NC0089168_Sound Rivers_Comments_20241120

SOUND
RIVERS
PROTECTING THE NEUSE&TAR-PAMLICO
November 20, 2024
Via email
Derek Denard, Program Consultant
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality — Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Permitting Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
derek.denard(a)deq.nc.gov
Re: Public Comments on Draft NPDES Permit No. NCO089168 for Martin Marietta
Materials' Vanceboro Quarry
Dear Mr. Denard,
Sound Rivers offers the following comments in addition to the comments Sound
Rivers submitted on September 23, 2024. This letter is meant to supplement and build
upon those previous comments. This letter is also meant to be supplemental to the
Southern Environmental Law Center's ("SELC") comments, which have been submitted
on behalf of Sound Rivers.
Sound Rivers, founded in 1981, is a grassroots environmental organization
representing nearly 6000 members and is a licensed member of Waterkeeper Alliance,
Inc. Our mission is to monitor, protect, and enhance the Tar-Pamlico and Neuse River
watersheds while promoting environmental justice. Sound Rivers has been involved in
this permitting process since its very beginning when Sound Rivers staff discovered
plans for Martin Marietta's Vanceboro mine in 2011. Sound Rivers and its members
continue to have vested interest in this permit renewal.
Blounts Creek (Lower SB, NSW, upper—C, Sw, NSW) is a brackish creek system
and an important aquatic nursery area for numerous species. As noted by the NC
Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), Blounts Creek supports dense submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) beds. The DMF also confirms that the system is used by anadromous
fish for spawning migrations and nursery areas, and resident species'. Blounts Creek is
also an important recreational resource for Beaufort County. Two public boat ramps are
located on Blounts Creek. Recreational fishermen utilize Blounts Creek year round. The
' DMF Letter from Kevin Hart to William Wescott, January 3, 2012. Martin Marietta Materials Mine-
Vanceboro Site (Beaufort/Craven County)
P.O. Box 1854 EarthShare
'MEMBER Washington, NC 27889 �-' Cmohna
New Bern [phone] — Raleigh [phone] — Washington [phone]

creek and Blounts Bay are also an important economic resource for some commercial
crabbers and local fishing guides. Blounts Creek is a coastal, blackwater stream, a type
of stream that is more acidic and saline than other freshwater systems. The upper
portion of Blounts Creek, which will be most affected by the 12 MGD discharge, is
secondarily classified as a swamp water. Swamp waters ("Sw") are waters " that have
natural characteristics due to topography, such as low velocity, dissolved oxygen, or pH,
that are different from streams draining steeper topography"2 . The natural
characteristics of a swamp water -- low flow, low concentrations of dissolved oxygen,
high concentrations of tannins, and low pH -- are what create Blounts Creek's particular
habitat. These defining characteristics must be protected to maintain biological integrity,
which is required under state law.
As described in Sound Rivers' previous comments and the Southern
Environmental Law Center's submitted comments, the Department of Environmental
Quality ("the Department") should not approve the renewal of Martin Marietta's Draft
NPDES Permit No. NCO089168 ("draft permit") because the draft permit violates water
quality standards and state law as it will not adequately protect the biological community
of Blounts Creek.2 If the permit is issued, however, we ask that the following updates be
included in the permit before issuance.
Reiterating what SELC has requested on Sound Rivers' behalf in terms of updates to
the draft permit:
• We ask that the agency establish more specific reference conditions for the
following biological integrity metrics: species composition, diversity, population
densities, and functional organization. Establishing reference conditions in terms
of these metrics gives meaning to the biological integrity standard and equips the
Department with more information on which to assess compliance with the
standard.
• The department must mandate more biological monitoring. As it stands now,
the draft permit requires that Martin Marietta complete only one benthic
macroinvertebrate survey and report the results of that survey "at least six
months prior to expiration" of the permit.' This condition fails to fulfill the purpose
of monitoring because the Department will not know if Martin Marietta has
fundamentally altered the Creek until the permit has essentially expired,
eliminating the Department's ability to enforce corrective actions. At the start of
the permit's term, the Department should require biological monitoring at least
2 Southern Environmental Law Center (2024) "Public Comments on Draft NPDES Permit No. NCO089168
for Martin Marietta Materials' Vanceboro Quarry"
s Draft NPDES Permit No. NCO089168

