19890189 Ver 1_Complete File_19890327

y...... 1i.
SrA7Z
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor May 19 , 1989 R. Paul Wilms
William W. Cobey, jr., Secretary Director
Mr. Don Lineberry, Vice-President
Nello L. Teer Company
Post Office Box 1131
Durham, North Carolina 27702
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the
Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Quarry
Nello L. Teer Company
Orange and Durham Counties
Dear Mr. Lineberry:
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of Certification No. 2335
issued to the Nello L. Terry Company dated May 19, 1989.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
/lam R. Paul Wilms
RPW:BM/kls
Linebery.ltr/vol.D-1
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. John Parker
Mr. Mike Gibbons, Ragsdale Consultants
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An E^ual 0--rtunity Affirmative Action Emolover

NORTH CAROLINA
ORANGE AND DURHAM COUNTIES
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the
requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500
to The Nello L. Teer Company pursuant to an application filed on
the 10th day of March, 1989 to fill waters and wetlands in
conjunction with the establishment of a new quarry near
Rougemont, North Carolina.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the
discharge of fill material into a wetland area adjacent to the
waters of Buffalo Creek in conjunction with the proposed rock
quarry in orange and Durham Counties will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge
guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies
that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306,
307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with
the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. That the activity be conducted in such a manner as
to prevent significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the
turbidity in the Stream is 50 NTU's or less are not
considered significant).
2. That the applicant shall implement the wetlands
mitigation plan as submitted with the application.
3. That the applicant monitor the success of the
created wetlands site as described in the attached
monitoring program.
. Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in
revocation of this Certification.
This Certification shall become null and void unless the
above conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
This the 19 day of May, 1989.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Paul Wilms, Director
WQC# 2335
Attachment
< ` yr
MONITORING PLAN FOR CREATED WETLAND SITE
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION NO. 2335
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, DURHAM COUNTY
Hydrology
The applicant shall investigate the created wetland site in.
April and October for three years, after creation to verify that
the artificial pools, canals and channels are not blocked and are
functioning as planned. Any repairs shall be done within 30 days
of discovery. The Raleigh Regional Office of DEM will be
notified of the result of the inspections and any repairs.
Vegetation
The applicant shall plant at least up to 100 potted river
birch saplings (two years old and three to five feet tall) in the
mitigation site. Equal portions will be planted in an upland
site, existing wetland and created wetland. Efforts. shall be
made to provide approximately the same level of shade/sun to all
saplings. Areas immediately around the saplings may be carefully
sprayed with appropriate herbicides as needed to reduce weed
competition. Trees will be numbered and a map prepared which
will be sufficient to locate the trees in the future.
In April and October for three years after planting, the
applicant will measure tree diameter at 36 inches from the
ground, tree height and survival. Tree growth and survival will
be compared. Notes about other vegetation changes will be made.
Data will be kept on an individual tree basis.
Soils
During each twice-yearly visit of the three year monitoring
period, the applicant shall take at least ten core samples with
an auger in each of the three zones (upland, existing wetland,
created wetland). Soil samples shall be compared to Muncel.
color charts for hue, value and chroma. Soil sample locations
shall be mapped and subsequent samples taken nearby.
Agency Coordination and Reports
The applicant shall notify the Raleigh Regional Office. of
DEM in writing no less than two weeks in advance of the data
collection. Other appropriate state and federal agencies shall
also be notified by the applicant in writing.
Following the initial planting and after each of the six
monitoring visits, the applicant shall within 60 days, prepare
reports to DEM describing site visits, work done, data and
conclusions. At the end of the three year monitoring period, the
applicant shall prepare a final report, acceptable to DEM,
describing the results of the created wetland effort and
information learned.

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MAN E T
WATER QUALITY SECTION
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE ' ..
May 16, 1989
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Bill Mills
THROUGH: William A. Kreutzbergeryl r
FROM: Ron Ferrell
SUBJECT: 401 Certification for the Nello Teer North Durham Quarry Site
The Raleigh Regional office has no objections to the wetland mitigation
plan as outlined in the February 9, 1989 application by Nello Teer for a COE
404E Permit. The wetland monitoring plan outlined in an April 27, 1989 memo
to you from John Dorney should be included as a condition of the 401 Certifi-
cation.
If I can be of further assistance, I can be contacted at 733-2314.
RF/jf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SAWCO89-N-032-0204
March'23, 1989
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, Post Office Box 1131, Durham, North Carolina
27702 has applied for a Department of the Army permit TO EXCAVATE, FILL AND
ALTER APPROXIMATELY 15.6 ACRES OF WETLANDS AND A FARM POND ABOVE THE
HEADWATERS OF BUFFALO CREEK FOR A CRUSHED STONE QUARRY WEST OF ROUGEMONT,
Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina.
The following information was not included in the Public Notice issued
March 2, 1989. A wetland area approximately 2.63 acres in size was omitted
from the original narrative and from Sheet 2 of 8. The addition of 2.63 acres
of wetland impact increases the total wetland impact to approximately 15.6
acres. Wetland vegetation includes river birch, red maple, willow, loblolly
pine, sweetgum, cedar, tulip poplar, shagbark hickory, American holly,
greenbriers, blackberries, sedges, soft rush and honeysuckle. Also included
with this notice is a clarification of Sheet 7 of 8 (plan view of mitigation
site). The Public Notice dated March 2, 1989, includes a description of the
remainder of the work. An environmental assessment describing the proposed
mine and mitigation plan, provided by the applicant, is available for review
in the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above and in
the Public Notice dated March 2, 1989, will be received in this office,
Attention: Ms. Kathy L. Trott, until 4:15 p.m., April 7, 1989, or telephone
[phone].
00 00
• 0 1
J• _ n
10
• M R r I ` ' I • ?O
its
i
Alk
fI \
I \ 11 ? n a 1 ?•
e e• 1,
?-
10
Vk'
`7
a
\ --
95 a
I (!? ( b! o:=
/y/]am? _ll11 \? ? ? . ep0 1 /. `` •?? ? ? 1 ? V
M
m
m
r

o m
z
m

3 _
boo z
ozo Z
G) D
=g0 m
m
vin m
(17
?m
O

C
?m r
~ D
Q D
? m r
£
D n z
m p c
D z
nmr ]? rn
(n

cn D
o
N
Z
9
QOO D
goo ?
rn
u, i
? I
r
ZNx { _0
D
v m
°
=
D
Z
N
m
z
zm
o''
0O
_ r
v.
am
3m
an
? O
m
C
as
?z
------------ --?O
-.._`
I lb?
1.
79C

zo

H
O

?c
a

?
trJ
H ?-C
H
4-
°
z
y
H C!]

H O

F-I

e T
O
a o? B o o
Z ti 2 a n ? y
? a n i n a
? o ? n o
H

i
t
i

fV E IL LO
I_. Tf=E=M COMPANY
A Subsidiary of Koppers Company, Inc.
OFFICE TEL: [phone] • TELEX: 57.9446
February 9, 1989
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Kathy Trott
11413 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
RE:
Dear Ms. Trott:
Application for a COE 404E
permit.
It is with pleasure that Nello L. Teer Company submits
this application for a Corps of Engineers 404E Dredge and
Fill Permit. As discussed with Ken Jolly of the Corps of
Engineers, you will find enclosed with this letter the
following information in triplicate:
1) Completed application for a permit.
2) Vicinity maps
3) Project mining plan
4) Cross sections
5) Wetlands mitigation proposal
The limited reserves at our existing Durham Quarry
necessitate the relocation of this facility so that Durham
County's crushed stone requirements will continue to be met.
After years of exploration and testing, a suitable quarry
site has been discovered on the Reed Poole property, which is
west of Rougemont, North Carolina.
Upon completion of the environmental assessment for this
prospective site, Robert Goldstein and Associates informed
Nello L. Teer Company of existing wetlands located onsite
which would be disturbed by our operation. Dr. Goldstein
proceeded to delineate these wetlands in the field and inform
the C.O.E. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife of his findings.
During conversations and meetings with the C.O.E. and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife, in their offices and in the field, it was
decided that the most appropriate solution to the wetlands
problem would be to find a mitigation site which, with work
performed by Nello Teer.Company, could be transformed into a
wetlands area.
®CIfYOF MEDICINE, USA
,« _ .
?R` ?_+.
i+
<?,

U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 2
Alternatives to wetland mitigation, which were addressed
and for specific reasons were not viable, are as follows:
1) Finding another site with which to supply the stone
needs of the county. The geology of Durham County is such
that only limited specific areas of the county contain rock
which would not only be suitable for stone production, but
also economically viable. Much of the area that is underlain
with suitable stone falls within the Durham County zoning
designation'known as the Water Quality Critical Basin area of
the county. This area restricts the type of development
which may occur in the water quality critical area so that
the City of Durham's drinking water will be protected, and is
very restrictive with regards to industrial and manufacturing
operations. A quarry would not be allowed in this zoning
designation. Residential development in other areas where
suitable material may be found has further restricted, and/or
eliminated the location of another site.
It should be noted that this location, in fact,
represents the last possible alternative site in our
exploration effort, and does not represent the best location
found. Sites near Little River dam and Little River School
were potentially.better sites, but were culled due to either
local opposition or zoning restraints.
2) Redesigning the site to eliminate the need to
disturb wetland areas.
Two areas of concern expressed by U. S. Fish and
Wildlife representatives, regarding wetland disturbance, were
the size and location of the main detention ponds for
stormwater runoff and the layout of the quarry pit. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife requested that we evaluate not only the
need for the two ponds, but also the.possibility of
decreasing-the surface area of the ponds by excavating in the
reservoir area and, in effect, deepening the ponds. This
would create the necessary storage capacity and thereby
lessen the impact on wetlands..
At the request of the Durham County Board of
Commissioners, Camp, Dresser and McKee, retained by Durham
County-as the watershed consultant, was asked to review the
entire North Durham Quarry project and its effect, if any, on
??._ .mac
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 3
the Little River watershed. As part of their findings, they
concluded that the two detention ponds were not of sufficient
surface area to minimize offsite sedimentation. As a result,
they requested that the surface area of the ponds be
increased-from approximately 22 to 30 acres. Due to this
engineering consideration, relocation and/or decreasing the
size of the ponds was.not attainable. Their findings are
included as an attachment to this correspondence.
The second area of concern, being the layout of the
quarry pit, was evaluated by Teer to see if it would be
possible for the pit to be reconfigured to avoid or minimize
wetland disturbance. While it sounds easy enough to do, a
comprehensive mining plan designed to avoid wetlands is
impractical, at best. As seen on the enclosed maps and cross
sections, the occurrence of wetlands within the proposed pit
area effectively dissects the pit into three quadrants.
Mining could proceed without direct disturbance of the
wetlands, although once the surrounding areas were mined and
the topography of the drainage basin altered, then the
wetlands will no longer receive periodic influxes of water
necessary for their survival.
.As you will note on the enclosed cross sections,
avoidance of wetland areas would also drastically reduce the
reserve potential of the deposit and greatly diminish our
ability to develop an orderly, systematic mining plan. It
should also be noted that the Teer Company has entered into
an agreement with the City of Durham for their eventual use
of the mining pit, with its present configuration, as a raw
water storage facility. Having to mine around the wetlands
would ultimately reduce the potential storage capacity of pit
and probably render the City of Durham's intentions useless.
Upon consideration of these and other alternatives, it
was decided that the best method of solving the wetlands
problem was to have Dr. Goldstein develop a wetlands
mitigation plan.- After many site evaluations, Dr. Goldstein
decided that a tract of land owned by Nello Teer Company at
its present Durham Quarry location would be suitable for
mitigation purposes. The enclosed mitigation plan has been
reviewed by various governmental agencies and found to be
acceptable, based on preliminary discussions and plan review.

U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 4
I hope that the enclosed plans and application meet with
the approval of all concerned. If any questions arise,
please do not hesitate to call me at 682-6191.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. T `]A?Ve
s R. Sprinkle
v t. .:?aa.+v?a.°i aaaa isugcr
JRHS/dg
Enclosures
CC: File
del
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER LAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Depan nsa tt of Ad ation Stets of North Garonne Department of the Army
(GS 146-12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Developmont Corpsof Ensineea, Wilmington District
(GS 113.229,143}215.3(a)(1), 143.21S.3(c), 113A•113 (33 CFR 209.320.329)
Please type or print and fill in-all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
1. Applicant Information
A. Name(Company) Nello L. Teer Company - Don Lineberry - Vice President
Lag First Middle
S. Address Post Office Box 1131
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Durham, North Carolina 27702 [phone]
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Durham/ Orange
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Rougemont, North Carolina
7 !s proposed work within city limits? Yes No X An unnamed
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
tributary of Buffalo Creek
Ill. Description of Project
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work Excavation and filling of wetland area.,
to acs state the operation o a
B. Purpose of excavation or fill (SEE BACK) proposed quarry.
I . Access channel length width depth
2. Water retention Basin - length width depth
3. Fill area (See Back) lengLh-width -depth
4. Other (See Back length ?_width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length N/A _ Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) N/A
2. type of bulkhead construction (material) N/A
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 36,500 CY 2. Type of material Wetland Hydric Soils
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also V1. A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2 Type of material N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Dues the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes - No
B. Does the disposa! area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes __No X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location Excavated wetlands soil will be disposed of on site within proposed visual
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? Reed Pnnl e i s num Pr _ ender 1 an sP t-n NP1 1 n TPAr Barrier 5-err
U. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in Source of fill is within project boundaries.
E. How will excavated material-be entrapped and erosion controiled? A series o ci 1 h dams and a d imen t
basins has been designed by Ragsdale rnnsnltantc- D e and will be ennstrucred by NT.T .o
1. 1 ype of equipment to be used Loader _ truck _ h„ 11 dng-Prc and scraners .
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No.
APPLICATION
FOR
it tat-.rr.;
III. Description of Project
B. Purpose of excavation or fill
length width depth
2. Water Retention Basin 670' 90' 2'
for makeup water
3. Fill area for water 115' 60' 18'
retention pond dams
within wetland areas only
4. Other - Excavation of wetland 2,800' 175' 2'
within quarry pit area
w. 4 .
V. .Intended Use of Project Area (Describe)
A. 1. Private
2 Commercial
3. Housing DevelopmentorlndustrW The nronOS d rniarrv will surmly Rtone for Durham Ornncql
4.? and Person Counties.
g, 1. Lot>i*s) 412± Acres
2. Elevationoflot(s)abovemeanhighwater - Varies between elevation 616 AMHW to 570 MHW
3. Soil type and texture Various
4. Type of building faWitiesor structures Two scale houses, one office building one shop area
and an aggregate plant consisting of crushers screen convevors etc
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing planned Low pressure septic
6; Describe To be located away from any wetland area. system.
6. 'Land Classification1circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY ORAL
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to FBI ad Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No X _
8. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes_.No. X
2. Type of discharge N/A
3. Location of discharge N/A -
Vii. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): N/A
VIIL List permit numbers and Issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project: 180 days
X In addition to the completed application form, the following items mint be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the dad or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land
8. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8% X 11" white paper (sec instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings ..preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (GS. 113.229 (d))Entw date served February 14, 1989
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
David Harris - Rt.. 2. Box 71 Roueemon *r 7579 /Douglas W Harris - P 0 Box 898,
Hillsborough, NC 27278_/ Robert G. Hg=nnrr Rt 3, Rou emont, NC 27572
Charles W. Collins - Box 67A-5 Bill Poole Road- Rougemonr NTT 27572
X1. Certification regmdremem l certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved aw W management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
X11. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described In this appli.
cation and plat Applicants should therefore describe in the-application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE
Applicant's Signature
OAF-82 --- -- -- -

ARO NGE
i
DURNAPW PER301V
'. CO.
?S3I LA
N
PROJECT
% LOCATION
N
57
7

3
lz
501
Y
N
b ?? MONi
,a
o
b
.. F
0 ° ? ?p 1
! ? I?? 1 111 r
i o
1
1
I 1 --- --------------I I 1 7
I4
I ?_ gg
/
- 1 ?' " II
If
`-
1AD
? f t aq?°' ? 1 ? \
I ? II
' S. ? a I ? ii 1 ! ? ? •
If 1 \. ? II ? E
r Y' R i ? J
pool
ll ??= II
l II 1 ?1 it
If if*
i II , -•
14,
ell,
U) .. .. - . .... . -
N
> o
Z
}•
49
IL
+-z J

W
n. - a

. ? aW Q
c
Z
ia
L
O W
r
a
a -

1 0 ' G
a ti CO CD
o> o n
U co

z W J

/1???
}.-
in I
Syr

J
W ?, ?C? s Q
_
W W N M
I
W
W
m
L) J `
O

a
l :
o
I I F
il
W

?i

' to
J

o
-

J
J

a
in, ,
;
tV
1- o L)
> to
- Q Z
&
iz? I a
W W
\}
V o
N
eV41 U) CL

~
O.
O Q OZ
i N
I.- LAJ It
8 W ??
O
.r J N? W
X
W
Q Z

1W W
"'
t o O
W
a ?
Q?
i
tD i
N j J

J W ct
r C

a W
W ? F- d
N
Ua C {
. h
`
C N ... v
3 W to
j
W
N N @
c? a? ? ?

om w G9 J
a
c
> N W . }- v 1
WJ
N W JC
N W
Z M
p? wb
0 J N N op
V ? d
?
Y !P
n
Z
m
m
Z
O
r
•$ r
.9490
- ' ?N?
x?y
s
no :t
o
- i?

w ?
a
A
-'1
O
Z

i
r k . I
'e
Q
e
V
V
O
V
W
W
O
i?
#s
a
? V
Z j
3i
?s
C C h
V ? Z
C O p i
Ad 0 ,4 •
W a '
-
.ir
Oom.
cc
=Ws
p g ? ;
v
i
O
D
O
F+
W
N

