20050688 Ver 2_More Info Received_20070418

~ Kimley-Horn
~ ~ and Associates, Inc.
April 17, 2007
Mr. Monte Matthews
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
oS- o~gs v~
^
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
Mr. Ian McMillan
NCDWQ
2321 Crabtree Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Martin Marietta Materials East Alamance Quarry
Revisions to Individual Permit
COE Action ID #SAW-2005-21057-201
Dear Mr. Matthews and McMillan:
Enclosed, please find a copy of the following information related to the reference
project:
*Complete copy of revisions to permit application
* A red-line copy of revised material
* A copy of pages for insertion into the original package
The enclosed material is a result of the field reviews and agreements reached
with between Martin Marietta Materials and the Corps and the NCDWQ. Please
use the enclosed material to continue the permitting process. We understand the
need for a new public notice and we will be available to attend the public
meeting that is proposed for May 7, 2007.
Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ '° ;r
/`' " ~ ~-,
Harlan K. Britt, PE ,~:_; a .r%,r,?e;;~
Vice President
Enclosures (3)
Cc: Steve Whitt
T:1pn\011185028 MMM EAlamance\404 Permit\Permit Revision Trans.4-17-07.doc
^
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

OS-ot~ggvz
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICA TION AND S UPPOR TING
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, 404(B)(1) ANALYSIS, FINDING
OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI), AND STATEMENT OF
FINDINGS
Martin Marietta Materials
East Alamance Quarry,
Alamance County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Materials
2710 Wycliff Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Martin Mar. i~tta Matarrals ~
~~
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2006

Revision 4-16-07

Executive Summary
This document constitutes supporting documentation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
preparation of the Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, Statement of
Findings, and review and compliance determination according to the 404(b)(1) guidelines for
the proposed Martin Marietta Materials quarry expansion project in Alamance County, North
Carolina.
This permit action is proposed under authority delegated to the Wilmington District Engineer
by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers by Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 325.8, pursuant to:
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
X Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
Section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953.
Applicant: Martin Marietta Materials
Date of Application: November 13, 2006
Action ID:
Location: The project site is located south of Sandy Cross Road (SR 1752) and west of NC
State Highway 49, approximately 4 miles north of U.S. Interstate 40/85, exit 150 in Alamance
County, North Carolina. (36.13006°N, 79.37084°W). The project site contains stream channels
and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of a first order tributary that flows into Boyd's
Creek at the southern boundary of the property. Boyd's Creek is a tributary to the Haw River,
which flows into the Cape Fear River, a navigable waterway and a tributary to the Atlantic
Ocean.
Existing Site Conditions: The entire East Alamance Quarry property is 610 acres in size and
the proposed mine expansion tract (project site) is approximately 73 acres in size. The project
site is primarily made up of forested land adjacent to the active mine pit, perimeter berm and
overburden stockpile areas. A power line crosses east-west through the expansion tract and
there are areas of cleared agricultural fields and pasture within the permitted expansion tract.
Land located adjacent to the proposed mine expansion is primarily agricultural with few
residences along NC 49 and Sandy Cross Road. The project site contains four stream channels,
with a total length of 5,3261inear feet, and two wetland areas with a total of 0.70 acres.
Applicant's Stated Purpose: The purpose of the project is to expand the existing mine in order
to continue operations and meet the local demand of aggregate material.
Project Description: The proposed activity would involve the expansion of existing mine pit.
This would include the creation of a perimeter berm around the expanded pit and the stockpiled
^ ~ ^ KimleyHorn
~ and Associates, Inc.

overburden south of the power line. A stream crossing over Boyd's Creek is proposed to
provide access to the southern portion of the pit. Total impacts for the expansion activities
would be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland, and 3,044 linear feet of perennial stream channel,
(including 1,230 linear feet of perennial unimportant channel with indicators of important
aquatic function), and 1,8141inear feet of perennial important stream. To mitigate for the
proposed impacts, the applicant proposes to restore 3,775 linear feet of stream channel and
0.50 acres of riparian wetland via payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NC EEP).
Other Required Authorizations: Other required authorizations that will be obtained prior to
construction of the proposed work including an individua1401 water quality certification from
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), sediment and erosion control permit
from the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, mine safety permits, etc.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Based upon the location of the project and the minimal impacts
predicted, we believe the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources: Following consultation with the latest published version of the National
Register of Historic Places, we are not aware of any registered properties, or properties listed
as being eligible for inclusion therein that are located within the project area or will be affected
by the proposed work.
Endangered Species: Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage
Database, no threatened or endangered species are known to be located in the immediate area
of the proposed project. Therefore, we believe that the proposed project will have no effect on
federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat,
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

Contents
1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project .......................... 1
1.1 Location ......................................................................................................................... .. 1
1.2 Existing Site Conditions ................................................................................................ .. 1
1.2.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................ .. 1
1.2.2 Topography ........................................................................................................ .. 2
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands ........................................................................................ .. 2
1.2.4 Soils .................................................................................................................... ..4
1.2.5 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... ..4
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat ............................................................................ .. 4
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites .............................................................. .. 4
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain ......................................................................................... .. 5
1.3 Project Description ......................................................................................................... .. 5
1.4 Changes to Project ......................................................................................................... .. 6
2.0 Project Purpose ....................................................................................................................... .. 6
3.0 Scope of Analysis :.................................................................................................................. .. 7
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending ............. .. 7
4.1 State water quality certification (401) ............................................................................ .. 7
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination ................................... .. 7
4.3 Other authorizations ....................................................................................................... .. 7
5.0 Complete Application and Public Notice ............................................................................... .. 8
6.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10] :.............................................................. .. 8
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites) :................................... .. 8
6.1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative .................................................................. .. S
6.1.3 Off-Site Alternatives .......................................................................................... .. 8
6.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.) ............................................................... .. 9
6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................ 10
7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1)Guidelines :................................................................................. 11
7.1 Factual determinations ................................................................................................... 11
7.1.1 Physical substrate ............................................................................................... 11
7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity ........................................................ 11
7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity ......................................................................... 11
7.1.4 Contaminant availability .................................................................................... 11
7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects .................................................................................. 12
7.1.6 Proposed disposal site ........................................................................................ 12
7.1.7 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................. 12
7.1.8 Secondary effects ............................................................................................... 12
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................................. 13
8.0 Public Interest Factors ............................................................................................................. 14
8.1 Conservation .................................................................................................................. 14
8.2 Economics ...................................................................................................................... 14
8.3 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 14
8.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)) ....................................................... 15
8.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)) ............................................................................................ 15
8.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)) .......................................................... 15
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~~~ ~ and Associates, Inc.

8.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)) ..................
8.8 Flood hazards ..............................................................
8.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)) ............................
8.10 Land use ......................................................................
8.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(0)) ......................................
8.12 Shore erosion and accretion ........................................
8 13 Re ation
................................................ 15
................................................ 16
................................................ 16
................................................ 16
................................. 16
................................. 16
................................. 16
................................. 16
17
cre ..................................................................................
8.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m)) .................................
8.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d)) ..........................
8.16 Energy needs(33CFR320.4(n)) ..................................
8.17 Safety ..........................................................................
8 18 F d and fiber roduction
...............................................
............................................... 17
............................................... 17
oo p .............................................................................................. 17
8.19 Mineral needs ................................................................................................................. 17
8.20 Considerations of property ownership ........................................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph and Jurisdictional Features Map
Appendices
Appendix 1: Jurisdictional Areas Survey Plat, Signed by the USACE (7/6/2006)
Appendix 2: USACE Field Review Memorandum (12/1/2005)
Appendix 3: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Response Letter (9/1/2006)
Appendix 4: NC Floodplain Mapping Program Map
Appendix 5: East Alamance Quarry Mine Plan 2004 Permit Modification (8/5/2004)
Appendix 6: Permit Drawings
Sheet 0: Title Sheet
Sheet l: Wetland Impact Minimization Plan
Sheet 2: Boyd's Creek Pumping Plan
Sheet 3: Boyd's Creek Road Crossing Plan
Sheets 4, 5: Stormwater Details
Appendix 7: Agent Authorization
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~~ ~ and Associates, Inc.

1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project
Description, Changes to Project
1.1 Location
The project site is located south of Sandy Cross Road (SR 1752) and west of NC
State Highway 49, approximately 4 miles north of U.S. Interstate 40/85, exit 150 in
Alamance County, North Carolina. (36.13006°N, 79.37084°W). The project site
contains stream channels and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of a first
order tributary that flows into Boyd's Creek at the southern boundary of the property.
Boyd's Creek is a tributary to the Haw River, which flows into the Cape Fear River, a
navigable waterway and a tributary to the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 1 (Vicinity Map)
and Figure 2 (USGS Topographic Map) show the project location.
1.2 Existing Site Conditions
The Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) East Alamance Quarry property is 610 acres
in size. The proposed mine expansion tract (project site) is approximately 73 acres in
size. The area proposed for construction of the perimeter berm and expanded pit
within the expansion tract is approximately 34 acres. The area proposed for
expansion is included in the approved NC Division of Land Resources Mine Plan for
the quarry. Figure 3 shows the perimeter for the expansion tract and the limits of the
mine pit.
The project site is primarily made up of forested land adjacent to the active mine pit,
perimeter berm and overburden stockpile areas. A power line crosses east-west
through the expansion tract and there are areas of cleared agricultural fields and
pasture within the permitted expansion tract.
1.2.1 Land Use
Land located adjacent to the proposed mine expansion is primarily agricultural
with few residences along NC 49 and Sandy Cross Road. There maybe
future development within the local community, but this is likely to occur
south of the project area along the US 70 and Interstate 40/85 corridors south
of the project location. It is anticipated that the quarry expansion will help
meet the growing demand for materials as development in the area expands;
however, it is not anticipated mine expansion will change land uses adjacent
to the site. The current pit is approximately 50 acres in area and
approximately 130 feet deep. The current permitted discharge location is
north of the pit into an UT to Boyd's Creek.
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

