MW ft tw Wft AgWo"t"
EXHIBIT A
ROCKY POINT QUARRY
PENDER COUNTY, N.C.
Quarry: Rocky Point
overt:. o.? wm yy? hpN
aa..
, •,.
r•-roe
r
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 (Gl and G2), we will
barely have enough reserves to last through this two-year period.
Sincerely,
rL,?Ot? /.vim,
R. Paxton Badham, Jr.
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.

is
• 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).
1141141141: 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, G 1, and G2. In repeated meetings with
is 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.
1141111142: 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 F1 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 DRAWMOD 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 Gl, 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
is 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, H2), DRAMMOD 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, Hl, H2 were:
• 400+ feet of influence from the interior ditch (G1)
• 600+ feet of influence from the roadside ditches
• 350+ feet of influence from the boundary ditch between G 1 and G2
The results of the DRAINMOD analysis for the eastern Tracts (G1, G2, H1, and H2) was
presented to the Corps, and agreements on the ditch dimensions were made on a segment-by-
0
H: WN10111850101DWQ File1DRAINM0DORAINMOD F1-F2-G2 f nal(cwe).doc
segment basis to determine the drainage influence on ditches in G1 and G2 and consideration of
• the jurisdictional determination.
•
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 F1 and F2) for Tracts F1 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 F1 and F2.
The soil survey shows that all of Tracts Fl, 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 F1/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.)
•
II: IPNIOl11850101DWQ FileORAINMODIDRAINMOD F1-F2-G2fna1(cwe).doc
• 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 171 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 F1-B and Tract F1-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 Fl. 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 Fl, F2 and G2 Historical DRAWMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
E
I IPN10111850101DWQ FileWRAINMODORAINMOD FI-F2-G2fna1(cwe).doc 4

N
d
c
V
0
ryd
C
O
C
a
L7
A
3
0
2
.2
E
N
7
aZ
O
m
•
d ry
C C
7 ? O
L L
ra;
o y?Z
N
LL ? y ?
C ?
V
li C ? d
C
u
F a

ti,
? ? aJ O W O O N O O W 10 N h W O t 2 O O N N t 2 O M N W ?- W d d 10 rn O N M O d d W 10

2
?r . ?. {M.? :..fem.
'`i[WYC}" f O O O O O ? O O N O ? N O O O t7 O O H ? O N N O O O O ? O O O ? ? O O O N ? W

. O h N 0 10 10 0 0 M O d h ? 0 M d N 0 0 W d rn O d d rn ? W W rn O M W O O W Cl h W

".

N $ 0 0 0 0 ?- O O N O N N 0 0 0 10 N O O N +- N O M N O ? O O N ? 0 0 ? ? 0 0 +- N ?- O
rv
4
?
? I N W O ' N O t0 M t'1 d N 10 O rn d N O O ry N N N h N Oi N W ?D d
l"1 W O h rn O W d h W
t
S ?
F
d ,
c f ; J '
?y
U ? g 0 0 ? 0 ?- N O O N C') N O O N N O O N ?- N O M N O ? O O N ? O O ? ? O O ? N N N

f j? 3 Y ti,,11. rn h •' O c'1 10 O W O d h ? 0 10 (? N O O W d 10 0 Cl (7 W ? W d yy W O d rn 0 0 W M W N

L ?
i
+
h?•.
- ?
?
rr
pn
Cf . Ins'' '- O O O O O ? O O N O N N O O O M N O O N ? ?- O N O O O O ? ? O O ? O O ? N ? W

??? ??? (((,,, ... jjj '?
ti ?f N rn 10 N 1 D 10
N O rn M N d
? d
N 10
? O O d 10 0 0 W
N d
N rn
•- ?- N
? N
N rn N W W d
t7 rn
? N N rn
? O
t7 O h d h W

S ;?

a ? ?f...,+ ? O ? O O N O O N ? f'1 N N O O t'l ?'I O O N '- N O 1") N O ? O O N •- ? O O ?- N N N
rv

) 1 ?(
1 C _ . ? h ? 0 0 N O W rN,1 rn N h ? O d N N 0 0 W N O O M W h ?- h O M d rn N rn N O h N W N
LL
Q ? ??
?
?
M1
rn O O O O O ? O O N O ?- N 0 0 0 ? ? 0 0 ? ?- O O '- N 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 ? .- O O ?- N ?- 1p

y` - N rn +- N d N 0 rn N O d h ? 0 0 t7 10 0 0 N N 10 0 M N W •- W d d W N l? O? ? O h t7 IG ?

1Vd
? ? ;u? ,' 1
+V
a
n •- O O O O T I T O N N O O ] ] T N ? ? O N N O 0 0 - ?- O O ? N N N
rv " T T
.fit 1S 4L`?. i
r. I Y.w tl 12 W 10 W N N I lm c2 d V N O O Z! O O IN N rn N N N O N W W A N t? N rn o O d d h l0
i
W ? _k b,??