NORTH DURHAM QUARRY
MITIGATION PLAN
REPORT TO NELLO TEER COMPANY
DURHAM, N.C.
JANUARY 20, 1989
page 1
r
MITIGATION PLAN
BACKGROUND
The Nello L. Teer Company plans to develop a rock
quarry in northern Durham County and adjacent segments of
Orange County, North Carolina. The site was evaluated by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates.(RJG&A) on behalf of Nello
L. Teer and its landscape architect and planner,, Ragsdale
Consultants. Recommendations were made by RJG&A to minimize
adverse impacts on wetlands, and those recommendations were
incorporated into plan modifications by Nello L. Teer and
Ragsdale Consultants. Consultation with the U.S. Fish &.
Wildlife Service (FWS), Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) resulted
in agreement that mitigation for unavoidable losses of
wetlands and wildlife habitat values were to be provided by
the Nello L. Teer Company. Subsequently, searches were
conducted throughout Durham County and adjacent areas for
suitable mitigation land, and series of reports provided to
the Nello L. Teer Company. The November 1988 report
described a potential site adjacent to the company's
Denfield Quarry site. This report describes activities at
that site and plans for meeting mitigation objectives.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Nello L. Teer property adjacent to the Denfield Quarry
(Durham County) was evaluated on November 18, 1988 as a
potential wetland mitigation site (Figures 1 and 2). The
evaluation included a comprehensive jurisdictional wetland
delineation of the property and habitat descriptions.
The site is located east of the Denfield Quarry pit at
the.base of the current waste pile. The area contains
approximately 45 (unsurveyed) acres of which half is
cut-over. The uncut half is predominantly a late
successional mesic forest dominated by oaks, hickories,
tulip poplar, and sweetgum, with some beech and pine.
The Durham County Soil Survey (Kirby, 1976)
illustrates several. soil series occurring on the site
(Figure 3), including Altavista, Chewacia, Mayodan,
page 2

MITIGATION PLAN
Roanoke, and Wahee. Of these, only the Roanoke series is on
the COE hydric soils list (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Approximately 16 (unsurveyed) of the 45 acres was
determined in the field to be extant three-parameter
wetland, some in forested areas but most in the cut-over
area. Munsell soil designations in the wetland included:
10YR 5/2, mottled; IOYR 6/2, mottled; 10YR 7/1, mottled;
10YR 712, mottled. All of these are wetland soils according
to Corps of Engineers criteria based on chroma.
Some vernal pool habitat was found in the forested
portion of the wetland. Beaver activity has created
additional wetland acreage in the northwestern part of the
site (Figure 4) and this new wetland appears to be
expanding.
The nonwetland portion of the site, consisting of
approximately 29 (unsurveyed) acres, includes fnrested
portions and cut-over portions. RJG&A determined that the
nonwetland portion of the site was suitable for alteration
to wetland.
OBJECTIVES
Mitigation through carefully designed and controlled
excavation is intended to provide replacement wildlife
habitat values for those unavoidably lost in development of
the North Durham Quarry site. The plan herein proposed
meets agency and client objectives of close proximity to
the impacted site (same county), cost effectiveness (use of
the owner's property and minimal earth-moving costs), a
requirement of only simple changes in soil and vegetation
leading to a high probability of success, utilization of
existing wildlife habitat values (preservation of beaver
pond area and preservation of significant upland
vegetation), and monitoring.
The overall mechanism for altering the Denfield site
includes excavation of a network of canals and secondary
channels, supplemented with the excavation of connected
ponds and isolated pools. The canals, channels, ponds and
pools are expected to expand the horizontal extent of soil
saturation from streams and wetland portions of the site
out into nonwetlands, and increase ecological complexity
throughout the-site by preservation of present valuable
p age 3
MITIGATION PLAN
upland vegetation (large mast producers) while replacing
less valuable upland vegetation (small trees, low shrubs)
with wetland vegetation (such as river birch), and by
enhancement of amphibian habitat. The retention of upland
pockets within newly created wetland will provide added
benefits of edge effect.
DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION
Land clearing will include, but not be limited to, an
81-wide path for construction of canals. Excavated spoils
will be randomly placed at a distance of approximately 5'
on the downhill side of all canals and channels, negating
the need for wider clearing for truck removal.
Primary canals will have a.maximum negative slope of
1' per 4001, a bottom width of 21, and 2:1 side slopes.
Secondary channels will be excavated at intervals of 50' if
topography allows and no significant mast trees would be
threatened. The channels would have a bottom width of 2'
and sloped to provide maximum surface to saturate adjacent
land.
Rip-rap weirs will be constructed in source streams
and ditches to increase friction and divert water during
annual periods of high flow into the artificial canals. The
rip-rap will additionally provide hard substratum for
colonization by stream insects.
The network of canals and channels will increase the
area of saturated land surface.to the extent practicable,
dependent on seasonal flows over the weirs, varying
horizontal permeabilities of the several soil types on the
site, and the distance between channels. Water retention
capabilities of the soils on-site cannot reasonably be
quantified from soil data and soil maps, because the area
has been extensively disturbed.
An existing man-made pond on the site will be
converted from aquatic habitat to wetland habitat by
partial drainage'of water or filling with spoil, bringing
it to a depth suitable for the growth of.emergent
vegetation.
page 4
MITIGATION PLAN
Aquatic habitat will be enhanced by creation of
shallow ponds connected to new and existing streams and
channels. These ponds will serve as fish and amphibian
habitat, wildlife water supply reservoirs during periods of
drought, and substratum for emergent vegetation. Amphibian
habitat will be enhanced by excavation of vernal pools of
various depths that will become dry at different times and
provide a variety of periods for larval growth and
metamorphosis (Semlitsch and Wilbur, 1988). These vernal
pools will be isolated from all other existing streams or
constructed canals and channels, preventing fish
immigration and subsequent predation on amphibian eggs and
larvae.
IMPLEMENTATION
Accomplishment of this complex of objectives will
romoirc ?o-dination among hInlln I T +.. .+?
V.. um..y ..,...v ?. leer cons - u?t-4--
I full
peronnel, Ragsdale Consultants, and RJG&A. An ecologist and
a landscape architect will be on-site to flag the locations
of the network of canals and channels, to mark valuable
upland mast trees that should not be removed or their root
field disturbed, and to establish bench marks throughout
the site for quality control of depth. Initial clearing
(81-wide path) for construction access will be accomplished
with a Caterpillar D6LGP dozer or equivalent. Construction
of the canals and channels will be accomplished with one or
two Caterpillar rubber-tired backhoes.
Vernal pools will be constructed with the D6LGP dozer
pushing outward from the center and creating a protective
berm to prevent fish immigration during floods. Leaf debris
will be collected from on-site drift lines and placed in
the vernal pools for initial fertilization. An RJG&A
ecologist will attempt the collection of amphibian brood
stock using a drift fence and pit traps at existing vernal
pools in the area, for transplantation to the new site.
Ponds will be constructed without protective berms.
The ponds should vegetate naturally. The extant wetland and
beaver pond provide adequate seed sources for many wetland
species and supplement vegetation should not be necessary.
page 5
MITIGATION PLAN
The rip-rap weirs will be constructed with the small
rubber-tired backhoes. The weirs will protect water flow
downstream, but divert excess flow in the canals and
channels during wet periods of the year (Figure 5). Rip-rap
sizes will be a minimum of 25% greater than 24 inches and
no more than 10% less than 3 inches.
Total construction will require the excavation of up
to 5,000 cubic yards of dirt, to create up to 10,400 linear
feet of canals and channels and 15 pools and ponds. the
rip-rap weirs will require emplacement of approximately 45
tons of stone to create 5 weirs (Figure 4). The total
construction time, not counting weather delays, is
estimated at less than 60 days.
MONITORING
After completion of construction, the site will be
inspected twice yearly for a period of three years by an
RJG&A ecologist to ensure that the new wetland environment
is developing as planned. Concerned agencies (FWS, WRC)
will be provided progress letter reports of findings and
recommendations.
CREATION OF A CONSERVATION AREA
Upon completion of all tasks, from construction
through monitoring, the Nello L. Teer Company will record a
conservation easement in the land and subsequently donate
the land to 6 non-profit public interest group, such as the
Triangle Land Conservancy, for land stewardship, subject to
acceptance conditions imposed by the recipient. The Nello
L. Teer Company will coordinate this activity with FWS and
WRC to assure agreement of the parties and consistency with
agency objectives.
page 6
MITIGATION PLAN
LITERATURE CITED
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineatin Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Ms.,
100 pp.
Kirby, R.M. 1976. Soil survey of Durham County, North
Carolina. USDA, SCS, Raleigh, N.C., 76 pp. + maps and
indices..
Semlitsch, R.D., and H.M. Wilbur. 1988. Effects of
pond drying time on metamorphosis and survival in the
salamander Ambystoma,talpoideum. Copeia 1988(4):978-983.
page 7

FIGURE 1. Durham County, North
Carolina.
R
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-3175
. r
?• • ({
Dis g
posal
3994
1.0 '45
..-_ N?I?`, .?I`, ? O TOO' : ? 1??•i ee?a?C ?? ? ) (? ?i
11 1 `" i .,??f6 "c•IQury
,???.•.1 /.` '??V ~ ?` X11. 'I... 1..?.J .;? !?
III •fi•_ _ 9 /' / .:.... ' 1
Lid
'' l: l< '?'? t Leval 6h 3
r •.. ch. •/ f ?., J
r.: q
'.Hatt ° '• ..F ?. ' .?,r.?,?) ?S ? I. ? !?•u%'-•? , r'
T It
omaa4ad (ahh• • 1:. .1 %c_Ii : ?? of tlI //1` %I \i!( 3992
x•110 O? •? ?? ..:.. '!?•" !1 ? W I?r..., j " .?. ..-'. ._ ; ICI 1
I x ?• /Y•F•,. ,I l( is
I? I. ?•. l
W:' wer
?? pt. ,V •:, 3991
? ? 7 ? jl 1 ill '..11• 1• •: ?,"\_
•'1'' tiU ?1. , `\`M yy!O / , 11 . 41!x' ^ •/•.
All Fr Ir .. /' ?.
?• • //..?1?I(l o f?•x: i!I///.'? •''?-?-?. _ 213011
I
FIGURE 2. Denfield Quarry Mitigation
SCALE 1:24000 Property,
I
z 0
MILE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
FEET
e o
-- KILOMETER
= ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Oince Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.3175

. •. Kip- W?r R iL??tKY Di1.AhDR'?.•
•t +r" ' :,?.,1 ,.cl.??+'fs Otto .0 A aaR' ?iri.?...w06
,• 1 .?.a
01 R
- ??
_?• Y. __-_ 'fir
1• •. .'? - ? DRAI+?a06 . awAti` ?le'?ItAt1ar10N
r?A+J vltw rJ.T.$,
Cor,I.pOM1.Y /?I+LV CM??vAT? GoiL
J C4ANN/.L
. SRRTCiA.r?O?J CALjAL
• :64.'fw wr -v?cw N.•{?5
• ?Fra.?._•...IG CSYktIrR. ?.?? ..
• I 1/1rJL ?bv ? p??
????'? . ' Ora• TLA .'.esn ? I.??-ll.
1 la
.. ?Ne:RS?oN DCTit?L ^..
.. SECTip?J Vlst,i N.T. 'a
FIGURE 5. Details of construction.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-3175

cane
enwronmenrat engineers. scientists.
ctanners. d management consultants
December 15, 1987
Mr. Leo Young
County of Durham
Department of Planning & Inspections
Durham County Judicial Building
201 E. Main Street
Durham, NC 27701
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
3%25 National Drive. Suite 220
PQ Box 31585
aaleicn. Nonn Carolina 27622
7-19 787.5620
RE: Nello Teer Quarry - Assessment of Potential Water Quality
Impacts on Little River Reservoir
Dear Mr. Young:
In response to your request on November 11, 1987 we have reviewed
available information on the Nello Teer Quarry project proposal. As
outlined in our letter of November 20, 1987 the scope of our
assessment covers the following items:
o General water quality concerns
o Stormwater drainage from the site
o Onsite erosion and sedimentation controls
o Water quality monitoring recommendations
o Storage/disposal of overburden
o Control of fines from washing operations
We would caution that this analysis is not intendei to be a compre-
hensive environmental evaluation in that we did not assess groundwater
impacts, air pollution/deposition impacts, wetlands impacts and other
related environmental issues.
Our assessment focused on the available site specific information
provided by Nello Teer staff and their engineer, Ragsdale Consultants,
PA which was transmitted to us during a meeting in our office on
October 16, 1987. This information includes:
o Environmental Assessment for the Nello L. Teer Company's
Proposed North Durham Quarry. Prepared by Ragsdale
Consultants, PA.. August 1987.
o Design Data and Calculations for Nello Teer Northern orange
Quarry for Initial Construction Phase. Prepared by Ragsdale
Consultants, PA. *May 1987.
,1 1%
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
Mr. Leo Young
December 15, 1987
Page 6
acreage will not be disturbed during quarry operations. Relocation of
the North orange pond to a downstream location is recommended to
provide additional storage and to increase the project area covered by
the drainage plan.
we also recommend that temporary erosion control devices be
constructed downstream of the future North orange process area during
initial construction of the quarry site. Permanent erosion control
measures should be mandatory if this area is to be developed as a
process site.
Drainage Conveyance. Peak runoff generated from the North Durham
quarry site was estimated using SCS TR-55 methods. All drainage
control devices were sized to convey runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour
SCS type II design storm. Required channel dimensions were determined
from Manning's equation.
Peak runoff generated from the North orange quarry site were estimated
using the Rational Formula. All drainage devices were sized to convey
runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour SCS Type II design storm. Channel
dimensions were determined from Manning-'s equation.
on the North Durham site, drainage ditches "PQ" and "RQ" end
approximately 500 ft upstream of the eastern large detention basin.
These ditches convey runoff from the primary crusher/surge pile/dump
station area. To minimize erosion impacts, a filter strip or
grass-lined/filter-lined channel is recommended to convey flow from
ditch outlets to the detention basin. Likewise, filter-lined channels
should be constructed to convey flows from basin outlets to receiving
waters.
Peak Runoff Control. No analysis of peak runoff control was provided
or the detention pond design. The pr:rformance standard set by the
State NMCD Sedimentation Control (TIE: 048.000) is based upon maximum
permissible velocities for storm water discharges. Post-construction
conditions must not exceed the greater of:
(1) pre-construction runoff velocities for the 10-year storm; or
(2) maximum permissible velocities for various soil textures
ranging from fine sand (2.5 fps) to fine gravel (5.0 fps).
Increases in peak flow rates, flow velocities, and flow volumes can be
expected if the quarry, associated processing areas, and roads are
constructed. To prevent adverse impacts along downstream reaches of
Buffalo Creek due to the changes in upstream hydrologic character-
istics, detention ponds must be designed to provide sufficient storage
with outlet structures sized to control peak runoff from the site.
For control of streambank erosion, a 2-year design storm is a more
. W
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
Mr. Leo Young
December 15, 1987
Page 7
effective design criterion than a 10-year design storm and is an
accepted performance standard in other sections of the Piedmont (e.g.,
Virginia, Maryland).
We would recommend designing the detention pond and outlet riser to
maintain postdevelopment peak flows at the predevelopment rate for a
2-year design storm in order to prevent downstream erosion (10). This
may require additional storage and will. require redesign of the outlet
structure for the North Durham ponds. As proposed, the North orange
pond has inadequate storage for peak runoff control and should be
redesigned or relocated downstream.
Dewaterina Operations. Groundwater and stormwater"pumped from the
quarry pit during ewatering operations are not accounted for in the
construction/operation plans and calculations. We have been advised
that these pump-out waters will be routed to detention ponds, however,
dewatering volumes, pumpage rates and frequency, and water quality
management concerns (e.g., impact on hydraulic residence time) should
be addressed.
The impact of groundwater contributions on dewatering requirements are
not addressed herein due to the lack of data. However, direct
precipitation on the quarry pit surface alone can contribute
substantially to dewatering requirements. For example, stormwater
retained in the pit (99 acres) after the 25-year, 24-hour SCS design
storm is approximately 21 acre-ft and 27 acre-ft for the North Orange
and North Durham quarry pits, respectively.
ONSITE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
Erosion and sedimentation controls for both the North Orange and North
Durham quarry sites depend primarily on sequencing of construction
activities and runoff diversion into the detention ponds for sediment
control. Diversion of site runoff into detention ponds would be
accomplished via a series of new drainage ditches which would also aid
in the control of sediment and dust generated from the quarry sites.
The construction plans for the North orange quarry site specify that
all erosion control devices will be installed before other construc-
tion. The North Durham construction plans do not specify the order of
construction. In addition, no provision is made for erosion control
during the construction of the permanent erosion control devices.
Silt fencing is a common method of temporary erosion control for
construction sites (4), and it is widely used on both quarry sites for
sediment control. However, the maintenance and duration of the silt
fencing is not addressed in the Nello Teer construction plans. The
installation of more permanent erosion control devices such as grassed
waterways, filter strips, or filter-lined channels is recommended in
lieu of silt fencing in many areas of the quarry site after the

