20031023 Ver 1_Response Review_20040212

-3 (?hn
,Z//Z/D (/
Martin Marietta Materials Response to
NC Division of Water Quality
Rocky Point Quarry
DWQ Letter of January 20, 2004
R

Property south of th existing operations: This property, along with other areas of the
county, has recentl been rezoned to the Heavy Industrial category by the County
Commissioners on their own motion. While Heavy Industrial zoning is necessary for
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 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
will be submitted in the immediate future to the County for 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, necessary for 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
Rocky Point Quarry
Response: DWQ better 1120104
decision by the local government has been made related to the issuance of the required
Special Use permit.
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.
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. 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 disturbance of the land
surface, installation of drainage ditches and the planting of the pine forests removed the
wetland hydrology years and in some areas even decades before mining operations began
on the site.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has accepted the use of Drainmod as a hydrologic
model to determine the influence of the forestry ditches that were installed in the 1970's,
long before MMM entered the scene. The Corps has accepted the results of the modeling
and has issued Jurisdictional Determination regarding waters of the US for tracts E, G1,
and G2. In repeated meetings with the Division and the Corps, the results of the modeling
has been discussed with the ditch influences being accepted by the Corps ranging from
400 to 500 feet for the roadside ditches. There has been much discussion and data
provided to the State regarding the soil profiles with the areas of concern. Soil borings
associated with the placement of monitoring wells at locations pre-approved by the
Division of Water Quality have yielded data related to the existence of a clay confining
layer approximately 10 to 12 feet below the surface that provides a hydraulic disconnect
between the dewatering elevations and the surface. This issue was discussed extensively
with the Division in July 2003 in a meeting in Wilmington which was attended by
Regional and Wetland Unit Central staff.
The accepted Drainmod model predicted that the pit dewatering influence was limited to
a zone of influence of approximately 750 feet for the surficial 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.
2
Rocky Point Quarry
Response: DWQ Letter 1120104
Enclosed is a copy of the modeling data and outputs for the Division's review.
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 G1
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.
4. 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.
5. A copy of the pumping plan is enclosed. It is proposed to relocate a monitoring well set
in the area of the wetlands that are to remain in GI with annual reports being prepared.
MMM proposes to retain the monitoring well locations within G1 & G2 that are not to be
disturbed by the proposed mine expansion to the east.
6. A copy of the pumping plan is enclosed and provides the location of the proposed
impoundment and the pathway for water to reach the impoundment. The impoundment
will be located in Tract G 1 and not on a neighboring tract as suggested in your letter. This
information was discussed in the January meeting in Wilmington.
7. MMM developed a monitoring plan, which was approved by Rick Shiver, to monitor the
hydrology in Tracts G1, G2, H1, & H2 as a part of preparing the requested alternative
pumping plan and wells were installed approximately 18 months ago. Data from those
wells has been supplied to the state on a quarterly basis and the results of the data have
been discussed with the state staff.
The wells in H2 indicate the presence of hydrology sufficient to support a wetland
ecosystem while the data from wells in HI indicate the hydrology is absent. The forestry
land management in H2 is very different from the forestry land management in H1. H1
has the typical beds and furrows which disturbed the upper zone of the soil and with
drainage ditches the past forestry land management removed the hydrology from the
upper zone of the soil profile in this area. The land in H2 was not disturbed compared to
H1 and the hydrology at the monitoring well location is present. Clearly the pit
operations have not removed the hydrology from the well location in H2.
Rocky Point Quarry
Response: DWQ Letter 1120104
The road side ditch along the forest road has a modeled influence of 500 feet. MMM
believes this influence, along with the compacted road bed between the ditch and the pit,
has created a barrier that reduces the pit influence. The ditches along the subject road
were constructed more than twenty years ago by the forest products company and the
ditch influence is not the responsibility of MMM.
MMM proposes to relocate a monitoring well cluster into the area near the wetlands that
will remain in Tract G1 and retain those wells that will not be affected by the mine
expansion and additionally provide a monitoring system along a transect into H2
extending out to the existing wells in Tract H2. The proposed monitoring system will
provide information regarding any near surface hydrology changes in the future and will
serve as the "off-site" control. We believe that it will be next to impossible to find a
wetland located 5000+ feet from the mine that is not influenced by other man-made or
natural circumstances that is a comparable reference system.
There are no plans to re-hydrate any areas around the quarry. The alternative pumping
plan requested by DWQ will provide a discharge to the unnamed tributary to Strawberry
Branch that exists between tracts H1 & H2. It is proposed to create a small impoundment
area upstream of the culvert under the forestry road. This impoundment will provide
ponding of water in Tract GI resulting in the flooding of areas previously drained by the
forestry land management practices.