1.2.2 Topography
Topographically, the proposed site is located at the upper end of the UT to
Boyd's Creek (Stream A) watershed that is approximately bounded to the
north by Sandy Cross Road (See Figure 2). Approximately 49 acres drain to
the property boundary onto the project area just down slope from an
agricultural and irrigation pond. The remainder of the Stream A watershed is
within the project boundary. Boyd's Creek is oriented north-south through the
existing mine area west of the expansion tract. West of Stream A is a
ridgeline separating the Stream A watershed from the Stream B watershed
draining to the southeast portion of the site. Along this ridgeline are an old
farm road and the overburden storage area. The Stream B watershed includes
first-order intermittent streams (Streams C and D). There are small headwater
riparian wetlands associated with Stream A and Stream C within the
expansion tract. Wetland A is a headwater wetland area caused by the
upslope pond on the adjacent property. The outflow, spillway, and seepage
from the pond, along with the constructed fence line along the property
boundary has caused diffused flow that eventually concentrates into asingle-
thread stream channel once on the site. Wetland B is associated with the
headwater area of Stream C and was likely caused from the construction and
disturbance associated with the construction of the power line. Figure 3
shows these areas on an aerial photograph. A signed jurisdictional
determination survey plat is attached as Appendix A.
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands
Figure 3 shows the delineated jurisdictional areas evaluated by Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. (KHA) staff and reviewed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) within the expansion tract boundary. Stream A
originates from Wetland 1, near the northern boundary of the subject property
and flows southeast to Boyd's Creek located along the southeastern boundary
of the subject property. Stream A is culverted in two locations for distances
of 437 and 104 feet. The total length of Stream A within the subject property
is approximately 2,946 linear feet not including culverted sections. Stream B
is located in the southwestern corner of the subject property. Stream B enters
the eastern boundary of the subject property south of the transmission line,
flows southeast and exits the southern boundary of the subject property near
the southwestern corner. The total length of Stream B within the subject
property is approximately 1,7461inear feet. Stream C originates from
Wetland 2, within the subject property, immediately south of the transmission
line. Stream C flows southwest and exits the subject property, eventually
flowing into Stream B prior to Stream B entering the subject property. The
total length of Stream C within the subject property is approximately 457
linear feet. Stream D originates south of the transmission line, in the western
portion of the subject property. Stream D flows southwest into Stream B, near
the western boundary of the subject property. The total length of Stream D
within the subject property is approximately 6941inear feet.
~ Kimley-Horn
2 ~ ~ ^ and Associates, Inc.

Streams A, C, and D are intermittent streams. Stream B and Boyd's Creek are
perennial streams. The hydrology of Boyd's Creek and Stream B originate
from surface and groundwater flow from much larger watersheds beyond the
property limits. Streams C and D originate as headwater streams within the
property and Stream A originates on the adjacent farm property at the pond
just off-site from the boundary. Streams A, C, and D are relatively small,
measuring approximately 3 to 4 feet in width in most places. They are
relatively stable with bedrock grade control and exhibit characteristics
consistent with good quality streams located in the region, including well-
definedbed and bank characteristics, meanders, undercut banks, reduced soils,
etc.
Stream A is approximately 2,9461inear feet in length through the expansion
tract, with 2,117 linear feet located north of the power line within the future
pit area. Of the portion of the perennial stream within the tract, 1,7161inear
feet is considered "Important", supporting aquatic function. The upper
portion of Stream A, where much of the stream impact will occur, was
determined to be "Unimportant" as it was lacking in aquatic function (habitat
and hydrology). This section of stream has comparatively less habitat, and
more importantly, lacks the flow necessary to support more than minimal
aquatic life. The site was reviewed by the USACE on August 24, 2005 and
again on December 1, 2005 to evaluate site hydrology under different climatic
conditions. On January 25, 2007 the staff of the NC Division of Water
Quality reviewed the site and determined that the entire length of Stream A
from the northern property boundary to the southern boundary is perennial
except for those segments that have been previously piped. Appendix 1
contains a survey of the jurisdictional areas and determinations, and Appendix
2 contains a memorandum documenting the December 1, 2005 field review
meeting, as well as site figures and data forms.
Boyd's Creek is located adjacent to the active mine area and is a larger
perennial stream system. The stream is relatively stable with bedrock control
and has a wooded riparian buffer through the Martin Marietta Property. There
are two existing road crossings for Boyd's Creek within the property used for
mining operations.
Wetland A (0.44 acres) functions as a headwater riparian wetland as it is
located in the upper portion of a watershed up slope from an intermittent
stream system. Since Wetland A is also just down slope from the adjacent
impoundment, it also functions similarly to a hillside seep wetland dominated
by groundwater discharge. Both wetland types are common wetlands of the
North Carolina piedmont, and have few unique or exceptional qualities. The
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
3 ~ antl Associates, Inc.

primary function of Wetland A is terrestrial habitat. Treatment of nutrients
and sediment, as well as flood storage, is more likely provided by the upslope
impoundment. Stream A, down slope from Wetland A, is lacking in sufficient
hydrology and aquatic habitat, so it is also likely that Wetland A supports no
significant aquatic habitat. Wetland B (0.26 acres) is also a headwater
riparian wetland dominated by surface water hydrology. This area however,
is limited in function due to the disturbance of the power line, and in fact may
have been created from disturbance and compaction of soils associated with
the construction within the transmission line easement. No groundwater
monitoring has been performed to measure wetland hydrology.
1.2.4 Soils
Most of the soils within the expansion tract and future pit area are classified
by the USDA Soil Survey of Alamance County (1960) as Helena Sandy
Loam, or Helena Coarse Sandy Loam. This includes the pasture/agricultural
areas, forested areas, and the riparian headwaters.
1.2.5 Vegetation
The wetland areas on the site are forested, with the exception of the upper
portion of the Wetland B, which is within the power line easement and is
dominated by successional shrubs and herbaceous wetland vegetation. The
wetlands receive hydrologic inputs primarily from surface water inputs as
headwater areas upslope from the streams. Wetland A also receives a
considerable amount of seepage from the off-site upslope pond. The
vegetation in the wetland portions of the project area ranges from facultative
to obligate, suggesting that the soils on the site are regularly saturated
throughout the year, but that they may dry out in the summer months or
during periods of drought.
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat
Following a review of pertinent sources, it was determined that the site does
not support species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or
threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. According to the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), there are no federally listed
threatened or endangered species in Alamance County. In addition, NHP does
not have any mapped occurrences within one mile of the project site.
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites
No sites within the vicinity of the project are registered or listed as being
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Appendix 3
~ KimleyHorn
4 ^ ~ ^ and Associates, Inc.

provides a letter from The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain
Boyd's Creek is a regulated floodway and floodplain within the East
Alamance Quarry property. All other streams within the expansion site are
not located within the 100-year floodplain of the Boyd's Creek. Appendix 4
includes a map of the 100-year floodplain and floodway through the project
site.
1.3 Project Description
The project as approved by the current Mine Plan shows the entire expansion tract as
future expansion area. This includes the area proposed for the berm, pit expansion,
and areas south of the power line to Boyd's Creek. The proposed activity is to
expand the pit eastward from existing limits within the expansion area north of the
power line easement. This would include the creation of a perimeter berm around the
expanded pit and the stockpiled overburden south of the power line. No additional
disturbance is proposed to the southeastern portion of the site at this time.
In addition to the expansion of the pit, a stream crossing over Boyd's Creek south of
the existing haul road crossing would be necessary in order to access the southern
portion of the pit and maintenance of water quality ponds in the expanded area of the
mine.
Site preparation would begin with the mechanized clearing of vegetation from the site
and installation of erosion control devices around the construction site. Wetland A
(0.44 acres) would be filled for the creation of the perimeter berm; and Stream A,
from it's origin at Wetland A to the southern property boundary (3,044 LF) would be
impacted through excavation of overburden material and removal of the watershed
hydrology to the southern 829 feet of Stream A. 1,716 linear feet of Stream A has
been identified as "Important", with the remainder (1,230 LF) considered
"Unimportant" and lacking sufficient aquatic function. There is an upslope
impoundment offsite. This impoundment is currently used for irrigation and as a
water source for the local fire department. The watershed area is relatively small
(~50 acres) so the impoundment and use of water offsite from the project area has
likely reduced the quality and function of the downstream wetland and intermittent
stream. There is likely minimal nutrient treatment and flood storage since much of
the hydrology is contained within the pond, and downstream hydrology is mostly
provided through seepage under the impoundment. The reduction in hydrology to the
downstream wetland and stream also has affected aquatic habitat and hydrologic
functions within the intermittent channel.
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

A culvert and fill would be placed in Boyd's Creek (98 LF total comprised on 20 LF
of inlet protection riprap, 58 LF of CMP, and 20 LF of outlet protection riprap)
between the expanded pit area and plant downstream of the existing crossing. The
culvert would be designed and constructed to meet USACE requirements to maintain
flow, and would accommodate flood flows via floodplain culverts as necessary to
ensure that the crossing would not cause instability of the stream channel up and
downstream of the crossing.
Total impacts for the expansion activities would be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland,
1,230 LF of perennial unimportant stream (approximately 4,920 square feet), 1,814
LF perennial important stream.
MMM proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands and stream channels associated
with the project by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) sufficient for the restoration of 0.44 acre of riparian
wetlands and 3,0441inear feet of stream channel (1,230 LF for 1:1 ratio of perennial
unimportant stream impact, 887 LF for 1:1 ratio of perennial important, and 927 LFat
2:1 for perennial Important impact) which will require 3,971 feet of stream
mitigation .
1.4 Changes to Project
Any changes to the project that occur during the permit review process will be noted
here.
2.0 Project Purpose
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to expand the existing mine in order to
continue operations and maintain supply for local demand of aggregate in Alamance County,
North Carolina. The East Alamance Quarry currently supplies five counties (Alamance,
Caswell, Guilford, Orange, and Person), including the Burlington, Mebane, Gibsonville, and
Leon College. The quarry typically produces 700,000 tons of aggregate per year. The quarry
currently employs 25 people, and expansion of the mine will provide for an additiona140 to
60 years of production. Construction within water of the U.S. is proposed to allow the
expansion of upland development activities. Based on the configuration of the mine in
relation to the property boundaries and Boyd's Creek, expansion westward is the only
practical alternative for the quarry to continue operations. This includes unavoidable impacts
to water of the U.S.
Off-site alternatives include development of a new mine, which is not practical from a timing
perspective due to acquisition of properties, zoning, etc, and would likely generate
comparable impacts based on the nature of the activity. On-site alternatives are limited by
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
6 ~ antl Associates, Inc.