` ? ?? F
i ? O ? O O N O O N ? c7 N [? O O Ih C) O O N N N O N N O ? O O N ? ? ? ? ? O ?- A N N N

,`?* 4??
*4
Y
1

-?. Op

rn

m N

rn tt??

rn V

rn 1?

rn tD

. h

h
m W

rn OI

N
rn SOD ??p ?N?pp ?1?p7p ?vp 10 TWO h

m tWD ?Ty O ?-

O

l

m

Ohi

Ohi

O?i

?
O
hi

?

OWi

OWi

m

O?i

OWi

T

OWi

T

OWi

O

pO
pyW
C
N C
v $ ?
y c
? aN
9
d
p O
51 11
2 Cd
L
c?t_ Q
a c °°
€j '? L C
O ? u ? H
N O O1 ..
O N
? j LE C O
??QES
d ? g C N
rg?cTR
N ? C O L
J O ? t ? C
U y 9 3
a N
z ?
p D O 3 C N N
N ? u?u Z N? ? L
N O rnO ? N
nE ?E?En
£
o E N E -0
O N N? rn O
O.o d
c °0 3
E°3° ?Q $d ;
m n 5 o 2
y? m d y 5 rv
> °`i
E?Eon°??'
o
5?ao
?.C yD p` O
OO E y A
P O N C A
U ww ?? N N
y a C ? ? ?
Ul A Z O >
t? _ QQ O-
L?dKai ? O
OF3o'_; 1-
N N
x
C
d
0
Z ?
e?
0
?Q
oa
Z m
? w
1
- f
s ,-
fi � z�
Ji , x
y( u_+ _ S � 1• s
70
Pit
1p
r
4
T ..
,4
•
R
Y`� .._ �• -` ' ... - a .. � .a. W >•fWtl yew �. _. it � �� -
r
1
• t-
tl
_
.. L
-
-
- - a
7
_
* � 500, '`N
,-. .-.—..,:y�+,!•dh...:.a.�•/C. :. _. . ...- � rR-. .'Yo.[W,Mfi _..-_ _. '. _-..'.+�-r'�L�.'�., .:WM .:- u.� } N,:: �.,�a.: yi'.•
i -- • Re>['J,+ '-Irl:,. �, ver,-. : _ ': _,. _ :.._ _. .G .......: , _ _.._' L " _ - ` R'.. "^' - I
_
c Y
5
r
-
o •
. 500' 500' 500' 300' 500' 500'
_�-
N.
550 .
Ln
f th
Ditches — _ \
7owl
r - Drainage Influence-
0 200 400 800 1,200
Feet
s 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.
400del 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 dataliles (`.tern, *.rai) provided with DRAINMOD v.5.11
• Monthly evapostranspiration factors for vegetation typical of a pine plantation forest in Eastern North Carolina.
?Reterence: Amatya. D.M., R.W. Skaggs and.I.D. Gregory. 1995. Comparison of Methods ti>r Estimating RI F-ET. J. of
Irrigation & Drainage higiueering, 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 Fender County, North (.:arolina. IJS Department of Agrieultu:re. 1990]
• 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). I MininIUM criteria 1i1- mectitig N etland hydrology as stated in (;01? 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
•
11 TW011185010\DRAINMOD data\DWO Flle\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DRAINMOD Atlachment.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAJNMOD 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
• 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.
•
11 TN\011185010\DRAINMOD da1a1DW0 File1ACOE Review Summary CD1Docs1DRAINM0D Atlachmenl.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis Attachment
attachments
A compact disc containing electronic copy of the DRAINMOD project, input, and output files (*.out and *.wet), as well
as documents submitted to the COE are attached. They are described as follows.
/Does/
• "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.
• "DPAMMOD 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.
• "DRAHS MOD 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/
• DRAINMOD input files *.prj (project files) and *.gen (general files) used for the DRAINMOD simulations.
The interior ditch *.prj 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
4W DRAINMOD v.5.1 software)-
• • 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/
/G1-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
is
H\PM011105010THAINMOD dala\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DRAINMOD Attachment.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
Parcel G DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
" Kimley-Horn
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN 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 G1 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.
Vackground
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\011105010\DRAINMOD dala\DWQ File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel G.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
Parcel G DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
skodelAssumptions
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\011185010\DRAINMOD dala\DWO Eile\ACOE Review Summary CO\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel G.doc
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
Parcel G DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
0ables 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 G1 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 NRCS-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).
GI-G2 Boundary Ditch
The soil datasets, uniform loamy sand and NRCS-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 G 1 and G2 parcels with the NRCS Murville dataset supports that assessment.
•
H \PN\011185010\DRAINMOD data\DWO FIIeWCOE 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 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 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
is 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.
Rased on the available NRCS-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 Gl 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:01\011185010\DRAINMOD data\DWO Fllo\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel G.doc
Kimley-Horn
and Associates1 Inc.
Te 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 DRAINMOD, could be used to show the drainage influence of
silvicultural drainage ditches on hydric soils, which would in turn determine the extent of drained
is 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, H1, 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
H,\PNU111185010\DRAINMOD 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 Hl.
• 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 inches/hour 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 inchesihour), 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.
•
HAPN\011105010\1)RAINMOD data\DWQ HIMACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel E.doc Page 2 of 7
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-Ks 15 - 225+ ft.
LS-3M-Ks5 - 225+ ft. LS-3M-Ks 15 - 400+ft.
is LS-3M-Ks25 - 500+ ft.
H:\PN\011185010\DRAINMOD data\DWO file\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel Hoc Page 3 of 7
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD 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.
is • 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.
H:\PN\011185010\DRAINMOD dala\DWO File\ACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcel E.doc Page 4 of 7
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD 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 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 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.
R:\P14\011105010TRAINMOD daia\DWO HMACOE Review Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Summary Parcei E.doc Page 5 of 7
Point
Title: Pender County Soil Surve y (Survey Published: 1990, Aerial Photograph Dated: 1983)
Project: Martin Mariett a Aggregates
Kiml
d ey-Horn
A
i
I Rocky Point Quarry
DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
an ssoc
ates
nc.
? Date: Scale: KHA Project No. Figure:
6/13/02 NA 011185010 1

