19961136 Ver 1_Complete File_20060606

N¦IN
MEN
f' n Hanson
June 1, 2006
Mr. Keith Harris
Department of Army
Corps of Engineers
P O Box 1890
Wilmington N.C. 28402-1890
2300 Gateway Centre Blvd.
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Re: Monitoring Report for Senter Sand and Gravel, Harnett County, Lillington,
N.C. Permit # 1997 01563. Dvva * y(a u-1136
Dear Mr. Harris:
Hanson Aggregates is pleased to forward you the 2005 annual tree monitoring
report for the creation of wetlands at the Senter Mine in Harnett County pursuant
to Permit # 1997 01563.
Should you require any additional information do not hesitate to contact me.
7S* cerely,
'' pp
Robert H. Snyder
Environmental Manager-NC iiN
cc: Tony Lamm, Hanson Elliott ,?.
John Dorney - DENR Division of Water Quality
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Judy Wehner - DENR Division of Land Quality
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Steve Cook - DENR Division of Land Quality, Fayetteville Regional Office
Systel Building
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5094
Harnett County,
North Carolina
¦EN
¦¦¦
"' Hanson
Hanson Aggregates
Senter Sand and
Gravel Mine
2005 Wetland Monitoring
Report
April 2006
¦rr
•rr
"Hanson
HANSON AGGREGATES
Senter Sand & Gravel Annual Monitoring Report
1) Background:
Hanson Aggregates acquired Becker Minerals in October 1998 and assumed
the responsibility for compliance with all permits issued to Becker Minerals. Becker
Minerals was originally issued a Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Action ID No.199701563)
by the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Office on
February 6, 1997 to be allowed to impact 5.93 acres wetlands above the headwater
of an unnamed tributary of the Upper Little River at the Harnett Quarry near Lillington
N.C. One of the conditions of permit issuance was that a mitigation plan be
developed for off site mitigation, at a ratio of 1:1, at the Senter Mine which is located
in the Upper Little River drainage basin near Lillington, N.C.
Becker Minerals engaged Environmental Services, Inc. of Raleigh to develop
the required mitigation plan. The mitigation plan was approved by the Department of
Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Office on October 27, 1997. The
approved mitigation plan requires that annual monitoring of the created wetlands be
completed by October 1 of each year and a monitoring report be submitted by
December 1 of each year.
2) Hydrology of the Mitigation Site:
A requirement of the mitigation plan is to demonstrate that the created
wetland area will have a typical wetland hydrology. The mitigation area contains a
number of surface ponds that are connected to the ground water table. The surface area
of the ponds changes during the year in response to storm water runoff from areas
above the mitigation site.
Surface hydrology is demonstrated by the presence of the ponds. To
demonstrate the presence of subsurface hydrology two sets of monitoring wells were
installed within the mitigation area. A set of monitoring wells consists of four wells in
a line across the mitigation area between the upland fingers. One set of wells was
installed at the northern end of the mitigation area and the other set at the southern
end of the mitigation area. Both sets of monitoring wells lie on a permanent
monitoring transect.
The monitoring wells were installed in accordance with the specifications
provided by the Corps of Engineers. The monitoring wells were set to a depth of
three feet below the surface.
The monitoring wells have been read on a monthly basis and a copy of the
readings given in the Appendix 6. The yearly (2001, 2002 and 2003) rainfall
measurement data obtained in the vicinity of the mitigation area are in Appendix 5.
Water levels in the monitoring wells were measured and recorded on 30 occasions
throughout 2005 .
3) Monitoring Transects Lines:
A total of five permanent transect lines were initially established in the
wetland area in 1998. The transect lines locations were selected to be representative
of all conditions that are present in the mitigation area. The transect lines generally
run from an upland across the wetland to the opposite upland. In 2000 two additional
transect lines were added to be representative of the areas where seedlings were
planted in February 2000. (Transects F&G). A map indicating the locations of the
monitoring lines is given in Appendix 7.
The beginning and end of each of the transect lines are marked with a pipe
driven into the ground. A plastic marker is placed at 100 foot intervals along the
transect line. Each tree within 20 feet of the centerline of the transect was surveyed
and marked with pink ribbon to identify it as a tree to be monitored. Trees within the
monitoring zone were identified by species and the height and girth of the tree was
measured and recorded. Other information recorded was if the tree was alive or
dead. Table #1 summarizes the information recorded from each transect in 2005.
Detailed tables of the tree monitoring results are given in Appendix 2 & 3.
Photographs of the two transects appear in Appendix 8.
Table 1. Summary of Tree Monitoring for 2005
Transect F G
# of Planted Trees 17 19
# of Volunteer Trees 0 1
Max. Height of Trees (in) 52 40
Min. Height of Trees (in) 12 10
Max. Girth of Trees in 1.25 1
Min. Girth of Trees (in) 0.3 0.3
% Survival of Trees 40.5 35.8
% of Volunteer Trees 0.0 5.0
Planted Trees per Acre 250 280
4) Discussion of Monitoring Results:
The tree monitoring data reflects the presence or absence of hydrology
necessary to support hydrophytic vegetation throughout the wetland creation
area. This conclusion was reached not only by examining the growth and
survival rate of the trees, but also by a comparison of the rainfall measurement
data for the year 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The comparison of the rainfall
measurement data revealed the following:
Average rainfall for North Carolina for the period from 1995 to
2005 is 51.38 inches according to NOAA Climatic Data. Total
rainfall for North Carolina in 2005 was 50.27 inches.
Average rainfall for the years 1995 to 2005 show higher than
normal rainfall in 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2003; lower than
average rainfall in 1997, 2000 and 2001 and slightly less than
average rainfall in 2002, 2004 and 2005. Rainfall in 2001 was
significantly less than average resulting in an overall decreasing
trend in precipitation however the much higher than normal
rainfall in 2003 should help to mitigate this trend.
Rainfall as recorded for 2005 at the Elliott Mine operation,
approximately 3 miles away, was 39.4 inches, several inches
below normal. Monthly recorded rainfall is as follows (see
Appendix 5 for previous years summary):