physical constraints of the site (power line easement, property boundaries) or would require
greater impacts to water of the U.S. (i.e. Boyd's Creek). Therefore, these alternatives are not
practicable and would not meet the project purpose and need.
In order to gain access to the desired product the mine must expand laterally. This expansion
also allows the existing pit to be excavated deeper, further increasing the potential output of
the mine. In order to achieve this goal, expansion into adjacent land is by far the most
practical and economic solution. The presence of jurisdictional streams and wetlands on the
expansion tract is incidental, and not a requirement for the presence of the aggregate. It is
technically possible to expand the tract without direct impacts to the jurisdictional areas on
the site, however to do so would significantly limit the volume of material produced by the
mine and the economic return of the project. Accordingly, we consider the proposed project
not to be water dependent, and less damaging practicable alternatives, which involve no fill
in streams or wetlands, are therefore presumed to be available. It is also presumed that those
alternatives have less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem. A review of the alternate
plans, including those that reduce or avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., is included in
Section 6 of this document.
3.0 Scope of Analysis:
The proposed work will primarily benefit Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) and will be
wholly funded by MMM. Other than the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit, no
other federal involvement in the proposed work is anticipated. There are no practicable
alternatives to the proposed plans that would further avoid or minimize impacts to waters of
the U.S., and the project would not meet the applicant's purpose and need but for the
proposed impacts. Additionally, the expansion tract is bisected by astream/wetland system
subject to Section 404 permit requirements, and impacts to this system are essential for the
development of the project as a whole. Accordingly, we propose that the scope of analysis
extend to the limits of the project (i.e., the 73-acre expansion tract per the Mine Plan).
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations
Obtained or Required and Pending
4.1 State water quality certification (401)
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 certification is submitted
concurrent to this 404 permit application.
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency
Determination
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) consistency
determination/permit isnot required.
4.3 Other authorizations
None required.
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
7 ~ and Associates, Inc.

5.0 Complete Application and Public Notice
Application review and public notice are pending.
6.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10]:
Based on the factors considered below, there are no practicable alternatives that would allow
MMM to avoid impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with expansion of the East
Alamance Quarry.
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other
sites):
6.1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative
MMM has considered the no action (i.e. no permit required) alternative and
determined that it would not meet the project purpose and need. If the
expansion of the project were to be limited to upland areas east of Stream A,
the quarry would not be able to economically support operations and would
cease to operate. This would limit the amount of reserves available and
significantly reduce the life of the mining operations, as it would significantly
limit the depth of the mine as well as the area for the pit. In addition,
development of a second pit without impacts to waters of the U.S. is not
feasible as the pit expansion considers the depth of the future pit as well as the
area for expansion, so that the upland area available for a second pit could not
be deep enough to be viable. Expanding the existing pit laterally also allows
the mine to continue to spiral to a deeper depth, meaning that the permit is
necessary not only for the expansion area, but also for the continued operation
of the existing pit. Furthermore; crossing jurisdictional areas would also still
be necessary to logistically operate the plant. Therefore, not expanding the
pit or limiting the pit would cause MMM to lose the economic benefit that
would result from operation of the facility, and the local community would
lose the tax revenues and the supply of the aggregate material. Finally, per the
approved Mine Plan, MMM intends to construct a perimeter berm along the
property boundary of the proposed pit to control access and safety, limit noise,
and provide an aesthetic barrier to adjacent properties. This berm, if
constructed in uplands only, would not be contiguous, and thus, would not
function as intended. The no action alternative would result in the
preservation of approximately 0.70 acre of wetlands and 8,037 linear feet of
stream channel (length approximate based on GIS mapping of Boyd's Creek
accounting for 2,194 LF). While this would be the least damaging alternative,
it is not practicable, and does not support the project purpose and need.
6.1.3 Off-Site Alternatives
The project purpose is specifically for the expansion of an existing facility and
not for the construction of a new mine. The criteria that required for
developing a new mine are substantial. The site must be of adequate size to
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
g ~ and Associates, Inc.

allow for the mine infrastructure. The useful mining area of the site is limited
by a number of factors. Typically, a 300 to 500-acre tract is required to
support operations typical of the East Alamance Quarry. There are specific
requirements set for mining safety that govern the size of haul roads, the shape
of the mining pit, and blasting and excavation procedures. The site must also
support a berm as an acoustic barrier, fences, and forested buffers for visual
and aesthetic reasons. Additionally, the site must support outbuilding
construction, overburden stockpiling, aggregate processing, equipment
storage, transportation corridors, and water control features. All of these
factors affect the useable acreage left for the actual pit. On top of these
considerations, the site must have the necessary geology, such that the desired
aggregate is present and accessible.
The local demand for aggregate must also be present, particularly given the
extremely high costs of trucking mining product any distance. In general, the
East Alamance Quarry provides product to the local market within a 30-mile
radius. This also requires that the site have reasonable access to major
transportation corridors, proper zoning, and availability of a reliable water
supply. Finally, development of a new mine is likely to result in local
opposition, in addition to concerns regarding environmental justice. When all
of these factors are considered, the costs of developing a new site are
prohibitively expensive compared to the alternative and expanding an existing
facility.
It is also important to recognize that the development of alternative sites (if
they were available) would likely result in impacts equal to or greater than the
proposed expansion alternative. Topography throughout eastern Alamance
County is fairly incised, resulting in numerous streams and wetlands. Any
facility of equivalent size would likely have a mix of jurisdictional areas
similar to that of the proposed site. As state above, any alternative site would
likely be large with an extensive impact area. While it is possible that there
are sites available that meet the stated criteria, it is extremely unlikely that
those sites would present a less damaging alternative.
6.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.)
The very nature of a mine requires an extensive surface disturbance, making it
difficult to work around streams and wetlands. The effect of avoiding small surface
streams and wetlands located in the middle of a mine site is amplified because the
slope of pit wall that would be required. In essence, the cone of effect underneath a
small wetland or stream may represent a vast quality of material. As a result, it is
difficult to design a mining project to minimize impacts in the same manner as
commercial or residential developments where road and building footprints can be
rearranged, and retaining walls can be used to prevent fill from extending into
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
g ~ antl Associates, Inc.

wetland areas. As explained below, MMM has tried to locate the mine expansion in
such a way that it minimizes impacts to streams and wetlands as much as possible
while still maximizing the aggregate yield of the site.
MMM has decided to not pursue any physical impact to streams in the
southern portion of the expansion tract below the power line easement
although this area is approved for future mine expansion per the Mine Plan
(5,920 LF of avoided stream channel including the approximate length of
Boyd's Creek accounting for 2,194 LF). There will be activities within this
area to stockpile overburden per the Mine Plan, however, this activity will
take place in uplands only.
MMM has worked to minimize secondary impacts to the avoided streams
where considerable portions of the watershed will be altered or removed
through excavation. This minimization effort includes rerouting of
stormwater and management of discharge locations to provide supplemental
hydrology to these areas to support aquatic functions. These minimization
measures apply to discharge from the upstream watershed of Stream A and the
Wetland B/Stream C discussed below. See Appendix 6 for permit drawings
of the minimization measures.
The proposed minimization measure for the Wetland B/Stream C headwater
area is to capture the re-directed flow from the off-site pond upslope from
Stream A. The existing outlet of the pond will remain, to support the down
slope wetlands off-site of the MMM property and project area, however, the
spillway will be modified to limit stormwater flow into the expanded pit area.
This modified spillway will capture and re-direct stormwater flow through a
pipe/ditch system to a settling basin and level spreader system up slope from
the head of Wetland B/Stream C. This diffuse flow will offset the removal of
the drainage area caused by the pit expansion in order to maintain the
hydrologic function of the wetland/stream system. The diffuse flow level
spreader mechanism will be incorporated to limit head cutting through the
wetland. Wetland B (0.26 acre) will be avoided by the pit expansion and
berm construction.
6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
This report provided information regarding the limitations that are specific to the
proposed type of activity, the topography of the site, safety requirements, aesthetic
features, and required infrastructure. Based on this information, it was determined
that there are no reasonable off-site alternatives that meet the project purpose. This
report also provides information regarding the efforts made by the applicant to
minimize impacts to streams and wetlands, and to attempt to locate unavoidable
impacts in areas that support the least aquatic function. After reviewing alternatives
and the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, we
believe that the proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative.
~ Kimley-Horn
10 ^ ~ ^ antl Associates, Inc.