Mr. Leo Young
December 15, 1987
Page 13
SUMMARY
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
According to DEM, the proposed quarry project would definitely
preclude a WS-I designation for the Little River Reservoir watershed.
However, DEM has also indicated that there is some likelihood that the
watershed would not qualify for a WS-I designation even in the absence
of a quarry (8). It does not appear that the proposed quarry project
would preclude a WS-II rating which may represent an acceptable and
achievable watershed protection goal for both Little River Reservoir
and Lake Michie. Assuming that the WS-II rating is acceptable to the
County, the following improvements to the Nello Teer project plan are
recommended to minimize the risk of adverse water quality impacts.
o Relocate and redesign North Orange detention pond to a
downstream location to enhance stormwater management and
sediment control. Locate ponds to control runoff from future
disturbed areas.
o Extend North Durham diversion channels "PQ" and "Roll to
western detention pond and incorporate additional erosion
control measures in channel design.
o Redesign all detention ponds to provide both sediment control
and stormwater management (i.e., peak runoff control). For
sediment control, use more stringent storage requirements
(e.g., 3.0 acre-inches are required storage per disturbed
acre).
o For peak runoff control to minimize streambank erosion
impacts, redesign all detention ponds to provide peak runoff
control (e.g., maintain predevelopment peak flows for the
2-year design storm).
o Address impacts of dewatering operations including expected
volumes, pumpage rates and frequency, and water quality
management.
o Specify construction sequencing and sediment controls to be
provided during construction of permanent erosion control
devices.
o Address maintenance and duration of silt fencing and
conversion to more permanent erosion control devices.
o Provide analysis of sediment removal efficiency.for all
detention ponds (e.g.',. surface area method).
o Specify operation, duration, and reclamation of the temporary
sediment basin in the southwest corner of the North orange
pit area. (Note: Drainage from this area could be
i- .,+,
Mt. Leo Young CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
December 15, 1987
Page 14
incorporated into the large detention basin located
downstream.)
o Provide operation and maintenance plans for all erosion
control measures.
o Clean-out all existing onsite ponds prior to construction.
o Implement a water quality monitoring program to sample
ground, pit, and surface waters.
o Specify operation of silt disposal and overburden storage
areas.
o Construct impermeable lining for process water settling
basins.
In addition, it is recommended that an ongoing water quality monitor-
ing program be implemented to compile data on baseline conditions
prior to construction and discharges from quarrying operations.
Finally, it is recommended that Durham County coordinate with Orange
County regarding decisions about the proposed quarry project to ensure
a consistent approach to watershed protection.
We hope that these comments are useful. If you have any questions,
plaese contact John Roberts or Anne Cole at 787-5620.
Sincerely yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
John P. Hartigan, P.E.
Asso iate
J L. Roberts, P.E.
Se for Associate
,_ , ...
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Erosion and Sediment
Control. Surface Mining in the Eastern U.S., Volume I (Planning) and
Volume II (Design). Washington, D.C.
2. Goldman, S.J., K. Jackson, and T. Bursztynsky, 1986. Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook. McGraw-Hill.
3. Virginia State Water Control Board, 1979. Best Management Practices
Handbook, surface mining.
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1979. Guide
for Sediment Control on Construction Sites in North Carolina.
5. Maryland Water Resources Administration, 1985. Maryland Erosion and
Sediment Controls (Draft) for the Sediment and Stormwater Division.
6. Novotny, V. and G. Chesters, 1981. Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution:
Sources and Management. Van Nostran3 Rei o Co.
7. Personal communication with Arthur Mouberry, Supervisor of Permitting
Office, State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Division.
8. Personal communication with Dr. Robert Holman, Coordinator of Water
Supply Protection Program, State of North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Commumity Development, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Division.
9. State of North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1/85. North Carolina
Administrative Code, "Sedimentation Control" (T15:04 TOC-1).
10. Fairfax County, Virginia, 1985. Public Facilities Manual.
11. State of North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 3/1/86. North Carolina
Administrative Code, "Surface Water Standards" (T15: 0213.0200).
r
BOOK 1 ' 18 PAJE 5 51
ti SUTE JF
fl.).may '•\i. --.
,JA
` a
V btC • 3 u, 0 0I
Excise Tax
FILED
BOOK 41.r n,r
DEC 3 4 09 11 '87
RUTH C. CARRETT
REGISTER OF DEEDS
DURHAM COUNT1. NC
Recording Time. Hook and Page
Tax Lot No. .......... . ..... ..8..........
96-01.-1... .................................................... Parcel Identifier No...........................................................................
Verified by ....................................................................... County on the ................ day of ............................... ...............:...,.....; 18............
by ............................................................................... .................................................................................................................... ................
Mail after recording to .Janes, R.,..H. Sprinkles Nello„L. Teer Companx, PO Box 11,31, Durham, NC 27702
.............................................................. ......... ...................................................................................................... ..:... ...-...- ..................................
This instrument was prepared b B M Sessoms, Esq., PO Box 451, Durham, NC 27702
Brief description for the Index 83.28 Acres (Aiken Tract PBj&,P82
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED made this ....3rd..... day of ..........1?ecelber ..................•............., 19...87...., by and between
GRANTOR 1 GRANTEE
DONALD REED POOLE and wife,
CAROL DAY POOLE
Route 2, Box 50
Rougemont, North Carolina 27572
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
Post Office Box 1131
Durham, Nbrth Carolina 27702
.1961-?V I"'7'N -41 41!+,u*W SV dq P-M-d
61919; O'N'NO131VU gLetl X09 -0-d 'ONI "00 ONI1NItld 3100d
- 'LL6i P231AQM '9L61 0 £ 'ON wao8 'OOSSV lug *:)*N
spSSQ to aa7Spag W/?t?ndea---------------------- - -- ----- r-;-r ---------------MOA SU83U +l0 Us,L91929--------"-"--- - xtxnoa6ue?0 886T -4da Cep t1-46
at1-. STq
,saAEH aunt A-4-49q Joaaay ofgd 7waU
*in uo umogs o2va put sloog Sq1 ul pug Stull pug qgp Sql >t paa915126a drop Sat "V31lpiaa sig7 pug juatunilsul siq.L yaaaaoa aq of pallpaaa},*"/sl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------c--• 1Q--? tlcixma ;m OT vIn "-1C }or*""'"? zr-- ?zai?-- M -pim--- u
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- )o4*lg 1AIJ.'a fulofaaoj aq.E
o114nd RatyoNt --°------------------------------------ ---------- °-------------- :SOaldxa uolssttuwoa HIV :: '1 l! AS"',,
.dL?1 if t "15 il??iAic ?/?.
F
a00K:` 50 PAGE 163

The property hereinabove described was acquired by Grantor' by instrument recorded in .... Real Estate Book 717
.........................................
t...3.1 Q...Q..Ylia .. Rxdr)ge...ouxii~y..???i;e.. Oaf ..1??d;i;, ................................ ............................................................................
A map showing the above described property is recorded in Plat Book .........................:.......... page...............,.........
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD,the aforesaid lot or parcel of land and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to
the Grantee in fee simple.
And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to convey
the same in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, or it corporate, has caused this instrument to be signed in its
corporate name by its duly authorized officers and Its seal to be hereunto affi
d b
th
i

above written. xe
y au
or
ty of its Board of Directors, the day a nd year first

-----------------------------•--------
-------------------------
(C
t
N
;0

------------- ----^-- ..a.? -----------------------
_-
(SRAL)
----
orpora
e
ame) a RICKY A. AWSON
iii
O

-------------------

------(SEAL)

----------------------------President
U
ATTEST;
I ------------------------------------------------------- ------(SEAL)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------
----------------------------Secretary (Corporate Seal)
?p
-------------------------------------------------------------(SEAL)
DURH M
SEAL-STAMP NORTH CAROLINA, ----------------------------------County.
u 1, a Notary Public of the "M my and Stat aforesaid, certify that Ricky-A_--Dawson and --
aine C. bawson -
A --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grantor.
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing Instrument. Witness MY
P hand and official stamp or seal, this __ 8th day orb--ember-------- --------- -
My commission expires: _____ ______ _ otary Public
* ZAL-STAMJ NORTH CAROLINA, ---------------------------------- County.
J `J ..• .xFiA/??ir I, a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify that _^---------------------------------------,
A personally came before me this day and acknowledged that ---- he is _ Secretary of 1Z. v
------------------------------------------------------ a North Carolina corporation, and that by authority duly
i'? y,. . • (:;?? '. .. given and as the act of the corporation, the toregoing instrument was signed In its name by its ------ ---------
" President, sealed with its corporate seal and attested by ----------- its its --------------------------- Secretary.

NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM COUNTY
CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT
THIS CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT, made and executed in duplicate as of
the / day of /Vdj/Grr , 1986, by and between DONALD REED POOLE
and wife, CAROL D. POOLE, residents of Durham County, North Carolina
hereinafter called "Lessors" and NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation with its principal office and place of business in Durham, North
Carolina, hereinafter called "Lessee":
WITNESSETH:
THAT THE LESSORS, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars
($10.00) to them in hand paid, and the rent and/or royalty hereinafter
specified to be paid, and in consideration of the covenants and agreements
set forth, do hereby lease unto the Lessee for the term of three (3) years
from date those certain lands or parcels of land containing 251.54 acres,
more or less, as fully described as Tract #2 in the Federal Land Bank of
Columbia Deed of Trust dated April 11, 1984 and filed in Mortgage Book 1153,
page 865, Durham County Registry, said deed description herein hereby
specifically referred to and incorporated herein as if fully set forth; the
said 252 acre tract being distinctly located in Mangum Township, Durham
County and in Little River Township, Orange County, North Carolina and
consisting of three contiguous parcels of land, one parcel of 186 acres as
shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 65, of the Orange County
Registry, one parcel of 95.4 acres as shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book
9, Page 30, of the Orange County Registry, and one parcel of 40.13 acres as
shown on a plat recorded in Plat Book 41, Page 66, of the Durham Count
Registry.

Y
WO"
There is expected from this tract the following: (1) 22.68 acres
conveyed to Bruce I. DeWold in Book 234, Page 1440, Orange County Registry,
(2) a 40 acre tract, more or less, described in deed to E. D. Prysock in
Book 231, Page 1751, Orange County Registry, and (3) 8.31 acres, more or
less, conveyed to W. D. Aiken in Book 400, Page 387, Durham County Registry.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above-mentioned tract, together with al.l
privileges and appurtenances thereunto belong, for the operation of
quarrying and related activities, as hereinafter set out, to the said
Lessee, its successors and assigns, for and during the term of the said
three (3) year period, and any renewal and extension of said term, for the
sole and only use of Lessee for the mining and removal therefrom, by
blasting or otherwise, the deposits of rock, stone, gravel and sand of a
commercial grade on or under said tract with full and exclusive right and
privilege to construct, operate and maintain thereon such-quarrying,
washing, crushing and other plants, machinery, appliances, ponds, settling
basins, power lines, roads, railway and railway spur lines, and other
desirable facilities, including all types of buildings and structures
connected with or related to said operation of said tract, and including
water rights to all bodies of water on or contiguous with the tract above
described for the purpose of obtaining such supply of water as may be deemed
desirable by the Lessee in connection with said operations. Lessee shall
have the right to remove or leave all such structures, plants, appliances,
rails, accessories, and other improvements from said lands so placed thereon
by it at any time during the term of this lease and within six (6) months
thereafter; and, will remove all such structures, plants, appliances, rails,
accessories, and other improvements- as requested by the Lessor after
termination of said lease. It is also understood and agreed that the Lessee
-2- oAd
'14-

,. 0 40
activities, such as asphalt and ready-mix concrete plant operations which
would increase the marketability of the crushed aggregate produced on the
leased tract. During the time when said tract is not being used for any
purposes by the Lessee, the Lessors shall have the right to make such use of
the tract as may seem fit to them. In the event there is marketable timber
on said tract of land, Lessee will give Lessor notice of its intent to move
in the area six (6) months in advance so that Lessor can remove the said
timber. If the timber is not removed by the Lessor, then Lessee can take
over the area and use it and the timber as it sees fit.
5. Lessee covenants and agrees that it will at all times during the
term of this lease indemnify and save harmless said Lessors against all
suits, actions and damages whatsoever that shall or may at any time happen
or result to said Lessor for or by reason of the mining or quarrying
operations, conducted by Lessee; provided, however, that all of the rights,
privileges, easements and appurtenances relating to the ownership or use of
said tract shall inure to the benefit of Lessee as fully and for all intents
and purposes as if Lessor was directly operating said quarry operations.
Lessee, at its cost shall maintain public liability and property damage
insurance with a combined single limit coverage of $1,000,000 for bodily
injury and property damage per occurrence.
6. It is understood and agreed that the terms of this Contract will
be extended for six (6) additional ten (10) year periods if Lessee notifies
Lessor in writing of its intention to so extend the term hereof not less
than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the initial three (3) year
period and like notice for each ten (10) year extension period thereafter.
In order that the Lessee shall not lose any right to extend this Agreement
because of the Lessee's oversight, it is expressly provided that if the

,
.
46
9. The Lessor covenants that at the time of execution of this Lease
it is the owner of the property in fee and have full right to lease or sell
same, and that same is free and clear of all encumbrances, and that it will
put the Lessee in actual possession of the premises. If there are any liens
or encumbrances prior or superior to Lessee's right hereto, Lessee has
option to satisfy same and deduct its cost from minimum payments or
royalties.
10. There is specifically excluded from this Contract and Agreement,
all rights and interest to precious minerals and other resources, including,
but not limited to, gold, silver, uranium, diamonds and crude oil, it being
the intention of the parties hereto that the Lessess hereunder shall quarry
deposits of rock, stone, gravel, and sand of a commercial grade only.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, Lessors have each hereunto set their hands and
seals, and the Lessee has caused this instrument to be signed in its
corporate name by its Vice President and attested by its Assistant Secretary
and its corporate seal to be affixed in duplicate originals as of the year
first above written.
(SEAL)
DO D REED POOLE
J?. (SEAL)
CAROL D. POOLE
NE O/L. EER COMP Y
sy:
U. Thomas Gould, Vice President
ATTT s
1Fltyd T. ofgan, Afisistanj Secretary
- 9 -

-,rr•an,rwq/
NORTH CAROLINA'
A?/'1•G/?COUNTpl D /
a Notary Public, certify that
DONALD REED POOLE 'wif-e, CAROL D. POOLE, both personally appeared before
me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing instrument.
Witness my hand and notarial seal this !) .tip day of 1986.
My Commission Expires: G".11'
-2
NORTH CAROLINA
' aL.( ? c.` 1
Notary Public
OFFICIAL.SEAL
s;••.;r* Notary Public, North Carolina
County of Forsyth
y Jommission Expires /
COUNTY
I, ?-X , a Notary Public, certify that
Floyd T. Morgan personally p red before me this day and acknowledged that
he is Assistant Secretary of Nello L. Teer Company, a Delaware Corporation,
and that by authority duly given and as the act of the corporation, the
foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its Vice President, sealed
with its corporate seal and attested by himself as its Assistant Secretary.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of.L?
1986.
?r
Notary Public .`_
My Commission Expires: /y?
- 10 -
4?

rV t= Lr_O
?w 4W all
^ , rEl
wam Ac,
Owego
L_ Tt t F=;? COM F=ANY
A Subsidiary of Koppers Company, Inc.
OFFICE TEL: (919) 6U-6191 • TELEX: 57-9448
February 9, 1989
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Kathy Trott
11413 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Dear Its. Trott:
RE:
Application for a COE 404E
permit.
It is with pleasure that Nello L. Teer Company submits
this application for a Corps of Engineers 404E Dredge and
Fill Permit. As discussed with Ken Jolly of the Corps of
Engineers, you will find enclosed with this letter the
following information in triplicate:
1) Completed application for a permit.
2) Vicinity maps
3) Project mining plan
4) Cross sections
5) Wetlands mitigation proposal
The limited reserves at our existing Durham Quarry
necessitate the relocation of this facility so that Durham
County's crushed stone requirements will continue to be met.
After years of exploration and testing, a suitable quarry
site has been discovered on the Reed Poole property, which is
west of Rougemont, North Carolina.
Upon completion of the environmental assessment for this
prospective site, Robert Goldstein and Associates informed
Nello L. Teer Company of existing wetlands located onsite
which would be disturbed by our operation. Dr. Goldstein
proceeded to delineate these wetlands in the field and inform
the C.O.E. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife of his findings.
During conversations and meetings with the C.O.E. and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife, in their offices and in the field, it was
decided that the most appropriate solution to the wetlands
problem would be to find a mitigation site which, with work
performed by Nello Teer'Company, could be transformed into a
wetlands area.
®C"0F MW10HE,USA
rmp
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 2
Alternatives to wetland mitigation, which were addressed
and for specific reasons were not viable, are as follows:
1) Finding another site with which to supply the stone
needs of the county. The geology of Durham County is such
that only limited specific areas of the county contain rock
which would not only be suitable for stone production, but
also economically viable. Much of the area that is underlain
with suitable stone falls within the Durham County zoning
designation known as the Water'Quality Critical Basin area of
the county. This area restricts the type of development
which may occur in the water quality critical area so that
the City of Durham's drinking water will be protected, and is
very restrictive with regards to industrial and manufacturing
operations. A quarry would not be allowed in this zoning
designation. Residential development in other areas where
suitable material may be found has further restricted, and/or
eliminated the location of another site.
It should be noted that this location, in fact,
represents the last possible alternative site in our
exploration effort, and does not represent the best location
found. Sites near Little River dam and Little River School
were potentially better sites, but were culled due to either
local opposition or zoning restraints.
2) Redesigning the site to eliminate the need to
disturb wetland areas.
Two areas of concern expressed by U. S. Fish and
Wildlife representatives, regarding wetland disturbance, were
the size and location of the main detention ponds for.
stormwater runoff and the layout of the quarry pit. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife requested that we evaluate not only the
need for the two ponds, but also the possibility of
decreasing the surface area of the ponds by excavating in the
reservoir area and, in effect, deepening the.ponds. This
would create the necessary storage capacity and thereby
lessen the impact on wetlands.
At the request of the Durham County Board of
Commissioners, Camp, Dresser and McKee, retained by Durham
County as the watershed consultant, was asked to review the
entire North Durham Quarry project and its effect, if any, on

_.00
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 3
the Little River watershed. As part of their findings, they
concluded that the two detention ponds were not of sufficient
surface area to minimize offsite sedimentation. As a result,
they requested that the surface area of the ponds be
increased from approximately 22 to 30 acres. Due to this
engineering consideration, relocation and/or decreasing the
size of the ponds was not attainable. Their findings are
included as an attachment to this correspondence.
The second area of concern, being the layout of the
quarry pit, was evaluated by Teer to see if it would be
possible for the pit to be reconfigured to avoid or minimize
wetland disturbance. While it sounds easy enough to do, a
comprehensive mining plan designed to avoid wetlands is
impractical, at best. As seen on the enclosed maps and cross
sections, the occurrence of wetlands within the proposed pit
area effectively dissects the pit into three quadrants.
Mining could proceed without direct disturbance of the
wetlands, although once the surrounding areas were mined and
the topography of the drainage basin altered, then the
wetlands will no longer receive periodic influxes of water
necessary for their survival.
As you will note on the enclosed cross sections,
avoidance of wetland areas would also drastically reduce the
reserve potential of the deposit and greatly diminish our
ability to develop an orderly, systematic mining plan. It
should also be noted that the Teer Company has entered into
an agreement with the City of Durham for their eventual use
of the mining pit, with its present configuration, as a raw
water storage facility. Having to mine around the wetlands
would ultimately reduce the potential storage capacity of pit
and probably render the City of Durham's intentions useless.
Upon consideration.of these and other alternatives, it
was decided that the best method of solving the wetlands
problem was to have Dr. Goldstein develop a wetlands
mitigation plan. After many site evaluations, Dr. Goldstein
decided that a tract of land owned by Nello Teer Company at
its present Durham Quarry location would be suitable for
mitigation purposes. The enclosed mitigation plan has_been
reviewed by various governmental agencies and found to be
acceptable, based on preliminary discussions and plan review.