Month
2005 Precipitation
in.
January 2.0
February 2.8
March 5.0
April 2.0
May 2.7
June 3.1
Jul 5.1
August 1.5
Se tember 1.8
October 3.0
November 5.4
December 5.3
Appendix #1 is a tabular summary of the key elements of the tree monitoring
program. The 2005 data is summarized and compared to years 2002 through 2004.
The 2005 percent survival was 40.5 for transect F and 35.8 for Transect G.
Only 63 and 51 percent of the trees recorded in 2004, for Transects F and G,
respectively, survived until the end of the growing season in 2005.
Appendix #2 and Appendix #3 give individual tree monitoring results by year
for Lines F and G, respectively. The average height of the trees in Transects F and
G increased from 2004 to 2005, indicating continued growth of the seedlings. The
average girth of the trees in Transect G increased steadily from 2004 to 2005 while
average girth in Transect F was unchanged.
Appendix #4 includes a graphical summary of the data from years 2000 to
2005 and Appendix 5 includes monthly rainfall data from the area from 2000 to 2005.
Appendix #6 includes the 2005 well monitoring data. All of the seven wells
indicated that wetland hydrology criterion of water table depth within 12 inches of the
surface was being met, except for well E-4. None of the measurements taken during
the growing season (March 23 - Nov 5) at E-4 showed water table depth within 12
inches of the surface.
For the mitigation plan to be a success a survival rate of 320 trees per acre
has to be met at the end of five years. This criterion was not met in 2005 (refer to
Table #1). This is most likely attributed to the severe 2005 drought conditions
present in this area, as indicated by the rainfall data, well data, and resulting tree
mortality.
5) Conclusions
The monitoring results for 2005 show that success criteria for the monitored
wetland areas at the Senter Plant are not being met. As in the approved Senter
Mine Mitigation Plan, coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies will be
undertaken to determine the most appropriate remedial action. This will mostly likely
include replanting of the most successful tree species and investigation into possible
modifications to improve site hydrology.
Appendix #1
Summary of Tree Monitoring Data
2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002
Transect F G F G F G F G
# of Planted Trees 17 19 27 37 28 45 39 51
# of Volunteer Trees 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Max. Height of Trees (in) 52 40 46 34 34 34 34 33
Min. Height of Trees (in) 12 10 9 8 10 8 3 4
Max. Girth of Trees (in) 1.25 1 1.2 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Min. Girth of Trees (in) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Survival of Trees 40.5 35.8 64.3 69.8 66.7 84.9 92.9 96.2
of Volunteer Trees 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.9
Planted Trees per Acre 250 280 397 545 412 721 574 817
NOTE: IN CALCULATING THE NUMBER OF TREES PER ACRE THE FOLLOWING
WAS DONE
E.G. LINE F
(Number of trees (43) / Length of transect (74') X Width (40')) / 43560 ft2 per acre
Appendix #2
Line F 2005 Data
2002 to 2005 Data Summary
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST, SOUTHEAST REGION - SENTER SAND & GRAVEL PLANT
MONITORING RESULTS - TRANSECT LINE F
Station Species Status 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005
Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth
in in in in in in in in in in in in
0-15 9 RT Green Ash P 18 0.1 18 0.2 16 0.3
0-15 3 RT WaterTu to P 16 0.1 11 0.2 3 0.2
0-12 2 RT Green Ash P 14 0.1 15 0.2 13 0.3
0-09 3 LT Green Ash P 12 0.1 10 0.2 10 0.2
0-07 8 RT WaterTu to P 15 0.1 11 0.1 3 0.1
0-03 1 RT Water Tupelo P 13 0.1 14 0.2 14 0.2
0-02 5 LT Water Tupelo P 12 0.1 14 0.2 14 0.3 17 0.2 17 0.2
0-02 6 RT Green Ash P 19 0.1 7 0.1
0+00 PIPE LINE F-ST
0+02 9 LT Green Ash P 13 0.1 13 0.1 15 0.2 15 0.2 15 0.3 14 0.3
0+03 1 RT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 17 0.2 17 0.2 - - -
0+07 3 LT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 17 0.3 14 0.3 10 0.3 9 0.4
0+10 7 RT Water Tupelo P 24 0.2 21 0.5 21 0.5 - -
0+11 8 LT Water Tupelo P 14 0.1 14 0.3 14 0.3 15 0.3 14 0.3 14 0.3
0+14 4 RT WaterTu to P 22 0.3 22 0.5 20 0.5 23 0.5 20 0.5 17 0.5
0+18 1 LT WaterTu to P 25 0.2 23 0.4 24 0.4 24 0.4 24 0.5 - -
0+18 8 RT Green Ash P 30 0.3 27 0.5 26 0.5 25 0.5 24 0.5 20 0.5
0+19 11 RT Green Ash P 22 0.1 18 0.4 22 0.5 22 0.5 26 0.7 - -
0+21 1 LT Water Tupelo P 23 0.3 24 0.4 22 0.3 18.5 0.3 - -
0+23 6 RT Green Ash P 28 0.2 30 0.4 34 0.6 34 0.6 46 1.2 52 1.25
0+23 5 LT Water Tupelo P 21 0.2 15 0.3 13 0.3 15 0.3 15 0.3
0+26 1 RT Green Ash P 22 0.2 22 0.4 23 0.5 23 0.5 23 0.5 29 0.75
0+28 10 LT WaterTu to P 20 0.1 20 0.3 15 0.3 - - - - - -
0+28 6 LT Green Ash P 29 0.2 24 0.4 26 0.5 27 0.5 27 0.6 28 0.75
0+29 10 RT Green Ash P 20 0.1 18 0.3 20 0.4 20 0.4 20 0.5 - -
0+32 11 LT Green Ash P 23 0.2 18 0.4 19 0.5 20 0.6 20 0.5
0+33 3 RT Green Ash P 20 0.2 21 0.4 23 0.4 23 0.4 23 0.6 23 0.6
0+35 8 RT WaterTu to P 12 0.3 20 0.5 26 0.5 27 0.5 28 0.6 33 0.8
0+35 4 LT Green Ash P 24 0.2 24 0.5 28 0.6 27 0.6 32 0.6 31 0.8
00+37 Green Ash P 20 0.1 20 0.3 21 0.4 0.4 28 0.2 28 0.6