7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
7.1 Factual determinations
7.1.1 Physical substrate
Approximately 3,0441inear feet of stream channel (1,230 LF unimportant -
perennial,1,814 LF of important perennial) would be filled, excavated, piped
or impacted due to watershed alterations Additionally, 0.44 acre of wetland
would be filled or excavated. Construction should proceed at a steady rate
over the life of the permit. Although turbidity rates in the stream below the
worksite may temporarily increase during construction activities,
sedimentation and erosion control measures required by the state should
prevent the displacement of sediment downstream. Per the approved Mine
Plan, once excavation of the mine pit begins, stormwater runoff would be
captured and pumped to streams at a controlled rate, minimizing the risk for
downstream bank erosion. Accordingly, stream substrate below the project
site is not likely to be appreciably affected.
7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
The proposed project should have no appreciable effect on current,
circulation, or drainage pattern. The watershed for the stream proposed to be
impacted is largely contained on the site. The wetland impact is not
substantial, and should not result in a measurable decrease in floodwater
retention. Where in-stream flows would be affected by the mine, measures
would be put in place to divert water around the impact area.- These measures
will only be required for intermittent streams that have no base flow during
the dry season.
7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity
Downstream turbidities would increase temporarily during construction of the
site; however, this would be ashort-term impact. The majority of increases in
turbidity would likely to result from clearing and construction of upland areas.
Any impacts would be minimized by the implementation of appropriate
erosion control measures as required by the approved Mine Plan. Once the
expansion of the mine begins, off site storm flows would be carried around the
pit. Much of the onsite runoff would collect in the bottom of the mine, where
it is pumped to containment areas for use in dust abatement. Accordingly, the
effects of turbidity resulting from the proposed undertaking are expected to be
minor.
7.1.4 Contaminant availability
The proposed project would not introduce contaminants or increase the
likelihood of contamination. Only suitable earthen material, mostly
originating on site, which should be free of toxic pollutants or contaminants,
would be used for construction of the permitted fills.
~~~ Kimley-Horn
11 ~ antl Associates, Inc.

7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects
The placement of fill associated with the project would result in a total loss of
the impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions. The wetland area would be
filled and would no longer provide nutrient filtration or sediment removal, and
habitat present within the wetland area would be lost. The aquatic system
immediately downstream of the project site is limited to a stream system. The
short-term effects expected downstream would primarily be limited to
temporary discharges of sediment during construction. These impacts would
be minimized by proper installation of sediment and erosion control devices,
which are required by state and local ordinances.
12
7.1.6 Proposed disposal site
No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.
7.1.7 Cumulative effects
For the purposes of assessing cumulative effects that the proposed action may
have to the aquatic environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the effects within
the project boundaries and downstream of the project as it could effect the
watershed. The direct impact of the undertaking includes the loss of 3,044
linear feet of stream channel, including 1,8141inear feet of stream determined
to have important aquatic function, as well as 0.44 acres of wetland. The
impacts to these resources would result in a complete loss of function,
including water quality functions (nutrient sequestration, sediment filtration,
etc.), habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species, and hydrology (flood water
attenuation., groundwater recharge, etc.). The project is located in a relatively
undeveloped part of the county. Other impacts to the aquatic environment
located in the region are mainly a result of agricultural production, low and
moderate density residential development, and road corridor construction.
The anticipated effects of the proposed project would be minimal relative to
other types of projects in the region, and taken alone, do not present a
significant or imminent threat to the stability and integrity of the aquatic
ecosystem within the watershed. The type of wetland and stream system
located that would be impacted is not particularly unique or high quality
resource. Furthermore, by implementing proposed best management
practices, such as the retention of stormwater and the implementation of
sediment and erosion control measures, the effects of the project can be
somewhat reduced. The loss of stream and wetland function would also be
replaced by the proposed mitigation. Based on all of the available
information, the project would not contribute more than minimally to the
cumulative impact on aquatic resources in the region.
7.1.8 Secondary effects
The secondary effects of the project would be limited to the aquatic resource
effects directly resulting from placement of fill into waters of the U.S., other
than the fill itself. With respect to the fill required for road construction, there
should be few, if any measurable secondary effects. This is primarily because
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

the roads themselves would not encourage additional development, as they are
designed only to provide access to the adjoining land for quarry operations.
The roadways may result in some additional stormwater and pollutant load in
the stream channels; however, this possibility would be minimized by the
proper maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures.
Fill and excavation conducted during construction of the berms and pit would
result in some temporary loss of sediment downstream, however the project
would not result in substantial increases in impervious surface. Stormwater
flowing into the pit would either be stored on site or pumped directly to
stream channels in a controlled manner per the approved Mine Plan.
Many of the secondary effects that are traditionally attributable to residential
and commercial development do not apply in this case. Because of the nature
of the activity, the proposed undertaking would not result in additional
demand for residential development in the region. The aggregate produced by
the quarry is necessary for the construction industry; however, a decrease in
the available supply from a single quarry would not slow development in the
region. The site is also not expected to generate the same amount or type of
wastewater associated with a development of its size.
Considering the discussion above, potential secondary effects resulting from
the proposed project are unlikely to have more than a minimal impact to
aquatic resources. Additionally, those effects that do occur are likely to be
minimized by measures required of the applicant, including the
implementation of sediment and erosion control plans, and control of
stormwater leaving the site.
7.2 Compensatory Mifigation
As discussed in section 1.3, the proposed impacts are to perennial unimportant and
important stream segments and low-quality wetland due to the altered hydrologic
functions of Wetland A and Stream A. Since discharge from the pond has been
reduced, the aquatic functions downstream within the project area have also been
reduced.
Therefore, MMM has proposed to mitigate unavoidable impacts by providing
payment into the NCEEP to provide for the restoration of 3,971 linear feet of stream
channel (based on 1:1 mitigation ratio for 2,117 LF of perenniaUunimportant and
important stream impacts at a USACOE agreed 1:1 ratio and 2:1 ratio for 927 LF of
perennial important stream impact), and 1.0 acre of riparian wetlands (based on a
mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the 0.44 acre of impact rounded to the nearest 0.25 acre).
~ Kimley-Horn
13 ^ ~ ^ and Associates, Inc.

Based on the current Schedule of Fees for the NCEEP, a total payment of
$935,195.50 will be made to NCEEP for compensatory mitigation.
Payment into the NCWRP is an acceptable form of mitigation as established by the
Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
8.0 Public Interest Factors
8.9 Conservation
The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
stream or wetland areas on site; however, the Mine Plan calls for the avoidance of
impact to the riparian buffer of Boyd's Creek other than haul road crossings. Based
on the Mine Plan, the creek is a buffered stream corridor separating the active pit
from the plant and stockpile areas. In addition, the expansion tract includes the
property south of the power line which contains 3,726 linear feet of stream (Streams
A, B, C, and D). MMM has agreed to limit the pit expansion north of the power line
and only disturb upland areas south of the power line. Lastly, the mitigation payment
in the NCEEP would also be used to restore and preserve stream corridors and
wetland areas elsewhere in the Cape Fear River Basin.
8.2 Economics
The applicant would be the primary beneficiary of expansion of the mine and
continued sale of aggregate product. However, the expansion project would help
meet regional current and future demand for aggregate. It would also continue to
provide an overall benefit to the local economy, and would result in continued local,
state, and federal tax revenues. The development would also continue to support
permanent employment for the quarry staff. The anticipated cumulative and
secondary effects resulting from the proposed development have been considered in
this document and it is not expected that the project would lead to additional growth-
induced impacts.
8.3 Aesthetics
The project would be an expansion of the existing site development and land use for
long-term operations. Therefore, the project would not generate additional noise and
light relative to the residential and agricultural uses that are currently located in the
vicinity. In addition, the site is already zoned for the site expansion, so the project
would not cause disharmony in the aesthetics of the community or planned future
growth of the region.
14
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

8.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p))
The overall impact to the environment as a result of the construction would be
minimal. As an expansion of an existing operation, minimal increases in sediment,
construction noise, traffic levels, etc., would be expected during construction of the
project. Impacts to wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife would primarily result
from the loss of existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat and by changes to the
watershed, though these effects would be offset by functions provided by the
stormwater facilities and by the mitigation offered by the applicant. In addition, these
measures will be offset in the long term ultimately by the lake and natural areas
provided through reclamation once the operations cease. The proposed plan also
avoids impacts to the majority of the streams and riparian zones located on the site.
Consideration was also given to the environmental justice of the proposed project.
Stormwater generated by the increases in impervious surfaces would be retained on-
site, preventing potential negative impacts to persons living or owning land with the
floodplain downstream of the project. Additionally, the surrounding region is not
occupied any particular minority or ethnic group, so the proposed activity would not
lead to environmental justice concerns.
8.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b))
There is a total of 0.70 acres of delineated and verified wetlands on the project site.
The project would result in the loss of 0.44 acres of headwater wetland that currently
provides limited functions due to the upstream impoundment, which is used for
irrigation. The applicant would mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands by
payment into the NCEEP program.
8.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e))
There are no known or suspected historic or cultural resources located within the
permit area, and no impact to any of these resources would result from the project.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) was contacted and verified that no registered properties, or properties
listed as being eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or
would be affected by the proposed work. See Appendix 3 for correspondence from
the SHPO.
8.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c))
The project would not be expected to result in more than minimal permanent adverse
effects to fish or wildlife values. During construction, it is likely that many aquatic
and terrestrial animals would be lost, along with their habitat. The type of habitat on
the site includes forested wetland and upland areas, limited in-stream and riparian
habitat, and agricultural fields. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database for protected species shows that there are no mapped occurrences
of listed species of concern within one mile of the project site. In addition, there are
no federally listed threatened or endangered species for Alamance County.
~ Kimley-Horn
15 ^ ~ ^ antl Associates, Inc.

8.8 Flood hazards
The project would not be expected to have an impact on the overall hazard of
flooding downstream of the project site. The mine expansion would not result in
increases to impervious surface within the watershed, and the existing stormwater
management program would remain in place.
8.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1))
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, consideration has been given to the effect of the
proposed project toward reducing the risk of flood loss, minimizing the impact of
floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restoring and preserving the natural
and beneficial values served by floodplains. Portions of the site along Boyd;s Creek
are located within the regulated 100-year floodplain. A small portion of the
floodplain would be filled to allow for development of the site for the haul road
crossing. The crossing on Boyd's Creek will require fill in the regulated floodplain
and will be appropriately permitted and coordinated with the Alamance County
floodplain manager and/or FEMA. It is anticipated that the culvert will be designed
and constructed to not restrict the 100-year storm event and thus a no rise certification
is anticipated and will be obtained prior to construction. See Appendix 4 for a map of
the FEMA-designated floodplain.