A
Y
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 4
I hope that the enclosed plans and application meet with
the approval of all concerned. If any questions arise,
please do not hesitate to call me at 682-6191.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. T ' 7 OMPANY
Vrppeatio s R. Sprinkle
s Manager
JRHS/dg
Enclosures
CC: File

APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 146121 Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(GS 113.229,143115.3(a)(1), 143215.3(c). 113A-113 (33 CFR 209.320.329)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
1. Applicant Information
A. Name(Company) Nello L Teer Company - Don Lineberry - Vice President
Last First Middle
S. Address Post Office Box 1131
Street, P. O. Box or Route.
Durham, North Carolina 27702 [phone]'.
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Durham/ Orange
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Rougemont, North Carolina
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes-No X An unnamed
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
tributary of Buffalo Creek
II1. Description of Project
Excavation and filling of wetland area.
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work to aci i ate the operation o a
B. Purpose of excavation or fill (SEE BACK) proposed quarry.
1. Access channel length width depth
2. Water retention Rasin - length width depth
3. Fill area (See Back) length width depth
4. Other See Back length width depth
C. 1. Buikhead length N/A _ Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) N/A
2. type of bulkhead construction (material) N/A
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 36.500 CY 2. Type of material Wetland Hydric Soils
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (sec also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2. Type of material N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Dues the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes _ No
S. Does the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location Excavated wetlands soils will be disposed of on site within proposed visual
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? Reed Ponl e i s owner _ ender 1 pace rn Nel 1 n Tsar- barrier er:
U. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in Source of fill is within project boundaries.
E. How will excavated material-be entrapped and erosion controlled? A series of sit t heck dame and sediment
basins has been designed by Ragsdale Cons„lranra P n and will ha constructed by NT.T Co
I . I ype of equipment to be used T.oader _ tr„rk _ h„ l l eln2arc and scrapers .
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No.

V. Intended Use of Project Area (Describe
A. 1. Private
Z Commercial
3. Housing Developmentor Industrial The D nnns d giinrrv will suDDly Stone for Durham 0 nnge
4. Other an Person Counties.
8. 1. Lot sin(s) 412± Acres
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water - Varies between elevation 616 AMHW o 570 rtuw
3. Soil type and texture Various
4. Type of building facilities or structures Two scale houses, one office building, one shop area
and an aggregate plant consisting of crushers screen convenors etc
5. Sewage disposal and/or. waste water treatment A. Existing Planned Low pressure septic
9. Dube To be located away from any wetland area. system.
6- 'Lard Classftation'(circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY `ORAL
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to Fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No X
S. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes No
Z Type of discharge - N/A
3. Location of discharge N/A
VI1. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): N/A
VIIL List permit numbers and issue data of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, if applicable: N/A
IX. Length of time required to complete project: 180 davs -
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items mint be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
S. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on SA X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113.229 (d))Enter date served February 14 - 1989
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with propeM adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
David Harris = Rt.. 2, Box 71. Roue mont TTr 2757? /Douglas W Harris - P O .Box 890
Hillsborough, NC 27278 / Robert G. Honpv.•..++ Rt 3, Rougemont, NC 27572
Charles W. Collins - Box 67A-5. Bill Poole Rnad_ Rougemont Nr 27572
X1. Certification requirement/ I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved co; AW management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
XII. Any permit issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE
Applicant's Signature
DiF-82-- --- ---- - -- -- -

N

r
ARC NGE
pURHAM PERSpN
Cp.
3? w •
•w.
PROJECT
% LOCATION
N
57
1472
?r

W
3

b
1F
4 1
'?? a ? S. i 1 ? ? ? .1 ? ( pro a i
o
- - - - --------------?t
o r?.? n
s ( , /
T I(_'
r
I °
n
II 1
azva??\ ? II t \??`
? I
77,
a C:3
11?= d I? I
i
;4,s P --n
N s -1

i

? A
?D
F
S =
? Z

7rA
dp-
p
N
O

Z ?
? D
r r
-
m
0
?
o O
m ?.
-4-
3:-.

C
G)

cn
mF
I?

ca r o

<Z

of- rm

4
r O 0
? Z
m j m
m
rn
m i -
n
3 -4 m
a
° m m
? 3
A i
I
I
r

r as
m t

?
I
rvl-p
0
rn
?
N
r^
rn

y rn -<
C rr
\ Ln
ZO
n T
D O
O_
S Z
to 3 ian;
-+c \ rn ? i
< ;T N
o j o c ! cn
r N ? ?

A r

3 i

n
r m r9

?fi ? w mm
< 3T

r
m n
-n
C Q N.
2 - N
D 0- r

2
to N
'

D Z 1
C
O
10
= Z
rn

m
1
O-4
r'
fi
m
Z
M
.0
i-
o
<

16..
-,t
n
O
n
1
O
Z
O
O
pp0 7
20 w?0 '
Cc
O
w i 0 ? ? f
1 77 fA
?0O
k V. 07a
G
q:0
Z
.c
® 0
a• ti
w= w.
Z
II
O
y
O
Z
n
Q
Y
? O
aJ'
.4
to
fel
i
2.
o C _ r-
co f.
. Ir
?
%I 'L
f
!1 gg
ce n is
°
'C •`
= 4
3
to
W
w ?

i
a
s

s
3
Z
°o,
4,
F
CDM
=nmronmentar engineers. scientists.
Planners. d management consultants
December 15, 1987
Mr. Leo Young
County of Durham
Department of Planning & Inspections
Durham County Judicial Building
201 E. Main Street
Durham, NC 27701
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
3725 National Drive. Suite 220
O. Box 31585
;;aleran. Norm Carolina 27622
p9 787.5620
RE: Nello Teer Quarry - Assessment of Potential Water Quality
Impacts on Little River Reservoir
Dear Mr. Young:
In response to your request on November 11, 1987 we have reviewed
available information on the Nello Teer Quarry project proposal. As
outlined in our letter of November 20, 1987 the scope of our
assessment covers the following items :
o General water quality concerns
o Stormwater drainage from the site
o Onsite erosion and sedimentation controls
o Water quality monitoring recommendations
o Storage/disposal of overburden
o Control of fines from washing operations
We would caution that this analysis is not intended to be a compre-
hensive environmental evaluation in that we did not assess groundwater
impacts, air pollution/deposition impacts, wetla^ds impacts and other
related environmental issues.
Our assessment focused on the available site specific information
provided.by Nello Teer staff and their engineer, Ragsdale Consultants,
PA which was transmitted to us during a meeting in our office on
October 16, 1987. This information includes:
o Environmental Assessment for the Nello L. Teer Company's
Proposed North Durham Quarry. Prepared by Ragsdale
Consultants, PA. August 1987.
o Design Data and Calculations for Nello Teer Northern orange
Quarry for Initial Construction Phase. Prepared by Ragsdale
Consultants, PA. 'May 1987.

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
Mr. Leo Young
December 15, 1987
Page 6
acreage will not be disturbed during quarry operations. Relocation of
the North orange pond to a downstream location is recommended to
provide additional storage and to increase the project area covered by
the drainage plan.
We also recommend that temporary erosion control devices be
constructed downstream of the future North Orange process area during
initial construction of the quarry site. Permanent erosion control
measures should be mandatory if this area is to be developed as a
process site.
Drainage Conveyance. Peak runoff generated from the North Durham
quarry site was estimated using SCS TR-55 methods. All drainage
control devices were sized to convey runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour
SCS type II design storm. Required channel dimensions were determined
from Manning gIs equation.
Peak runoff generated from the North orange quarry site were estimated
using the Rational Formula. All drainage devices were sized to convey
runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour SCS Type II design storm. Channel
dimensions were determined from Manning's equation.
on the North Durham site, drainage ditches "PQ" and "RQ" end
approximately 500 ft upstream of the eastern large detention basin.
These ditches convey runoff from the primary crusher/surge pile/dump
station area. To minimize erosion impacts, a filter strip or
grass-lined/filter-lined channel is recommended to convey flow from
ditch outlets to the detention basin. Likewise, filter-lined channels
should be constructed to convey flows from basin outlets to receiving
waters.
Peak Runoff Control. No analysis of peak runoff control was provided
or the detention pond design. Ttie p-,,:rformance standard set by the
State NR&CD Sedimentation Control (T15: 048.000) is based upon maximum
permissible velocities for storm water discharges. Post-construction
conditions must not exceed the greater of:
(1) pre-construction runoff velocities for the 10-year storm; or
(2) maximum permissible velocities for various soil textures
ranging from fine sand (2.5 fps) to fine gravel (5.0 fps).
Increases in peak flow rates, flow velocities, and flow volumes can be
expected if the quarry, associated processing areas, and roads are
constructed. To prevent adverse impacts along downstream reaches of
Buffalo Creek due to the changes in upstream hydrologic character-
istics, detention ponds must be designed to provide sufficient storage
with outlet structures sized to control peak runoff from the site.
For control of streambank erosion, a 2-year design storm is a more
-e
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
Mr. Leo Young
December 15, 1987
Page 7
effective design criterion than a 10-year design storm and is an
accepted performance standard in other sections of the Piedmont (e.g.,
Virginia, Maryland).
We would recommend designing the detention pond and outlet riser to
maintain postdevelopment peak flows at the predevelopaent rate for a
2-year design storm in order to prevent downstream erosion (10). This
may require additional storage and will require redesign of the outlet
structure for the North Durham ponds. As proposed, the North Orange
pond has inadequate storage for peak runoff control and should be
redesigned or relocated downstream.
Dewaterin Operations. Groundwater and stormwater'pumped from the
quarry pit during dewatering operations are not accounted for in the
construction/operation plans and calculations. we have been advised
that these pump-out waters will be routed to detention ponds, however,
dewatering volumes, pumpage rates and frequency, and water quality
management concerns (e.g., impact on hydraulic residence time) should
be addressed.
The impact of groundwater contributions on
not addressed herein due to the lack of dat
precipitation on the quarry pit surface alc
substantially to dewatering requirements.
retained in the pit (99 acres) after the 25
storm is approximately 21 acre-ft and 27 ac
and North Durham quarry pits, respectively.
dewatering requirements are
a. However, direct
ne can contribute
For example, stormwater
-year, 24-hour SCS design
re-ft for the North Orange
ONSITE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
Erosion and sedimentation controls for both the North Orange and North
Durham quarry sites depend'primarily on sequencing of construction
activities and runoff diversion into the detention ponds for sediment
control. Diversion of site runoff into detention-ponds would be
accomplished via a series of new drainage ditches which would also aid
in the control of sediment and dust generated from the quarry sites.
The construction plans for the North orange quarry site sp-.2cify that
all erosion control devices will be installed before other construc-
tion. The North Durham construction plans do not specify the order of
construction. In addition, no provision is made for erosion control
during the construction of the permanent erosion control devices.
Silt fencing is a common method of temporary erosion control for
construction sites (4), and it is widely used on both quarry sites for
sediment control. However, the maintenance and duration of the silt
fencing is not addressed in the Nello Teer construction plans. The
installation of more permanent erosion control devices such as grassed
waterways, filter strips, or filter-lined channels is recommended in
lieu of silt fencing in many areas of the quarry site after the
'A

Mr. Leo Young
December 15, 1987
Page 13
SUMMARY
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
According to DEM, the proposed quarry project would definitely
preclude a WS-I designation for the Little River Reservoir watershed.
However, DEM has also indicated that there is some likelihood that the
watershed would not qualify for a WS-I designation even in the absence
of a quarry (8). It does not appear that the proposed quarry project
would preclude a WS-II rating which may represent an acceptable and
achievable watershed protection goal for both Little River Reservoir
and Lake Michie. Assuming that the WS-II rating is acceptable to the
County, the following improvements to the Nello Teer project plan are
recommended to minimize the risk of adverse water quality impacts:
o Relocate and redesign North orange detention pond to a
downstream location to enhance stormwater management and
sediment control. Locate ponds to control runoff from future
disturbed areas.
o Extend North Durham diversion channels "PQ" and "Ro" to
western detention pond and incorporate additional erosion
control measures in channel design.
o Redesign all detention ponds to provide both sediment control
and stormwater management (i.e., peak runoff control). For
sediment control, use more stringent storage requirements
(e.g., 3.0 acre-inches are required storage per disturbed
acre).
o For peak runoff control to minimize streambank erosion
impacts, redesign all detention ponds to provide peak runoff
control (e.g., maintain predevelopment peak flows for the
2-year design storm).
o Address impacts of dewatering operations including expected
volumes, pumpage rates and frequency, and water quality
management.
o Specify construction sequencing and sediment controls to be
provided during construction of permanent erosion control
devices.
o Address maintenance and duration of silt fencing and
conversion to more permanent erosion control devices.
o Provide analysis of sediment removal efficiency for all
detention ponds (e.g., surface area method).
o Specify operation, duration, and reclamation of the temporary
sediment basin in the southwest corner of the North orange
pit area. (Note: Drainage from this area could be

Mr. Leo Young
December 15, 1987
Page 14
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
incorporated into the large detention basin located
downstream.)
o Provide operation and maintenance plans for all erosion
control measures.
o Clean-out all existing onsite ponds prior to construction.
o Implement a water quality monitoring program to sample
ground, pit, and surface waters.
o Specify operation of silt disposal and overburden storage
areas.
o Construct impermeable lining for process water settling
basins.
In addition, it is recommended that an ongoing water quality monitor-
ing program be implemented to compile data on baseline conditions
prior to construction and discharges from quarrying operations.
Finally, it is recommended that Durham County coordinate with orange
County regarding decisions about the proposed quarry project to ensure
a consistent approach to watershed protection.
We hope that these comments are useful. If you have any questions,
plaese contact John Roberts or Anne Cole at 787-5620.
Sincerely yours,
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE
i John P. Hartigan, P.E.
Asso iate
J L. Roberts, P.E.
Se for Associate

ti

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Erosion and Sediment
Control. Surface Mining in the Eastern U.S.,.Volume I (Planning) and
Volume II (Design). Washington, D.C.
2. Goldman, S.J., K. Jackson, and T. Bursztynsky, 1986. Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook. McGraw-Hill.
3. Virginia State Water Control Board, 1979. Best Management Practices
Handbook, Surface Mining.
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1979. Guide
for Sediment Control on Construction Sites in North Carolina.
5. Maryland Water Resources Administration, 1985. Maryland Erosion and
Sediment Controls (Draft) for the Sediment and Stormwater Division.
6. Novotny, V. and G. Chesters, 1981. Handbook of Non point Pollution:
Sources and management. van NostranU-Ne'InEo-M Co..
7. Personal communication with Arthur Mouberry, Supervisor of Permitting
Office, State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Division.
8. Personal communication with Dr. Robert Holman, Coordinator of Water
Supply Protection Program, State of North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Division.
9. State of North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1/85. North Carolina
Administrative Code, "Sedimentation Control" (T15:04 TOC-1).
10. Fairfax County, Virginia, 1985. Public Facilities manual.
11. State of North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development, 3/1/86. North Carolina
Administrative Code, "Surface Water Standards" (T15: 0213.0200).

?I-
NORTH DURHAM QUARRY
MITIGATION PLAN
REPORT TO NELLO TEER COMPANY
DURHAM, N.C.
JANUARY 20, 1989
page 1
:I_

MITIGATION PLAN
BACKGROUND
The Nello L. Teer Company plans to develop a rock
quarry in northern Durham County and adjacent segments of
Orange County, North Carolina. The site was evaluated by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates (RJG&A) on behalf of Nello
L. Teer and its landscape architect and planner, Ragsdale
Consultants. Recommendations were made by RJG&A to minimize
adverse impacts on wetlands, and those recommendations were
incorporated into plan modifications by Nello L. Teer and
Ragsdale Consultants. Consultation with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (FWS), Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) resulted
in agreement that mitigation for unavoidable losses of
wetlands and wildlife habitat values were to be provided by
the Nello L. Teer Company. Subsequently, searches were
conducted throughout Durham County and adjacent areas for
suitable mitigation land, and series of reports provided to
the Nello L. Teer Company. The November 1988 report
described a potential site adjacent to the company's
Denfield Quarry site. This report describes activities at
that site and plans for meeting mitigation objectives.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Nello L. Teer property adjacent to the Denfield Quarry
(Durham County) was evaluated on November 18, 1988 as a
potential wetland mitigation site (Figures 1 and 2). The
evaluation included a comprehensive jurisdictional wetland
delineation of the property and habitat descriptions.
The site is located east of the Denfield Quarry pit at
the base of the current waste pile. The area contains
approximately 45 (unsurveyed) acres of which half is
cut-over. The uncut half is predominantly a late
successional mesic forest dominated by oaks, hickories,
tulip poplar, and'sweetgum, with some beech and pine.I
The Durham County Soil Survey (Kirby, 1976)
illustrates several soil series occurring on the site
(Figure 3), including Altavista, Chewacla, Mayodan,
page 2

MITIGATION PLAN
Roanoke, and Wahee. Of these, only the Roanoke series is on
the COE hydric soils list (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Approximately 16 (unsurveyed) of the 45 acres was
determined in the field to be extant three-parameter
wetland, some in forested areas but most in the cut-over
area. Munsell soil designations in the wetland included:
IOYR 5/2, mottled; 10YR 6/2, mottled; IOYR 711, mottled;
10YR 7/2, mottled. All of these are wetland soils according
to Corps of Engineers criteria based on chroma.
Some vernal pool habitat was found in the forested
portion of the wetland. Beaver activity has created
additional wetland acreage in the northwes-tern part of the
site (Figure 4) and this new wetland appears to.be
expanding.
The nonwetland portion of the site, consisting of
approximately 29 (unsurveyed) acres, includes forested
portions and cut-over portions. RJG&A determined that the
nonwetland portion of the site was suitable for alteration
to wetland.
OBJECTIVES
Mitigation through carefully designed and controlled
excavation is intended to provide replacement wildlife
habitat values for those unavoidably lost in development of
the North Durham Quarry site. The plan herein proposed
meets agency and client objectives of close proximity to
the impacted site (same county), cost effectiveness (use of
the owner's property and minimal earth-moving costs), a
requirement of only simple changes in soil and vegetation
leading to a high probability of success, utilization of
existing wildlife habitat values (preservation of beaver
pond area and preservation of significant upland
vegetation), and monitoring.
The overall mechanism for altering the Denfield site
includes excavation of a network of canals and secondary
channels, supplemented with the excavation of connected
ponds and isolated pools. The canals, channels, ponds and
pools are expected to expand the horizontal extent of soil.
saturation from streams and wetland portions of the site
out into nonwetlands, and increase ecological complexity
throughout the site by preservation of present valuable
page 3
R
MITIGATION PLAN
upland vegetation (large mast producers) while replacing
less valuable upland vegetation (small trees, low shrubs)
with wetland vegetation (such as river birch), and by
enhancement of amphibian habitat. The retention of upland
pockets within newly created wetland will provide added
benefits of edge effect.
DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION
Land clearing will include, but not be limited to, an
81-wide path for construction of canals. Excavated spoils
will be randomly placed at a distance of approximately 5'
on the downhill side of all canals and channels, negating
the need for wider clearing for truck removal.
Primary canals will have a maximum negative slope of
1' per 4001, a bottom width of 21, and 2:1 side slopes.
Secondary channels will be excavated at intervals of 50' if
topography allows and no significant mast trees would be
threatened. The channels would have a bottom width of 2'
and sloped to provide maximum surface to saturate adjacent
land.
Rip-rap weirs will be constructed in source streams
and ditches to increase friction and divert water during
annual periods of high flow into the artificial canals. The
rip-rap will additionally provide hard substratum for
.colonization by stream insects.
The network of canals and channels will increase the
area of saturated land surface to the extent practicable,
dependent on seasonal flows over the weirs, varying
horizontal permeabilities of the several soil types on the
site, and the distance between channels. Water retention
capabilities of the soils on-site cannot reasonably be
quantified from soil data and soil maps, because the area
has been extensively disturbed.
An existing man-made pond on the site will be
converted from aquatic habitat to wetland habitat by
partial drainage of water or filling with spoil, bringing
it to a depth suitable for the growth of emergent
vegetation.
page 4

