Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19950153 Ver 2_EA Draft_20131108Burdette, Jennifer a From: Robert Turnbull [rurnbull @ESINC.CC] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 6:40 AM To: Brown, Thomas L SAW; Brian North Cc: Burdette, Jennifer a; Stancil, Vann F; Gibby, Jean B SAW; Nuwan Wijesuriya Subject: RE: Benson Quarry (UNCLASSIFIED) Attachments: Benson_Quarry_ Expansion _EA_DRAFT_2011- 7- 2013.docx Hello everyone, Attached is the latest version of the Benson Quarry permit document. We are providing this for your review prior to our meeting on Wednesday. If you have any questions or concerns prior to our meeting, please feel free to call me or Brian. Thanks again for your help on this project. Have a great weekend. Robert From: Brown, Thomas L SAW [Thomas.L.Brown @usace.army.mil] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:45 AM To: Brian North Cc: Burdette, 7ennifer a ( 7ennifer.Burdette(@ncdenr.gov); (vann.stancil(@ncwildlife.org); Gibby, lean B SAW Subject: RE: Benson Quarry (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Robert Turnbull; Stancil, Vann F Looks like Wednesday November 13th at 9:00 is going to be best. Please let me know if this doesn't work for someone. Thanks, Thomas Brown Regulatory Specialist USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 919 - 554 -4884 x22 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http: / /per2.nwp.usace.army.mil /survey.html to complete the survey online (Paper copies available upon request). - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Brian North [ mailto: brian .north(@martinmarietta.com] Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 10:38 AM To: Brown, Thomas L SAW Cc: Burdette, 7ennifer a ( 7ennifer.Burdette(@ncdenr.gov); Robert Turnbull (rturnbull(@ESINC.CC); Stancil, Vann F (vann.stancil(@ncwildlife.org) Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Benson Quarry Not sure if the Doodle poll is working for me. I am available any day or time but not on Nov. 12th. Thanks. 1 Brian K. North, PE Division Environmental Manager Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (336) 389 -6616 (Office) (980) 721 -1212 (Mobile) From: Thomas Brown (via Doodle) [mailto:mailer (@doodle.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 1:44 PM To: Brian North Subject: Benson Quarry Thomas Brown invites you to participate in the Doodle poll "Benson Quarry." Image removed by sender. <https: / /doodle.com / ?tmail =poll invitecontact participant invitation &tlink =logo> Hi there, Thomas Brown (Thomas.L.Brown(@usace.army.mil) invites you to participate in the Doodle poll "Benson Quarry ". Participate now <https: // doodle. com /w6kkybigg94cmngwxv9m9ivb /private ?tmail =poll invitecontact participant inv itation &tlink = Dollbtn> Image removed by sender. What is Doodle? Doodle is a web service that helps Thomas Brown to find a suitable date for meeting with a group of people. Learn more about how Doodle works. <https: / /doodle.com /main.html ?tlink= checkOutLink &tmail =poll invitecontact participant invitat ion> 2 You have received this e -mail because "Thomas Brown" has invited you to participate in the Doodle poll "Benson Quarry." Please note that this is a personal invitation that cannot be shared with other poll participants. Doodle AG, Werdstrasse 21, 8021 Zurich Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE 3 Section 404/401 Individual Permit Application Benson Quarry Expansion Johnston County, North Carolina Prepared for: Martin Marietta Materials * Prepared by: slays «i ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. 524 South New Hope Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 November 2013 DRAFT Environmental Services, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 1.1 Prior Agency Coordination 2 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 3_ 3.0 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS. 3 3.1 Alternatives Considered 3 3.1.1 No Action Alternative 4 3.1.2 Removal of Existing Waste Pile _______________________________ _______________________________ 4 3.1.3 Relocation of Primary Crushing Station_________ 4 3.1.4 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands ( Preferred)____________ _______________________________ 4 3.1.5 New Pit on Johnson Property------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --- 5 3.1.6 Relocation of Plant to Johnson Property ------------------------------------ ___________ 5 3.1.7 Passageway Under Wetlands 6 3.2 Alternatives Dismissed 6 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 4.1 Physiographic, Topographic, Geology, and Land Use____________ _______________________________ 6 4.2 Soils 7 4.3 Water Resources 7 4.4 Wetlands 7 4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species______________________________________ _______________________________ 7 4.6 Cultural Resources 10 5.0 SECTION 404 IMPACTS AND PERMITTING 10 5.1 Proposed Stream Impacts---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -10 5.2 Proposed Wetland Impacts-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - -10 5.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts_____________________________________ 10 5.3 Compensatory Mitigation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1- 6.0 REFERENCES 12 APPENDIX A: Figures 1 -4 APPENDIX B: NCDWR Riparian Buffer Letter APPENDIX C: SHPO Clearance Letter APPENDIX D: NCEEP Acceptance Benson Quarry Expansion 1 Environmental Services, Inc. 