Martin Marietta responds to questions from the Observer on the proposed Big Pocosin rock quarry | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    We include a link to allow readers to track these permits

    The following response to questions the Beaufort Observer submitted to Paxton Badham of Martin Marietta has been received and is published here exactly as received.

    1. What is the status of the permitting process at this time?

    At this time we have two permits under review. The first is a 404 Permit with the Corps of Engineers (COE) that includes the State Water Quality Certification (401 WQ Certification). This is a joint application process that covers the impacts to wetlands and surface water . The COE sent out a public notice in early December, and they have extended the comment period through the middle of January. They will review responses submitted by the public and based on content decide whether or not to hold a public hearing. DWQ also has the option of holding a public hearing. Impact issues regarding Blount's Creek are associated with the 401 WQ Certification and the NPDES Permit. Martin Marietta has worked to submit this information so that it can be reviewed concurrently within DWQ.

    The second permit is a NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit under review also by DWQ. Based on concerns about the stream receiving our discharge, we were not allowed to proceed under the typical General NPDES Permit process that is available for mining. Rather, we were required to proceed under the Individual Permit process so that DWQ could place additional monitoring and sampling requirements on our operation to insure the protection of Blount's Creek. DWQ is now reviewing our application; no questions or requests for additional information have been received by us to date, although this is the usual process, and we do anticipate questions and such requests. DWQ will not generate a draft Permit until all of their questions have been answered and their concerns addressed. At that point the draft will go out for public comment.

    These agencies have certain legal and scientific criteria for issuing these permits, and they will not issue these permits until and unless these criteria are met.

    We will also need a Capacity Use Permit to withdraw water. We have such a permit that was required for our aquifer test, but it will either need to be amended to include the actual quarry operation, or we will let it expire and seek a new one.

    2. Will there be a public hearing and/or a public information meeting to explain the project to residents? If so when and where?

    The regulatory agencies make the determination based on the facts and on the scientific information submitted whether or not to hold public hearings; Martin Marietta has nothing to do with these decisions. We are planning a public meeting to explain this project to citizens and to answer questions. This meeting will be held in a public forum, perhaps the Court House or the Civic Center, and will likely take place in late January or early February.

    3. Has there been any information produced that would be helpful to the public in understanding the project?

    The permit applications and supporting information and submittals are matters of public record, presumably available to be reviewed by anyone. We have generated numerous reports, studies, photos, maps, etc. in this process, most of it being of a scientific nature. We will try to present some helpful information at our meeting.

    4. What is the expected environmental impact of the quarry? Specifically on Blount's Creek, the Castle Hayne aquifer and wetlands?

    The potential impacts from the quarry are the core subjects of the required permits and the focus of the regulatory agencies reviewing the applications. We use consultants to conduct the studies necessary to provide the required information to the regulatory agencies and work closely with these agencies throughout the permitting process. Kimley-Horn has studied the potential impacts on wetlands within and adjacent to the project site and the upper headwaters of Blounts Creek, Groundwater Management Associates (GMA) has studied the ground water and aquifer impacts and CZR has studied the aquatic habitat of the upper headwaters of Blounts Creek. As the NPDES Permit is a work in progress at this point, there may well be additional study of impacts on Blounts Creek required.

    Our proposed quarry impacts a small area of wetlands within our boundary (6.69 acres). We will be required to mitigate these wetlands, as required by law. We will not be allowed to impact additional wetlands (on-site or off-site), and this will be monitored as the quarry develops by a network of monitoring wells. We have studied the site and developed the operation such that there will not be impacts to off-site wetlands and we have designed the layout of the operation so as to avoid wetlands that are preserved within the site.

    The aquifer test conducted by GMA was used to generate a model of impacts on ground water. Without question, we will depressurize the Castle Hayne aquifer, as does any well or other water withdrawal from there. We will follow the same mitigation process as does PCS with respect to wells impacted by our operation. If our model shows that we will definitively adversely impact a well or if a well located in our zone of influence shows signs of trouble related to the quarry, we will repair or replace the well or connect the owner to the public water supply.

    These permits will not be issued unless the regulatory agencies are confident that no adverse impacts to Blounts Creek will occur. The review process of both the quantity and quality of the discharge to Blounts Creek is in progress, and the primary portion of this review will be in the evaluation of the NPDES Permit. More to come on this. The quarry will start slowly with a volume of discharge much smaller than the permit maximum. Impacts will be reviewed during the growth of the quarry and corresponding increase in discharge volume, and where mitigation or modification of the mining process is dictated, changes will be made.

    5. If adverse impact is expected, how does MM propose to mitigate it?

    We will be required to mitigate any known impacts, but the type of mitigation will depend on the impact, or, alternatively, we will be required to modify our operation to eliminate the impact. For unforeseen impacts, the same requirement would apply, that is, even after issuance of a permit, if problems arise, we will be required to address them either by mitigation or modification of the process.

    Roger Thorpe of the Division of Water Quality in the Washington, NC field offices advises citizens that you can track the permitting process of DWQ by going to http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ps/npdes/calendar. On that page you can subscribe to notification via email by clicking on the "Subscribe via RSS" on the left side of the page.