4
V
MITIGATION PLAN
Aquatic habitat will be enhanced by creation of
shallow ponds connected to new and existing streams and
channels. These ponds will serve as fish and amphibian
habitat, wildlife water supply reservoirs during periods of
drought, and substratum for emergent vegetation. Amphibian
habitat will be enhanced by excavation of vernal pools of
various depths that will become dry at different times and
provide a variety of periods for larval growth and
metamorphosis (Semlitsch and Wilbur, 1988). These vernal
pools will be isolated from all other existing streams or
constructed canals and channels, preventing fish
immigration and subsequent predation on amphibian eggs and
larvae.
IMPLEMENTATION
Accomplishment of this complex of objectives will
require coordination among Nello L. Teer construction
peronnel, Ragsdale Consultants, and RJG&A. An ecologist and
a landscape architect will be on-site to flag the locations
of the network of canals and channels, to mark valuable
upland mast trees that should not be removed or their root
field disturbed, and to establish bench marks throughout
the site for quality control of depth. Initial clearing
(81-wide path) for construction access will be accomplished
with a Caterpillar D6LGP dozer or equivalent. Construction
of the canals and channels will be accomplished with one or
two Caterpillar rubber-tired backhoes.
Vernal pools will be constructed with the D6LGP dozer
pushing outward from the center and creating a protective
berm to prevent fish immigration during floods. Leaf debris
will be collected from on-site drift lines and placed in
the vernal pools for initial fertilization. An RJG&A
ecologist will attempt the collection of amphibian brood
stock using a drift fence and pit traps at existing vernal
pools in the area, for transplantation to the new site.
.Ponds will be constructed without protective berms.
The ponds should vegetate naturally. The extant wetland and
beaver pond provide adequate seed sources for many wetland
species and supplement vegetation should not be necessary.
page 5

MITIGATION PLAN
The rip-rap weirs will be constructed with the small
rubber-tired backhoes. The weirs will protect water flow
downstream, but divert excess flow in the canals and
channels during wet periods of the year (Figure 5). Rip-rap
sizes will be a minimum of 25% greater than 24 inches and
no more than 10% less than 3 inches.
Total construction will require the excavation of up
to 5,000 cubic yards of dirt, to create up to 10,400 linear
feet of canals and channels and 15 pools and ponds. the
rip-rap weirs will require emplacement of approximately 45
tons of stone to create 5 weirs (Figure 4). The total
construction time, not counting weather delays, is
estimated at less than 60 days.
MONITORING
After completion of construction, the site will be
inspected twice yearly for a period of three years by an
RJG&A ecologist to ensure that the new wetland environment
is developing as planned. Concerned agencies (FWS, WRC)
will be provided progress letter reports of findings and
recommendations.
CREATION OF A CONSERVATION AREA
Upon completion of all tasks, from construction
through monitoring, the Nello L. Teer Company will record a
conservation easement in the land and subsequently donate
the land to a non-profit public interest group, such as the
Triangle Land Conservancy, for land stewardship, subject to
acceptance conditions imposed by the recipient. The Nello
L. Teer Company will coordinate this activity with FWS and
WRC to assure agreement of the parties and consistency with
agency objectives.
page 6
.i
MITIGATION PLAN
LITERATURE CITED
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineatin Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Ms.,
100 pp.
Kirby, R.M. 1976. Soil survey of Durham County, North
Carolina. USDA, SCS, Raleigh, N.C., 76 pp. + maps and
indices.
Semlitsch, R.D., and H.M. Wilbur. 1988. Effects of
pond drying time on metamorphosis and survival in the
salamander Ambystoma talpoideum. Copeia 1988(4):978-983.
page 7

FIGURE 1. Durham County, North I
Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.3175

77
J:
? L• ` v
Sewage 11?1
Disposal
3994
\? ?: \\
y v \ o hi I „ ' l 246x . . 1 r... ...
o % ,\c Jfa 1,14 iQua?ry
:,? tic,',. • )u ?, _ ?._?-._ . ?j? ,?? 1 -.C^
• Ch. .? f ?... .? ?
it ?•? C ? ''Holt h '?
is •' ji i•. Y' ?l'1 /1? !/? , ..!. \??(• 3992
-r
?k
?Tank
Stead f htst
• \ ¢C .
?ieat? o I _

_ j %j 1 `tab=;1, 1 ` J 3991
Ja< 1 '^(, /' is a;; .t ) 1
410
;.. - , ? ,mss, "'• ?. ? ? :nr , '? ?.l ,\ ? /.a ? ,1 i??
sir Fr ser
Y" ??h[[[???\\\FaISE sr ukea o! hi• 1; ? •! ____
J •?,T? ? ? ;p.._? .... x`11" Y O? ."S•i ? /? 1
FIGURE 2. Denfi'eld Quarry Mitigation
SCALE 1:24 000 Property,
I
z 0
MILE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
FEET
5 0
KILOMETER
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.3175
?4'? -
W

APO"
s'
J
II
lop- m r ""I Kv' o?s.w..ea
ti.
t T.. + .•• ' •••^-• CL ?i ,fi aW-1414 ?I?. Oa11? •VA.w..?,cor :
rvcftr
:Yll. •Y7bam
• - pRAw?Oa '*WA4C` 20?7;wflU.:r I0,.1
view WXS?
RAM'JOM LY KAaCCP CAZQA?ATCO COIL,
v.
. ?U,? _ C_ • ? ?t1f6?1b? cAwL •
' YRIt." -A CKAwwCL
1 •1•- 9.
tl UII:' •l/ i ?
21cRYi:.t+rdV GAuAL D6'Y?.? .
i@?YWN v.cw N,•r•5
.. ?- -..ARf?4)KI.,V OMCRG.O.J 1p .
• jr-
. VG C A
1 Y - Fill i???
• DIVCRS.ON DGri11L ••.
4CGY.OL1 vIl•.,i N.T. 1, .
FIGURE 5, Details of construction.
c ddld
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.3175
'MEMO_ o.rF
TO: SUBJECT:
lr? got sue. a? F
?01 wOlt N TH. ?iccoiv?^.P
+lL. ,?„ („? ?n ? cwt aA-? co.»
Ij K. ?/& '3 L7
TAM,
" North Carolina. Department of Natural
? Resources &Community Development
• Q,

fem.
s t

t
? Y
S
.. .
5q k ya ? k{

` t
,r

DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
April 27, 1989
MEMO TO: Bill Mills
FROM : John Dorneq V\-Ae
SUBJECT: Monitoring Plan for NelloTeer North Durham Quarry
The following condition should be included in the 401
Certification for the Nello Teer North Durham Quarry site in
order to satisfy DEM monitoring concerns.
Monitoring
Hydrology
The applicant shall investigate the created wetland site in
April and October for three years after creation to verify that
the artificial pools, canals and channels are not blocked and are
functioning as planned. Any repairs shall be done within 30 days
of discovery. The Raleigh Regional Office of DEM will be
notified of the result of the inspections and any repairs.
Vegetation
The applicant shall plant at least up to 100 potted river
birch saplings (two years old and three to five feet tall) in the
mitigation site. Equal portions will be planted in an upland
site, existing wetland and created wetland. Efforts shall be
made to provide approximately the same level of shade/sun to all
saplings. Areas immediately around the saplings may be carefully
sprayed with appropriate herbicides as needed to reduce weed
competition. Trees will be numbered and a map prepared which
will be sufficient to locate the trees in the future.
In April and October for three years after planting, the
applicant will measure tree diameter at 36 inches from the
ground, tree height and survival. Tree growth and survival will
be compared. Notes about other vegetation changes will be made.
Data will be kept on an individual tree basis.
Soils
During each twice-yearly visit of the three year
monitoring period, the applicant shall take at least ten core
samples with an auger in each of the three zones (upland,
MEMO TO: Bill Mills
April 27, 1989
Page Two
existing wetland, created wetland). Soil samples shall be
compared to Muncell color charts for hue, value and chroma. Soil
sample locations shall be mapped and subsequent samples taken
nearby.
Agency Coordination and Reports:
The applicant shall notify the Raleigh Regional Office of
DEM in writing no less than two weeks in advance of the data
collection. Other appropriate state and federal agencies shall
also be notified by the applicant in writing.
Following the initial planting and after each of the six
monitoring visits, the applicant shall within 60 days, prepare
reports to DEM describing site visits, work done, data and.
conclusions. At the end of the three year monitoring period, the
applicant shall prepare a final report, acceptable to DEM,
describing the results of the created wetland effort and
information learned.
JD/jho
cc: Steve Tedder
Ron Ferrell
VOL.16/MILLS.M

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SAWC089-N-032-0204
PUBLIC NOTICE
March 2, 1989
THE NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, Post Office Box 1131, Durham, North Carolina
27702 has applied for a Department of the Army permit TO EXCAVATE, FILL AND
ALTER APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES OF WETLANDS AND A FARM POND ABOVE THE HEADWATERS
OF BUFFALO CREEK FOR A CRUSHED STONE QUARRY WEST OF ROUGEMONT, Durham and
Orange Counties, North Carolina..
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by
the applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show that approximately 13 acres of wetlands will be filled,
excavated or impacted by the construction of a new quarry and its facilities.
A dike approximately 115 feet long by 60 feet wide by 18 feet high (0.2 acre)
will be built across the creek for a water retention pond. The resulting pond
will adversely impact approximately 1.4 acres of wetlands. Excavation of
wetlands in the proposed quarry area will result in the loss of approximately
11.2 acres of wetlands and a farm pond. Wetland vegetation includes river
birch, red maple, willow, loblolly pine, sweetgum, cedar, tulip poplar,
shagbark hickory, American holly, greenbriers, blackberries, sedges, soft rush
and honeysuckle. The soils are grey with mottles and the area is saturated
from 0-12" from the surface. The purpose of the work is to construct a new
crushed stone quarry. Plans showing the work are included with this public
notice.
A mitigation plan has also been proposed on the applicant's Denfield
Quarry site located in Durham south of and adjacent the Eno River. The
applicant proposes to enhance approximately 29 acres of impacted and forested
non-wetlands by excavating a network of canals and secondary canals to be
connected to existing ditches and ponds. Land clearing will be kept to the
minimum necessary to excavate the channels, and no significant mast trees will
be threatened. Riprap weirs will be constructed in the source streams and
ditches to divert water during periods of high flow into the artificial
canals. The network of canals and channels will increase the saturation of
the disturbed areas. An environmental assessment describing the proposed mine
and mitigation plan, provided by the applicant, is available for review in the
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office.

-2-
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army permit will be issued until the coordinated State
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a Department of the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management has determined the applicability of a
Water Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will-be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of
1
-3-
the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any
other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest..
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serves as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after
March 20, 1989.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before March 13, 1989, Attention:
Mr. William Mills.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Ms. Kathy L. Trott, until 4:15 p.m.,
March 30, 1989, or telephone [phone].
• F ..^E: 1 t: '? :-i: _ - 1- _ >F-"_ .?F tfd+_ Ii i ...1- . I-'!;:_c ij?-t _ l;. r
A
ORANe
PER"m
AA Go.
PROJECT
OOCATION
T
3j ? 1N
57
T
1 ? ,r
i
"eooor 'p
Tz
14 r c
1534
i
o.
b
r• 4 2000 3000
??ecn ?ea.e Ae /Vt?.cla G,Rgpu,c SCa Je
/QTR RaP? s
`f\ ? % '?? I'on` t., '' .4' ;1 ,•?J ? ? ?
• ' _`? ,fir fJ??...?/ ? ? `,,?If ;; ?.??1 I ?.?`f•-..J i' ' 0\ \ 1, ' )1 ,''? /'
Oil
F,..) ., ? '? ,' '?,? ??_.? ? _.,r--!J / ' it i-•r: ? \ ' I Iii
t! t f'?? •?'t i '1,\\•?~ t?t _ / ? ?--- !?' ? ,' i?` ?' r""?' ,1? ;; /III!
'Al
+? ? r0 i ? r 1 \,. ! `.`? i ` ?• .e? t ?( li.,? _.e.. -?? ?I ?- t
1 14
IN
IF J,
r i? `" t( 1 ?: I
:71 ft.
10
?y'?\' '```......??.-x.1_..1-_..?•ott.-.? ?,1. ? .?„?,-,?,?.. f [?•:? , 1..
-•-= .: - : ,3_'...-• -fit. {? i s •r :y t"`;, , - t' {
FEE.
A Aar

t -r o
y
2 A J°
?
eo A
n
O ? 2

m
rn
°
r
r
n
4m

r" Cf

im

a m?
m _a
Is ?
?- y
t+t
y

X

ci
- 1?
d
N
T ?.
b
?= m
l?
?? C7
r ?
C
I?
0
'L1
r
r_
. II"-{
-n
rn --4
ZO
S?
dt
Oi
a
z .
A?
4
O -
2 ?
m m
m
a
3
"c
ern.
_-4
r
cc
N'
r- n
rn
m
I 2 rmn
m
vi ? m b
4 ? Ct3
!
l ? I
1>
D ?
1 X
N ? 8 ?
s..
r
?-
2

V
r^ h

Cj iA
r ?+

r r 7
?w N,r min

m 2

N
C r

N .?
C7
D
t7
c
o
m
. 1 <<

<G ?(, R ; r
r-,* 16
h I- E:y r_, - i is f_ . C.I U, . 1' +l .. .. i- • +.. i
s
w
3
4
A
4.
1lit
1 0
a

i,
n
b
i?
yr
.``,.??? , c f- 21
`a
to
M
h
4
a
7
qa
O
'??toxr
2 s A
NMO
4
FEE . _
#!! {!
tip
I v
i
IA
M
A
•t
i?
et
i?
F . " 1 x'11

• 4'
7 1.J 1 J
' .•
,•Z
t !

S%ALF- L24000
-+z-? -- ?- MIL£
0 1000 :000 3000 40M
0

I
; 21*
!6' ! ercl Ch
drA
00
F _ . f '?; ::: jar ? ?f;1'(,• ?'? 1,• 1 ??, r'
W ver
t J F ` ..
IN
FIGURE 2. Jenfie}d Quarry Mitigation
Property.
t
£:1VIR9NMENTAL COHSULrAN7S
Ouram Road OsAw Palk
8480 Caney Oliva
Ratibigh• Nofth CA140ha 27804-3173
f j
N ? Q?
ti q }?7 r^` v 4J •?
43
c a c ij H
E
03
f I S. L a ' Tw
4-1 (U
it. Z3
„? ? 4 ???'?? ?':i?????+... •-r '• 1
fir- ?(( {L'??•f:-%r?C?d.{'...y????s DIP, ?? ? ? is /' 1 1 t?,• ? v ?;,r, ? x ? z
? i CJ •r- T ?i ? T
?.
, S- C 4.4
fir.- y ;?.'?'??TT^^ _ ''.M(-
?V. I 7 'rlrr -?1..1.._ \`` / .`ti4 '.`t'om ?' •',' :; ?
LAJ
"','M i c„ :. '..t ? if i T? / F' ?, ? ?a•.? 4 a. ?h? ?rh ?Y,•??sr _. t,! Nl«•••r? L'S ?J
f IL
Ail.
i f , ••??
? •r ?t, i?- rn/rt/ ? ?? , n?i? ?w? a, S,'?Y;l' \?'? ••. "o'^r^wr^....ry.r???r.
+.t?.
?''.y ?i• , T _ % ;t !i f .w4tC?-,'?` S /,r Y /' J?fkF r?'•Y->•tirit ' ??-a'ti` `3y?iyv???..3`??t?? !, • - t t ,' • i iy
'AV?"L :,.+?`-? •.:????1??:? !?,. ??1•
?
j;`~' v 1 _ !? .\'/`` ~, \Ih•" °r'Y ?ti ?.t r,. r+ t...- ;.. }7J`. ^`.• =.P*4 --?.+....?T+:.. t
t • /''f ' ? i:. , •G•}??????tY` i?"t :??{`?r•'r?{ h l?`•;E ??? ?S?'` . ! ti ?? rr 1,Y;?J;? ? -???1" .. ,V
is/,?„i.?;???y? ? c. ?j jjj?{e`?}{,t v, •. e.. V`•
d;.'_?t1R/y.Ta.?.. r. bS.VV.'r• 4Y,?fr?•?•
?A• lr ? !`1.;1?.f? .fl ?i':?l 3.??4•R• ; ?:^v ff M w:•.'.M ? Y?' 'r'??
/ •, .;.Y t,n. °f«I "lr:?.??:?' ?jf j?:•'..,,.•y?=rfti;' '. ??' ? ?' fi;. r. ?, ; :': •,1 Ill vr+ ?'?l••fj>?ya`? I _
•7r -' .2 `„-a`.1{, ." ?.+? ??. ? Ftrt r, ?+?'+?St r•r??`'!'?? , a. \it1 ..?•:` ., '•?. '4' r.'. ?,K
5; ? * ,?3;'• r r. P• r.'t:r•ji ;,?:, :rt?» '1~f i ?" ?` ra... ?. y! 1?+. .? ,, ?. '?y ?•+ijMo.
'Fit" .^'+R? -'1(?\.•i?? 1 ,\'1?; ?c'S;a; ykt 1•.R1•'t`t
sit?\'`•? rejcs?`Y?':rry(?iN.,... L •; >"?? ,.\4y is!.??+1 1
.?/ fY
% j tr rI}. if :fir :Lj 7 } + \ ?'r:
+? ?4r, d1.???? ; ? / T ? X4:1 it { ? ? ? ??_ r? `r r??qi'? j.. „•.,? r'.',+? . , +x, (? ;A I :''!• ?4 , ? ? , 3,?
NJ a V j+.L ?. {F ! '',.?? y+ivf*`?R.?+.u.?;{?.+r ?lY\. Y~rp?? ?••'?ry,ii 'tiY?t'7f,', ?'9'i?? j` {,?r?.?•"' A ? !•:•?;' ,ti {.t? ^?L
(? ? tiff ti,Yr y y{ t liq ?_.,., l\ ...y r y• ? vt
? .` rl?„ .-_ •??Tt1. viii,+`.?r'' a?t1n ,7•??,5 ?tw ?. •j ???•'?!?'=` !}' w?? ?.. S"
n. ?. Ly ? ?„ r?, ..r 1 ?\? ??,+,?t.,v,.,},."... \ `t \? } \`. ;±; _?+,• ' '?1 x ..`>??• Yr • , /? P jR+.??l,?,. ',,?,, ??
.A
r\\ti
t i r• 1 ,, '{ \ ` \ r \? r .
4- J a?" fil?lY `:'t``_^ '^?``•;•?.•• '`'?1?i1?:. ?.".i'-?.rY, ?i:tf(?+•e?:ri:?lK t"?. - ?V?
., :,..: -•;. •'..-'i ?_ i?• t V t:..,r.. ?.? 1?1??e `y ?•ti'..`` ? //'t" !r' ihi ? s..r wr s:
Z?
r fi fq''Sl;?T >rr.?`: rJ 1 ' `\.?t tl r t3'??1?.'?•t A '?.n
~i+>ii'??•'6„-' y r>,r,.,? kr •?,?J?,..ii' w •'6 ?R:C ""`: •..,y1 !• ?'•1 ??R D '•f '? .?
_ `• ?L''^, '??i ? L ? l?' c`7r?.Y. . •X \ .!'T J t J,., "'1' ^ ,.• ? v! t M-. .t ._
` T titer !!'i' P?T}pt?) /'-„r..•f-.??1'i?? /`? r F7 , ?1 ?. +;?1;1 tSrC(?,`•+,i ? ? f ??• :S
,?r P «w.. •.rr. Y!•i,,?i .. .'ir,' `.a?r
s I . `.r, +?f' „t" .2'T f'rr tH r• !
ok ? ? tr rT+ ..,,? ?`"t":wirw?' • Mix ,'!r`? ,,?, ?, l?` ? 1•?^'' `° ?n ?.r •+'?? rt• s{ r• .? ?. r ?; ??
n ? ? ? •l r? , Z; 't.?"„?.v,c•'f??, .F,,, ti:-><.u- ?;_?,?,a•? 't ? Y1? r• oai?.•.•??4 '
4t l?j?Ka A ter ? ? r 3FL rf ? ?'••. t "K
;:?K?i'et^??"r?rj.f; •° ". ^?`rY'C4'?'.-t••`?t t",.'ri'\ { rt- l 'f..i/r. ,t. 'F' • ?F/! t• !.
,!? l// ?'i?' .A• . ?\ ; ? t
? 'r:,..f?•?^ ? y -'?. ? V`'•'?t •f.r;t -•?C 1.'1'"'y? ''y, • +?2'i?r ??•/
?? M1 rr 7?:"{ . ?, r • r t ES r,Xiy!'/' i'?rC. ?•SY'r ?- •.. ,
s I . ? .,.?,?/ •y R t •?? v??.µi, t i? a • ,? .y\,,t•/ r .- .rf j? --,°_---,.,.?r?.,, ?? .•• : ; -
. i ??:Sh-?+ ?;i:`„/"'r'?'t?Y?r"? (?p?r??t? r, ?{rr"??,I jii ??.?..I?fi', .s. • -t??- A'i
?Y%`:t??` :;? \ / •• '.:r ..f: ?a?.? +,`•"?
...i:..:J.r.iYr+al. kieA.w......-•a? +`r••L..e}f+.a...uv -:..:d. ,..... •?•, .., "f .- ?Y .:'?•N..T?4 ?T'.4aLa.?1,•?.?'•?' .f?..•dt1L? T.