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Martin Marietta. Materials, Inc. (Martin) proposes to expand the existing Benson Quarry facility, located southeast of the intersection of Raleigh Road (SR 1330) and Camelia Road (SR 1354) in Johnston County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The approximately 206 -acre project study area, located immediately north of the existing Benson Quarry facility, consists of mixed hardwood and mixed pine /hardwood communities, agricultural fields, recently clear cut areas, one (1) non jurisdictional farm pond, and previously verified jurisdictional wetlands. The area into which Martin proposes this quarry expansion is an approximately 158 acre tract known as the Johnson Property. Martin currently holds a lease on this property and has mining rights on the property. At the time of this permit request, a portion of this 158 acre area is not presently included in their mining permit boundary, which totals 270 acres. Approximately 100 acres has yet to be permitted. The proposed quarry expansion activities involve unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands that are subject to Section 404 regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Martin is submitting an Individual Permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requesting authorization to permanently impact 20 acres of wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA of 1972 (33 USC 1344). An Individual Water Quality Certification will also be requested from the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) for these wetland impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of this document is to provide an evaluation of three general criteria which will be considered as part of the permit process: 1) the relative extent of the public and private need for the proposed activity; 2) the practicability of using reasonable alternative locations and methods to accomplish the objective of the proposed activity; and 3) the extent of the effects which the proposed activity is likely to have on the public and private uses to which the area is suited, including environmental impacts. This document is intended for use by USACE and DWR as the basis for determining the applicant's compliance with the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines and other Section 404 permitting requirements, and Section 401 water quality certification. 1.1 Prior Agency Coordination Prior coordination with USACE and/or DWQ regarding this project includes: • January 15, 2013 - Initial 206 -acre parcel delineation results reviewed by Thomas Brown of USACE. • July 12, 2013 — Met with Thomas Brown and Jean Gibby of USACE to review project area and discuss potential impacts. • August 19, 2013 — Met with Thomas Brown and Jean Gibby of USACE, Jennifer Burdette of DWR, and Vann Stancil of NCWRC on -site to review project area and discuss potential impacts. • October 2, 2013 — Met with Thomas Brown of USACE, Jennifer Burdette of DWR, and Vann Stancil of NCWRC to review stream diversion projects completed at the Pomona and Hickory Quarries. • October 28, 2013 — Met with Thomas Brown of USACE, Jennifer Burdette of DWR, Vann Stancil of NCDWC, and John Ellis of USFWS to discuss alternatives and contents of Section 404/401 permit application submittal. Benson Quarry Expansion 2 Environmental Services, Inc. 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT The overall project purpose is to maximize the life of the Benson Quarry. Under the current size and configuration of the facility, the Benson Quarry facility will deplete the existing permitted reserves in approximately 4 -6 years, based on current and expected sales volumes for this facility. Therefore, Martin will need to identify the alternative that provides the maximum amount of reserves in order to maximize the life of the quarry. Martin would also like to accomplish this purpose by obtaining one comprehensive Section 404/401 permit at this time in order to avoid the need for future permit applications in the future on the property currently owned and leased by Martin. Additional permit applications could still be necessary if additional property is purchased in the future to extend the life of the Benson Quarry. Martin has postponed this request for jurisdictional impacts only after exhausting (within 4 -6 years) all available reserves at this location. Previous requests for jurisdictional impacts would have been submitted while 10 -15 years of available resources still existed. The pending and future NCDOT projects planned for the Benson area in North Carolina will require substantial amounts of crushed stone to meet the needs of the surrounding community and the improving economy of North Carolina. If the life of the Benson Quarry is limited to existing permitted reserves, a supply of construction aggregates will not be readily available. The nearest quarries to the Benson Quarry are Martin's Garner Quarry, located 30 miles north near Interstate 40, Hanson Aggregates' Lillington quarry, located 40 miles from the Benson Quarry, and Martin's Rocky Point Quarry is located 95 miles south of the Benson Quarry near Interstate 40. Due to the distance of these facilities from the Benson Quarry, the cost of providing aggregate to future construction projects in the area would increase the overall cost of a given project, due to the excessive transportation costs associated with the delivery of the crushed stone products. The Benson Quarry is situated in a strategic location with limited other permitted aggregate facilities nearby. The Benson Quarry was originally selected and permitted by Martin due to its location and unique geologic deposit. The site was originally secured in preparation for the construction of Interstate 40. At that time, Martin believed that this site was the only hard rock formation located east of Garner, North Carolina, since various other locations in the area had been evaluated. Martin conducted extensive test drilling at other locations in the area to ensure that this site was the best available