0+38 2RT WaterTu to P 20 0.2 19 0.5 20 0.5 0.5 20 0.6 20 0.8
0+42 WaterTu to P 25 0.2 25 0.5 25 0.6 0.6 26 0.5 -
0+42 1 WaterTu to P 13 0.1 - F -
0+45 WaterTu to P 18 0.1 14 0.2 15 05 0.5 20 0.5 22
0+45 Water Tu to P 24 0.2 -
0+46 WaterTu to P 20 0.1 20 0.3 18 0.3 20 0.3 19 0 3 20 0.5
0+47 11 RT Bald Cypress P 15 0.1 15 0.1 14 0.2 .2 30 0.5 26 0.6
0+51 LINE F-END
0+51 WaterTu to P 20 0.1 17 0.3 - -
0+52 Water Tupelo P 24 0.2 22 0.3 22 0.4 15 0.4
0+53 Water Tupelo P 17 0.1 9 0.1 8 0.1 -
0+56 RNLINE Green Ash P 10 0.1 9 0.1 10 0.1
0+57 Green Ash P 15 0.1 15 0.2 15 0.3 15 0 3 16 0.4
0+57 Bald Cypress P 17 0.1 18 0.3 20 0.3 23 0.3 29 0.6 36 1
0+59 WaterTu to P 22 0.2 20 0.5 15 0.5 15 0.5 12 0.3 12 0.5
# of Alive Trees 42 41 39 28 27 17
Total Height of Trees 800 730 700 583 601.5 425
Average height of trees 19.05 17.8 17.95 20.82 22.28 25
% Survival 100 97.62 92.86 66.67 64.29 40.48
Average Girth 0.148 0.305 0.364 10.4141 1 0.481 0.481
Appendix #3
Line G 2005 Data
2002 to 2005 Data Summary
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST, SOUTHEAST REGION - SENTER SAND & GRAVEL PLANT
MONITORING RESULTS - TRANSECT LINE G
Station Species Status 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005
Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth
in in in in in in in in in in in in
0-06 2 RT Green Ash P 22 0.2 22 0.5 22 0.5 20 0.5 20.5 0.5
0-04 3 LT Bald Cypress P 20 0.1 20 0.3 21 0.4 23 0.4 23.5 0.5 24 0.6
0.01 2 RT Green Ash P 19 0.2 19 0.3 19 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 - -
0-01 6 RT WaterTu to P 18 0.2 12 0.3 12 0.5 15 0.5 14 0.25 - -
0+00 PIPE LINE G ST
0+01 9 LT Water Tupelo P 19 0.1 16 0.2 16 0.4 15 0.4 17 0.4 13 0.3
0+01 3 LT Bald Cypress P 18 0.1 18 0.2 20 0.4 22 0.4 31 0.5 33 0.5
0+05 5 RT WaterTu to P 12 0.1 12 0.2 12 0.2 13 0.2 13 0.4 10 0.7
0+06 1 LT Green Ash P 22 0.2 23 0.4 25 0.5 25 0.5 24 0.5 23 0.6
0+06 10 LT WaterTu to P 16 0.1 16 0.2 12 0.3 10 0.3 10.5 0.4 13 0.5
0+09 2 LT WaterTu to P 24 0.2 24 0.3 24 0.6 24 0.6 18 0.5 -
0+10 5 RT Water Tupelo P 13 0.1 10 0.2 10 0.3 9 0.3
0+12 11 LT WaterTu to P 12 0.1 12 0.1 12 0.2 8 0.2 8 0.2
0+13 0 LT Green Ash P 20 0.2 21 0.3 22 0.5 23 0.5 21 0.5
0+15 2 LT Water Tupelo P 15 0.2 12 0.3 17 0.4 15 0.5 -
0+15 6 RT WaterTu to P 9 0.1 7 0.1 4 0.1 -
0+18 8LT WaterTu to P 23 0.2 23 0.3 23 0.4 23 0.4 22 0.2 22 0.6
0+19 6 RT Button Bush P 16 0.1 12 0.1 12 0.2 - -
0+20 2 RT Green Ash P 26 0.2 27 0.4 27 0.5 27 0.5 28 0.5 27 0.6
0+22 4 LT Bald Cypress P 13 0.1 15 0.1 15 0.2 15 0.2 18 0.4 19 0.5
0+23 4 RT Button Bush P 14 0.1 - - - - - -
0+24 7 LT Water Tupelo P 19 0.2 19 0.2 19 0.4
0+26 9 LT Bald Cypress P 16 0.1 16 0.2 19 0.3 19 0.3 18 0.4 19 0.5
0+28 2 RT Green Ash P 27 0.3 30 0.5 20 0.5 30 0.5 30 0.5 - -
0+28 6LT WaterTu to P 12 0.1 12 0.1 12 0.2 12 0.2 12 0.2
0+30 3 LT Bald Cypress P 28 0.2 28 0.3 15 0.3 21 0.4 29 0.4 34 0.7
0+30 4RT WaterTu to P 23 0.2 19 0.2 20 0.3 22 0.3 22 0.3 21 0.6
0+32 5 RT Unknown V 22 0.2 22 0.2 21 0.3 12 0.3 14 0.3 15 0.3
0+34 5LT WaterTu to P 20 0.1 14 0.1 14 0.3 15 0.3 15 0.5 -
0+36 6 RT Water Tupelo P 27 0.2 27 0.2 24 0.3 20 0.4 19 0.4 20 0.5
0+36 3 RT Green Ash P 26 0.3 28 0.4 28 0.5 29 0.5 29 0.5 -
0+37 7 RT Overcu Oak P 36 0.3 32 0.3 33 0.4 34 0.5 31 0.6 35 0.7
0+37 1 LT Bald Cypress P 21 0.2 21 0.3 21 0.4 24 0.5 27 0.6 26 0.6
0+38 7LT WaterTu to P 17 0.2 12 0.2 12 0.3
0+40 5LT WaterTu to P 22 0.2 20 0.2 18 0.3 30 0.3 -
0+42 2 RT Green Ash P 12 0.1 13 0.3 15 0.4 16 0.4 15 0.5
0+42 9 RT Water Tupelo P 9 0.1 9 0.1 4 0.1 -
0+44 1 RT Bald Cypress P 26 0.2 26 0.4 26 0.5 26 0.5 32 1 40 1
0+45 9 LT WaterTu to P 24 0.2 - - - - -
0+46 5 LT Water Tupelo P 17 0.1 15 0.2 8 0.2 15 0.2
0+48 8 RT WaterTu to P 16 0.1 13 0.1 12 0.1 13 0.2 12 0.3
0+49 0 RT Green Ash P 20 0.2 22 0.3 22 0.5 23 0.5
0+50 5LT WaterTu to P 12 0.1 8 0.1 9 0.1 11 0.2 14 0.3
0+51 10 LT Bald Cypress P 22 0.2 22 0.3 27 0.6 27 0.6 34 0.4
0+52 2 RT Bald Cypress P 21 0.1 21 0.3 21 0.4 21 0.4 32 0.6 36 0.75
0+53 7 RT Water Tupelo P 14 0.1 12 0.1 8 0.2
0+55 7 LT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 13 0.2 12 0.2 16 0.2 15 0.3
0+56 5LT WaterTu to P 28 0.2 25 0.5 24 0.5 16 0.6
0+56 1 RT Green Ash P 13 0.1 14 0.2 16 0.4 16 0.4 16 0.4
0+58 4 RT Water Tupelo P 18 0.1 18 0.3 17 0.3 23 0.4
0+60 3 RT Bald Cypress P 13 0.1 14 0.2 19 0.3 19 0.3 27 0.6 35 0.6
0+60 7 RT WaterTu to P 15 0.1 13 0.1 12 0.3 12 0.3 13 0.3
0+61 PIPE LINE G END
0+62 5 RT Water Tu to P 15 0.1 10 0.1 12 0.3 12 0.3
0+62 2 LT Green Ash P 17 0.2 19 0.4 19 0.4 19 0.4 19 0.4
# of Alive Trees 531 1 511 1 51 451 1 371 1 19
Total Height of Trees 995 908 884 858 761.5 465
Average height of trees 18.77 17.8 17.33 19.07 20.58 24.47
% Survival 100 96.23 96.23 84.91 69.81 35.85
Average Girth 0.155 0.243 0.347 0.384 0.434 0.587
Appendix #4
Graphical Data Summary for Monitoring
Periods (Years) 1 -5
Growth of Trees in Transect F 2000-2005
28
26
v
24
C
22
s
20
2
18
16-
14-
1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Period (Year)
Growth of Trees in Transect G 2000-2005
28
m
26-
C
c 24
22
v?
20
C 18
a 16-
4 14-
1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Period (Year)
Growth of Trees in Transect F 2000-2005
6 °-°
0
.
N
0
5
.
V
C
0
4
.
t
3
0
.