HAPN10111850101DRAINMOD datelDWO FiIaWCOE Review Sur ry CD1Docs\DMOD Surmiary Parcel E.doc
I Pape 6 o17
.
Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
770
z
(0
U-)
d'
N
Z
C0
CO
d'
N
?t
CO
Z
(D
d'
N
M
Z
(D
i?
N
CO
CO
T
z
zo
1n
N
M
Z
(0
M
';t
N

Z
(O
N
A
Z
(D
p
C'7
N
It
M
Title: Study Parcels
Project: Martin Marietta Aggregates
Kimley-Horn Rocky Point Quarry
and Associates, Inc. DRAINMOD Hydrologic Modeling Analysis
1 Date: Scale: KHA Project No. Figure.
6/13/02 1"=1,500' 011185010 2
H.'TWl118501MRAJNMOD delaTWO FBeWCOE Review So"iry CDlOmOMOD Summery Parcel Eft ' Pepe 7 ol7
i II 'I i
N
Parcels 1 Active Mine Area n
® ® ® Culverts N
0 1,500 3,000
E G H ? Drainage Features ' Feet a
Kimley-Horn Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
? and Associates, Inc. July 1, 2002
• DRAINMOD Modeling Analysis Summary
Purpose
To apply the hydrologic model DRAINMOD to evaluate the distance of hydrologic influence of drainage
ditches on Parcels E, G1, 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 l3h 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
(NRCS)
• 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).

H1PM011185010\DRAINMOD data\Summary CD\Does\DMOD Bullet Summary Parcel E.doc
Kimley-Horn Martin Marietta Aggregates, Rocky Point Quarry
and Associates, Inc. July 1, 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.
•
HAPN\0I l i85010\DRAINMOD dala\Summary CD\Docs\DMOD Bullet summary Parcel E.doc
• 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?
1141141141: 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.
1141141142: 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
• 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.
MMM2: 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 1-11. 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
111 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
• 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

his delineation of potential wetlands
was prepared for preliminary discussions
with NCDWQ to determine monitoring
ations. The figure shown is a portion
e site figure previously submitted
CDWQ (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 4/30/02
??'.. =
4A
RNA -49M
..-ter
S tl Rai ?/ 41 Q- u. r r+
,
?a44 3
x t J E H 2
Jim'

I

a t
R?
d i ? 8

1 kc

r
Wetland Evaluation Features
A
- Suspected Areas of Concern a Parcels 1 inch equals 612 Feet N Eastern Expansion Parcel:
0 soo Rocky Point Quarry
co per COE Recommendation (see Notes)
Active Mine Area t Wetland Areas Delineation'
Klmley-Horn Drained Hydric Soil (Upland)
and Associate s.lnc ;""Upland Ridge Feet CdorINremdAerials Flo" spring 1998
x
z
a
J
0
0
0
:'
1
7
O
G1
d
J

Lima-
stone
Sand/
Sandy Clay
Clay
Loam/Sandy Loam/Loamy Sand

Water Level (Feet above MSL)
o cn o cn o cNn ` 6'
8 g g g 8 g g
8/23

9 N
O?O?
/6 I

9/20 a N
a Er
10/4 3
1

10/18
G1

11/1 0
0.
N
c

11/15
? 11/29 A
? Cr

? m c
12/13 C
o
D 12/27 c y
- a to
ra Q * -- I M
C A 3
0 1/10
d
o ? ?- N
1/24 f°

2/7

m
2/21
0
? v

3/7 0
?

3/21 -------

4/4
d
M
°
'
4/18 -

O f0 Co V rn Cn A W N -+ O
Rainfall (Inches)
O ?
A ?
c m
ro
m
? N
v_
d
3
0
1
fG
r
m
o'
3
:It
x
z
a
J
Q
0
0
0
0
7
fG
G)
m
to
5
k
M
Sandy Clay Clay Loam/Loamy Sand/Fine Sand
m
Water Level (Feet above MSL)
? N
N O UI O Cn O N
U1
8 8 $ 8 8 8 8
8/23 -

9/6 a

9/20 R N
$
g ? 3 ?
4
70
a ' ?-
10/4 ao$

~-
10/18
3
11/1 e.
N
c
gam?
11/15 i6
011/29
0

112/13

? - M e

3 - > >
5
D 12/27
b
(D o)

, °.

o
U2 g .