8.10 Land use
As proposed, the mine expansion would result in the conversion of forested and
agricultural land to a mine. While this is a major shift in land use, the project would
remain consistent with the zoning requirements for the site.
8.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(0))
The project is located on anon-navigable waterway. Accordingly, consideration of
the project's effect on navigation is not applicable.
8.12 Shore erosion and accretion
The project does not contain open waters; therefore, the project's effect on shore
erosion and accretion is not applicable.
8.13 Recreation
16
The project is intended to expand the existing operations within the property.
Therefore, the project is not expected to effect regional recreational opportunities.
8.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m))
The development will draw from local water supply sources, but it is not expected to
add demand to the local water supply system. Water and sewer services have already
been provided to the site, so no additional impact from construction of these utilities
is anticipated. Since the project is an expansion to an existing operation, there should
be no appreciable effect to ground water recharge within the region.
~~^ Kimley-Horn
~ antl Associates, Inc,

8.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))
No major impacts to water quality are expected. Minor temporary increases in
turbidity may occur during construction, however, due to the nature of the activity
(expanding the pit) it is not anticipated that the activity will discharge sediment or
pollutants. It is anticipated that the site's stormwater treatment facility should offset
long-term impacts by removing sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants from treated
stormwater, and by attenuating peak flows downstream. The North Carolina Division
of Water Quality is required to review the proposed plans and provide a state 401
Water Quality Certification prior to construction of the project.
17
8.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n))
Since the proposed project is an expansion of an existing operation, it is not
anticipated that there will be additional requirements to the local electrical grid.
8.17 Safety
Since the proposed project is an expansion of an existing operation, it is not
anticipated that there will be additional traffic requirements or safety concerns.
During construction of the project, all applicable safety standards would be observed.
8.18 Food and fiber production
The project site is primarily forested. Relative to the amount of forested land in the
region, the effect of this conversion will be negligible.
8.19 Mineral needs
As stated in the project purpose, the project is intended to continue operations to
supply aggregate to the local market.
8.20 Considerations of property ownership
Since the proposed project is an expansion of an existing operation, it is not
anticipated that the adjacent landowners will be affected as a result of the proximity
of their property to the project. The use of the land would be consistent with the
designated zoning, and the owner's right to reasonable, private use of their land.
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

overburden south of the power line. A stream crossing over Boyd's Creek is proposed to
provide access to the southern portion of the pit. Total impacts for the expansion activities
would be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland, and 3,0441inear feet of perennial stream channel,
(including 1,2301inear feet of perennial unimportant channel with indicators of important
aquatic function), and 1,8141inear feet of perennial important stream. To mitigate for the
proposed impacts, the applicant proposes to restore 3,775 linear feet of stream channel and
0.50 acres of riparian wetland via payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NC EEP).
Other Required Authorizations: Other required authorizations that will be obtained prior to
construction of the proposed work including an individua1401 water quality certification from
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), sediment and erosion control permit
from the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, mine safety permits, etc.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Based upon the location of the project and the minimal impacts
predicted, we believe the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources: Following consultation with the latest published version of the National
Register of Historic Places, we are not aware of any registered properties, or properties listed
as being eligible for inclusion therein that are located within the project area or will be affected
by the proposed work.
Endangered Species: Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage
Database, no threatened or endangered species are known to be located in the immediate area
of the proposed project. Therefore, we believe that the proposed project will have no effect on
federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat,
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
/~ ~ ~ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc,

Contents
1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project ...........................1
1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................... . l
1.2 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................. .1
1.2.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................... l
1.2.2 Topography ...........................................................................................................2
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands ......................................................................................... .2
1.2.4 Soils ..................................................................................................................... .4
1.2.5 Vegetation .............................................................................................................4
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat ..............................................................................4
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites .................................................................4
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain ............................................................................................5
1.3 Project Description .......................................................................................................... .5
1.4 Changes to Project ............................................................................................................6
2.0 Project Purpose ..........................................................................................................................6
3.0 Scope of Analysis :.....................................................................................................................7
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending ............... .7
4.1 State water quality certification (401) ............................................................................. .7
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination .................................... ..7
4.3 Other authorizations .........................................................................................................7
5.0 Complete Application and Public Notice ..................................................................................8
6.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10] :.............................................................. ..8
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites) :.................................... ..8
6.1.1 No Action/tTpland-Only Alternative ....................................................................8
6.1.3 Off-Site Alternatives .............................................................................................8
6.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.) ..................................................................9
6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................. 10
7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1)Guidelines :.................................................................................. 11
7.1 Factual determinations .................................................................................................... 11
7.1.1 Physical substrate ............................................................................................... 11
7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity ........................................................ 11
7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity .......................................................................... 11
7.1.4 Contaminant availability ..................................................................................... l l
7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects .................................................................................. 12
7.1.6 Proposed disposal site ......................................................................................... 12
7.1.7 Cumulative effects .............................................................................................. 12
7.1.8 Secondary effects ................................................................................................ 12
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................................... 13
8.0 Public Interest Factors ............................................................................................................. 14
8.1 Conservation ................................................................................................................... 14
8.2 Economics ...................................................................................................................... 14
8.3 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 14
8.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)) ....................................................... 15
8.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)) ............................................................................................ 15
8.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)) ........................................................... 15
~~I n~^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc,

8.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)) .....................................................................15
8.8 Flood hazards ..................................................................................................................16
8.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)) ................................................................................16
8.10 Land use ..........................................................................................................................16
8.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(0)) ..........................................................................................16
8.12 Shore erosion and accretion ............................................................................................16
8.13 Recreation .......................................................................................................................16
8.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m)) ...................................................:.................................16
8.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d)) ..............................................................................17
8.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n)) ......................................................................................17
8.17 Safety ..............................................................................................................................17
8.18 Food and fiber production ..............................................................................................17
8.19 Mineral needs .................................................................................................................17
8.20 Considerations of property ownership ............................................................................17
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph and Jurisdictional Features Map
Appendices
Appendix 1: Jurisdictional Areas Survey Plat, Signed by the USACE (7/6/2006)
Appendix 2: USACE Field Review Memorandum (12/1/2005)
Appendix 3: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Response Letter (9/1/2006)
Appendix 4: NC Floodplain Mapping Program Map
Appendix 5: East Alamance Quarry Mine Plan 2004 Permit Modification (8/5/2004)
Appendix 6: Permit Drawings
Sheet 0: Title Sheet
Sheet 1: Wetland Impact Minimization Plan
Sheet 2: Boyd's Creek Pumping Plan
Sheet 3: Boyd's Creek Road Crossing Plan
Sheets 4, 5: Stormwater Details
Appendix 7: Agent Authorization
/~ ~ Kimley-Horn
~~ -1 ~ ^ and Associates, Inc.

Streams A, C, and D are intermittent streams. Stream B and Boyd's Creek are
perennial streams. The hydrology of Boyd's Creek and Stream B originate
from surface and groundwater flow from much larger watersheds beyond the
property limits. Streams C and D originate as headwater streams within the
property and Stream A originates on the adjacent farm property at the pond
just off-site from the boundary. Streams A, C, and D are relatively small,
measuring approximately 3 to 4 feet in width in most places. They are
relatively stable with bedrock grade control and exhibit characteristics
consistent with good quality streams located in the region, including well-
defined bed and bank characteristics, meanders, undercut banks, reduced soils,
etc.
Stream A is approximately 2,9461inear feet in length through the expansion
tract, with 2,1171inear feet located north of the power line within the future
pit area. Of the portion of the perennial stream within the tract, 1,7161inear
feet is considered "Important", supporting aquatic function. The upper
portion of Stream A, where much of the stream impact will occur, was
determined to be "Unimportant" as it was lacking in aquatic function (habitat
and hydrology). This section of stream has comparatively less habitat, and
more importantly, lacks the flow necessary to support more than minimal
aquatic life. The site was reviewed by the USACE on August 24, 2005 and
again on December 1, 2005 to evaluate site hydrology under different climatic
conditions. On January 25, 2007 the staff of the NC Division of Water
Quality reviewed the site and determined that the entire length of Stream A
from the northern property boundary to the southern boundary is perennial
except for those segments that have been previously piped. Appendix 1
contains a survey of the jurisdictional areas and determinations, and Appendix