0
2
.
ea
L
0
1
.
Q
0

1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Period (Year)
Growth of Trees in Transect G 2000-2005
0.7
ffl
0.6
c 0.5
c
s 0.4
0.3
0.2
Lm
> 0.1
Q
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Period (Year)
Appendix #5
Monthly Rainfall in Inches
Senter and Vicinity
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
January 4.7 1.7 6.1 2.4 1 2
February 2.4 1.8 1.6 7.5 5.5 2.8
March 3.6 5.7 5.1 6.2 2.2 5
April 3.1 2.1 13.6 10.5 3 2
May 1.4 3 2 8.7 7.5 2.7
June 4.2 7.3 2.2 3.5 9.1 3.1
July 7.9 6 3.9 9.5 3.8 5.1
August 4.9 13.7 3.4 9 10.5 1.5
September 5.1 1.4 5.3 4.1 5.3 1.8
October 0 1 5.3 0.9 3
November 2.8 1.3 1.4 3.1 5.4
December 1.7 5.1 1.1 5.3
16 Monthly Rainfall

14
2000
12
2001
10
H
t 2002

---2003
6
4 --2004
2 2005

0

1V , aA
e,
g2
?
?J
O
N
G?G?
G
O 0
?
Month
i
Appendix #6
2005 Senter Monitoring Well Data
Wells
RA^nfh 1 AAA- A-1 A-7 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4

2 0.5 2.5 -5.25 -5.25 -2 5.5 20
3 -3.5 -1.5 -7.25 -6.25 -3 6.5 18
4 -2.5 2.5 -10.25 -0.25 Inundated 3.5 11
2 1 - - - - - - -
2 -1.5 -0.5 -6.25 0.75 -1 8.5 13
3 -3.5 -0.5 -8.25 0.75 -2 9.5 16
4 - - - - - - -
3 1 -5.5 2.5 -9.25 -0.25 -8 3.5 11
2 - - - - - - -
3 - - - - - - -
4 -3.5 -0.5 -7.25 -1.25 -2 6.5 17
4 1 -1.5 1.5 -7.25 0.75 1 10.5 20
2 0.5 1.5 -6.25 -0.25 1 11.5 20
3 1.5 3.5 -4.25 0.75 2 11.5 22
4 2.5 3.5 -5.25 0.75 3 12.5 23
5 1 - - - - - - -
2 - - - - - - -
3 0.5 1.5 -7.25 -1.25 1 8.5 18
4 - - - - - - -
6 1 2.5 2.5 -6.25 -0.25 2 12.5 22
2 2.5 1.5 -6.25 -1.25 1 10.5 20
3 - - - - - - -
4 2.5 1.5 -5.25 -0.25 2 11.5 22
7 1 2.5 1.5 -5.25 1.75 5 10.5 21
2 - - - - - - -
3 - - - - - - -
4 1.5 1.5 -4.25 2.75 5 11.5 23
8 1 2.5 -0.5 -6.25 2.75 5 DRY 25
2 - - - - - - -
3 1.5 0.5 -5.25 1.75 6 DRY 28
4 2.5 2.5 -4.25 2.75 8 DRY DRY

2 - - - - - - -
3 0.5 3.5 0.75 4.75 18 DRY DRY
4 0.5 4.5 -0.25 3.75 18 DRY DRY
10 1 1.5 4.5 -0.25 5.75 18 DRY DRY
2 1.5 3.5 0.75 6.75 18 DRY DRY
3 - - - - - - -
4 - - - - - - -
11 1 1.5 9.5 1.75 7.75 18 DRY DRY
2 1.5 9.5 1.75 7.75 18 DRY DRY
3 1.5 9.5 1.75 7.75 18 DRY DRY
4 - - - - - - -
12 1 0.5 5.5 0.75 3.75 16 12.5 28
2 0.5 3.5 -3.25 4.75 5 10.5 25
3 - - - - - - -
4 -2.5 1.5 -5.25 1.75 2 8.5 16
Appendix #7
Monitoring Line Location Map
?' 4' aoo' sqo•
MEN Hanson
SENTER PLANT - LILLINCTON, N.C.
LIP SI MM LOCAWNS OF MWWCtIMS W M MAID KXMVS
OCT •01

Appendix #8
Monitoring Transect Photographs
Beginning of Transect F (facing south)
Beginning of Transect F (facing north)
End of Transect G (facing north)
OF WAIF
,off 9p?
? r
p 'C
July 14, 2006
Mr. Robert H. Snyder
Hanson Aggregates
2300 Gateway Centre Blvd.
Morrisville, NC 27560
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Re: Senter Sand and Gravel Mine, 2005 Monitoring Report, Harnett County (DWQ# 96-1136)
Dear Mr. Snyder:
DWQ has received and reviewed your letter dated June 1, 2006 and the, "Senter Sand and Gravel Mine,
2005 Wetland Monitoring Report, April 2006." A few comments arose while the report was being
reviewed.
1. The well monitoring locations and names are unclear due to some discrepancies in the report.
The well table in Appendix #6 refers to wells A-1, 2, and 3 and wells B-1, 2, 3, and 4. The
figure in Appendix #7 shows the presence of wells A-1, 2, 3, and 4 and wells E-1, 2, 3, and 4.
Please verify which well situation is accurate and correct the necessary information in the
report.
2. It is unclear what the numbers in the Appendix #6 well data table represent. Please provide
the meaning of the positive and negative values located in the table. Negative values
traditionally represent depths below the surface and positive values indicate inundation. This
traditional meaning does not appear to correspond with the text description. Also verify that
"Month 1 Week 1" corresponds to January 1-7.
3. Please provide a graph of the well data so that the depths and trends can be more easily seen.
Also show the. ground` surface level and 12" below the surface on the graph for easy
determination of the success criteria being met.
4. Please provide a larger image of Appendix #7 "Monitoring Line Location Map." The map
received in our office is so small that the text, numbers, and boundaries are difficult to see.
Please also show the location and direction of the Monitoring Transect Photographs on this
map.
5. As you noted in the report, the vegetation did not meet the 320 trees per acre for 2005. DWQ
agrees that a site visit may be needed to determine what corrective actions may need to b61.°°° Caro 'na
tura?y
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] / Fax [phone]
Internet: http://www.ncwaterquality.org
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