C N

3
1/10
N Z
0
?
N ?
0o ~
m
1/24 ?i
? c.

2/7 m ?- ~

m
2/21
c

0
3/7 N

3/21

4/4

4/18 °-'

O f0 Ou V a) N A W N O
Rainfall (Inches)
S
s
a
J
0
0
0
0
0
(O
G

y
Cla
- LoartJLoamy SandlFine Sand
Water Level (Feet abo ve MSL)

(P
OO C
J1
O N
(n 0O N
U1
8 p
p
O O O O S
8/23 -

A
9/6

9/20 Ln
m -? -
O

10/4
~
10/18

0
11/1 ? o.
e
11/15
G 11 /29 O

12/13 rn
c.
m

c 12/27 o
g +n
m

c 3
w 1/10 °
O
N
~
...
1/24 o

2/7 ?-

rn
2/21 ?__
0
0
3/7
0
ig

3/21 - -- - - --- -

4/4
?--- X
m
4/18 =

O f0 CO V O Ln A W N O
Ralnlall (Inche s)
x
a
0
0
0

Loan/Sandy Loam/Fine Sand/Coarse Sand

Water Level (Feet above M8L)
o cn o cn o 0
g g g g g g g
8/23
0 CD
Ln
N
?
9/6 ?oo q
p
Q
?? I
,?
{{
3
3 a ?
g
9/20
a?3 ?
3
c

10/4 c
3

r3
a
~
m

10/18 _

11/1 ?
Cn
c

11/15
011/29 O
m Cr
112/13 _ -- a
c
om?'_
- rD

D12/27 . o
?p
N
------ g
c
fD
C a 3
N1/10 ??c $
06
2r
1/24
2/7
°
2/21 3
$?
C

3/7

3/21 06

a.:
4/4

4/18

o co Co v rn cn A w n? o
Rainfall (Inches)
O ?
_. of
Q
? D
0
? M
O N
7
to
M
d
9
O
O
o'
A
m
C
O
R
V
O
J
a1
O
O
2
C
cis
IL
0)
S
W L-
C
d
C1 ?.
Q
d ?
2 a°
S
2 w
(sayoul) Ile;ulea

O ? - N
co V LO (O
I- co O 0
?

91/9

,r
z/9

8 4/b
ca
ro
c ?
aci s vp, b/4
-
m 3 m

A2 E
a)
0

H
_
0)
co
co
'p
m
w
Z
LIE

?
-? Q)
o

' ? ?
3 Lz/z
T
M
m
' ?
? m Liz
N
? p v
cu 0
C1
U
N
3 tiz/l FA
d E
.?
H
° co
o

Q

a 014 c
O ? J
3 O
3 (1) Lz/z G.S
p
p
d!

O
__? U N
J (q?
6z/LG
(D 0)
a
7 co
CD
N
-o

c

?
? °
CU a'
5G/ll
:3 p w
o
c
co 0
W p `-°
E-?
-?
u sG/oG
C

c "p
Co
V/0 L
co
t
n
Z ? M
p co

c
c Oz/6
- _? o
m
N

2
C 9/6
o
?

Ez/8
00 00 00
o
N LO o
(-JSW anoge 199.1) lanai Ja;e M
0
I
X
y
a)
cu
0
O
0
C
O
O
'c
O
0
0
O
Z
2
a
d
J
ca
E
a?
N
c
c9
a
m
c
0 0
?p C
F20
a?
7
a
?.
2 a
c >.
Y
? <Y

M
(sa
O r N Cl) V yaul) IlaluleN
In t0 rl- co rn

4/b

-- 6Z/s

L/£

6Z/Z
? LIZ

m
4Z/6

0
D O6/6
?
C
0 W
C"
J LZ26

o __? . C
1- -
cwn
w
E
c ( T
6M °
c co

M z
]1
.2
!9
V
J ? 6/66

96/06

v/0 6

OZ/6

9/6
co
-
£Z/9
g g g
r
(-JSW anog e laaj) lanai Ja;eM
N
O
a
E
N
R
N
rn
c
.c
0
c
0
c
•c
0
c
0
0
0
z
CL
r
N
d
ev
J
`m
?C
G
c
eo
a
rn
c
N 'C
ea C
?mo
Q ro
v
? C
2 0.°
c ?
ix
(S94aul) Ilelule2l
O N eh '7 Ln (D
f` O 0)