2 contains a memorandum documenting the December 1, 2005 field review
meeting, as well as site figures and data forms.
Boyd's Creek is located adjacent to the active mine area and is a larger
perennial stream system. The stream is relatively stable with bedrock control
and has a wooded riparian buffer through the Martin Marietta Property. There
are two existing road crossings for Boyd's Creek within the property used for
mining operations.
Wetland A (0.44 acres) functions as a headwater riparian wetland as it is
located in the upper portion of a watershed up slope from an intermittent
stream system. Since Wetland A is also just down slope from the adjacent
impoundment, it also functions similarly to a hillside seep wetland dominated
by groundwater discharge. Both wetland types are common wetlands of the
North Carolina piedmont, and have few unique or exceptional qualities. The
~ ^ KimleyHorn
3 ~ and Associates, Inc.

provides a letter from The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain
Boyd's Creek is a regulated floodway and floodplain within the East
Alamance Quarry property. All other streams within the expansion site are
not located within the 100-year floodplain of the Boyd's Creek. Appendix 4
includes a map of the 100-year floodplain and floodway through the project
site.
1.3 Project Description
The project as approved by the current Mine Plan shows the entire expansion tract as
future expansion area. This includes the area proposed for the berm, pit expansion,
and areas south of the power line to Boyd's Creek. The proposed activity is to
expand the pit eastward from existing limits within the expansion area north of the
power line easement. This would include the creation of a perimeter berm around the
expanded pit and the stockpiled overburden south of the power line. No additional
disturbance is proposed to the southeastern portion of the site at this time.
In addition to the expansion of the pit, a stream crossing over Boyd's Creek south of
the existing haul road crossing would be necessary in order to access the southern
portion of the pit and maintenance of water quality ponds in the expanded area of the
mine.
Site preparation would begin with the mechanized clearing of vegetation from the site
and installation of erosion control devices around the construction site. Wetland A
(0.44 acres) would be filled for the creation of the perimeter berm, and Stream A,
from it's origin at Wetland A to the southern property boundary (3,044 LF) would be
impacted through excavation of overburden material and removal of the watershed
hydrology to the southern 829 feet of Stream A. 1,716 linear feet of Stream A has
been identified as "Important", with the remainder (1,230 LF) considered
"Unimportant" and lacking sufficient aquatic function. There is an upslope
impoundment offsite. This impoundment is currently used for irrigation and as a
water source for the local fire department. The watershed area is relatively small
(~50 acres) so the impoundment and use of water offsite from the project area has
likely reduced the quality and function of the downstream wetland and intermittent
stream. There is likely minimal nutrient treatment and flood storage since much of
the hydrology is contained within the pond, and downstream hydrology is mostly
provided through seepage under the impoundment. The reduction in hydrology to the
downstream wetland and stream also has affected aquatic habitat and hydrologic
functions within the intermittent channel.
/'~ ~ Kimley-Horn
5 -J ~ ~ and Associates, Inc.

A culvert and fill would be placed in Boyd's Creek (98 LF total comprised on 20 LF
of inlet protection riprap, 58 LF of CMP, and 20 LF of outlet protection riprap)
between the expanded pit area and plant downstream of the existing crossing. The
culvert would be designed and constructed to meet USACE requirements to maintain
flow, and would accommodate flood flows via floodplain culverts as necessary to
ensure that the crossing would not cause instability of the stream channel up and
downstream of the crossing.
Total impacts for the expansion activities would be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland,
1,230 LF of perennial unimportant stream (approximately 4,920 square feet), 1,814
LF perennial important stream.
MMM proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands and stream channels associated
with the project by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) sufficient for the restoration of 0.44 acre of riparian
wetlands and 3,044 linear feet of stream channel (1,230 LF for 1:1 ratio of perennial
unimportant stream impact, 887 LF for 1:1 ratio of perennial important, and 927 LFat
2:1 for perennial Important impact) which will require 3,971 feet of stream
mitigation .
1.4 Changes to Project
Any changes to the project that occur during the permit review process will be noted
here.
2.0 Project Purpose
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to expand the existing mine in order to
continue operations and maintain supply for local demand of aggregate in Alamance County,
North Carolina. The East Alamance Quarry currently supplies five counties (Alamance,
Caswell, Guilford, Orange, and Person), including the Burlington, Mebane, Gibsonville, and
Leon College. The quarry typically produces 700,000 tons of aggregate per year. The quarry
currently employs 25 people, and expansion of the mine will provide for an additiona140 to
60 years of production. Construction within water of the U.S. is proposed to allow the
expansion of upland development activities. Based on the configuration of the mine in
relation to the property boundaries and Boyd's Creek, expansion westward is the only
practical alternative for the quarry to continue operations. This includes unavoidable impacts
to water of the U.S.
Off-site alternatives include development of a new mine, which is not practical from a timing
perspective due to acquisition of properties, zoning, etc, and would likely generate
comparable impacts based on the nature of the activity. On-site alternatives are limited by
/I ~ Kimley-Horn
6 -, ~ ~ and Associates, Inc.

wetland areas. As explained below, MMM has tried to locate the mine expansion in
such a way that it minimizes impacts to streams and wetlands as much as possible
while still maximizing the aggregate yield of the site.
• MMM has decided to not pursue any physical impact to streams in the
southern portion of the expansion tract below the power line easement
although this area is approved for future mine expansion per the Mine Plan
(5,920 LF of avoided stream channel including the approximate length of
Boyd's Creek accounting for 2,194 LF). There will be activities within this
area to stockpile overburden per the Mine Plan, however, this activity will
take place in uplands only.
MMM has worked to minimize secondary impacts to the avoided streams
where considerable portions of the watershed will be altered or removed
through excavation. This minimization effort includes rerouting of
stormwater and management of discharge locations to provide supplemental
hydrology to these areas to support aquatic functions. These minimization
measures apply to discharge from the upstream watershed of Stream A and the
Wetland B/Stream C discussed below. See Appendix 6 for permit drawings
of the minimization measures.
The proposed minimization measure for the Wetland B/Stream C headwater
area is to capture the re-directed flow from the off-site pond upslope from
Stream A. The existing outlet of the pond will remain, to support the down
slope wetlands off-site of the MMM property and project area, however, the
spillway will be modified to limit stormwater flow into the expanded pit area.
This modified spillway will capture and re-direct stormwater flow through a
pipe/ditch system to a settling basin and level spreader system up slope from
the head of Wetland B/Stream C. This diffuse flow will offset the removal of
the drainage area caused by the pit expansion in order to maintain the
hydrologic function of the wetland/stream system. The diffuse flow level
spreader mechanism will be incorporated to limit head cutting through the
wetland. Wetland B (0.26 acre) will be avoided by the pit expansion and
berm construction.
6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
This report provided information regarding the limitations that are specific to the
proposed type of activity, the topography of the site, safety requirements, aesthetic
features, and required infrastructure. Based on this information, it was determined
that there are no reasonable off-site alternatives that meet the project purpose. This
report also provides information regarding the efforts made by the applicant to
minimize impacts to streams and wetlands, and to attempt to locate unavoidable
impacts in areas that support the least aquatic function. After reviewing alternatives
and the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, we
believe that the proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative.
I~ ~ Kimley-Horn
10 ~l ~ ~ and Associates, Inc.

7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
7.1 Factual determinations
7.1.1 Physical substrate
Approximately 3,0441inear feet of stream channel (1,230 LF unimportant -
perennia1,1,814 LF of important perennial) would be filled, excavated, piped
or impacted due to watershed alterations Additionally, 0.44 acre of wetland
would be filled or excavated. Construction should proceed at a steady rate
over the life of the permit. Although turbidity rates in the stream below the
worksite may temporarily increase during construction activities,
sedimentation and erosion control measures required by the state should
prevent the displacement of sediment downstream. Per the approved Mine
Plan, once excavation of the mine pit begins, stormwater runoff would be
captured and pumped to streams at a controlled rate, minimizing the risk for
downstream bank erosion. Accordingly, stream substrate below the project
site is not likely to be appreciably affected.
7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
The proposed project should have no appreciable effect on current,
circulation, or drainage pattern. The watershed for the stream proposed to be
impacted is largely contained on the site. The wetland impact is not
substantial, and should not result in a measurable decrease in floodwater
retention. Where in-stream flows would be affected by the mine, measures
would be put in place to divert water around the impact area. These measures
will only be required for intermittent streams that have no base flow during
the dry season.
7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity
Downstream turbidities would increase temporarily during construction of the
site; however, this would be a short-term impact. The majority of increases in
turbidity would likely to result from clearing and construction of upland areas.
Any impacts would be minimized by the implementation of appropriate
erosion control measures as required by the approved Mine Plan. Once the
expansion of the mine begins, off site storm flows would be carried around the
pit. Much of the onsite runoff would collect in the bottom of the mine, where
it is pumped to containment areas for use in dust abatement. Accordingly, the
effects of turbidity resulting from the proposed undertaking are expected to be
minor.
7.1.4 Contaminant availability
The proposed project would not introduce contaminants or increase the
likelihood of contamination. Only suitable earthen material, mostly
originating on site, which should be free of toxic pollutants or contaminants,
would be used for construction of the permitted fills.
~ Kimley-Horn
11 ~ ~ and Associates, Inc,

7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects
The placement of fill associated with the project would result in a total loss of
the impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions. The wetland area would be
filled and would no longer provide nutrient filtration or sediment removal, and
habitat present within the wetland area would be lost. The aquatic system
immediately downstream of the project site is limited to a stream system. The
short-term effects expected downstream would primarily be limited to
temporary discharges of sediment during construction. These impacts would
be minimized by proper installation of sediment and erosion control devices,
which are required by state and local ordinances.
7.1.6 Proposed disposal site
No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.
7.1.7 Cumulative effects
For the purposes of assessing cumulative effects that the proposed action may
have to the aquatic environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the effects within
the project boundaries and downstream of the project as it could effect the
watershed. The direct impact of the undertaking includes the loss of 3,044
linear feet of stream channel, including 1,8141inear feet of stream determined
to have important aquatic function, as well as 0.44 acres of wetland. The
impacts to these resources would result in a complete loss of function,
including water quality functions (nutrient sequestration, sediment filtration,
etc.), habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species, and hydrology (flood water
attenuation, groundwater recharge, etc.). The project is located in a relatively
undeveloped part of the county. Other impacts to the aquatic environment
located in the region are mainly a result of agricultural production, low and
moderate density residential development, and road corridor construction.
The anticipated effects of the proposed project would be minimal relative to
other types of projects in the region, and taken alone, do not present a
significant or imminent threat to the stability and integrity of the aquatic
ecosystem within the watershed. The type of wetland and stream system
located that would be impacted is not particularly unique or high quality
resource. Furthermore, by implementing proposed best management
practices, such as the retention of stormwater and the implementation of
sediment and erosion control measures, the effects of the project can be
somewhat reduced. The loss of stream and wetland function would also be
replaced by the proposed mitigation. Based on all of the available
information, the project would not contribute more than minimally to the
cumulative impact on aquatic resources in the region.
7.1.8 Secondary effects
The secondary effects of the project would be limited to the aquatic resource
effects directly resulting from placement of fill into waters of the U.S., other
than the fill itself. With respect to the fill required for road construction, there
should be few, if any measurable secondary effects. This is primarily because
12 n~~ andiAsso~iates, Inc.

Based on the current Schedule of Fees for the NCEEP, a total payment of
$935,195.50 will be made to NCEEP for compensatory mitigation.
Payment into the NCWRP is an acceptable form of mitigation as established by the
Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