made to the vegetation and/or hydrology on the site to increase the woody vegetation on the
site.
6. Please provide any other photographs that you may have of other areas of the mitigation site.
These comments are made in the hopes of improving the health and success of the mitigation site. Once
our office has received and reviewed the above information we will have a more accurate view of the
site prior to a site visit. If you have any questions or concerns with these comments please contact
Amanda Mueller of my office at [phone].
Sincerely Yours,
Cc: Keith Harris, USACE- Wilmington
Ken Averitte, DWQ-FRO
File Copy (c/o Amanda Mueller)
Central File
ICA
o
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
1221 Corporation Parkway, Suite 100 Since 1985 Tel: [phone] or [phone]
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 Fax: [phone]
e-mail: rgoldsteinAWGAcarolina.com website: www.rigacarolina.com
July 28, 2006
Ms. Amanda Mueller
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Senter Sand and Gravel Mine, 2005 Monitoring Report, Harnett County (DWQ# 96-1136)
Ms. Mueller:
Enclosed, please find the Hanson Aggregates Senter Sand and Gravel Mine 2005
Wetland Monitoring Report, revised according to the comments found in your July 14th,
2006 letter.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jessi O'Neal, Ecologist
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
joneal e,RJGAcarolina.com
Cc: Mr. Robert Snyder, Hanson Aggregates
F7-j [77
9 a1? S a i+.9 112
YS.d996?m
AUG a 1 2006
DEW - WATER QUA! ITY
4E1'LAidOS AND STO??M'1V.-?.TBR BRAWN
NEPA & SEPA Environmental Assessments • Environmental Impact Studies # Jurisdictional Wetland & Stream Buffer Delineations • 404 - 40I Permits •
GISIGPS Mapping* Water Quality Monitoring •Stream & Wetland Mitigation and Restoration* Endangered Species Surveys & Monitoring
• Biological Assessments & Conservation Plans • Water Intakes & Reservoirs • Water Lines & Treatment Plants • Sewerlines & Wastewater Treatment
• Instream Flow Analyses • Interbasin Transfer Certificates • Lake Management & Watershed Modeling •Archaeological Surveys and Testing s Solid
Waste Landfills *Phase I Environmental Site Assessments 0 Parks & Greenways Planning 0 CWMTF Grant Applications
Harnett County,
North Carolina
ONE
ONE
... nson
Hanson Aggregates
Senter Sand and
Gravel Mine
2005 Wetland Monitoring
Report
April 2006
Revised July 2006
¦¦¦ Hanson
HANSON AGGREGATES
Senter Sand & Gravel Mine
Annual Monitorinci Report
1) Background:
Hanson Aggregates acquired Becker Minerals in October 1998 and assumed
the responsibility for compliance with all permits issued to Becker Minerals. Becker
Minerals was originally issued a Nationwide Permit No. 26 (Action ID No.199701563)
by the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Office on
February 6, 1997 to be allowed to impact 5.93 acres wetlands above the headwater
of an unnamed tributary of the Upper Little River at the Harnett Quarry near Lillington
N.C. One of the conditions of permit issuance was that a mitigation plan be
developed for off site mitigation, at a ratio of 1:1, at the Senter Mine which is located
in the Upper Little River drainage basin near Lillington, N.C. (Appendix 7).
Becker Minerals engaged Environmental Services, Inc. of Raleigh to develop
the required mitigation plan. The mitigation plan was approved by the Department of
Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Office on October 27, 1997. The
approved mitigation plan requires that annual monitoring of the created wetlands be
completed by October 1 of each year and a monitoring report be submitted by
December 1 of each year.
2) Hydrology of the Mitigation Site:
A requirement of the mitigation plan is to demonstrate that the created
wetland area will have a typical wetland hydrology. The mitigation area contains a
number of surface ponds that are connected to the ground water table. The surface area
of the ponds changes during the year in response to storm water runoff from areas
above the mitigation site. The yearly (2000 through 2005) rainfall measurement data
obtained in the vicinity of the mitigation area are included in Appendix 5.
Surface hydrology is demonstrated by the presence of the ponds. To
demonstrate the presence of subsurface hydrology two sets of monitoring wells were
installed within the mitigation area. A set of monitoring wells consists of three to four
wells in a line across the mitigation area between the upland fingers (Appendix 7).
One set of wells was installed at the northern end of the mitigation area (Wells A-1
through A-3) and the other set at the southern end of the mitigation area (Wells E-1
through E-4). Both sets of monitoring wells lie on a permanent monitoring transect.
The monitoring wells were installed in accordance with the specifications
provided by the Corps of Engineers. The monitoring wells were set to a depth of
three feet below the surface.
The monitoring wells have been read on a semimonthly basis. Well data,
relative to the ground surface, are presented in Appendix 6. A value of zero
represents water depth at the ground surface. Negative values equal depth below
the surface, while positive values indicate inundation. Water levels in the monitoring
wells were measured and recorded on 30 occasions throughout 2005.
The wetland hydrology criterion consists of saturation within 12 inches of the
surface exceeding 12.5 percent of the growing season, which equates to a minimum
of 28 consecutive days in Harnett County based on a growing season of 226 days
(March 23 through November 5).
3) Monitoring Transects Lines:
A total of five permanent transect lines were initially established in the
wetland area in 1998. The transect lines locations were selected to be representative
of all conditions that are present in the mitigation area. The transect lines generally
run from an upland across the wetland to the opposite upland. In 2000, two
additional transect lines were added to be representative of the areas where
seedlings were planted in February 2000 (Transects F and G). Since the monitoring
has been completed for Transects A through E, this report presents monitoring data
for Transects F and G, only. A map indicating the locations of the monitoring
transects is given in Appendix 7.
The beginning and end of each of the transect lines are marked with a pipe
driven into the ground. A plastic marker is placed at 100 foot intervals along the
transect line. Each tree within 20 feet of the centerline of the transect was surveyed
and marked with pink ribbon to identify it as a tree to be monitored. Trees within the
monitoring zone were identified by species, and the height and girth of the tree was
measured and recorded. Dead trees were recorded but not measured. Table #1
summarizes the information recorded from each transect in 2005. Detailed tables of
the tree monitoring results are given in Appendices 2 and 3. Photographs of the two
transects appear in Appendix 8 and the approximate location and direction of each
photograph is indicated on the Transect Location Map in Appendix 7. Appendix 9
contains photographs of other areas of the mitigation area that were taken on the
same day.