8 L/4

4/4

L/£

2/Z
M

-+ LIZ

? 4Z/L
(p
ry
L m
c
O
m
o OM
CD f
`? l11
.3 ` ? 7
LZ/ZL C

wr
E _-? r-
y
o £ L n
co m -
c
L
r
? o
e
a
tq 6Z/Ll
?
v
J
W
-+
6L/LL

z
L/LL

WM
+

4/0 L

OZ/6
_L

9/6

CZ/8
$ 0 8
n N
(SSW 9noge;99j) i9n9-1 Ja;eM
C
J
O)
C
O
w
C
2
C
m
a
c
d `o
'c
.9
Q ?
m
m ?
ai O
m c
ao
C ?,
m

O (s

N M '7 o4oul) linulou

to f

0 I? O 01
O

8L/4
C_
4/4

? rn
m
?

l Z/E
?

v
N 0 L/E
a
Fo-
- - m

w •c
4 + ? (D LIZ
N
c 4Z/L
0
O
O
OL/L N

`0
IM
O
E
o
U)
U)
d
d $

o LZ/ZL
?
O -? ? co c
a w - £L/ZL

I m
6ZM

- v
m
6L/LL
7 C F
yC
E
v`
N LA L
w

?? a o
E 8 L/O L
c9 S

? E
$
4/0 L

N
-? m
h
m
OZ/6

I
9/6
- -? n m
o 0
-
-d
F 4: £Z/8
g g g
N N
("ISW eno ge joe j) lanai Ja;l'M
O!
C
'C
O
G
O
a
'C
G
O
QO_
?d
OR
z
a

c
0
J
C
c
0
2
c
to
a
V)
c
N
d r
Q t`9
d
V C
co 0
?a
eo
(SO40ul) I1el ule2l
O r N M V In (0 h O 0)

8l/4

4/4

c ?
N LIE
O
N
a
? ?
c

L Z/Z
w ?
t

* E m
LIZ

t 4Z/L
•,,, -? eZ? O N
c O m OL/L H
ev
(7 E y y
CP)

Q)
O u r
L
? LZ/Z L
of
c
0 .2 y
Cl C
£L/ZL'
=g
t o
d 6Zn L
yr B

y z SML
a$
? ? w H ? L/ll
0 0

w
-?
N = 8L/OL
a` ,9 4/0L

OZ/6
Z ? --?

I

O

N
9/6
Li _
0
£Z/8
8 8 8
o u o
('1SW anoge aaaj) lana-1 Ja;eM

o,
rn
C
O
C
a
C
'C
°r
O
Q?
a"6
z
x
?f
C
O
•c
O
2
c
ca
a
0)
C
U O
3) O
Q e`v
e? =
? •O
M n.
c?

O (S04

N di a 0ul) Ii UMN

LL) f

0 h CO O
0

84/4
m ?

°c 4/b

5

m
v LIE
`o

w 4 Z/Z
w
w `o
-? o
? . LIZ
W
c
tm
c
4Z/4
rn
C m
?
'y U N
O
w 04/4
H

O
--
---? O
C
O
7
7
MU
o

d
C _
(D
co r
C
o ?? c c E c
_ v
u
w n

a w 1 c
? ?
?
o
o c
6Z/44
d
m m
u 54/L4

7 T
? 4/44

Q
w - ? WN

9
4/0 4
? L
N
N O
M -? c OZ/6
? m

o c 9/6
o
a v
-1
- £Z/B
8 8 8

('ISW enoge ;g9A) lanai J84BM
C7
rn
C
O
c
0
c
r
0
Q?
od
e
Z

Xi
07
C
c
O
2
C
to
a
C
d r
4 O
,g
I
Q ?`o
eo ?
d
14 'o
CL
(sayau

O r N M 'cf i) IIe1Wea

In (D

t? CO O
O

B L/4
m
c
--
A --
•? 4/4

iv

y
`1 C ?
y
w m

L/£
`o
a --? v EE
rn
$ co LZ/Z
LL) c7 t m
°
?-? ? LIZ
0

4Z/L
C ?
(
q
`0 m OL/L cl,
0 _-__ E C1
a
`o LZ/ZL o
? ,
d
O
0
-? c
y c
C
N `s £L nl
a
y
J
M
?
6Z/ L L
t? Ol
m
L O)
c 5L/LL
t o 8
? v
d
? J w
o O
L/LL
0
0 1C?0p
d - C M
w ? c
c •- wm
? ? rR c
•c
D
17/0 L
N ?
=
zs -? d N
0Z/6
O
I O
°-' 9/6
rn
-? i. `o E
N a` Q
L2
£z/e
8 8 8
N (JSW anoge; oVA) Iana-1 Ja; eM
CI
rn
c
•c
C
O
cc
0
0
Qo_
?d
e
Z
a
x
?kl
c
0
J
C
O
c
O
2
c
a
a? c
.O+
?g
aR
7
d
? .O
?a
(S040ul) IMUIR2l
0
O r N M ? I(1 f0 h co O ?
86/4

-? 6z/£
L/£

n
6Z/Z

W
+ LIZ
? M

Z 4Z/6

0 0
06/6 N
E co
7
LZ/Z6 c

c
e
"? Ill £6/Z6f
O. T M
o ....
&
i
2S
J
w 6M,
C/
96/66

N N
?
o
6/66
b'i J C
1 ? C
T '? a
c WM
10 c
v b/0 6
?
tv ? d N
E OZ/6
I O C
A O!
M
v d N
O L O
9/6
O
N a O
We
8 8 8

N (ISW anoq@; o
eaA) lanai Ja;e
M

(9
of
c
.C
O
ad
e
z
x
W
0)
c
i
C
O
2
C
f0
CL
rn
C
d
A C
20
om
Q
2 a°
c ?
(sayaul) Ilelule

O N M '7 ln a

co t-

co 01
0
?