location and was positioned in manner that would serve the surrounding communities with sufficient aggregate materials for many years to come. During this same time period, Nello -Teer (now Hanson Aggregates) and Vulcan Materials began prospecting in the same area but neither found an acceptable location. By chance, Martin came across an old NC Geological Survey Groundwater Report that showed an outcrop of volcanic rock located where Stony Fork flowed under the CSX railroad. This parcel was identified as the Maurilla Allen property, located just south of the railroad. The newer NCGS geologic maps did not show this outcrop or any information related to potential rock in this area. There was actually an old Nello -Teer borrow pit on the north side of the railroad tracks, on what is known as the McLamb property, that exposed about two acres of rock. This McLamb property is now the present pit of the Benson Quarry. Martin conducted an extensive prospecting evaluation of the property, including a test shot and materials evaluation. Based on the positive results from this prospecting effort, Martin eventually secured a lease on the property with the McLamb family. Based on the quality and quantity of the rock determined in the prospecting efforts Benson Quarry Expansion 3 Environmental Services, Inc. Martin discontinued additional prospecting of the previously selected site or other locations in the area. Ultimately, Benson Quarry was permitted and supplied the stone for the Interstate I- 40 project as well as other projects along the I -40 corridor. Over the years, Martin has drilled numerous prospect holes in and around the Benson Quarry looking for other desirable minerals, mostly sand. Occasionally, Martin will conduct prospecting efforts in response to a local landowner that believes that they have rock or sand on their property. It should be noted that there was available rock located between Benson and Raleigh (along the I -40 corridor) however, the Benson Quarry was selected and opened due to its location to the market and its unique geologic deposit. The effort to select and permit the Benson Quarry was substantial, and conducting a similar effort to find a new quarry site in the area would have a negative impact on the economic development of this area. In order to remove the overburden on the Johnson Property, Martin is also proposing to submit an application for a separate Section 404/401 Nationwide Permit to construct a temporary crossing over the wetland system on the property. This permit application will be submitted regardless of the decision on the Section 404/401 Individual Permit being submitted for quarry expansion. 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Headquarters of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) guidance from April 22, 1986 and November 1992 requires that alternatives be practicable to the applicant and that the purpose and need for the project must be the applicant's purpose and need. This guidance also states that project purpose is to be viewed from the applicant's perspective rather than only from the broad, public perspective. The essential point of the HQUSACE policy guidance is that under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, an alternative must be available to the applicant to be a practicable alternative. Section 40 CFR 230.10 (a) of the Guidelines state that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant environmental consequences ". Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(a)(2) practicable alternatives are those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose ". The 404(b)(1) Guidelines Preamble, "Economic Factors ", 45 Federal Register 85343 (December 24, 1980) states, "if an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the alternative is not practicable ". Although sufficient information must be developed to determine whether the proposed activity is in fact the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), the Guidelines do not require an elaborate search for practicable alternatives where, as here, it can be reasonably anticipated that there are only minor differences between the environmental impacts of the proposed activity and potentially practicable alternatives. Those alternatives that do not result in discernibly less impact to the aquatic ecosystem may be eliminated from the analysis since section 230.10(a) of the Guidelines only prohibits discharges when a practicable alternative exists which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem. Since evaluating practicability is generally the more difficult aspect of the alternatives analysis, this approach should save time and effort for both the applicant and the regulatory agency. By initially focusing the alternatives analysis on the question of impacts to the Benson Quarry Expansion 4 Environmental Services, Inc. aquatic ecosystem, it may be possible to limit, or eliminate altogether, the number of alternatives which have to be evaluated for practicability. 3.1 Alternatives Considered Martin has identified alternatives as part of this evaluation and each are discussed in more detail in the following sections. These alternatives include a no action alternative, the removal of the existing waste pile, the relocation of the primary crushing station, the expansion of the pit through the on -site wetlands (preferred alternative), transportation of material over the on -site wetlands, and a separate quarry on the Johnson property. 3.1.1 No Action Alternative The no- action alternative is a scenario under which the applicant does not undertake the proposed federal action, the proposed quarry expansion would not occur, and no impacts to jurisdictional areas would be incurred. This alternative is not viable because it does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant and cannot provide the necessary extension of the life of the quarry. 