quarterly. Afterwards, the Department could consider a tiered monitoring
approach, which could result in a reduction of monitoring frequency over time if
Martin Marietta is found to be consistently in compliance-not altering the species
composition and biodiversity of the creek. However, "if problems are found during
the initial sampling, more frequent sampling and more comprehensive
monitoring"' should be mandated.'
Please refer back to SELC's comments for more information on the above
requests. Additional requests from Sound Rivers are described below including our
recommendations that:
• the turbidity monitoring requirements be updated to prevent ecosystem
harm,
• erosion monitoring be implemented to track how the discharge impacts the
stream,
• an updated geomorphic and hydraulic analysis be redone,
• an increased level of transparency and public notices be implemented,
• and a reconsideration of alternative discharge methods.
Turbidity Monitoring and Reporting
The turbidity monitoring requirements in the draft permit must be strengthened in
order to reasonably protect the biological populations in the headwaters of Blounts
Creek. Variable turbidity monitoring at the upstream sample location is not sufficient to
monitor the impacts of the mine dewatering discharge on the receiving stream. Due to
the high flows and high velocity of the effluent leaving the site and entering the receiving
headwater stream, at 12 MGD, it is likely that the discharge will cause significant
erosion, disturb the sediment along the banks, and result in in-stream turbidity standard
exceedances. As so, only requiring the permittee to conduct instream sampling in the
case that a monthly grab sample if the effluent exceeds 50 NTU will not be sufficient in
alerting the Department of an issue in the receiving waters. Furthermore, if the effluent
is exceeding 50 NTU, Martin Marietta is only required to conduct in-stream sampling
once a week in the summer months: June, July, August, and September, and only
monthly throughout the rest of the year. This would allow Martin Marietta to knowingly
discharge wastewater exceeding the turbidity standards for up to 30 days eight months
out the year without consequence or corrective action.
4 NPDES Permit Writers' manual at 8-6.
5 Not only should the Department require more frequent sampling—if violations of the biological integrity
standard continue—the Department should do what has claimed it would do for the past decade: modify
or revoke the permit to ensure that the creek's biological community is protected. Respondent-Appellee
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's New Brief at 27.

Sediment pollution threatens aquatic ecosystems and can harm aquatic plants
and animals. Sediment can clog fish gills, damage fish-spawning areas, lower survival
rates for fish, diminish the filtering capacity of mussels, and generally lead to a decrease
in overall abundance and diversity of aquatic life. Sediment particles can also act as
carriers for pollutants like toxins, bacteria and nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen.
There is a well documented link between turbidity impairment and biological impairment.
When excess suspended sediment settles on the floor of a stream channel, it becomes
a challenge for benthic populations that require gravel, leaf-litter, stable vegetation and
riffles in order to thrive. For these reasons it is imperative that turbidity monitoring be
accurate and fully demonstrative of the conditions in the creek to prevent potentially
irreparable harm to aquatic life.
In order to achieve this, weekly in-stream turbidity must not be limited to the
summer months. As mentioned, it is possible that the planned high volume and velocity
discharge will cause in-stream turbidity measurements to exceed 50 NTU, even if there
are no reported exceedances within the effluent. On top of monthly sampling the
effluent, in-stream turbidity monitoring at each sampling location should be conducted at
least on a monthly basis as well to ensure the effects of discharge are not threatening
the natural habitat.
Reiterating from Sound Rivers' previously submitted comments, we suggest that
erosion monitoring take place in the receiving streams. Although it is outdated and
should be completed again, the geomorphic and hydraulic analysis completed by
Kimley Horn and Associates in 2010 found that both of the receiving stream banks
would "experience adjustments" even with just the built out discharge (3MGD at each
outfall). In the case that proposed 12 MGD is discharged at the two outfalls, the flows
would equal or exceed bankfull capacities. This shows that the receiving streams, which
typically are flowing at less than 1 cubic feet per second or even 0, are not equipped to
handle the flow of 12 MGD, the equivalent amount of water of 18 olympic sized
swimming pools per day. The discharge will overtop the banks, likely causing erosion
and bank destabilization.
We recommend that this hydraulic analysis be completed again to reassess
changes that have occurred in the last 14 years. After that is completed and before
discharge begins, we recommend that natural erosion rates in the receiving streams are
evaluated. The hydraulic analysis should be redone to account for changes in the creek
over the last 14 years. There are many ways to conduct this analysis, including the use
of erosion pins.