9 ub

b/b

c
i?
LI£
6 -?
-?
a
0 - -?
? lZ/Z
a
w
? LIZ

bZ/L
m
O
td O
N

10 6 om
„
H

w; LZ/Z l c
E
E
o
? -? c
c
£L/Zl1
a

N o
6M l

--? SI ll

Cl) C
L
c
? l0
0
l/LL
C7 -1 0
d
w _? C
m WN
--? in
V
'c
o b/Ol
?
c
m
-- N
OZ/6

7

M 6
{O 9/6
?
£7./9
8 8 8
o v>
('JgW anoge;oeA) lana
i aeleM o
x
o?
m
C
C
c
0
a
c
0
ti
0
a
0
z
a
x

V)
C
0
"c
O
2
C
d O
O
Q c`e
? 0
c o
2
(S040ul) ll e;ulell

O r N fh tf 1!')
(0
N co 0) O

r

e L/4
l0

U

7
N

-?-? O p

C
C
? l9
P, N

V gy
.
?

41
o
f
v L/£

c t
?
m w
o
CL
~ a a
-? d 5 GO)
d t
LZ/Z
? w N c .F .. O
3
w m
c
a
E
"w c
--?
U `? a $ Z
d LIZ
l0 d
o
C7 w
N
na
rn
C
N
ry
V
? O
O
d `o OL/L y

m E

°$

? m v
s
1
d
d LZ/ZL
c

N -_? o
? q c
d w £ LIZ L?
--

T K ? d
m
,S 6Z/ L L

cn
n w ? p
?
5L/LL
c
C m
L/LL
m
2 E
B

w WOL

T

rn 4/Ol

r y

?w Me
z W O
I 0
0) m
M 9/6
pj

r
7
lC t0
co
r N
?
? C
- eve
8
8 8
L6 C5
N
(SSW anoga;aW:j)

lanai Ja;eM
Cl
m
0
o?
c
'C
O
O
2
a
C
ft!
C
O
r
Z

0
0
J
C
O
0
2
c
CL
C!
c
? o
? c
f
tm Z
Q m
r. cy
v
c
Ad
•E Y

O (so4oul) IlpluleN

N th st u1 (D h O
0
0)
8 L/4

o:

1
E
'!4pG
p
1

4/b
?
p
? C .ti a U
d

-- --- - -? w
V
L Z/E
-+ o c
0 8?
v
co
16 ?N°0?
D 8
L/£
CL
o a
'? d
?
O ?Z/Z
W N
d O
•
C7 LIZ
rn 17Z4
c
`0 OW a
m $ ---? a
LZ/Z 6

d
? O
C
F

? ? p
'C
C
m cuu
C W
a+
?
C9 6Z/LL
a
9M L

? L/LL
2

w SL/OL
17/0 L

cn
N -?
OZ/6

N
I 9/6

£Z/8
S g g g g g g g g
to o LO o ui o
N N LO o
(leW anoge;eej) lana-1 Ja;eM
d
e pues *O euoisowil
`
pueg
a
a
x
OI
C
O
O
0
c0
G
O
Oz
a
x
C
O
w
t9
J
0)
C
O
c
O
2
c
t4
a
C7
C
d O
O
Q t`a
? d
d .1r
C E
O
?a
C_
(so4oul) livolua

O
N
f`7 et If7 fG h co O 0
r

-
w 8 L/4
m
414

-- Me

c
?i -?
_ L/£

CL
H -?
LZ/Z
w

-? L/Z

4Z/L
c

o 0
OL/L

10
m

O H

LZ/ZL
co
V v im £L/Zl'
'o w - t
sz/4L°
a
046
777
0
? sL/L4

? L/L l
2

'a
T J.E
4/0 L
AA
E

N
3
????J3 OZ/6

? v
9/6
Y L

£Z/B
g g g g g g g g 8

N r
N O u; C l(') O
i u ;
(-ISW enoge;aa:i) lane- Ja;eM
pues
a

R
m
c?
rn
c
c
0
C
:C
O
Q0
od
z
a
x
rc
O_
J
C
0
rt4
c
ca
a
C
?9 C
O
Q`v
? d
d r+
'C C
CL
C_
(sayaul) Ilexlell
O N fh 'V In 0 h CO O ?