Table 1. Summary of Tree Monitoring for 2005
Transect F G
# of Live Planted Trees 17 19
# of Live Volunteer Trees 0 1
Max. Height of Trees in 52 40
Min. Height of Trees in 12 10
Max. Girth of Trees in 1.25 1
Min. Girth of Trees in 0.3 0.3
% Survival of Trees 40.5 35.8
of Volunteer Trees 0.0 5.0
Live Planted Trees per Acre 250 280
4) Discussion of Monitoring Results:
The average height of the trees in Transects F and G increased from 2004 to
2005, indicating continued growth of the seedlings (Appendix 4). The average girth
of the trees in Transect G increased steadily from 2004 to 2005 while average girth
in Transect F was unchanged.
The 2005 percent survival was 40.5 for Transect F and 35.8 for Transect G.
Only 63 and 51 percent of the trees recorded in 2004, for Transects F and G,
respectively, survived until the end of the growing season in 2005 (Appendix 1).
Although the remaining live trees continued to grow on Transects F and G, tree
mortality for the two transects combined, was higher than that of any other
monitoring year.
Tree monitoring data can reflect the presence or absence of hydrology
necessary to support hydrophytic vegetation throughout the wetland creation area.
Precipitation and well data were examined to better understand the hydrologic
conditions during 2005.
Average annual rainfall for North Carolina for the period from 1995 to 2005 is
51.38 inches according to NOAA Climatic Data. Total average rainfall for North
Carolina in 2005 was 50.27 inches. NOAA rainfall data for the years 2000 to 2005
show higher than normal rainfall in 2003; lower than average rainfall in 2000 and
2001 and slightly less than average rainfall in 2002, 2004 and 2005.
Local rainfall data is collected at the Elliott Mine operation, approximately 3
miles away from the Senter Mine. Annual rainfall as recorded for 2005 was 39.4
inches, several inches below the state average and the lowest of any year recorded
at the Elliott Mine (2000-2005) (Appendix 5).
All of the seven wells indicated that wetland hydrology criterion of water table
depth within 12 inches of the surface was being met, except for well E-4 (Appendix
6). None of the measurements taken during the growing season (March 23 - Nov 5)
at E-4 showed water table depth within 12 inches of the surface.
For the mitigation plan to be a success a survival rate of 320 trees per acre
has to be met at the end of five years. This criterion was not met in 2005 (Table 1,
Appendix 1). This is most likely attributed to the severe 2005 drought conditions
present in this area, as indicated by the rainfall data, well data, and resulting tree
mortality.
5) Conclusions
The monitoring results for 2005 show that success criteria for the monitored
wetland areas at the Senter Plant are not being met. As in the approved Senter
Mine Mitigation Plan, coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies will be
undertaken to determine the most appropriate remedial action. This will mostly likely
include replanting of the most successful tree species and investigation into possible
modifications to improve site hydrology.
Appendix #1
Summary of Tree Monitoring Data
2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002
Transect F G F G F G F G
# of Planted Trees 17 19 27 37 28 45 39 51
# of Volunteer Trees 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Max. Height of Trees (in) 52 40 46 34 34 34 34 33
Min. Height of Trees (in) 12 10 9 8 10 8 3 4
Max. Girth of Trees (in) 1.25 1 1.2 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Min. Girth of Trees (in) 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
Survival of Trees 40.5 35.8 64.3 69.8 66.7 84.9 92.9 96.2
of Volunteer Trees 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.9
Planted Trees per Acre 250 304 397 593 412 721 574 817
Number of trees per acres was calculated in the following manner:
LINE F = (# of trees (43) / Length of transect (74') X Width (40')) / 43560 ft2 per acre
LINE G = (# of trees (43) / Length of transect (68') X Width (40')) / 43560 ft2 per acre
Trees per Acre on Transects F and G
900
800
700
600
L
V
F 500 a
CL
400 0
320
300 ?
200
100
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Monitoring Period (Year)
Appendix #2
Line F 2005 Data
2002 to 2005 Data Summary
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST, SOUTHEAST REGION - SENTER SAND & GRAVEL PLANT
MONITORING RESULTS - TRANSECT LINE F
Station Species Status 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005
Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth
in in in in in in in in in in in in
0-15 9 RT Green Ash P 18 0.1 18 0.2 16 0.3 - -
0-15 3 RT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 11 0.2 3 0.2 - - -
0-12 2 RT Green Ash P 14 0.1 15 0.2 13 0.3 -
0-09 3 LT Green Ash P 12 0.1 10 0.2 10 0.2
0-07 8 RT Water Tupelo P 15 0.1 11 0.1 3 0.1
0-03 1 RT WaterTu to P 13 0.1 14 0.2 14 0.2 - -
0-02 5 LT Water Tupelo P 12 0.1 14 0.2 14 0.3 17 0.2 17 0.2
0-02 6 RT Green Ash p 19 0.1 7 0.1 - -
0+00 PIPE LINE F-ST
0+02 9 LT Green Ash P 13 0.1 13 0.1 15 0.2 15 0.2 15 0.3 14 0.3
0+03 1 RT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 17 0.2 17 0.2 - - -
0+07 3 LT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 17 0.3 14 0.3 10 0.3 9 0.4
0+10 7 RT Water Tupelo P 24 0.2 21 0.5 21 0.5 - - -
0+11 8 LT Water Tupelo P 14 0.1 14 0.3 14 0.3 15 0.3 14 0.3 14 0.3
0+14 4 RT Water Tupelo P 22 0.3 22 0.5 20 0.5 23 0.5 20 0.5 17 0.5
0+18 1 LT Water Tupelo P 25 0.2 23 0.4 24 0.4 24 0.4 24 0.5 -
0+18 8 RT Green Ash P 30 0.3 27 0.5 26 0.5 25 0.5 24 0.5 20 0.5
0+19 11 RT Green Ash P 22 0.1 18 0.4 22 0.5 22 0.5 26 0.7 -
0+21 1 LT Water Tupelo P - - 23 0.3 24 0.4 22 0.3 18.5 0.3
0+23 6 RT Green Ash P 28 0.2 30 0.4 34 0.6 34 0.6 46 1.2 52 1.25
0+23 5 LT Water Tupelo P 21 0.2 15 0.3 13 0.3 15 0.3 15 0.3 - -
0+26 1 RT Green Ash P 22 0.2 22 0.4 23 0.5 23 0.5 23 0.5 29 0.75
0+28 10 LT Water Tupelo P 20 0.1 20 0.3 15 03 -
0+28 6 LT Green Ash P 29 0.2 24 0.4 26 0.5 27 0.5 27 0.6 28 0.75
0+29 10 RT Green Ash P 20 0.1 18 0.3 20 0.4 20 0.4 20 0.5
0+32 11 LT Green Ash P 23 0.2 18 0.4 19 0.5 20 0.6 20 0.5
0+33 3 RT Green Ash P 20 0.2 21 0.4 23 0.4 23 0.4 23 0.6 23 0.6
0+35 8 RT Water Tupelo P 12 0.3 20 0.5 26 0.5 27 0.5 28 0.6 33 0.8
0+35 4 LT Green Ash P 24 0.2 24 0.5 28 0.6 27 0.6 32 0.6 31 0.8
0+37 10 LT Green Ash P 20 0.1 20 0.3 21 0.4 22 0.4 28 0.2 28 0.6
0+38 2 RT Water Tupelo P 20 0.2 19 0.5 20 0.5 19 0.5 20 0.6 20 0.8
0+42 5LT WaterTu to P 25 0.2 25 0.5 25 0.6 26 0.6 26 0.5
0+42 8 RT Water Tupelo P 13 0.1
0+45 1 RT Water Tupelo P 18 0.1 14 0.2 15 0.5 23 0.5 20 0.5 22 1
0+45 11 LT Water Tupelo P 24 0.2 - - - - -
0+46 6 LT Water Tupelo P 20 0.1 20 0.3 18 0.3 20 0.3 19 0.3 20 0.5
0+47 11 RT Said Cypress P 15 0.1 15 0.1 14 0.2 16 0.2 30 0.5 26 0.6
0+51 PIPE LINE F-END
0+51 4 RT Water Tupelo P 20 0.1 17 0.3 -
0+52 3 LT Water Tupelo P 24 0.2 22 0.3 22 0.4 15 0.4 - - -
0+53 6 RT Water Tupelo P 17 0.1 9 0.1 8 0.1 - - -
0+56 ONLINE Green Ash P 10 0.1 9 0.1 10 0.1 -
0+57 6 LT Green Ash P 15 0.1 15 0.2 15 0.3 15 0.3 16 0.4
0+57 6 RT Bald Cypress P 17 0.1 18 0.3 20 0.3 23 0.3 29 0.6 36 1
0+59 1 LT Water Tupelo P 22 0.2 20 0.5 15 0.5 15 0.5 12 0.3 12 0.5
# of Alive Trees 42 41 39 28 27 17
Total Height of Trees 800 730 700 583 601.5 425