rtr
-All
„7eC'Jfii1''`.M ate. , ? ?'y?%?:•^?? ?:•.' aC r? ?„?,[?1?
V- x
"rr'i??'tf Y' {•S, S'r r. ?C 1P°M?r ? sti ?+?? yCy'?-Y i'A1".:
YRR'tiN.10•J YL1AV ULT]r?
.':=t,.::u. ••'zx?!Ss''?,ti•:?" ...err ,? Y? .N: J4?a.`''„'?' ? ° tr? h
. .L nk?rl
7PC.-Y10 FI VI i••/ rr.Y.' Y .
FIGURE 5, Details of construction.
£NVIAC;NMCIIIAL CC?4SULTANTS
DwAAI Read Ciflca Park
8180 07,tvey gdve
NOO(n i?I.N$A1 2%;rj4.5115

.. ? .; ?w STATE y` .
oC 'B? A
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor March 31, 1989 William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
The attached U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. 0204 dated
March 3, 1989 describing a project proposed by y
is being circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable
Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed
project and return this form by Apri1:,7, 1989
Very sincerely,
John R. Parker, Jr.
404 Coordinator
REPLY
JRP: jr./aw
This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Signed
Date
Agency
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SA14C089-N-032-0204
March 23, 1989
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, Post Office Box 1131, Durham, North Carolina
27702 has applied for a Department of the Army permit TO EXCAVATE, FILL AND
ALTER APPROXIMATELY 15.6 ACRES OF WETLANDS AND A FARM POND ABOVE THE
HEADWATERS OF BUFFALO CREEK FOR A CRUSHED STONE QUARRY WEST OF ROUGEMONT,
Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina.
The following information was not included in the Public Notice issued
March 2, 1989. A wetland area approximately 2.63 acres in size was omitted
from the original narrative and from Sheet 2 of 8. The addition of 2.63 acres
of wetland impact increases the total wetland impact to approximately 15.6
acres. Wetland vegetation includes river birch, red maple, willow, loblolly
pine, sweetgum, cedar, tulip poplar, shagbark hickory, American holly,
greenbriers, blackberries, sedges, soft rush and honeysuckle. Also included
with this notice is a clarification of Sheet 7 of 8 (plan view of mitigation
site). The Public Notice dated March 2, 1989, includes a description of the
remainder of the work. An environmental assessment describing the proposed
mine and mitigation plan, provided by the applicant, is available for review
in the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office.
Written. comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above and in
the Public Notice dated March 2, 1989, will be received in this office,
Attention: Ms. Kathy L. Trott, until 4:15 p.m., April 7, 1989,.or telephone
(919) 84.6-0749.
0000 - • PO a c ?-"_ ir' - -a c I ? \ I
fit
? J
----- I
? e I G? ?- N ? ? 0•
'•1 ? ?l'a rs. sy ?? ? ? p t ? t
\ i t "mot
7-
I i? I
ff Ilr ? ? j t '
7 % • II II
• ? ?? ? ? ' , ? it
?? t ? n. I G? --- ?-, _? ` to • ! '
03
Fit
.. i` _ ? •?._. _1 ,?u U'? • i j ?• J t ? I / i '111.

m

m zm :D
o
jm Z Z
o
0
Zo? m D
N
n
r^
ND
YI
O
V y
.o D
s N cn m r
?. >
m D
D D
I^
mho m
z

O Z
>
yyy
NOC7 ^
>I>I
C
lTJ rn
u,
I
?
m
Q ^
? ___111

? N cn ? Z
God m
gym < r^
u,
-
zyx M r
D
um?
m O
v
D
i
z
zm
1"•
40
= r
aM
m
3m
an
?O
m
C ?
as
?z
\JJ?3?0
290
i I

Cl I'd
zo
ftl Old
H O
t%j
d V
?a7 c
H
H-i tZ1
t3l
H O 4-
H V1
H O
H
zz°x

I
r
? I III
o ? B o o
g s a 2 n ?
a
? 2 a 2 n 2

1
t

Regulatory Branch
IN REPLY REFER TO
n. C1 ?
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
March 3, 1989

SUBJECT: File No. CESAW-C089-N-032-0204
Mr. William Mills
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Mills:
Enclosed is the application of the Nello L. Teer Company for a
Department of the Army permit and a State Water Quality
Certification to place excavated/fill material in wetlands above
the headwaters of Buffalo Creek for a crushed stone quarry west of
Rougemont, Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. Your
receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a valid request
for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our
administrative regulations.
We are considering authorization of the proposed activity
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have
determined that a water quality certification may be required
under the provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department
of the Army permit will not be granted until the certification has
been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, 60 days
after receipt of a request for certification is considered a
reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if your office has
not acted on the request by May 3, 1989, the District Engineer
will deem that waiver has occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Kathy L. Trott,
Regulatory Branch, Raleigh Field Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Char s W. Hollis
hief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
so- --
-2-
41
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and
Community Development
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
????®? (V E= t_ t- O L- . T E- E= F? C O NA i?A 1V Y
&ffit,
tar_
® A® ???'g? A Subsidiary of Koppers Company, Inc.
4
OFFICE TEL: [phone] • TELEX: 57-9446
February 9, 1989
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Kathy Trott
11413 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
RE:
Dear Ms. Trott:

FEB 1 5 1989
REGULATORY BRANCH
Application for a COE 404E
permit.
It is with pleasure that Nello L. Teer Company submits
this application for a Corps of Engineers 404E Dredge and
Fill Permit. As discussed with Ken Jolly of the Corps of
Engineers, you will find enclosed with this letter the
following information in triplicate:
1) Completed application for a permit.
2) Vicinity maps
3) Project mining plan
4) Cross sections
5) Wetlands mitigation proposal
The limited reserves at our existing Durham Quarry
necessitate the relocation of this facility so that Durham
County's crushed stone requirements will continue to be met.
After years of exploration and testing, a suitable quarry
site has been discovered on the Reed Poole property, which is
west of Rougemont, North Carolina.
Upon completion of the environmental assessment for this
prospective site, Robert Goldstein and Associates informed
Nello L. Teer Company of existing wetlands located onsite
which would be disturbed by our operation. Dr. Goldstein
proceeded to delineate these wetlands in the field and inform
the C.O.E. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife of his findings.
During conversations and meetings with the C.O.E. and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife, in their offices and in the field, it was
decided that the most appropriate solution to the wetlands
problem would be to find a mitigation site which, with work
performed by Nello Teer Company, could be transformed into a
wetlands area.
F O U N D E D 1909 CITY Of MEDICINE, USA
DURHAM, NC )RT H CAROLINA
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 2
Alternatives to wetland mitigation, which were addressed
and for specific reasons were not viable, are as follows:
1) Finding another site with which to supply the stone
needs of the county. The geology of Durham County is such
that only limited specific areas of the county contain rock
which would not only be suitable for stone production, but
also economically viable. Much of the area that is underlain
with suitable stone falls within the Durham County zoning
designation known as the Water Quality Critical Basin area of
the county. This area restricts the type of development
which may occur in the water quality critical area so that
the City of Durham's drinking water will be protected, and is
very restrictive with regards to industrial and manufacturing
operations. A quarry would not be allowed in this zoning
designation. Residential development in other areas where
suitable material may be found has further restricted, and/or
eliminated the location of another site.
It should be noted that this location, in fact,
represents the last possible alternative site in our
exploration effort, and does not represent the best location
found. Sites near Little River dam and Little River School
were potentially better sites, but were culled due to either
local opposition or zoning restraints.
2) Redesigning the site to eliminate the need to
disturb wetland areas.
Two areas of concern expressed by U. S. Fish and
Wildlife representatives, regarding wetland disturbance, were
the size and location of the main detention ponds for
stormwater runoff and the layout of the quarry pit. U. S.
Fish and Wildlife requested that we evaluate not only the
need for the two ponds, but also the possibility of
decreasing the surface area of the ponds by excavating in the
reservoir area and, in effect, deepening the ponds. This
would create the necessary storage capacity and thereby
lessen the impact on wetlands.
At the request of the Durham County Board of
Commissioners, Camp, Dresser and McKee, retained by Durham
County as the watershed consultant, was asked to review the
entire North Durham Quarry project and its effect, if any, on
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 3
the Little River watershed. As part of their findings, they
concluded that the two detention ponds were not of sufficient
surface area to minimize offsite sedimentation. As a result,
they requested that the surface area of the ponds be
increased from approximately 22 to 30 acres. Due to this
engineering consideration, relocation and/or decreasing the
size of the ponds was not attainable. Their findings are
included as an attachment to this correspondence.
The second area of concern, being the layout of the
quarry pit, was evaluated by Teer to see if it would be
possible for the pit to be reconfigured to avoid or minimize.
wetland disturbance. While it sounds easy enough to do, a
comprehensive mining plan designed to avoid wetlands is
impractical, at best. As seen on the enclosed maps and cross
sections, the occurrence of wetlands within the proposed pit
area effectively dissects the pit into three quadrants.
Mining could proceed without direct disturbance of the
wetlands, although once the surrounding areas were mined and
the topography of the drainage basin altered, then the
wetlands will no longer receive periodic influxes of water
necessary for their survival.
As you will note on the enclosed cross sections,
avoidance of wetland areas would also drastically reduce the
reserve potential of the deposit and greatly diminish our
ability to develop an orderly, systematic mining plan. it
should also be noted that the Teer Company has entered into
an agreement with the City of Durham for their eventual use
of the mining pit, with its present configuration, as a raw
water storage facility. Having to mine around the wetlands
would ultimately reduce the potential storage capacity of pit
and probably render the City of Durham's intentions useless.
Upon consideration of these and other alternatives, it
was decided that the best method of solving the wetlands
problem was to have Dr. Goldstein develop a wetlands
mitigation plan. After many site evaluations, Dr. Goldstein
decided that a tract of land owned by Nello Teer Company at
its present Durham Quarry location would be suitable for
mitigation purposes. The enclosed mitigation plan has been
reviewed by various governmental agencies and found to be
acceptable, based on preliminary discussions and plan review.
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Mitigation
2/9/89
Page 4
I hope that the enclosed plans and application meet with
the approval of all concerned. If any questions arise,
please do not hesitate to call me at 682-6191.
Sincerely,
;perati0 LLO L. T OMPANY
es R. Sprinkle
s Manager
JRHS/dg
Enclosures
cc: file
APPLICATION
FOR
PERMIT TO EXCAVATE AND/OR FILL WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
EASEMENT IN LANDS COVERED BY WATER CAMA PERMIT FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Department of Administration State of North Carolina Department of the Army
(GS 146.12) Department of Natural Resources and Community Development Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(GS 113-229,143-215.3(a)(1), 143-21S.3(c), 113A-118 (33 CFR 209.320-329)
Please type or print and fill in all blanks. If information is not applicable, so indicate by placing N/A in blank.
1. Applicant Information
A. Name (Company) Nello L. Teer Company - Don Lineberry - Vice President
Last First Middle
B. Address Post Office Box 1131
Street, P. O. Box or Route
Durham, North Carolina 27702 [phone]
City or Town State Zip Code Phone
11. Location of Proposed Project:
A. County Durham/ Orange
B. 1. City, town, community or landmark Rougemont, North Carolina
2. Is proposed work within city limits? Yes No X An unnamed
C. Creek, river, sound or bay upon which project is located or nearest named body of water to project
tributary of Buffalo Creek
III. Description of Project
Excavation and filling of wetland area
A. 1. Maintenance of existing project 2. New work to acs state the operation o a
B. Purpose of excavation or fill (SEE BACK)
1. Access channel
k-ngth
proposed quarry.
width depth
2. Water retention Basin - length width depth
3. Fill area (See Back) length width depth
4. Other See Back length - width depth
C. 1. Bulkhead length N/A Average distance waterward of MHW (shoreline) N/A
2. Type of bulkhead construction (material) N/A
D. Excavated material (total for project)
1. Cubic yards 36,500 CY 2. Type of material Wetland Hydric Soils
E. Fill material to be placed below MHW (see also VI. A)
1. Cubic yards N/A 2. Type of material N/A
IV. Land Type, Disposal Area, and Construction Equipment:
A. Does the area to be excavated include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes X No
B. Dues the disposal area include any marshland, swamps or other wetland? Yes No X
C. Disposal Area
1. Location Excavated wetlands soils will be disposed of on site within proposed visual
2. Do you claim title to disposal area? Reed Poole is, nwnpr under 1 PasP to NP1 1 n Tepr _ B-777-1-7-7-17 7
D. Fill material source if fill is to be trucked in Source of fill is within project boundaries.
E. How will excavated materia"c entrapped and erosion controlled? A series of silt check dams_ and sediment
basins has been designed by Ragsdale Consiil tantc? P A and will he constructed by NLT C.
I . I ype of equipment to be used I oader .truck hul t rln7.Prc_ and scrapers.
G. Will marshland be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? If yes, explain No.
.r
V. Intended Use of Project Area (Describe)
A. 1. Private
2. Commercial
3. Housing Development or Industrial - The proposed auarrv_w; l l supply stone for Durham- 0 angr
4. Other and Person Counties.
B..1. Lot size(s) 4121 Acres
2. Elevation of lot(s) above mean high water- Varies between elevation 616 AMHW to 570 AMHW
3. Soil type and texture Various
4. Type of building facilities or structures Two scale houses, one office building, one shop area,
and an aggregate plant consisting of crushers, screen conveyors etc.
S. Sewage disposal and/or waste water treatment A. Existing Planned Low pressure septic
e. DescribeTo be located away from any wetland area. system.
6. 'Land Classification'(circle one) DEVELOPED TRANSITIONAL COMMUNITY
CONSERVATION OTHER (See CAMA Local Land Use Plan Synopsis)
VI. Pertaining to fill and Water Quality:
A. Does the proposed project involve the placement of fill materials below mean high water? Yes No X
B. 1. Will any runoff or discharge enter adjacent waters as a result of project activity or planned use of the
area following project completion? Yes-No X
2. Type of discharge - N/A
3. Location of discharge_ N/A
VII. Present rate of shoreline erosion (if known): N/A
Vill. List permit numbers and issue dates of previous Department of Army Corps of Engineers or State permits for
work in project area, If applicable: N/A-
IX Length of time required to complete project: -- 180 days
X. In addition to the completed application form, the following items must be provided:
A. Attach a copy of the deed (with State application only) or other instrument under which applicant
claims title to the affected property. OR if applicant is not claiming to be the owner of said property,
then forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under which the owner claims title plus written
permission from the owner to carry out the project on his land.
B. Attach an accurate work plat drawn to scale on 8h X 11" white paper (see instruction booklet for
details). Note: Original drawings preferred - only high quality copies accepted.
C. A copy of the application and plat must be served upon adjacent riparian landowners by registered or
certified mail or by publication (G.S. 113-229 (d))Enter date served February 14, 1989
D. List names and complete addresses of the riparian landowners with property adjoining applicant's.
Such owners have 30 days in which to submit comments to agencies listed below.
David Harris - Rt.. 2, Box-71. Roueemon N( 7572 /Douglas W Harris - P 0 Box 898,
Hillsborough, NC 27278 / Robert C Hon Pyre Rt. 3, Rougemont, NC 27572
Charles W. Collins - Box 67A-5. Bill Poole Road. Roue mop . N 27572
X1. Certification requirement: 1 certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed activity complies
with the State of North Carolina's approved coa,tal management program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
X11. Any permit Issued pursuant to this application will allow only the development described in this appli-
cation and plat. Applicants should therefore describe in the application and plat all anticipated devel-
opment activities, including construction, excavation, filling, and land clearing.
DATE

Applicant's Signature
l/H
PERSOAl
w
1
PROJECT
LOCATION
57
?1 r? 1
? ? `,.per. - ..FY q ^?• paasn?