Increased transparency and public notices
My role in Sound Rivers has allowed me to hear from much of the community
who is deeply concerned about the effect that this discharge will have on Blounts Creek.
A major concern that has been voiced by many is that they will have no way of knowing
if Martin Marietta is really complying with the monitoring requirements or in compliance
with the standards set. The impact of this discharge will be largely invisible from the
surface in downstream areas of Blounts Creek, affecting non-visible water quality
parameters like pH and salinity. The best way to combat these community concerns is
through a greater effort of transparency when it comes to monitoring this mine's
operation and compliance in the early stages. Our request is that, if this permit is to be
granted, the Department put out a public notice before discharge begins into Blounts
Creek. We also request that public notices come out upon the availability of Martin
Marietta's NPDES noncompliance quarterly and annual reports. While these typically
are publicly available through the Laserfiche database, they are not very accessible by
the public as Laserfiche is known to be difficult to navigate. SELC's comments reference
a tiered approach in monitoring, as described in the Permit Writers' Manual. We also
request that the public be alerted if and when the Department utilizes this tiered
approach and decreases requirements for monitoring.
Public facing form for Water Supply Response Plan
Further in the spirit of transparency, we request that there be a public facing form
related to the Water Supply Response plan. We appreciate that Martin Marietta has
drafted this plan to handle potential issues with landowner wells within their zone of
influence, but again, this document is not easy to find. To ensure that impacted land
owners have access to the resources they need to report and resolve an issue, it is
imperative that the Hydrogeologic Characterization and Predictive Modeling Analysis be
redone to identify a comprehensive, up to date list of residents with wells within the
mine's drawdown zone. Once that is completed, those residents should be provided
with the necessary information on who to contact upon a well failure and the detailed
plan of how their issue will be addressed by Martin Marietta.
Reconsideration of alternatives
Discharging 12 MGD in the small intermittent headwater streams of Blounts
Creek is not the only option. Overwhelming evidence has shown that this option will
violate Clean Water Act rules and the state law for biological integrity, changing the
natural conditions and indigenous biological makeup of Blounts Creek.

An Engineering Alternatives Analysis was completed in 2012 by Groundwater
Management Associates to assess the feasibility of alternatives to discharge. The
alternatives analyzed include:
1. Connection to an existing water supply system
2. Disposal of water by land application
3. Injection of water into groundwater
4. Discharge to surface water through the NPDES program
5. Combination of alternatives
Groundwater Management Associates claimed that most regional water supply
systems contacted expressed little interest in obtaining water from the quarry operation.
However, the Town of Vanceboro expressed that they "may be interested in receiving
water from the quarry operation in the future" as it could "provide additional supplies that
could supplement the Town's current use in times of heavy demand or drought, or
provide supplies for future expansion in the area".' Twelve years later, water needs may
have changed, so these regional water supply systems in the area could be contacted
again about obtaining this additional water supply.
In analyzing alternative 2, disposal by land application, it was found that land
application could adversely affect Weyerhaeuser's silviculture operation, but that there
are tracts of land outside the silviculture area with better drainage characteristics where
land application would be viable and not impacting Weyerhaeuser's business.
Alternative 3, injection into groundwater would also be possible if the mine's dewatering
first underwent a treatment process before being reinjected.
While Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 were estimated to be less economically favorable
than discharging the full 12 MGD into the headwaters of Blounts Creek, they could still
be viable alternatives potentially with far less environmental and water quality impact.
Even the combination of these alternatives (ie. splitting the discharge up) would be
more favorable in terms of impact. We request that these alternatives be reconsidered
and further analyzed.
Conclusion
We urge the Department to adopt the changes and recommendations above to preserve
Blounts Creek as a unique and invaluable natural resource in eastern North Carolina. Thank
you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us to
discuss this matter further.
6 GMA Engineering Alternatives Analysis at 8

Sincerely,
Katey Zimmerman
Pamlico Tar Riverkeeper
Sound Rivers