Average height of trees 19.05 17.8 17.95 20.82 22.28 25
% Survival 100 97.62 92.86 66.67 64.29 40.48
Average Girth 0.148 0.305 0.364 0.414 0 .481 0.481
Appendix #3
Line G 2005 Data
2002 to 2005 Data Summary
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST, SOUTHEAST REGION - SENTER SAND & GRAVEL PLANT
MONITORING RESULTS - TRANSECT LINE G
Station Species Status 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005
Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth Height Girth
in in in in in in in in in in in in
0-06 2 RT Green Ash P 22 0.2 22 0.5 22 0.5 20 0.5 20.5 0.5
0-04 3 LT Bald Cypress P 20 0.1 20 0.3 21 0.4 23 0.4 23.5 0.5 24 0.6
0-01 2 RT Green Ash P 19 0.2 19 0.3 19 0.5 18 0.5 18 0.5 -
0-01 6 RT Water Tupelo P 18 0.2 12 0.3 12 0.5 15 0.5 14 0.25
0+00 PIPE LINE G ST
0+01 9 LT Water Tupelo P 19 0.1 16 0.2 16 0.4 15 0.4 17 0.4 13 0.3
0+01 3 LT Bald Cypress P 18 0.1 18 0.2 20 0.4 22 0.4 31 0.5 33 0.5
0+05 5 RT Water Tupelo P 12 0.1 12 0.2 12 0.2 13 0.2 13 0.4 10 0.7
0+06 1 LT Green Ash P 22 0.2 23 0.4 25 0.5 25 0.5 24 0.5 23 0.6
0+06 10 LT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 16 0.2 12 0.3 10 0.3 10.5 0.4 13 0.5
0+09 2 LT Water Tupelo P 24 0.2 24 0.3 24 0.6 24 0.6 18 0.5
0+10 5 RT Water Tu to P 13 0.1 10 0.2 10 0.3 9 0.3
0+12 11 LT Water Tupelo P 12 0.1 12 0.1 12 0.2 8 0.2 8 0.2
0+13 0 LT Green Ash P 20 0.2 21 0.3 22 0.5 23 0.5 21 0.5
0+15 2 LT Water Tupelo P 15 0.2 12 0.3 17 0.4 15 0.5
0+15 6 RT Water Tupelo P 9 0.1 7 0.1 4 0.1
0+18 8 LT Water Tupelo P 23 0.2 23 0.3 23 0.4 23 0.4 22 0.2 22 0.6
0+19 6 RT Button Bush P 16 0.1 12 0.1 12 0.2
0+20 2 RT Green Ash P 26 0.2 27 0.4 27 0.5 27 0.5 28 0.5 27 0.6
0+22 4 LT Bald C ress P 13 0.1 15 0.1 15 0.2 15 0.2 18 0.4 19 0.5
0+23 4 RT Button Bush P 14 0.1
0+24 7 LT Water Tupelo P 19 0.2 19 0.2 19 0.4 - - - - - -
0+26 9 LT Bald Cypress P 16 0.1 16 0.2 19 0.3 19 0.3 18 0.4 19 0.5
0+28 2 RT Green Ash P 27 0.3 30 0.5 20 0.5 30 0.5 30 0.5
0+28 6 LT Water Tupelo P 12 0.1 12 0.1 12 0.2 12 0.2 12 0.2
0+30 3 LT Bald Cypress P 28 0.2 28 0.3 15 0.3 21 0.4 29 0.4 34 0.7
0+30 4 RT Water Tu to P 23 OF 19 0.2 20 0.3 22 0.3 22 0.3 21 0.6
0+32 5 RT Unknown V 22 0.2 22 0.2 21 0.3 12 0.3 14 0.3 15 0.3
0+34 5 LT Water Tupelo P 20 0.1 14 0.1 14 0.3 15 0.3 15 0.5
0+36 6 RT Water Tupelo P 27 0.2 27 0.2 24 0.3 20 0.4 19 0.4 20 0.5
0+36 3 RT Green Ash P 26 0.3 28 0.4 28 0.5 29 0.5 29 0.5 - -
0+37 7 RT Overcu Oak P 36 0.3 32 0.3 33 0.4 34 0.5 31 0.6 35 0.7
0+37 1 LT Bald Cypress P 21 0.2 21 0.3 21 0.4 24 0.5 27 0.6 26 0.6
0+38 7 LT Water Tupelo P 17 0.2 12 0.2 12 0.3
0+40 5 LT Water Tupelo P 22 0.2 20 0.2 18 0.3 30 0.3
0+42 2 RT Green Ash P 12 0.1 13 0.3 15 0.4 16 0.4 15 o.5
0+42 9 RT Water Tupelo P 9 0.1 9 0.1 4 0.1
0+44 1 RT Bald Cypress P 26 0.2 26 0.4 26 0.5 26 0.5 32 1 40 1
0+45 9 LT Water Tupelo P 24 0.2 - -
0+46 5 LT Water Tupelo P 17 01 15 0.2 8 0.2 15 0.2
0+48 8 RT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 13 0.1 12 0.1 13 0.2 12 0.3
0+49 0 RT Green Ash P 20 0.2 22 0.3 22 0.5 23 0.5
0+50 5 LT Water Tupelo P 12 0.1 8 0.1 9 0.1 11 0.2 14 0.3
0+51 10 LT Bald Cypress P 22 0.2 22 0.3 27 0.6 27 0.6 34 0.4 -
0+52 2 RT Bald Cypress P 21 0.1 21 0.3 21 0.4 21 0.4 32 0.6 36 0.75
0+53 7 RT Water Tupelo P 14 0.1 12 0.1 8 0.2
0+55 7 LT Water Tupelo P 16 0.1 13 0.2 12 0.2 16 0.2 15 0.3
0+56 5 LT Water Tupelo P 28 0.2 25 0.5 24 0.5 16 0.6
0+56 1 RT Green Ash P 13 0.1 14 0.2 16 0.4 16 0.4 16
0+58 4 RT Water Tupelo P 18 0.1 18 0.3 17 0.3 23 0.4
0+60 3 RT Bald Cypress P 13 0.1 14 0.2 19 0.3 19 0.3 27 0.6 35 0.6
0+60 7 PT Water Tupelo P 15 0.1 13 0.1 12 0.3 12 0.3 13 0.3
0+61 PIPE LINE G END
0+62 5 RT Water Tupelo P 15 0.1 10 0.1 12 0.3 12 0.3
0+62 2 LT Green Ash P 17 0.2 19 0.4 19 0.4 18 0.4 19 0.4 - -
# of Alive Trees 531 1 511 1 511 1 451 1 37 19
Total Height of Trees 995 908 884 858 761.5 465
Average height of trees 18.77 17.8 17.33 19.07 20.58 24.47
% Survival 100 96.23 96.23 84.91 69.81 35.85
Average Girth 0.155 0.243 0.347 0.384 0.434 10.587
Appendix #4
Graphical Data Summary for Monitoring
Periods (Years) 1 -5
Growth of Trees in Transect F 2000-2005
28 1
N
s 26
24
c
? 22
2 20
as 18
16
>
Q 14
1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Periccl pvea-I
Growth of Trees in Transect G 2000-2005
28 --- -- -
m
26
c
c 24
22
a?
= 20
d 18
?a
W 16
Q 14 --
1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Period (Year)
Growth of Trees in Transect F 2000-2005
0.6
N
0
5
.
v
C
0
4
=
. - -------- -
t
0
3
. -
C?
0
2
. -
L
1
> 0
.
Q
0
- -- - - - -
1 2 3 4 5 6
±wn.-.+,.r;.?n Period (Year)
Growth of Trees in Transect G 2000-2005
0.7 -
t 0.6
_= 0.5
c
0.4
1C
0.3
0.2
L
0.1
Q
0 -- - -
1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Period (Year)
Appendix #5
Monthly Rainfall in Inches
Senter Vicinity
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
January 4.7 1.7 6.1 2.4 1 2
February 2.4 1.8 1.6 7.5 5.5 2.8
March 3.6 5.7 5.1 6.2 2.2 5
April 3.1 2.1 13.6 10.5 3 2
May 1.4 3 2 8.7 7.5 2.7
June 4.2 7.3 2.2 3.5 9.1 3.1
July 7.9 6 3.9 9.5 3.8 5.1
August 4.9 13.7 3.4 9 10.5 1.5
September 5.1 1.4 5.3 4.1 5.3 1.8
October 0 1 5.3 0.9 3
November 2.8 1.3 1.4 3.1 5.4
December 1.71 1 5.1 1.1 5.3
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
average monthly rainfall 3.5 4.1 4.8 6.1 4.4 3.3
Monthly Rainfall
16
14 -- 2000
12 - 1
2001
W 1$ -- __ / 2002
_ a 2003
6 2004
4 = l ? ?-
2 2005
0
P?°, e?°? O&0 ,°? Gem
c,°
Month
Appendix #6
2005 Senter Monitoring Well Data
Wells
Week of A-1 A-2 A-3 E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4
Jan.2 - - - - - - -
Jan.9 -0.5 -2.5 5.25 5.25 2 -5.5 -20
Jan. 16 3.5 1.5 7.25 6.25 3 -6.5 -18
Jan. 23 2.5 -2.5 10.25 0.25 Inundated -3.5 -11
Feb.6 - - - - - - -
Feb. 13 1.5 0.5 6.25 -0.75 1 -8.5 -13
Feb. 20 3.5 0.5 8.25 -0.75 2 -9.5 -16
Feb. 27 - - - - - - -
Mar.6 5.5 -2.5 9.25 0.25 8 -3.5 -11
Mar. 13 - - - - - - -
Mar. 20 - - - - - - -
Mar. 27 3.5 0.5 7.25 1.25 2 -6.5 -17
Apr. 3 1.5 -1.5 7.25 -0.75 -1 -10.5 -20
Apr. 10 -0.5 -1.5 6.25 025 -1 -11.5 -20
Apr. 17 -1.5 -3.5 4.25 -0.75 -2 -11.5 -22
Apr. 24 -2.5 -3.5 5.25 -0.75 -3 -12.5 -23
Ma 1 - - - - - - -
May 8 - - - - - - -
May 15 -0.5 -1.5 7.25 1.25 -1 -8.5 -18
May 22 - - - - - - -
Jun.5 -2.5 -2.5 6.25 0.25 -2 -12.5 -22
Jun. 12 -2.5 -1.5 6.25 1.25 -1 -10.5 -20
Jun. 19 - - - - - - -
Jun. 26 -2.5 -1.5 5.25 0.25 -2 -11.5 -22
Jul.3 -2.5 -1.5 5.25 -1.75 -5 -10.5 -21
Jul. 10 - - - - - - -
Jul. 17 - - - - - - -
Jul. 24 -1.5 -1.5 4.25 -2.75 -5 -11.5 -23
Aug. 7 -2.5 0.5 6.25 -2.75 -5 DRY -25
Aug. 14 - - - - - - -
Aug. 21 -1.5 -0.5 5.25 -1.75 -6 DRY -28
Aug. 28 -2.5 -2.5 4.25 -2.75 -8 DRY DRY
Sept.4 - - - - - - -
Sept. 11 - - - - - - -
Sept. 18 -0.5 -3.5 -0.75 -4.75 -18 DRY DRY
Sept. 25 -0.5 -4.5 0.25 -3.75 -18 DRY DRY
Oct.2 -1.5 -4.5 0.25 -5.75 -18 DRY DRY
Oct.9 -1.5 -3.5 -0.75 -6.75 -18 DRY DRY
Oct. 16 - - - - - - -
Oct. 23 - - - - - - -
Nov.6 -1.5 -9.5 -1.75 -7.75 -18 DRY DRY
Nov. 13 -1.5 -9.5 -1.75 -7.75 -18 DRY DRY
Nov. 20 -1.5 -9.5 -1.75 -7.75 -18 DRY DRY
Nov. 27 - - - - - - -
Dec.4 -0.5 -5.5 -0.75 -3.75 -16 -12.5 -28
Dec. 11 -0.5 -3.5 3.25 -4.75 -5 -10.5 -25
Dec. 18 - - - - - - -
Dec.25 2.5 -1.5 5.25 -1.75 -2 -8.5 -16
*Negative values represent depth below the surface.
N M c1 N M
Q Q Q W W W W
t
cc
ea
d
0
_
0
L
N
U)
Cl
0
N