8.0 Public Interest Factors
8.1 Conservation
The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
stream or wetland areas on site; however, the Mine Plan calls for the avoidance of
impact to the riparian buffer of Boyd's Creek other than haul road crossings. Based
on the Mine Plan, the creek is a buffered stream corridor separating the active pit
from the plant and stockpile areas. In addition, the expansion tract includes the
property south of the power line which contains 3,7261inear feet of stream (Streams
A, B, C, and D). MMM has agreed to limit the pit expansion north of the power line
and only disturb upland areas south of the power line. Lastly, the mitigation payment
in the NCEEP would also be used to restore and preserve stream corridors and
wetland areas elsewhere in the Cape Fear River Basin.
8.2 Economics
The applicant would be the primary beneficiary of expansion of the mine and
continued sale of aggregate product. However, the expansion project would help
meet regional current and future demand for aggregate. It would also continue to
provide an overall benefit to the local economy, and would result in continued local,
state, and federal tax revenues. The development would also continue to support
permanent employment for the quarry staff. The anticipated cumulative and
secondary effects resulting from the proposed development have been considered in
this document and it is not expected that the project would lead to additional growth-
induced impacts.
8.3 Aesthetics
The project would be an expansion of the existing site development and land use for
long-term operations. Therefore, the project would not generate additional noise and
light relative to the residential and agricultural uses that are currently located in the
vicinity. In addition, the site is already zoned for the site expansion, so the project
would not cause disharmony in the aesthetics of the community or planned future
growth of the region.
~ Kimley-Horn
14 ~ and Associates, Inc,

overburden south of the power line. A stream crossing over Boyd's Creek is else proposed to
provide access to the southern portion of the pit. Total impacts for the expansion activities
would be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland, and 3,0441-~'~ linear feet of ~~=~ perennial
stream channel, (including 1,2305 linear feet of~erennial ~~ unimportant channel
with indicators of important aquatic function), and 1,814s35 linear feet of perennial important
stream. To mitigate for the proposed impacts, the applicant proposes to restore 3,775~~
linear feet of stream channel and 0.50 acres of riparian wetland via payment into the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP).
Other Required Authorizations: Other required authorizations that will be obtained prior to
construction of the proposed work including an individua1401 water quality certification from
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), sediment and erosion control permit
from the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, mine safety permits, etc.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Based upon the location of the project and the minimal impacts
predicted, we believe the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated
fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
Cultural Resources: Following consultation with the latest published version of the National
Register of Historic Places, we are not aware of any registered properties, or properties listed
as being eligible for inclusion therein that are located within the project area or will be affected
by the proposed work.
Endangered Species: Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage
Database, no threatened or endangered species are known to be located in the immediate area
of the proposed project. Therefore, we believe that the proposed project will have no effect on
federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat,
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ antl Associates, Inc.

Contents
1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project .......................... 1
1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Existing Site Conditions ......................................................................................... ......... 1
1.2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2.2 Topography .......................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands .......................................................................................... 2
1.2.4 Soils ......................................................................................................................4
1.2.5 Vegetation ............................................................................................................4
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat .............................................................................. 4
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites ....................................................... ....... 54
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain .................................................................................. ........ 5
1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................. ......... 5
1.4 Changes to Project .................................................................................................. ......... 6
2.0 Project Purpose ................................................................................................................ ......... 6
3.0 Scope of Analysis :........................................................................................................... ......... 7
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending ...... ......... 7
4.1 State water quality certification (401) ..................................................................... ......... 7
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination ............................ ..... 8~7
4.3 Other authorizations ................................................................................................ ..... 8~7
5.0 Complete Application and Public Notice ........................................................................ ...... . 8
6.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10] :....................................................... ......... 8
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites) :............................ ......... 8
6.1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative .................................................................... 8
6.1.3 Off-Site Alternatives ................................................................................... ....... 9~
6.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.) ............................................................. 103
6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis .................................................................... 11~-1-10
7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1)Guidelines :........................................................................... ... 11
7.1 Factual determinations ................................................................................................... 11
7.1.1 Physical substrate ............................................................................................... 11
7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity ........................................................ 11
7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity ..................................................................... 12~
7.1.4 Contaminant availability ............................................................................ 1211
7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects .................................................................................. 12
7.1.6 Proposed disposal site ........................................................................................ 12
7.1.7 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................. 12
7.1.8 Secondary effects ....................................................................................... 13412
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation ...................................................................................... 14~-413
8.0 Public Interest Factors ..................................................................................................... 14~-414
8.1 Conservation ............................................................................................................ ... 14
8.2 Economics .............................................................................................................. 15-1.414
8.3 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 15514
8.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)) ................................................. ... 15
8.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)) ........................................................................................ 15-5
8.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)) .................................................. 16-1-515
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
iii ~ and Associates, Inc.

8.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)) ............................................................. 16-1.615
8.8 Flood hazards ......................................................................................................... ........ 16
8.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(1)) ....................................................................... ........ 16
8.10 Land use ................................................................................................................. 17~-616
8.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(0)) ................................................................................. 17616
8.12 Shore erosion and accretion ................................................................................... 17~-616
8.13 Recreation .............................................................................................................. 1716
8.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m)) ............................................................................ 17-116
8.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d)) ..................................................................... .. ... 17
8.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n)) ............................................................................. ........ 17
8.17 Safety ..................................................................................................................... ........ 17
8.18 Food and fiber production ...................................................................................... 18.1-~17
8.19 Mineral needs ......................................................................................................... 18-1-17
8.20 Considerations of property ownership ................................................................... 18417
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph and Jurisdictional Features Map
Appendices
Appendix 1: Jurisdictional Areas Survey Plat, Signed by the USACE (7/6/2006)
Appendix 2: USACE Field Review Memorandum (12/1/2005)
Appendix 3: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Response Letter (9/1/2006)
Appendix 4: NC Floodplain Mapping Program Map
Appendix 5: East Alamance Quarry Mine Plan 2004 Permit Modification (8/5/2004 )
Appendix 6: Permit Drawings
Sheet 0: Title Sheet
Sheet 1: Wetland Impact Minimization Plan
Sheet 2: Boyd's Creek Pumping Plan
Sheet 3: Boyd's Creek Road Crossing Plan
Sheets 4, 5: Stormwater Details
Appendix 7: Agent Authorization
^ ~ ~ KimleyHorn
~~ ~ antl Associates, Inc.

Streams A, C, and D are intermittent streams. Stream B and Boyd's Creek are
perennial streams. The hydrology of Boyd's Creek and Stream B originate
from surface and groundwater flow from much larger watersheds beyond the
property limits. Streams C and D originate as headwater streams within the
property and Stream A originates on the adjacent farm property at the pond
just off-site from the boundary. Streams A, C, and D are relatively small,
measuring approximately 3 to 4 feet in width in most places. They are
relatively stable with bedrock grade control and exhibit characteristics
consistent with good quality streams located in the region, including well-
definedbed and bank characteristics, meanders, undercut banks, reduced soils,
etc.
Stream A is approximately 2,946~8AA linear feet in length through the
expansion tract, with 2,1171inear feet located north of the power line within
the future pit area. Of the portion of the perennial-int~~ter~t stream within
the tract , 1,716 linear feet is considered "Important",
supporting aquatic function. The upper portion of Stream A, where much of
the stream impact will occur, was determined to be "Unimportant" as it was
lacking in aquatic function (habitat and hydrology). This section of stream
has comparatively less habitat, and more importantly, lacks the flow necessary
to support more than minimal aquatic life. The site was reviewed by the
USACE on August 24, 2005 and again on December 1, 2005 to evaluate site
hydrology under different climatic conditions. On January 25, 2007 the staff
of the NC Division of Water Quality reviewed the site and determined that the
entire length of Stream A from the northern propertyboundary to the southern
boundaryperennial except for those segments that have been previously
piped.~~~R~ .,..~.....,o,t µt~„ i, y ~.rr r~;,,:~;,.., e~~x~.,+or
n t'~ n~rrr~cx~r» ~~.,~~m.,,...tt r .,,Y.i.~ a,,,-;,,n ~ ..:+o ~ot,t ..
~~ v r~vii
>~o>,...,.,,.., n ~nn~ Appendix 1 contains a survey of the jurisdictional areas
and determinations, and Appendix 2 contains a memorandum documenting
the December 1, 2005 field review meeting, as well as site figures and data
forms.
Boyd's Creek is located adjacent to the active mine area and is a larger
perennial stream system. The stream is relatively stable with bedrock control
and has a wooded riparian buffer through the Martin Marietta Property. There
are two existing road crossings for Boyd's Creek within the property used for
mining operations.
Wetland A (0.44 acres) functions as a headwater riparian wetland as it is
located in the upper portion of a watershed up slope from an intermittent
stream system. Since Wetland A is also just down slope from the adjacent
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
3 ~ and Associates, Inc.

1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites
No sites within the vicinity of the project are registered or listed as being
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Appendix 3
provides a letter from The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain
Boyd's Creek is a regulated floodway and floodplain within the East