3.1.2 Removal ofExisting Waste Pile The removal of the existing waste pile located northwest of the existing pit and disposal of the material on the west side of Raleigh Road would extend the life of the quarry. This action would require the removal of approximately 3 million cubic yards of material. The purchase of additional land west of the existing berm adjacent to Raleigh Road for storage would also be required. The material could also be disposed of on the north and east side of the Johnson Property, which is currently under lease and zoned for quarrying activities. If the waste berm is constructed on the Johnson Property, a permanent access across the wetlands would be necessary to transport and dispose of the material, or the material would need to be transported via truck out the front gate of the quarry to the Johnson property. This would require thousands of truckloads of material to be moved and would cost about $7.5 million. These disposal options would result in 12.6 million tons of available reserves without impacting any wetlands outside of the access road across the wetlands. This option would provide the quarry an extended life of 15 to 18 years. This alternative is not viable because it does not maximize the life of the quarry, will likely result in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property, and therefore does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant. 3.1.3 Relocation of Primary Crushing Station This alternative would relocate the existing primary crushing station to expand the existing pit within the area owned by Martin, south of the wetland system. Relocating the existing primary crushing station would result in removing 550,000 cubic yards of overburden material and reconstructing the primary plant on the east end of the existing pit. The disposal of this material would be accomplished as explained in Section 3.1.2, and would cost approximately $1.4 million. The cost of constructing a new primary station is estimated to be approximately $7 million. The relocation and disposal of the existing overburden in this area would result in a reserves potential of 6.2 million tons and extend the life of the quarry by 7 to 9 years. This alternative is not viable because it does not maximize the life of the quarry, will likely result in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property, and therefore does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant. Benson Quarry Expansion 5 Environmental Services, Inc. 3.1.4 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands (Preferred Alternative) Expanding the pit through the wetlands requires the construction of a diversion channel around the north and east side of the Johnson property to carry the approximately seven square miles of offsite drainage associated with the existing wetlands. The diversion channel would require the removal and disposal of approximately 1.2 million yds3 of overburden. The proposed channel could be constructed without impacting additional wetlands on the property. This channel would allow Martin to meet permitting requirements of FEMA and allow for pit expansion to occur at a gradual pace as construction demands continue to increase. Martin would need to mine through approximately 20 acres of wetlands, leaving the remaining 15 acres of wetlands towards the east and a small portion of wetlands located towards the west side of the Johnson property undisturbed. This alternative could open 52 million tons of reserves in an additional 60 acre pit expansion. The 60 acres pit expansion would expand the life of the quarry over 75 years, which is the maximum life extension of all alternatives presented in this request. Unlike the other alternatives presented, this action would not result in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property since it allows access to the maximum feasible reserve quantity. Future permit requests may still be necessary if additional property is purchased to extend the life of the quarry. This alternative does meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant. 3.1.5 New Pit on Johnson Property Martin could establish a new pit on the Johnson Property and utilize the existing processing plant. This action would require the disposal of 6.4 million cubic yards of overburden, which would require Martin to acquire additional land because current disposal options previously described would not adequately store this volume. This option would also require either use of the adjacent public roads or the construction of a road or other conveyance for moving material across the wetland system to the existing plant. Although a 404 permit may be possible for a road and/or bridge across the wetlands, it is unlikely that FEMA would approve this option. The seven square miles of drainage is too large for a transport road with culverts, thus constructing a bridge would be necessary. From an economic standpoint, a bridge crossing that would support loaded haul trucks in excess of 160 to 180 tons in gross vehicle weight (not including the weight of the material being hauled) would require substantial engineering design to support a live load of this magnitude. Construction of a bridge is estimated to cost $690,000. This alternative is considered to be cost prohibitive and unlikely to meet FEMA approval. Additional constraints of this alternative are associated with zoning. In December 2003, Martin obtained zoning approval to use of the Johnson Property as a quarry. The zoning conditions include a ban on quarry access from Camilla Road. If this alternative were to be used, Martin would be required to pursue a revision of the