.°
8 L/4

4/4

--------- - 1 LZ/£

LIE
`o
CL
1-
- "?
? Lz/z
w

? ? LIZ

VZ/ l
c
4

`o 0
OM y

m
?
7

r;
C LZ/Z l p,
C

-- £L/ZL

O d
(7 A
Z/LL
6
D
iY 9 M L

U)
?
N L/L L
_ Z
- + 7
9 L/M

I

4
E '&I ms

/0 L

Z

LO y
OZ/6
_-?_? fD
- ? 2??? a M
N
? D)
co
I 916

EZ/8
8 8 8 8 $ $ $ $ 8
o
N o L6 o uj o ui
r r r o
N
("ISW anoge;aaJ) lana-1 Ja;eM
d
PUBS
ougscw- ;
PUB
S
a

?i
rn
(7
C
.C
c
0
a
0
Q`o
Zd
z
Z
x
a
c
0
J
O
c
O
m
c
cc
a
0)
c
N 'C
o c
O
t?
Q t4
d ?.
•? c
eo 'o
?a
_C
(Se40ul) Ilelule2!
O N m a to to h co 0
£Z!b
84/b

LIP

ME
-- --- -- - ---? LZ/E
-- 9 LIE
WE
WE

?g ? LZlZ
? LZlZ
9L/Z
0 -- ? OL/Z
-? S/Z
? Oct L
SZl4
6L/L
c? KIL S
E 94
-- ---? E/L
(? 5 9Z/ZL
ZZ/ZL
3 LLIZ L 0
W - ?? LLIZ L a
C
O
?
? 9/ZL ' m
O
OE/L L
9M L

6L/LL
K/LL
9/L L
E/LL

a' 9VOL
,
W
-- t
m r
ZZlO4

? m LL/OL
LLIM

? 4 a
a 910 L
OC/6
N ° N SZ/6

? C
-?
? 6L/6

I ?? 44/6
916
_ £!6
_
-? ? 9Z/8
CZ/9
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
N 6 O ui O L6 O u i N
i
(-ISW anoge joe j) lanes J04CM

a pueg
gal eua?seui11 p
..
ueg

N
c?
rn
c
O
?C
O
a
c
0
:e
c
0
0
e
z
x
T
Z
0
OD
0
0
0
O
00
J
O
7
CD
X
N
Water Level (Fe et above MSL)
( n o p

O O
O O
8/23
(li N ?

9/6
g w
9/20 ° ° ?- Z
3 N , ?._
0 0.
10/4

0
10/18 ? D
o ?-
.
3
11/1 m m ? m
CO =r

°
p Cr
L7

11/15 CL
(D
C y U)
c

11/29 ' y w £
N N w
c n
0 12/13 (Oir 3 ,•
N ?_ - ?

a
O
12/27 0 0 m
CD
C
»

d
CD 0 0
U3 1/10 N -4

(D
o
m

-i
C
tG CD
- 0
° ; Cr
3 cD
1/24
(D

N
N ° w d
y' W
2/7
w

w

2/21 ? __ --
m
0 ? .._.
3!7 m
w
o
3/21 ?------- o
m cn
C r
4/4 2
CD ? -
w
4/18 w
;
m
m

5/2
5/16 ;

O (O OD J O Ln A CO N -• O
Rainfall (I nches)
0 0)
7
O
.?. fD
D
C chi d a
US
0
o ?
O f%
7
to
d
7
C
O
O
n
4
za
J
0
0
0
a:
Q
7?.
t?
?o
Water Level (Feet a bove MSL)

N N
O N
N
8 S p
S
8/23 --

N
9/6
c cn

9/20 ?
N
d ?-
?- CO
p
N
10/4 3
?--
10/18 $ G
x

3 _

11/1

3 N
CL
s
o
D A ? a

11/15
? 0 m
?
? c
is

S?
co
of
011/2s 0

12/13 °L
0
m ?

D 12/27
?
e ? Q
N 3 3 m
N 1/10
0 CD

to °
N

1/24 o
y ro
c
0

m ?-
2/7 c -?-
:3
?o
rn
2/21
? v
3/7
1
i
S
TZ
1
? ---
3/21 ,o

4/4

4/18 -

O to CO V O Cn 1? W N O
Rainfall (Inch es)
a
R3
c 3
6t
A
.77m °i
i
0 c?
o N
7
tG
d
7
0
0
1
t0
Qr
51
0
J
x
Z
0
0
C
0
0
0
a:
7.
7
t0
d

?
8 Water Level (Feet above MSL) N
UI Op
8 S
8/23

O V j
9/6

9/20

10/4
?-
o
10/18 N

o. ? a
11/1 m ~ n
m c

11/1 5 ?- o

N E n

11129
' oi
gC

?
y
p?j
.?
?o ? ? ? N

c c.
z ?- d

12/13
a ----- M O

7 D
N •
?
p ? ,?,

12/27 S ? ?