Cl 1
o
8. A rain gauge will be maintained on the mine site near the existing scale building. This I?
location was selected to reduce vandalism which has occurred in the past. The gauge will
be a continuous gauge with data being provided to the state upon request. The location of
the rain gauge is indicated on the attached mine map.
Enclosed is a copy of the mine map depicting the location of wetlands on the mine site,
ditches, proposed well placement, and mine areas. There are no borrow areas or storm
water controls associated outside the mine area. The monitoring wells will be inspected
on a monthly basis and data will be collected and reported on an annual basis for a period
of five years. The mine pit closure may not occur for several decades and it is not
reasonable to continue the monitoring program after this area of the mine is reclaimed.]
10. The monitoring data will be reviewed and data that indicates a change in the near surfac
hydrology will be discussed with the agency and addressed appropriately at that time.
11. The alternative pumping plan will provide supplemental discharge to the intermittent
unnamed tributary to Strawberry Creek through routing of pit dewatering via a new pipe
system. The discharge from the new system will be impounded above the existing road
culvert as previously discussed. The purpose of the impoundment is to maintain
hydrology in those limited areas of Tract G 1 that the USCOE has determined as
jurisdictional waters of the US. It is not the purpose of the impoundment to re-hydrate
any areas previously drained by the forestry land management of years ago. MMM does
not anticipate impacting any jurisdictional wetlands in the future. If monitoring does
indicate an alteration in wetland hydrology in areas that are contiguous with the mining
operations, and there is conclusive evidence that such alterations are the result of the
mining operations, then MMM will work with DWQ and the USCOE to develop an
appropriate response to the situation.
e?
41
a
4
Rocky Point Quarry
Response: DWQ Letter 1120104
12. The Division's Regional Supervisor has repeatedly expressed that it was the Division's
position that the determination of wetlands was a function of the US Army Corps of
Engineers and that the State would not replicate those activities. The COE has always
been consulted related to advancement of the mine operations and the COE has issued
confirmation that no wetlands existed in areas where the mine had requested approval to vaj
expand. MMM has received correspondence from the COE stating that there were no C
jurisdictional wetlands in Tracts F1 & F2. 18
MMM presented to DWQ in December 2002 a photographic history of the site. Those
photos clearly show the location of drainage ditches, dug by Georgia Pacific in the
1970's. The COE has agreed that the use of Drainmod was acceptable to demonstrate the
drainage influence of the forestry ditches. The locations of the ditches in F1 & F2 are the
same as those that existed to the south where extensive modeling has been performed.
The COE accepted the modeling results and when one applies those results to F 1 & F2 it
is clear that the near surface hydrology was removed many years maybe even decades
before October 1996.
Prior to 1996 the mining operations in the area of Tract G2 was well developed. The area
was dissected by various ditches and roads, The land was intensively managed by the
timber company as was the case in F1, F2, & G1. However, the influence of the pit
dewatering, as modeled, did probably have an influence of approximately 750 feet. The
land in Tract G2 consists of a series of ridges and flats that may have contained some
wetland areas. While the exact location and existence of any wetlands that may have
existed in Tract G2 and within 700 feet of the old mine pit is unknown, the removal of
the hydrology by any pit influence was not a violation of any rule or stature in existence
at that time. MMM has received a Jurisdictional Determination of the wetlands in Tract
G2. MMM has stated the need to impact wetlands that are the subject of the COE
determination. It is the approval to remove part of those wetlands that is the subject of the
application and therefore MMM believes all appropriate actions have been taken to
address wetlands in G2.
13. On-site mitigation has been considered. MMM reclamation plan provides for leaving
significant areas of water shoreline within the reclaimed areas. These shore lines have
created significant amounts of wetland habitat which could be used as mitigation for the
impacts associated with the permit application. MMM will consider providing
conservation easement for these wetland areas on any land that they own as mitigation.
A majority of the land within the mine boundary is owned by others and conservation
easements for those areas would have to be obtained from the respective land owners.
All adjoining properties that contain previously impacted wetlands are owned by others
and to date MMM has not been able to locate lands that are available to for restoration.
Enclosed is a copy of the response letter from MMM to the Corps of Engineers (Lillette
Granade) regarding on-site mitigation possibilities. ,??
The COE has indicated that the wetlands to be impacted are considered as low quality
wetlands. MMM is of the opinion that payment to the Wetland Restoration Program
should be the preferred mitigation plan. NCAC 2H.0506(h)(3) states, " Participation in
wetland restoration programs coordinated by the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources shall be preferred to individual project mitigation whenever the
Director finds that such participation is available and satisfies the other requirements of
Rocky Point Quarry
Response: DWQ Letter 1120104
this Paragraph, unless the applicant can demonstrate that participation in these
restoration programs is not practical ". MMM believes it prudent to follow the
Departments preferred mitigation plan and given that the Wetland Restoration Program
has accepted the impacts for mitigation, to not participate would be in opposition to the
Departments published preference.
14. MMM has previously provided the Jurisdictional Determination (JD) Map signed by the
COE for tracts G1 and G2. There are no previous JD as there has been no determination
of wetlands within the mine site. Enclosed is a copy of the JD maps for the area south of
the existing permitted mine area known as Tract E.
H. I PN1011185010UANUARY DWQResponseMMMfinalfeb9hkb. doc
6