?I
4
r

4K
c?#

r`
Ril
I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1?1 J
<<.ap
16.
ap
?o
1
9 041
.'o
6?b
'g!
-'a
DIP
?b
C'z n
G
?n
T?
?a
?Q.
O? b
O . °b
?a
o?
9a
y
90
Gy
9z Gn
6
G?
n
sayoui ui (ojaz) aoe:pnS o; anijejaJ y;dad ja;eM
Appendix #7
Location Maps
Mitigation Area Map
,
,
j - o
o?

scrtuc e

0
' tt k ? t
tt
r
fLLT r
I T_=.
TAY
Tom'
iv
•0•
a•o
Area Shown in I
Location Map

200' 0' 200 400'
"' Hanson
Hanson Aggregates Southeast. Inc.
tAVWk
SENTER PLANT - LILLINGTON, N.C.
l SNORING toroms of rrtursECfims mTm atuu wttwtas
w?c 1 ?=400 ?? Senter Webanda.drg
rr J.C./N.M.W ' OCT 'Ol ??? ? 1 Of 1
0

i 1Z
Boundary of Mitigation Site ?200
}?( Photograph Number and direction
iv
?Q¦
ago
•D•
Transect Location Map
Appendix #8
Monitoring Transect Photographs
Photo 1
L
r: . Y f«s. . i
- No
f
i
t;
3r S ? ? 1 i $? 31
? 44,
Beginning of Transect F (facing south)
Photo 2

4
/j
rfr '?''.

.'w
+'9zffi? `NW eF.
jvor er •:'y?'.;cc?..? .,_r:v.....N?..., .a.. a ? m?:;?0ea, 3 %' fi,4'=

a
Beginning of Transect F (facing north)
?,I
G J h'
` Photo 3
3
End of Transect G (facing north)
Appendix #9
Photographs of other areas within the Mitigation Site
a
r.
? V T KYS; Est .? t
Li
t d ?y? 1 P.. y S 4 W.,
West of Transect F (facing north)

Facing northeast across Transect B
rt S -
Y ?

4W till: x x'+W? . ?

?F

Face south from Transect B

4 Sx'? *" f
x `..a.
South of Transect A (facing south)