zoning conditions, which would likely be met with opposition from residents on Camilla Road and the surrounding community. It is Martin's desire to continue its operations at the Benson Quarry with the full support of the community, which would be in jeopardy if a request was made to revise the Benson Quarry Expansion 6 Environmental Services, Inc. zoning conditions. In addition, the public road system was not constructed to withstand the weight of large quarry trucks and their material loads. Quarry traffic on these roads would cause severe degradation of the public road system. This alternative would result in approximately 20 million tons of reserves and expand the life of the quarry by approximately 25 -27 years. This extension does not maximize the life of the Benson Quarry, will likely result in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property, and therefore does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant. In addition, the financial burden, impact to public roads, and zoning requirements needed to pursue this alternative do not make it a viable action for the applicant. 3.1.6 Relocation of Plant to Johnson Property This alternative would include the relocation of the processing plant to the Johnson Property. This would allow mining through the existing plant area reverses, and opening a new pit on the Johnson Property, as described in previous alternatives. The issue of permanent access or connection between the plant and pit across the wetland system or by use of public roads, as discussed in previous alternatives, would still need to be taken into consideration. Also, new plant equipment would need to be purchased so the old plant could continue to be run while constructing the new plant on the Johnson Property and approval from the NC Division of Air Quality would be required before processing any material at the new plant. This action would result in 33.8 million tons of reserves, providing approximately 45 additional years to the quarry. This alternative is not viable because it does not maximize the life of the quarry, will likely result in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property, and therefore does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant. 3.1.7 Passageway Under Wetlands This alternative would construct a passageway underneath existing wetlands in order to gain access to the Johnson property. This option would require the construction of a 50'x40' portal in order to provide two -lane access for northbound and southbound traffic. The portal would be constructed through solid rock in the wall of the existing pit and reach the Johnson Property approximately 600 to 800 feet north of the wetland system. This action would result in the major loss of valuable reserves due the configuration requirements of the new pit that would allow this form of haul road layout. The cost of this portal, assuming two lanes, would be approximately $1.2 million to $1.6 million. This alternative is not viable because it does not maximize the life of the quarry, will likely result in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property, and therefore does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant. Benson Quarry Expansion 7 Environmental Services, Inc. 3.2 Alternatives Dismissed The no action alternative, removal of existing waste pile, relocation of primary crushing station, new pit on the Johnson Property, relocation of the processing plant to the Johnson Property, and passageway under wetlands alternatives are all dismissed from further evaluation because they cannot practicably meet the applicant's stated purpose and need in light of the positive attributes that the preferred alternative possesses. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This section presents existing environmental conditions of the project study area and discusses environmental impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project study area has been visited several times by ESI and agency personnel to evaluate existing conditions and to document physical and biological resources. The site is located on southwest of the intersection of Raleigh Road (SR 1330) and Camelia Road (SR 1354). Refer to Figure 1 for a Project Location Map. Total size of the project study area is approximately 158 acres. 4.1 Physiographic, Topography, Geology, and Land Use The project study area is located on the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5- minute topographic quadrangles of Benson and Four Oaks, NC (USGS 1973, 1986). More specifically the site is located northeast of Benson and west of Four Oaks, NC. Johnston County is in the western part of the coastal plain physiographic providence of North Carolina. Elevations on the site range from a low of approximately 140 feet above mean sea level (MSL) within the wetland system to a high of approximately 205 feet above MSL near Camelia Road. The Benson Quarry expansion site is located in the Middendorf formation in the Cretaceous portion of the coastal plain physiographic region (NCDENR 1985). The project study area is located in the Neuse River Basin. 4.2 Soils The Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina (USDA 1994) (Figure 2) depicts the following soil mapping units within the study area: Altavista fine sandy loam (0 -2% slopes, occasionally flooded), Augusta sandy loam (0 -2% slopes, occasionally flooded), Bibb sandy loam (frequently flooded), Gilead sandy loam(2 -8% slopes), Gilead sandy loam (8 -15% slopes), and Leaf silt loam. These are combined into the Gilead -Uchee -Bibb soil association, which is comprised of gently sloping to moderately steep, well drained, moderately well drained, and poorly drained soils on uplands of the piedmont and coastal plain. 