in a ? o
c 1/10 w
o m
?p

1/24
J
• O
2/7 ? ~

3 rn

2/21 - o
V
0

3/7 m
CCD

3/21 CL
--- -- ---

4/4 iv

4/18

f0 CO V Of cn A W N -+ O
O
Rai nfall (Inches)
3
d
O?
m D
0
O y
cc

O
O
A
x
z
0
J
0
0
7.
0
:3.
7
tp
G)
U3

/23
V
8 Water Level (Feet
pN
O above MSL)

- _
pV
S

/6 ?
a

? N

ao
OD
.
y
n

9/20 G2 N
3 0

10/4
? ? 3 a
$

10/18 e:
°: ~ m

fo a ?--
11/1
c

11/15 _ m
N
O$
?D
11/29 B 1 S

12/13 W ?-
-- m

D12/27 3 0

N 1/10
:3

0 3

° O

d
?
c
v N ?- ? (D
N to
1/24 0
C.
ra
?-
2/7 a??i -- ~ A
iu ---
o' m
2/21 2.
?-__
c
m v

3/7 c
F
d ??
3/21 ------ - ---

4/4
O ?

4/18

- w w V 0) N A W N + O
Rainfall (In ches)
m
7
Mm
O y)
Q ?
?D
7
0 tOn
7!G
3
O
0
to
r
0

2
a
J
O
m
`e
00
0
0
7.
co
G1
co
LR
Water Level (Feet above MSL)
o cn o
g g
8/23
N

9/s EF
co °a a a

O ? ? ?
m 3 0 ?
?
3
9/20 CL o
'

m
1
10/4 3 0-
3R;
= E
5 a 0 M ~
~ R
10/18 "- =+
d m

0 G)

o ? g
11/1 -? ?
c
o'
11/15
U3 N
N
0
p p
?
y Oi
11/29 o ti
o CA
d Q ?- m
12/13 j. - - m
m

D12/27 a

N ?p
N 1/10 a ° m
0
fD
N + N

1/24

2/7 ~- 0
,?td0
?m
'' ?-
c
CO ?
a 3 m
2/21 c Er G) c
m
?- --
c
coo 5iF ? o

3/7 m
0
m 3
o ?_
0a S ?,
Q ? ?
o m
S
1
m
?p
n
.
Er
-
3/21 a O _

4/4

4/18

0 tp m V 0) N A W N -+ O
Rainfall (Inches)
d
O
_. Da
M%A
^ 67
D
?
7 tOp?
S
O N
7
a?
7
9
O
X
O
7CO
r
o'
Vi
x
ra
a
0
m
0
7
.7.
O
0
G1
m
N
N
X_
Water Level (Fee t above MSL) N
$ $
g
8/23

w V
9/6
~ ?-
9/20 m
3
06
0
10/4

CL
1
10/18 1
EF P
e 0 2
11/1 c ? ~ a
0
y N N
11/15 --
CL
7
.
o
11/29 y.

12/13 Q ?-
ai
12/27 " -?

r- m
N1/10 ?o to
°o Q
ai

1/24 0
w

2/7 m i

2/21 m
--
$-r
?
??r
nnn
3/7 '
Z

3/21 r.
w ?----------

_
1
4/4 Tp

4/18
r (0 00 V 0) c n A W N O
0
Rainfall (Inches)
o d
d
0.
... co
D
Z?
g2
O ai
Q
3
O
O
7
r
o'

x
z
0
0
0
0
7
a
U3
x
CO
CO

/23
o
g Water Le vel (Feet above MSL)
cn
g
o
g
0
CO
tN

9/6 O
?.- z
a
9/20 c
n

10/4
m

10118 _

a
11/1 a
CO
c

11!15
11/29
f
d -
12/13 _ m
15 h

0- c
i
f?D
D 12/27
3 -- 3 Q
N 1110 c
0

1/24
N
07
7
2/7 m ?-

N
G
2/21 fD ?--- Q
O

3/7 Cl)
m
a y

3/21 ?
a?i

4/4
a ?

4/18

O C O W V M fJ1 A W N O
R ainfall (Inches)
o d
O d
C
c?i D
o
O vOi
7
(C
'O
m
9
O
O
7
?n
Qr
?i
0
A

a
0
0
3'
i
O
O
d

W ater Level (Feet above MSL) N
N
N
8 pV
S
8/23 --
Mo
9/6
7 C A ?
j• @ --
9/20 ryc. N. _ rn

10/4 U3
S? 1
T
10/18
m

11/1 3 0
o
o
a N
?

11/15
o'
co
11/29 ?
M Q
"• ? N
_
12/13
o
j -- d

3.12/27 ^' g
rc
N ? ?----- a
3 n?i
c
N 1/10 n O
N g ?-- n
LA.

f3.
1/24 3 y
o
a
2/7 ? ~

2/21

3/7 3 cn
1
m

3/21 - - - --- -
a
C
b

?
4/4 o
i
m
a ?
a -- d
4/18 -

O O Ol V O) U1 A W N O
Rainfall (Inches)
M 9
m
g
O y
M ?.
p?
? D
O f?/1
m
9
O
7
O
1
r
c?
0
2
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 H1/H2. Although COE determination of wetland
limits have not been determined in the G1/G2/H1/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.