P t ci
jam.

y?
1 1
1472 ? +
- G JJ
o!
CID.
Ll lgvp .rt.?S
F-EP lr_,
r'l /• .'.. \ .. ??ra? f ?..Wpy/r4`Te{.??'..:.M':".,",,.,.,?,yq,.:w /,..w.+?v `' t".?'. • ? ? 5 ?
m <., '? -..t' ? } ri ? •f?^rf tea: =^+-? ;n-,;1 ,,, 3?r
T-}?f? t11 ._. _..e ???v? f -•i?. .m ? ? 1 " ? .,. .???,..1J t ?` rJ ,`?f ? ,......
pP , ? ; ?r / tn,? rx'Y?r.6T1 t \ -„_?/J ?'' ? }i ?-•'-??.../ /: ? ? v ! ! j '? t
iiiiii ff .? j .t•\ ? .? ` -, ? /? ' ,"?J {/' I T ? ti ,^"':?? 1 fy,? ` J ?ILI
7.c".. ?. ..rd?.Wlr•.r?..?:cu.u.,s1i
Jill
31-0 .y ? II .'`? i?9 ' ?' ? 1f t? c t ? 4 L ? ? t ? `;=•??~r' `'-...eat ? `r
. -' `4. `l ?i? t',?.?a f ,,r °'??`?-='? ,? ' ice--... '•r - _ -Y
7? ?r f I i ; I B
?110 rip,
':Ac 5 ...Alt j ??i' I g«.?? ?I ? ?.-.. } •+ ?;} }
/ 4 f
,I I.?f ? ? J' a h ?. J ,.F' \ ? ''1 a y ? `( ?\ 0l?/ i !• -'.. 1: ? ' ' ,' ' i
ij
FE E: E. ,.4-4 E_.n if ii 1E
p oaf ins P„
M A 4 ? >b ? ? ? ?
y
-4 m
3"?yy a ? ? ?
4 Q f" Cl
rri
f(nn
C4 y o
a ('? D
..I !.?
ILA I
0 -n
rn -
rn In
r- M
w "i m
r° f ryl `o ?
c a r v+ L4
Z
zM
D 2 1 y
rn
'Z? -
? ern.
v

c' 1. L 0 -
0
'-r._C. jr? ?? ?'a -?..{:..jl l i !. if?''-'- ?f F.f ?U-??1 i ?i at?..i•:.`:. t`'F?L. L_ i?.??l
to

F
E
e
C*
IN
in
a
a
.y?
• a

i
Yy gggggg
a
A t??

i
Y..
a
CI I.:L //
g?
1
°e-
F E E" ] t ='= -4 •4.`_ " : F F-".= :. F G 1 i 4; I I--l I a
0
s3
z5
S
h O t°1 ? th
r
+?` A h
0 t.?::fd
tL. -
e
O
ii
a^?

9 ? O P4.
C 1 r ...L C".?? r
FEE !i..r!i;i'r_f'_ i>t;L..f_' •.i o _ It}
••??--?? r {??J r i •,
r ? ? ? -a taa
r s ,t . .t .S+ i J s zl i
?! ?? -'•? ?l.\f??-.y1y: '}? c 4 ? p"" n y' I ter j i 1 r ?..
JU c`? ??..1 /"y -.?? 1 ' ' o'TX I ? 1-';x•1 ` t 1 ? ? `.e `.. ' ?' r
I' , 1 ) ? I ?
' ?•iy ? ? ?t11?j! ^ < < +,?.?y? %j in
'• '';I ..'t
)y
\ ') ' ? .. • « • ? ?4 .. ? !"a5'M arts i/ ?c\v I? t, ,??w_ ,+.,,,..w 1 "? /•''? f t ,1 l
i ,,'.I t 11, ,».. ,rCah t ? ``y?`-\ ` ?,,.,r) '?."'4.fv; "'s „??„"°-•?9 ss......?.,??„a..„,.,jai,
?`,?? i ?aJ?l;", '+Y?'.s??r:dm:.t J;i?\ u-.! 1 ll•-+{ /,
(/•,.
..? ?'1 / 1 .if r ( ? 1
ji aN -Tank r 11 J ?f>r' ;.v" ?r f } r ?t
+.„rt?ntn (}tts'. I ?/ - I ./cl ? i?\?--?.,.-?'? r ?? . Frl ;/I,I r? J' •`?' '! ???
.+•"E.all??,}. a?a7iif•,? ?i-±?,? ' : j? { \ ?i• 11 r 11,t ? ? ` r S r't,?i' E i
j ?? ,r?'?t??/• F?t. ? !s"??\ ? I(\ ..? ?5;o",.Y f ?I}) rt t ? ???,/?/ f :, 1 „_,?I` t
,,
:Ve'Y-\•
-7
? ? I ?!/ ?r';Y` it ) ? ?, ,?• t tl ;I `,
• Ilye it
?" ' " i ? ? ? ••°R r?? . ?tA,p;»,`?,a?°,-r' n ? ? I ' ? r,r? ?r ti?,y . t S?'t?,l ? 'lid. ids i l?lm.. ,....
21
F CARE 2. DC-nfiel du t•ry tai is Li4n
SCALE L24000 Property.
0
MfLr
0 1000 :000 3000 4000

0

?61`di?tyNMCP`1T.0.L C'?,)FlStJ7,YdN7S
Durant Road 0lpoa Pafk
848" Gamey G1rw
R3rer9h. NOMh .Cal0finA .'G7904-3175

f-E:.E? 1. -;?? i..l: ;?: ?F;??. . !! ? ?:: ' ?::;- . ?=?
? t ? , „ -? fl ? i.

.. '.?i1 ,' ?~•,? c,t,.+.w ....? .Z ;f..:t,tu ?•nl?f.; n?,7.` trNn n..w4w
mxt
+RJ.. va,o; a .-'A' JL' Ltt•.J 3:ti::..sr yyM
ry,tifynr ur /'..IaGU i.?.:n,?+AY?'-u X0,6
?49y?y Nw. ?y?yhl. 1L
?? , ?Wa t? •'•649 JI .IL?>+.:w
?t4i-a,., ?}? i:i.' v ?a.'7A?ii?'t?r.r ti '?r.?Y qyP7 t.- ?,,,?'3+ 4 ,,l ?-v??y?s, r?
N IT.LIL;ii7„h?t:n£tr:b SLr3?f/
l9rvrk W,OM pCr.??L....
FIGURE 5. Details of constru,1t4,C,,,n.
pvram t owi 6mcm piw%
8480 (3,1;vby Odv8
I 'JiV':. K Tire C?tt:v+r12 .lot 3.33:$
i
?i! I
•
V State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
The attached U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. 0204 dated
3/2/1989 describing a project proposed by Nello L. Teer Co.
is being circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable
Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed
project and return this form by 3/28/1989
Very sincerely,
John R. Parker, Jr.
404 Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Signed
Date
Agency
JRP : j r. / aw
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer
•
C + ? ;';w SfATt'??4
d r °?
State of North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
Mr. R. Paul Wilms, Director
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Wilms:
S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretary
The attached U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice No. 0204 dated
3/2/19139 describing a project proposed byiyello I 7'ei Co.
is being circulated to interested state agencies for comments on applicable
Section 404 and/or Section 10 permits.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed
project and return this form by 3/2:3/1939
Very sincerely,
John R. Parker,, Jr.
404 Coordinator
REPLY This office objects to the project as proposed.
Comments on this project are attached.
This office supports the project proposal.
No comment.
Signed
Date
Agency
JRP:jr/aw
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

VA
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
SAWC089-N-032-0204 March 2, 1989
PUBLIC NOTICE
THE NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, Post Office Box 1131, Durham, North Carolina
27702 has applied for a Department of the Army permit TO EXCAVATE, FILL AND
ALTER APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES OF WETLANDS AND A FARM POND ABOVE THE HEADWATERS
OF BUFFALO CREEK FOR A CRUSHED STONE QUARRY WEST OF ROUGEMONT, Durham and
Orange Counties, North Carolina.
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by
the applicant and from observations made during an onsite visit by a
representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans submitted with the
application show that approximately 13 acres of wetlands will be filled,
excavated or impacted by the construction of a new quarry and its facilities.
A dike approximately 115 feet long by 60 feet wide by 18 feet high (0.2 acre)
will be built across the creek for a water retention pond. The resulting pond
will adversely impact approximately 1.4 acres of wetlands. Excavation of
wetlands in the proposed quarry area will result in the loss of approximately
11.2 acres of wetlands and a farm pond. Wetland vegetation includes river
birch, red maple, willow, loblolly pine, sweetgum, cedar, tulip poplar,
shagbark hickory, American holly, greenbriers, blackberries, sedges, soft rush
and honeysuckle. The soils are grey with mottles and the area is saturated
from 0-12" from the surface. The purpose of the work is to construct a new
crushed stone quarry. Plans showing the work are included with this public
notice.
A mitigation plan has also been proposed on the applicant's Denfield
Quarry site located in Durham south of and adjacent the Eno River. The
applicant proposes to enhance approximately 29 acres of impacted and forested
non-wetlands by excavating a network of canals and secondary canals to be
connected to existing ditches and ponds. Land clearing will be kept to the
minimum necessary to excavate the channels, and no significant mast trees will
be threatened. Riprap weirs will be constructed in the source streams and
ditches to divert water during periods of high flow into the artificial
canals. The network of canals and channels will increase the saturation of
the disturbed areas. An environmental assessment describing the proposed mine
and mitigation plan, provided by the applicant, is available for review in the
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office.
s ? p
-2-
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice to determine
the need for the applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No
Department of the Army permit will be issued until the coordinated State
viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by this agency, nor
will a Department of the Army permit be issued until the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management has determined the applicability of a
Water Quality Certificate as required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404(b) of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within
the comment period specified in the notice, that a public hearing be held to
consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall state, with
particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the
National Register of Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered
properties, or properties listed as being eligible for inclusion therein, and
this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being eligible
for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register
constitutes the extent of cultural resource investigations by the District
Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence of such resources.
Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical
data may be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
The District Engineer has determined, based on a review of data furnished
by the applicant and onsite observations, that the activity will not affect
species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity
and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the probable
impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest requires a
careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular
case. The benefits which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the conditions under which
it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. All factors which
may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values,
flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy
needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For
activities involving the placement of dredged or fill materials in waters of

-3-
the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection
Agencies' 404(b)(1) guidelines. Subject to the preceding sentence and any
other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit will be granted unless the
District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public interest.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army
permit will not be made until the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) issues, denies, or waives State certification required by
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The DEM considers whether or not the
proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the
Clean Water Act. The application and this public notice for the Department of
the Army permit serves as application to the DEM for certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be
reviewed at the offices of the Environmental Operations Section, North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Salisbury Street, Archdale
Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copies of such materials will be furnished
to any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management plans to take
final action in the issuance of the Clean Water Act certification on or after
March 20, 1989.
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean
Water Act certification should do so in writing delivered to the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Post Office Box 27687, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27611-7687, on or before March 13, 1989, Attention:
Mr. William Mills.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will
be received in this office, Attention: Ms. Kathy L. Trott, until 4:15 p.m.,
March 30, 1989, or telephone [phone].

N

----. PERK !
N
PROJECT
LOCATION
!
!S7? I
i
{``t 74T2 1
o'
I No A X RMr ?`
[teen PLLe Ao le ua
7 - - 11

k

A - `
.i

,U
;N
i VS
1 }

S L4;

a -Y

g.:

Yr
1
0 2'" J G
a /e
• `. % J/ it •i f?? +? b? ? ? ? ,_, •-'
xr.
41
'? `; ',' r t ?•" ri ? ? '?".,y'am` ? ?' L I? •r. ? . f
n fill } - p
?` t It` r, ',• ? ?, ?? ? CIS ?'•? I i {;..._ t ?:,J ; , 1?,4;?
? ? ?TO I ? (} I ( \ as I , i? 6ir` ) '^ ' 1 I!'' (t?j ? ,/'?? ? I? a?i pj ?? •
lid
f t I ? ;4. I 1 '>R {
i { 1
1 ?' { I es ! ?? 14P
i I, a . s }. ? •.
, Vii: j 1 :'-'•" h j ? ! - (? } ??; t i f tr
?D f % ?E r ;
i
A h ? ?i cn , :; m Q
p a o ? cn .?? min
r m a z
?yy -4 m cs+ <
?4 d G7 CA -?
t -1 fm*t
m i
ed)
rn
}If? ??? f'le ? "1'1 •1
t?
If
{
s) -
? D

! rn m
N r LP

m (n Z
n

Q ? ? ? t N D

2 ?
D
? m
fR ? c
C

v ?

3 rn

I C
?
J -, r .
s ?-

?m -
( .o
Q

?;

4
lk
K

fi

-C .(a
? R i 1 11 ?? 2
4 of

i

3
E•
m
L / / / J !! r ? r / fi,
!-. is %/ !!/r /?f r:
3L
I i.
r
f l t 1 +
+ r t, 1 f t J• t- ?1 t 1
4 I / ,
s r
V
0
rn
IM

x
i:. t
r Y_h ? NI
k t Q O ?
N ? O
lo,
.. ._ r_14.\'???.?.. .. ... 1. .. .....r......
1 N
f=
.u
'ryt? +w>rt t _i
t ?; , l t
f {
1> J t
t S t I j t 4r
t ti{ '+f l iS

a
i9
f*1
{i
n

a. a a

I
?i
?o
?i
..fy1?'. 4. •t- ?.i

7
ij 1I
(r j r ??? (? /KC>raI Y.an
F.a 5e),
J r '
i J r .t 1 .l Z ?' ? C iti
?. ?.; ?1 , w9/lflv:? ??+??? lsssn??sv. ?+t.,"•.:o,m+l i/?} ? +? 1tl• ' /'i - l i
fit
,:? ! 11 f
14
S2.ALc 1.14 CU,a
o c tcrn 4 fir:
e a .
-_`--•?..-r-rte--- • _ -;??;m.
Fr!;;JR? ? Den field Quarry Mitigatic'n
Property.
c}J'?;J',QYhSCkiif..CQ}iSUI,lAJV7S
OUIM Road OMIce Park
4W G31"Ey Onlys
Mp/Eh Cafp,irla .7304-3175

9
\I
Q V } {
C } Q aZ
- ? ? ty Cr :-. 6h
ea Vyi t
fir. k 4? v, h .
)
ll ? ?u tr,
??...,.! %1y(?' /
r 1 I •? .? ,tom.... ?' x?4 L A r ?!! ?(7
?) r ';t,
yr[ n ;+.. ?- •.r ? - ?... tr.. - ?. ?`? -
t ti: ti??3 ? ? .. rl? d?,,???`'?-V1?F.tr ?•?w tryr c?W?? Z,r?j, r r.-'-•'•.•. -. +t•1
><r. '??'.. ,>{ R): r*^ l'jaa '•`!!t'i{Fr<a 'ks??`°°.
1
• T , .1 r`C?? l?st' {,r\+J ? a 4?ra s ? y y?H 1"^? ?? ?.;,.
/JI? ?i ?1??+tY?' t {+ jet ?? a ,JSrli';}ailttr
•1` I ?°l i ?x j-t` / rl1,'rr ae r F)Frt,r `? sir z'?f''''?7 r ,, F • y {:{:.,? i::?" ?????
•?yna r„? ? J, 1°r ar{?.'}S y !•. ?'.?""t ?}?r :. 1 , r,t...,,\,.... ..n +^:.
`x5r2 t tJl t? fp'J.)'/ )*a?/,.`.rrr? x. rl i }•r x `S i a?-5, ry.,.
{:?4 { if
Y 7f ) ''Tr - ? t 't*•r iS Y%ti .,•' r f 1? l.'[ i ?.. /t + ; r \.. .
?..I ??y ?? ?\ rJ t s.._.i Sri/ '?t Y ?l ?ry,+hrl,?T .?.; ?r ?? •? \ X,r h;?,
77
.?? .i-•T°7'1. ` ?? f't _ f•t Y ?Y?.Y• - t £ L j_1:y ,1. ?••
?•. ?) )\ ° 1 l' t Y `,\S \ I t; . -'• t_. e++ 1.
{ t - t t 1:
r?. j ? r.?r"'`T? Jry t ? \? t at l\ \ ?l ? t ?t ` ? ?? { t' /\YG?,4?e t
r r° ,F t, y a . \?.fe:
•=•--?, ?t ?_. 1 fj r f -''r ' - ?ra .rs?-- 'r'•f ??+,1 i•.?rY.?- .! ?t t. t C4'fi-:,?,+?-•
`- +'-' ?•{ iti - y''yfi -'T ? ? .T i "tia ? ? '/f?•. .G
..•-'+.. ?T? SstY r, r - ?yl ,,:r. :+ 4:ti?'1.
' ) ,,,? y ft 1'?.,Js,?) ??? ? r a v ,t a. - -•. 3 ) Prp?? '?Ot
'! {
..rk 1?1.?.w
?, r .. j 7 rl c 1?'?,tY'y?i?? .71, ?..1'.?.:+.1? -.{ 1 ! - ? ' rl ?t?! 1+'r?!"rt'?`•I
' {f r J? j,;i•'•'?, i ?,t:+... Ltd ,? ,. ? 'r j ? + t,4 1i ?\?. "+??? y?+i /„'? t.
L•'y?y.4.t~•1?•{?, r fir. n A 1 :?? ??Y. a?!"?;?..•s'. •.?ru7t,J,'-?
T? l Y f ,r {? t? t1 t s r% ?+
.J.},. 'f.. \ 1 %.i..l '1t+•?. .emu NT: 'f . ?l r " !?'?t r !''. fi'r` /?-•?i??