4.3 Water Resources The project study area is in subbasin 04 of the Neuse River Basin and is located in USGS hydrologic unit 03020201 (USDA 2012, NCDWQ 2010). The Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules place restrictions on certain development within 50 feet of stream channels and surface waters that are depicted on the most recent version of the USGS quadrangle map (Figure 1) or on the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) county soils map for Johnston County (Figure 2). Five stream channels, including Stony Fork, and one pond are mapped within the study area on either Benson Quarry Expansion 8 Environmental Services, Inc. USGS or NRCS mapping. Martin Richmond of NCDWQ reviewed the Benson Quarry Expansion site on January 30, 2013 and determined that all of these features would be exempt from the Buffer Rules. The Determination Letter from NCDWQ, dated March 11, 2013 and revised May 7, 2013, is included in Appendix B. A Best Usage Classification (BUC) is assigned to waters of North Carolina based on the existing or contemplated best usage of various bodies of water. There are no jurisdictional stream channels within the project study area. The jurisdictional wetland system in the study area is associated with Stony Fork. Stony Fork, from its source to Hannah Creek (Stream Identification 4 27- 52 -6 -2), has a BUC of C;NSW. Class C waters are designated for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW designates Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs. 4.4 Wetlands One wetland system was identified onsite that is subject to Section 404 jurisdiction pursuant to the USACE Jurisdictional Determination from January 2013. This wetland system is abutting Stony Fork upstream and downstream of the study area. This wetland system is characterized as Bottomland Hardwood Forest per the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Approximately 40.04 acres of this Section 404 wetland system is present within the study area. 4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species Species with the federal classifications of Endangered (E), or Threatened (T), are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Five (5) species are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as having a range that is considered to extend into Johnston County (list date 12/27/2012) (USFWS 2013): bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red - cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). Bald eagle — Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near water and forage over large bodies of water with adjacent trees available for perching. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also consume birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May. The bald eagle was officially delisted and removed from the federal Endangered Species List on August 9, 2007, but they are still protected under the federal BGPA and the MBTA. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (Guidelines) prohibit disturbance to a bald eagle. The Guidelines define disturb as "to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: 1) injury to an eagle; 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior." The definition also covers impacts that result from human - caused alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagles return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. Benson Quarry Expansion 9 Environmental Services, Inc. Under the current Guidelines, USFWS recommends the following measures for roads, trails, canals, power lines, and other linear utilities. If the eagle nest can be seen from the project site and there is no similar activity within 660 feet, then USFWS recommends that the project: 1) maintain a buffer of at least 660 feet between your activities and the nest; 2) maintain any established landscape buffers; and 3) if possible, create additional landscape buffers to screen the new activity from the nest. If these recommendations cannot be adopted for the project, then coordination is recommended with the local USFWS office (USFWS 2007). Habitat Present: No The study area does not include any large open water habitat that would provide nesting or foraging opportunities. The proposed project will have no effect on this species. A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2013, indicates no known occurrence of bald eagle within 1.0 mile of the study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Red - cockaded woodpecker — The red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting /roosting habitat. The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 mile (USFWS 2003). Habitat Present: No Suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat for the RCW does not exist within the study area. The study area lacks the open mature pine dominated community habitat associated with nesting for this species and lacks pine stands greater than 30 years old required for foraging. A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2013, indicates no known occurrence of RCW within 1.0 mile of the study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect Dwarf wedgemussel — The dwarf wedgemussel is typically 1.5 inches in length or smaller with a brown or yellowish brown outer surface. This mussel species typically inhabits streams with moderate flow velocities and substrates varying in texture from gravel to coarse sand to mud with little silt deposition (USFWS 1993a). Habitat Present: No Suitable habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel is not present within the project study area. The wetland system does not consistently include moderate flowing water or the substrate required to provide suitable habitat for this species. A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2013, indicates