Alamance Quarry property. All other streams within the expansion site are
not located within the 100-year floodplain of the Boyd's Creek. Appendix 4
includes a map of the 100-year floodplain and floodway through the project
site.
1.3 Project Description
The project as approved by the current Mine Plan shows the entire expansion tract as
future expansion area. This includes the area proposed for the berm, pit expansion,
and areas south of the power line to Boyd's Creek. The proposed activity is to
expand the pit eastward from existing limits within the expansion area north of the
power line easement. This would include the creation of a perimeter berm around the
expanded pit and the stockpiled overburden south of the power line. No additional
disturbance is proposed to the southeastern portion of the site at this time.
In addition to the expansion of the pit, a stream crossing over Boyd's Creek south of
the existing haul road crossing would be necessary in order to access the southern
portion of the pit and maintenance of water quality ponds in the expanded area of the
mine.
Site preparation would begin with the mechanized clearing of vegetation from the site
and installation of erosion control devices around the construction site. Wetland A
(0.44 acres) would be filled for the creation of the perimeter berm, and Stream A,
from it's origin at Wetland A to the southern property boundary ~e
(3,04^'' LF) would be impacted ~~-through excavation of overburden
material and removal of the watershed h d~logv to the southern 829 feet of Stream
A. 1,716 linear feet of Stream A has been identified as "Important", with the
remainder (1,230 LF) }s considered "Unimportant" and lacking sufficient aquatic
function. There is an upslope impoundment offsite. This impoundmentpand is
currently used for irrigation and as a water source for the local fire department. The
watershed area is relatively small (~50 acres) so the impoundment and use of water
offsite from the project area has likely reduced the quality and function of the
downstream wetland and intermittent stream. There is likely minimal nutrient
treatment and flood storage since much of the hydrology is contained within the pond,
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
5 ~ and Associates, Inc.

and downstream hydrology is mostly provided through seepage under the
impoundment. The reduction in hydrology to the downstream wetland and stream
also has affected aquatic habitat and hydrologic functions within the intermittent
channel.
A culvert and fill would be placed in Boyd's Creek (98 LF total comprised on 20 LF
of inlet protection riprap, 58 LF of CMP, and 20 LF of outlet protection riprap)
between the expanded pit area and plant downstream of the existing crossing. The
culvert would be designed and constructed to meet USACE requirements to maintain
flow, and would accommodate flood flows via floodplain culverts as necessary to
ensure that the crossing would not cause instability of the stream channel up and
downstream of the crossing.
Total impacts for the expansion activities would be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland,
1,230 LF of perennial~~ unimportant stream (approximately 4,920 square
feet), 1,814 LF perennial ~~i~ important stream„ ~~a n4 r ~ „~~°,.°,,.,:.,i
,,..t.,,,~ ~~.-°,,,,,
MMM proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands and stream channels associated
with the project by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) sufficient for the restoration of 0.449 acre of
riparian wetlands and 3,044-~;98~ linear feet of stream channel (1,2305 LF for 1:1
ratio of perennial h~~ unimportant stream impact, 887 LF for 1~:1 ratio of
perennial important, and 927 LF ~~~at 2:1 for perennial Important e€-}~e~e~i-~1
~ impact) which will require 3,971 feet of stream mitigation . ,.,:*'~~~ *~° r r^~°r
r.,~° ~°.,,- n;.,°.- u.,~:,, cur rr~ n2nznnn~
1.4 Changes to Project
Any changes to the project that occur during the permit review process will be noted
here.
2.0 Project Purpose
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to expand the existing mine in order to
continue operations and maintain supply for local demand of aggregate in Alamance County,
North Carolina. The East Alamance Quarry currently supplies five counties (Alamance,
Caswell, Guilford, Orange, and Person), including the Burlington, Mebane, Gibsonville, and
Leon College. The quarry typically produces 700,000 tons of aggregate per year. The quarry
currently employs 25 people, and expansion of the mine will provide for an additional 40 to
60 years of production. Construction within water of the U.S. is proposed to allow the
expansion of upland development activities. Based on the configuration of the mine in
~ Kimley-Horn
6 ^ ~ and Associates, Inc.

6.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.)
The very nature of a mine requires an extensive surface disturbance, making it
difficult to work around streams and wetlands. The effect of avoiding small surface
streams and wetlands located in the middle of a mine site is amplified because the
slope of pit wall that would be required. In essence, the cone of effect underneath a
small wetland or stream may represent a vast quality of material. As a result, it is
difficult to design a mining project to minimize impacts in the same manner as
commercial or residential developments where road and building footprints can be
rearranged, and retaining walls can be used to prevent fill from extending into
wetland areas. As explained below, MMM has tried to locate the mine expansion in
such a way that it minimizes impacts to streams and wetlands as much as possible
while still maximizing the aggregate yield of the site.
MMM has decided to not pursue any physical impact to streams in the
southern portion of the expansion tract below the power line easement
although this area is approved for future mine expansion per the Mine Plan
(5,920 LF of avoided stream channel including the approximate length of
Boyd's Creek accounting for 2,194 LF). There will be activities within this
area to stockpile overburden per the Mine Plan, however, this activity will
take place in uplands only.
MMM has worked to minimize secondary impacts to the avoided streams
where considerable portions of the watershed will be altered or removed
through excavation. This minimization effort includes rerouting of
stormwater, ,and management of discharge locations to provide
supplemental hydrology to these areas to support aquatic functions. These
minimization measures apply to *'~ ° "` °~ c*r°"" " ~--mot'-= c f
+1,° r,..l.°r 1;,,° ~^~~ischarge from the upstream watershed of Stream A and
the Wetland B/Stream C discussed below. See Appendix 6 for permit
drawings of the minimization measures.
_ qua ~u r.
fl .1 1, .1 1 F, +j +T,° r°w,n:.,:r.a ++.~rF:.+~+ .,~41,° ..Fr°nm
1 ulv v~
__~__J ~____o__ __._______._ v~
it V ~/
l-
'4/1 1 rl +1, ~ +1, raf°r~,,,++°r.4 l,.,ilr..i,,,.,,. ~l„~t1~Mn , ..11
~ r r
r a o-
eThe proposed minimization measure for the Wetland B/Stream C headwater
area is to capture the re-directed flow from the off-site pond upslope from
Stream A. The existing outlet of the pond will remain, to support the down
slope wetlands off-site of the MMM property and project area, however, the
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
10 ~ antl Associates, Inc,

spillway will be modified to limit stormwater flow into the expanded pit area.
This modified spillway will capture and re-direct stormwater flow through a
pipe/ditch system to a settling basin and level spreader system up slope from
the head of Wetland B/Stream C. This diffuse flow will offset the removal of
the drainage area caused by the pit expansion in order to maintain the
hydrologic function of the wetland/stream system. The diffuse flow level
spreader mechanism will be incorporated to limit head cutting through the
wetland. Wetland B (0.26 acre) will be avoided by the pit expansion and
berm construction.
6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
This report provided information regarding the limitations that are specific to the
proposed type of activity, the topography of the site, safety requirements, aesthetic
features, and required infrastructure. Based on this information, it was determined
that there are no reasonable off-site alternatives that meet the project purpose. This
report also provides information regarding the efforts made by the applicant to
minimize impacts to streams and wetlands, and to attempt to locate unavoidable
impacts in areas that support the least aquatic function. After reviewing alternatives
and the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, we
believe that the proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative.
7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
7.1 Factual determinations
7.1.1 Physical substrate
Approximately 3,04^'~ linear feet of stream channel (nn r ~ ^~~°,-°,,.,;.,i
44~ r ~ : ,.^~+~~* :~*°.-.~.:**°~*, °^~ 1,230 LF unimportant ~~~~_
perennia1,1,814 LF of important perennial) would be filled, excavated, er
piped or impacted due to watershed alterations: Additionally, 0.44 acre of
wetland would be filled or excavated. Construction should proceed at a
steady rate over the life of the permit. Although turbidity rates in the stream
below the worksite may temporarily increase during construction activities,
sedimentation and erosion control measures required by the state should
prevent the displacement of sediment downstream. Per the approved Mine
Plan, once excavation of the mine pit begins, stormwater runoff would be
captured and pumped to streams at a controlled rate, minimizing the risk for
downstream bank erosion. Accordingly, stream substrate below the project
site is not likely to be appreciably affected.
7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
The proposed project should have no appreciable effect on current,
circulation, or drainage pattern. The watershed for the stream proposed to be
impacted is largely contained on the site. The wetland impact is not
substantial, and should not result in a measurable decrease in floodwater
retention. Where in-stream flows would be affected by the mine, measures
^ ~ ^ KimleyHorn
11 ~ and Associates, Inc.

would be put in place to divert water around the impact area. These measures
will only be required for intermittent streams that have no baseflow during the
~~
dry season. xx~:+~, too 0 0~.:,,,, „~., ,.,,.,a „ ,,,, ;ri,~~„~~ . „i,~ „ .. *„
fl .
7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity
Downstream turbidities would increase temporarily during construction of the
site; however, this would be a short-term impact. The majority of increases in
turbidity would likely to result from clearing and construction of upland areas.
Any impacts would be minimized by the implementation of appropriate
erosion control measures as required by the approved Mine Plan. Once the
expansion of the mine begins, off site storm flows would be carried around the
pit. Much of the onsite runoff would collect in the bottom of the mine, where
it is pumped to containment areas for use in dust abatement. Accordingly, the
effects of turbidity resulting from the proposed undertaking are expected to be
minor.
7.1.4 Contaminant availability
The proposed project would not introduce contaminants or increase the
likelihood of contamination. Only suitable earthen material, mostly
originating on site, which should be free of toxic pollutants or contaminants,
would be used for construction of the permitted fills.
7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects
The placement of fill associated with the project would result in a total loss of
the impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions. The wetland area would be
filled and would no longer provide nutrient filtration or sediment removal, and
habitat present within the wetland area would be lost. The aquatic system
immediately downstream of the project site is limited to a stream system. The
short-term effects expected downstream would primarily be limited to
temporary discharges of sediment during construction. These impacts would
be minimized by proper installation of sediment and erosion control devices,
which are required by state and local ordinances.
7.1.6 Proposed disposal site
No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.
7.1.7 Cumulative effects
For the purposes of assessing cumulative effects that the proposed action may
have to the aquatic environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the effects within
the project boundaries and downstream of the project as it could effect the
watershed. The direct impact of the undertaking includes the loss of
3,04^''-~ linear feet of stream channel, including 1 814- linear feet of
stream determined to have important aquatic function, as well as 0.44 acres of
^ ~ ^ KimleyHorn
12 ~ and Associates, Inc.

Considering the discussion above, potential secondary effects resulting from
the proposed project are unlikely to have more than a minimal impact to
aquatic resources. Additionally, those effects that do occur are likely to be
minimized by measures required of the applicant, including the
implementation of sediment and erosion control plans, and control of
stormwater leaving the site.
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation
As discussed in section 1.3, meet-ef the proposed impacts are to perennial ~~ ~~R
unimportant and important stream segments and low-quality wetland due to the
altered hydrologic functions of Wetland A and Stream A. ~-°m *'~° °~~ ~~*° ~°^a
Since discharge from the pond has been reduced, the aquatic functions downstream
within the project area have also been reduced.
Therefore, MMM has proposed to mitigate unavoidable impacts by providing
payment into the NCEEP to provide for the restoration of 3,971~;~8-3 linear feet of
stream channel (based on 1:1 mitigation ratio for 2,117 LF of
perenniah~/unimportant and important stream impacts at a USACOE
agreed 1:1 ratio- and 2:1 ratio for 927 LF of perennial- important stream impact),
and 1_083A acre of riparian wetlands (based on a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the 0.44
acre of impact rounded to the nearest 0.25 acre).
Based on the current Schedule of Fees for the NCEEP, a total payment of
$935,195.50~~-9-'39 will be made to NCEEP for compensatory mitigation.
Payment into the NCWRP is an acceptable form of mitigation as established by the
Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.
8.0 Public Interest Factors
8.1 Conservation
The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
stream or wetland areas on site; however, the Mine Plan calls for the avoidance of
impact to the riparian buffer of Boyd's Creek other than haul road crossings. Based
on the Mine Plan, the creek is a buffered stream corridor separating the active pit
from the plant and stockpile areas. In addition, the expansion tract includes the
property south of the power line which contains 3,7261inear feet of stream (Streams
~ ^ Kimley-Horn
14 ~ and Associates, Inc.