W Y
C
N

C71
tn
•r
i1 n

C `l s r
?? y y

r'S Y1
N
`I
i i +,

Q; 5- d
3

q S
ti u v
'Z7 'rl ? `)

( CZ
cJ • r - •?

t?
?• r
W ?
C
Y
Lt.
Y
ail 1
1 4)
t C .
f s.
1 (r, t f ... :; '111 YI .•

::J'li(r,:31 tT] *T ply

t . A7?^tra?- y.? ,

F1GUkF ri. f)Wt3i?g Of (:,"rs ??•".t ': C;.
F,?;:'Ir;!;;,!l.tC,i7.til. ti:rPts+JLTi{t,f;
C:.::ynl ?CS•7 Ctif_r Fa>x
i4ao Gvvey prb.e

NORTH DURHAM QUARRY
MITIGATION PLAN
REPORT TO NELLO TEER COMPANY
DURHAM, N.C.
JANUARY 20, 1989
3
page 1
MITIGATION PLAN
BACKGROUND
The Nello L. Teer Company plans to develop a rock
quarry in nortinern Durham County and adjacent segments of
Orange County, North Carolina. The site was evaluated by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates (RJG&A) on behalf of Nello
L. Teer and its landscape architect and planner, Ragsdale
Consultants. Recommendations were made by RJG&A to minimize
adverse impacts on wetlands, and those recommendations were
incorporated into plan modifications by Nello L. Teer and
Ragsdale Consultants. Consultation with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (FWS), Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) resulted
in agreement that mitigation for unavoidable losses of
wetlands and wildlife habitat values were to be provided by
the Nello L. Teer Company. Subsequently, searches were
conducted throughout Durham County and adjacent areas for
suitable mitigation land, and series of reports provided to
the Nello L. Teer Company. The November 1988 report
described a potential site adjacent to the company's
Denfield Quarry site. This report describes activities at
that site and plans for meeting mitigation objectives.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Nello L. Teer property adjacent to the Denfield Quarry
(Durham County) wasievaluated on November 18, 1988 as a
potential wetland mitigation site (Figures 1 and 2). The
evaluation included a comprehensive jurisdictional wetland
delineation of the property and habitat descriptions.
The site is located east of the Denfield Quarry pit at
the base of the current waste pile. The area contains
approximately 45 (unsurveyed) acres of which half is
cut-over. The uncut half is predominantly a late
successional mesic forest dominated by oaks, hickories,
tulip poplar, and sweetgum, with some beech and pine.
The Durham County Soil Survey (Kirby, 1976)
illustrates several soil series occurring on the site
(Figure 3), including Altavista, Chewacla, Mayodan,
page 2
MITIGATION PLAN
Roanoke, and Wahee. Of these, only the Roanoke series is on
the COE hydric soils list (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
Approximately 16 (unsurveyed) of the 45 acres was
determined in the field to be extant three-parameter
wetland, some in forested areas but most in the cut-over
area. Munsell soil designations in the wetland included:
10YR 5/2, mottled; 10YR 6/2, mottled; 10YR 7/1, mottled;
10YR 7/2, mottled. All of these are wetland soils according
to Corps of Engineers criteria based on chroma.
Some vernal pool habitat was found in the forested
portion of the wetland. Beaver activity has created
additional wetland acreage in the northwestern part of the
site (Figure 4) and this new wetland appears to be
expanding.
The nonwetland portion of the site, consisting of
approximately 29 (unsurveyed) acres, includes forested
portions and cut-over portions. RJG&A determined that the
nonwetland portion of the site was suitable for alteration
to wetland.
OBJECTIVES
Mitigation through carefully designed and controlled
excavation is intended to provide replacement wildlife
habitat values for those unavoidably lost in development of
the North Durham Quarry site. The plan herein proposed
meets agency and client objectives of close proximity to
the impacted site (same county), cost effectiveness (use of
the owner's property, and minimal earth-moving costs), a
requirement of only simple changes in soil and vegetation
leading to a high probability of success, utilization of
existing wildlife habitat values (preservation of beaver
pond area and preservation of significant upland
vegetation), and monitoring.
The overall mechanism for altering the Denfield site
includes excavation of a network of canals and secondary
channels, supplemented with the excavation of connected
ponds and isolated pools. The canals, channels, ponds and
pools are expected to expand the horizontal extent of soil
saturation from streams and wetland portions of the site
out into nonwetlands, and increase ecological complexity
throughout the site by preservation of present valuable
page 3
MITIGATION PLAN
upland vegetation (large mast producers) while replacing
less valuable upland vegetation (small trees, low shrubs)
with wetland vegetation (such as river birch), and by
enhancement of amphibian habitat. The retention of upland
pockets within newly created wetland will provide added
benefits of edge effect.
DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION
Land clearing will include, but not be limited to, an
81-wide path for construction of canals. Excavated spoils
will be randomly placed at a distance of approximately 5'
on the downhill side of all canals and channels, negating
the need for wider clearing for truck removal.
Primary canals will have a maximum negative slope of
1' per 4001, a bottom width of 2', and 2:1 side slopes.
Secondary channels will be excavated at intervals of 50' if
topography allows and no significant mast trees would be
threatened. The channels would have a bottom width of 2'
and sloped to provide maximum surface to saturate adjacent
land.
Rip-rap weirs will be constructed in source streams
and ditches to increase friction and divert water during
annual periods of high flow into the artificial canals. The
rip-rap will additionally provide hard substratum for
colonization by stream insects.
The network of ;canals and channels will increase the
area of saturated land surface to the extent practicable,
dependent on seasonal flows over the weirs, varying
horizontal permeabilities of the several soil types on the
site, and the distance between channels. Water retention
capabilities of the soils on-site cannot reasonably be
quantified from soil data and soil maps, because the area
has been extensively disturbed.
An existing man-made pond on the site will be
converted from aquatic habitat to wetland habitat by
partial drainage of water or filling with spoil, bringing
it to a depth suitable for the growth of emergent
vegetation.
page 4
MITIGATION PLAN
Aquatic habitat will be enhanced by creation of
-shallow ponds connected to new and existing streams and
channels. These ponds will serve as fish and amphibian
habitat, wildlife water supply reservoirs during periods of
drought, and substratum for emergent vegetation. Amphibian
habitat will be enhanced by excavation of vernal pools of
various depths that will become dry at different times and
provide a variety of periods for larval growth and
metamorphosis (Semlitsch and Wilbur, 1988). These vernal
pools will be isolated from all other existing streams or
constructed canals and channels, preventing fish
immigration and subsequent predation on amphibian eggs and
larvae.
IMPLEMENTATION
Accomplishment of this complex of objectives will
require coordination among Nello L. Teer construction
peronnel, Ragsdale Consultants, and RJG&A. An ecologist and
a landscape architect will be on-site to flag the locations
of the network of canals and channels, to mark valuable
upland mast trees that should not be removed or their root
field disturbed, and to establish bench marks throughout
the site for quality control of depth. Initial clearing
(8'-wide path) for construction access will be accomplished
with a Caterpillar D6LGP dozer or equivalent. Construction
of the canals and channels will be accomplished with one or
two Caterpillar rubber-tired backhoes.
Vernal pools will be constructed with the D6LGP dozer
pushing outward from the center and creating a protective
berm to prevent fish immigration during floods. Leaf debris
will be collected from on-site drift lines and placed in
the vernal pools for initial fertilization. An RJG&A
ecologist will attempt the collection of amphibian brood
stock using a drift fence and pit traps at existing vernal
pools in the area, for transplantation to the new site.
Ponds will be constructed without protective berms.
The ponds should vegetate naturally. The extant wetland and
beaver pond provide adequate seed sources for many wetland
species and supplement vegetation should not be necessary.
page 5
MITIGATION PLAN
The rip-rap weirs will be constructed with the small
rubber-tired backhoes. The weirs will protect water flow
downstream, but divert excess flow in the canals and
channels during wet periods of the year (Figure 5). Rip-rap
sizes will be a minimum of 25% greater than 24 inches and
no more than 10% less than 3 inches.
Total construction will require the excavation of up
to 5,000 cubic yards of dirt, to create up to 10,400 linear
feet of canals and channels and 15 pools and ponds. the
rip-rap weirs will require emplacement of approximately 45
tons of stone to create 5 weirs (Figure 4). The total
construction time, not counting weather delays, is
estimated at less than 60 days.
MONITORING
After completion of construction, the site will be
inspected twice yearly for a period of three years by an
RJG&A ecologist to ensure that the new wetland environment
is developing as planned. Concerned agencies (FWS, WRC)
will be provided progress letter reports of findings and
recommendations.
CREATION OF A CONSERVATION AREA
Upon completion of all tasks, from construction
through monitoring, 4the Nello L. Teer Company will record a
conservation easement in the land and subsequently donate
the land to a non-profit public interest group, such as the
Triangle Land Conservancy, for land stewardship, subject to
acceptance conditions imposed by the recipient. The Nello
L. Teer Company will coordinate this activity with FWS and
WRC to assure agreement of the parties and consistency with
agency objectives.
page 6
MITIGATION PLAN
LITERATURE CITED
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineatin Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Ms.,
100 pp.
Kirby, R.M. 1976. Soil survey of Durham County, North
Carolina. USDA, SCS, Raleigh, N.C., 76 pp. + maps and
indices.
Semlitsch, R.D., and H.M. Wilbur. 1988. Effects of
pond drying time on metamorphosis and survival in the
salamander Ambystoma talpoideum. Copeia 1988(4):978-983.

page 7
INNER
FIGURE 1. Durham County, North
Carolina.
15 ?/ ?"Z'? 'Qs ?
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-3175
335:.
Sewage \
(\
"-
\e 1 ": ' Disposal
04?.?? •'. j' R/ ? `'.\!. L 3994
I ? A V m `I
r ?// `/ ?}}hti I :1 f •? o ? ?f 1' II/IiiII I ?\ .•a??JjG'J?? :?? ? ,
318
I IQuarry ii ) 3/
I J -::?oo -L%ill_ \ `( 1`? • ?Fti 6' ,. ii "nom, ?'=--1 ?? I i .(
1 Y :
1 O r
4, 0)
?C v? • ..... -11` ??-La' ane/ t1I evel ?h ! 36 \' t <: •'L_? ._ \'? ` l / 2
l`
. _ U
.Holt ch ' ?? 1 I• / I I
Jam' ( irY?Q lob / .• %/1 '`f?? \ %) / ,il /' .? `' /
/?? \\((Y.?: ?" di: .i •? ?;i? S:r ' `•.. 'I' ?, t ?' I r/..39
om stead Ightst. _ / ` i:•, p" ' i 1 ` ; \l\ . 92
4 N.
_ ' = 3 O 4C,F'` ``-?/J ;.ice'`: ' •? :, ll..:..??GA ,.??? :.. \\.``` ,,\'\
0K
yer
344 iii/ r... t1..:; 3991
410,
1 .11,
?. a ^•'
}"i
( 4l l Fr ser •' ;'h? , o . l.. ? ' l I ! c `-x•1:.11" ?Lk ha' 1; ?.. • / -
f. FR ISE i ST es \ c ! /,1 ??? ( --
Q 213.0"
UQURE 2, Denfield Quarry Mitigation
t SCALE 1:24000 Property,
2 0
MILE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
5 FEET
KILOMETiER
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.3175
O'
z
z N
• t , Q
't Ory, v • n ! EE
O
y + t !11 N ro a �' O L
A) t v�W •r .N > c
N Sv
,
t LLJ
iy-
+ y a `
CD
LL-
: ,� r� •n i �fv��v �•, �t�r c'."{ nrR tJ - < , "1"• ,��' Cr '�� ;�,'�a Fd °g i
jk
x '6. • 4' ti r'� t^Q;' r 1 ny1Za t :N�. .0 •k 03
LO
.� ,A}C, .g iY A�� .c {,mTi �fv y. a v a: �.t�I fyj;� ,¢•r,.r .1rQi O O
'S.'r r ,� � �'SL�[tr r r, "� tf3 Z�S Y � fGi .� � , � � � }- ".v`7'1a•!(r��. � fa
:..1
ti 1� o
ja.��v y f• 1MY
Az
c; •vl �iai v % `�'v"a•�•,p •1 i ,, t i''. •.?. v •Iii: O
1r ..1 T .ys�tt A '�.'t"f�: y • •- YY �f C d\\'•• N
x rC{ n
• � 4*a �' .: ic�+�l`j'+a^{ ` v ', i 'x '�' "a'" �>3„'� �, •� '$f 't , N�:�T. O
°i ��A'rq'• . 'r r ,,•-�°f+'>r .. r x'.1`,,'y.` �" %y:'4 Sr .t' ¢� tk/i, J�• ^,'�j� •' '• "�'
�4�� - � f !X?i % A}I '•�'VFF �� !. , R•i 1. Ini �fi .��i+ !'.. • . .x
t N p •�R' t�•UF�� ~'. e O
Y,��''3``ta� 1� .�,N � - . � f� x � °�"(�"'��m t � �y: �,�c'"n-`��i� rt�?iK�.h,� .•, R•E•'� � +�,�„ M1'4 d�'- �y O
F 'f ice" .�' �,..,. a ,�• .w.�
0! OO
f: t�Y _ m "',T 3 •y�ii ",,v.•; �'�' "hwR O
?fi +� t��y m"� a ►yip{ +� ♦• t l �' * �� y�tz; to
Y -..�! �4N��Q i•�4:73��'} e"���t vY..`�r I � �' "k ?'%`.' � r s � t +1 , -, j . t l � � �

Q " Q = 4-3 _o
Q h Q
ti J Q Q 2 O •1-)
u W o = WE
u o °'
C 4-3
i W? n (°a
co C'i
•t ? I ? ?. Z V ? (0
W \ RY O F o U U
z
h:l I ';;' a z co
cL) cm
O •r "moo Z ro
La- ? , N ltl ¢
LLI
r•*f ?a _s." '•!i+>,.:. ,?: ? f••?+" ?'?.7?a". .i• :v •Ysy1d. Esc' '?f; Y..^ ::-. +. f?'..::
`',?•;• ..'ti. .,,?1j' ;;''y. tr •?+: h? qT .?},,. +i+:1"'FiSe5N,1'.?:?p4 y ^..!• .c' :•r••?vu:
4: .'3i,^ a.J.k'• yl, ,yrr-,? x•.K? { ,?"% •t . /,? '9sL ;,,'Y;..i :•i : Y:i?i"y,'.'!;' c?r
(, f:i',• .;:,., _ .•y•.•'Y,:i? H :R,, }!•4• ':?,t"p. .(F?"'"\:i.',,'•?'.:`"!i •s.• •'.`?',.v:. er: ...w',7.; :1:_'4'Li.'...?
y; ?. ? , .. ?•4, ,yr s .njs?t ,,y,. l?•2(J.r r•? f1Ys ??}"f :Y . (1? fNa ..
-a{ HOC
? 1, ?' •'• ?? s ,$) ,t??,y?•>yna '?;?i yl.i r. +j"1 •.'Qyvi? t • %? ka ?'•?'? Sti/'?+?.: p? rh p Y ? ??,'Jj
?':.l:.•-.:: :" f. ••-•4^- ... ! ::5`N•i 7?!l'7 N 2:. . .. ._.Yret3?•iSY ? J .? `•i?• n.r_`i/{w,1}?VN:+f-.?Y ,? id .e1'. ?• .r.. •.._ ?.l •?-. /;1 ri(?_?.: Std

i.r .q. :, ... tf.'?f?•>'.?? F,, j 1. ,'' l? i1`' ; L'k' .?, ?" •' ?'i?, • "4'. ?i • :- --X ,' f 3 .i {..k.+•:w•µ.
' ?( 1, t' M? !?+f 1 ?>'• :F. l y ?'•. 1 ?.,,,?5 , '{ 1 , ? '{ysl/.
'L•l •Z',? ? • 'isl +O u .s f+ 0 'sx•? ?"'•'??'? •G• rt / +.? i s • /r f
"??%F t ?•??SC'' ('>?? aH? ^yj:.7 r.?(4,u,?.•• ?l ? :?i ?, ,.t?'4 +?., (t ? t t. ?. ? .r».4 A.
rh,5 /it• 'r.,,;rfy v s ••' .i.rti ?:;ijj(?
I ' ?•.^•?>:. i r... ^Y:.,, t1 ? :ai,`?'f $L'. 1. • W, '. ., .f •i, ?
s: s
• . Y Y,, ? (- to r 1N'? ?+ ?'?i•y y Y.+ ?+ .:* ti'Nt ?n ? {; Zr„.?.•? .c.:?. r o
r '3 "?r F??. r `5e.. • ' . Y ?.1' ?
e ? ,.?, ^?...,,' • • v;. .:"t; ?;f+ ? "` la .?+•,,. ", ? ? ? ? 5',x,.4 ' : •ae .
•?, h (.+ c{,t•';r?3?.,yy jA s.-?i»-w: tr• t, t ;;is`ri• •?c ..' . % ,sr r$'f?•
:? .? fA ? ?i f ,yyr y: ? {{ ' ter' r ??t 'Y'' "?,? 1 ? +' •r? o
+ ? ?? f RR fti{;? ?, ?•/' V dy t,?.?• ,?.. ? Ir `f ? ? •'`?? 't (• •
f ti,r ( ti ?'+ r?C•17 \'t +l ?' •>s. •.i t•• Y•IY
?.?' + •' s ? !'?Y: ?. V '\'.Y 7 ?`.y?.? ` :.A ?Y4 061 •,. ,.t•K':: If
'co 4
K•
• Riv_.~rr rR?ri tryJM' ?;:Sn•A.rJR'
'.? ,?,?i,:' :?• cl?c. •ry' R?r-RAV•???j:1.G, pgY..b%fi•w..+•Rpy
:h
`? lryi 1. "'• .. . __ ?. ..____.. ,_ :...
DRAI+IAG4 ,'GwALE ?.'CGi-7 crk for loq
PLNJ VIEW N.T,$? '
-r(.?N70M LY P?1?4:? CX:.?vATGO ti.OIL
-4 L
•"%iltl-iii! ? ?Ulit?
' ? . SKRTli! rd?J GSuAL DETAIL .
- }E-rwN view
_ -_ Aftl'IUKt{.:' On.EKCIOJ 7p .

iI1fJ,l 'Rb•.J ?j??

'•,M, ? ?r J %I ; s ?Y 11 ill ?•

.... plveRSloNDcrA1L. ,.
SrcY10u . VI tw . N.T.,
FIGURE 5. Details of construction.
O411,L` ?? lti?zlG GG?tczl `ed
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Durant Road Office Park
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.3175