no known occurrence of dwarf wedgemussel within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Benson Quarry Expansion 10 Environmental Services, Inc. BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect Tar spinymussel — The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River drainage basins in North Carolina. This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well- oxygenated circumneutral pH water. The bottom should be composed of unconsolidated gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively salt -free, and stream banks should be stable, typically with many roots from adjacent riparian trees and shrubs (USFWS 1992). Habitat Present: No Suitable habitat for the Tar River spinymussel is not present within the project study area. The wetland system does not consistently include fast flowing water or the substrate required to provide suitable habitat for this species. A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2013, indicates no known occurrence of Tar River spinymussel within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Michaux's sumac — Michaux's sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well- drained soils or sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, powerline, and utility rights -of -way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or pine /hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat (USFWS 1993b). Habitat Present: Yes Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the study area within the areas maintained by agricultural and logging activities. On July 22, 2013, ESI biologist Robert Turnbull conducted species - specific surveys for Michaux's sumac within these areas. No individuals were observed. A review of NCNHP records, updated July 2013, indicates no known occurrence of Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Biological Conclusion: No Effect 4.6 Cultural Resources The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact deposits over 50 years old. "Significant" cultural resources are those sites that are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations for cultural resources are required whenever a Section 404 permit application is submitted to USACE. Evaluations of site significance are made with reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register (33 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Benson Quarry Expansion 11 Environmental Services, Inc. In 2013, ESI consulted with the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the Survey and Planning Branch (S &P) of the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding this project study area. Research revealed that no previously recorded archaeological sites are located within or adjacent to the proposed project study area, and no properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are located within a 500 -meter radius. SHPO provided a written response in July 2013 indicating that there are no records of any significant cultural resource issues with the project study area (copy included as Appendix C). 5.0 SECTION 404 IMPACTS AND PERMITTING Section 404 of the CWA requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United States ". Although the principal administrative agency of the CWA is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the ACOE has major responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of provisions of the Act. The ACOE regulatory program is defined in 33 CFR 320 -330. Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration under the Section 404 program. However, by regulation, wetlands are also considered "Waters of the United States ". 5.1 Proposed Stream Impacts No impacts to Section 404 stream channels will result from the proposed quarry expansion action. 5.2 Proposed Wetland Impacts The purpose of the project is to expand the life and potential reserves of the Benson Quarry in order to meet the local demand of construction aggregate materials. As part of the development of this 404 application, numerous on -site and off -site alternatives were evaluated. The essential requirements for the development of an aggregate mining expansion are the availability of high quality reserves, the ability to mine the reserves in an economically viable manner (limited overburden thickness as well as the available thickness of the granite), and available owned or leased land. Based on these factors, Martin has demonstrated that there are no off -site alternatives that would meet the intent of the needs of this project nor an on -site alternative that would allow a complete avoidance of impacts to the wetlands located just north of the existing quarry. Therefore, the least damaging practical alternative has been selected. Martin has also demonstrated that various alternatives have been evaluated resulting in the selected alternative that represents the minimum amount of impact to natural resources while still meeting the project purpose. As a result, twenty (20) acres of impacts to Section 404 wetlands will result from this quarry expansion action. These impacts will occur within the wetland system located north of the existing quarry. 5.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts The existing quarry facility is proposed to expand northward towards the wetland system. The proposed action will minimize wetland impacts necessary to expand the quarry and avoid the western and easternmost portions of the wetland system within the project study area. Wetlands proposed for impact cannot be avoided while still meeting the applicant's stated purpose and need for the expansion of the Benson Quarry. During the investigations that lead to this quarry expansion proposal, Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) conducted extensive field investigations to evaluate jurisdictional areas within and adjacent to the property. In December 2012, ESI conducted a detailed delineation of approximately 40 acres, of which 35.08 acres are located on property controlled by Martin. The USACE approved the Jurisdictional Determination in January of 2013. Incorporating Benson Quarry Expansion 12 Environmental Services, Inc. core drilling data and potential wetlands around the property, we have determined the location of potential impacts to the wetlands on the property to avoid and minimize potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and reduce the footprint of the built -out pit, while still meeting the project purpose in providing sufficient reserves for a long -term aggregate mining operation. To avoid a large amount of the wetlands on the west side of the Johnson property, Martin has focused on minimizing the impact to jurisdictional wetlands by focusing the proposed pit expansion to the central and east portion of the property. This shift in proposed impacts will eliminate the concern of maintaining hydrology within the upper and lower sections of the existing wetlands, moving the planned impacts towards the southeast and protecting the large acreage of wetlands to the west and northwest. This area represents significant reserves potential, however, Martin determined that the reduced wetland impact of 20 acres (in lieu of the proposed 20 to 25 acres discussed in the previous on -site meetings) would be sufficient for the scope and long- term needs of the quarry and for this project. Therefore, the proposed impacts represent accumulated company, regulatory, and resource agency input, to minimize impacts of only 20 acres to the regulated wetlands on this property. The acreage of avoided wetlands within the surveyed boundary represents considerable reserves that could be mined, however, the proposed pit expansion area was minimized to the smallest practicable footprint that still meets the purpose and need of the project to sustain a long -term aggregate operation. Therefore, it is our opinion that the 20 acres of impact proposed in this 404 application is unavoidable in order to meet the project goals to maintain a long -term viable mining operation in this location. Without this impact, future pit reserves would not be available and the quarry would soon be completely extinguished of available aggregates reserves. 5.3 Compensatory Mitigation Martin has determined that there are two private mitigation banks in the service area that may be capable of providing mitigation credits for the proposed wetland impacts associated with this project. One bank is the Pancho Bank managed by Restoration Systems and the other is the Nue -Con: Westbrook Lowgrounds Bank that is managed by Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC. With Martin's previous involvement with Restoration Systems, a meeting was held with Restoration Systems on October 28, 2013 to discuss the possible wetlands credits available from the Pancho Mitigation Bank. As a result, Restoration Systems is expected to provide written authorization of the credits that would be available for this project. On November 4, 2013, contact was made with Ms. Kelly Williams with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to discuss this project. In turn, a request for NC EEP approval will be submitted in early November to obtain any necessary credits that may not be provided or available through Restoration Systems. Therefore, the necessary mitigation credits needed for this project may be provided by a combination of credits from Restoration Systems and the NC EEP. Copies of written authorizations or acceptance letters received from both Restoration Systems and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program are included in Appendix D. Benson Quarry Expansion 13 Environmental Services, Inc. 6.0 REFERENCES [NCDWQ] N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2010. Basinwide Information Management System (BIMS). Stream Classification. <h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims> accessed September 2013. [NCNHP] N.C. Natural Heritage Program. 2013. July 2013 NHP Element Occurrences, Raleigh, NC. Accessed July 2013. [NCDENR] N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service. 162 pp. [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2012. Watershed Boundary Dataset. Natural Resources Conservation Service National Cartography and Geospatial Center. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Revised Tar Spinymussel Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Dwarf Wedgemussel Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 39 pp. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 30 pp. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Red - cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second Revision. Atlanta, Georgia. 296 pp. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina: Johnston County. http:// www. fws.gov /nc- es /es /countyfr.html. Accessed July 2013. [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 1973. Benson, North Carolina. Topographic 7.5- minute quadrangle map. United States Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. [USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 1986. Four Oaks, North Carolina. Topographic 7.5- minute quadrangle map. United States Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C. Benson Quarry Expansion 14 Environmental Services, Inc. Appendix A Figures Benson Quarry Expansion Environmental Services, Inc. Appendix B NCDWR Riparian Buffer Letter Benson Quarry Expansion Environmental Services, Inc. Appendix C SHPO Clearance Letter Benson Quarry Expansion Environmental Services, Inc. Appendix D NCEEP Acceptance Letter Benson Quarry Expansion