The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20211505 Ver 1_182-803 LNQ Hedrick Alternatives Analysis(v2)_FINAL DRAFT_20211122HEDRICK GRAVEL &SAND CO- EXPAI ALTERNATIV Prepa P11,17TT . RT NZ7TR (1NMT� NT TABLE OF 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................... 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW, MINE HISTC 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION .............................. 3.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................ 4.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................ 4.1 SCREENING CRITERIA ..................... 4.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FO] 4.2.1 Alternative 1 — Northwest Mine W 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 Alternative 2 — No Wall Expansion Alternative 3 -New Quarry Pit, Nc Alternative 4 —South Expansion ... Alternative 5 Alternative 6 East Mine Wall Ex] Greenfield Site ...... 4.2.7 Alternative 7- No Action ............... 4.3 METHODS OF EVALUATING IM LIST OF Table 1-1 LNQ Mine Economic Impact Analysis Table 3-1 Applicable Safety Laws, Regulations, Proposed Action Table 4-1 Federally Listed Species with Potentia Table 5-1 Alternative Comparison Table FI GL Figure 1-1 Project Location Figure 1-2 Permitted Area Use Map Figure 1-3 Surrounding Use Map Figure 4-1.1 Alternative 1 — Northwest Mine wa Figure 4-1.2 Forney Creek 3 03 d Stream Figure 4-1.3 Forney Creek Existing BEHI Condi Figure 4-2 Alternative 2 — No wall Expansion, I ACRONYMS AND ASTM American Society of Testing an BANCS Bank Assessment for Non -point BEHI Bank Erosion Hazard Index CEC Civil & Environmental Consult, CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act EPA Environmental Protection Agen ESA Endangered Species Act ft feet FEMA Federal Emergency Managemei IPaC Information for Planning and C, LEDPA Least Environmentally Damagii LNQ Lake Norman Quarry LOM life of mine MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mi mile MSHA Mine Safety Health Administrai NBS Near Bank Stress NCSAM NC Stream Assessment Method NCDEQ North Carolina Department of F NCNHP North Carolina Natural HeritagE 1 1.0 INTR 2 3 Civil &Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) h 4 on behalf of Hedrick Industries, for the proposed l 5 (LNQ) Mine expansion project in Lincoln Count 6 The alternatives analysis serves as part of the r 7 application for the North Carolina Department of 8 Section 404 permit application for the U.S. Arm: 9 the evaluation of Section 404 permit application< 10 of the U.S (WoUS), including wetlands, the USA 11 achieve the purpose and need. 12 13 This report demonstrates Hedrick Industries core 14 Act (NEPA) and the federal Clean Water Act (( 15 Federal Regulations [CFR] § 230), of which requ 16 to aquatic resources to the maximum exten 17 technologies, and logistics in light of the over 18 proposed aquatic impacts are necessary to achie` 19 20 The alternatives analysis presents a project over 7 1 C1tPC and dpozi orY1C flint u7p.rP mpflindir..-' Old Ra M w 01 1 o:1 IZ a 30 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW, MINE HISTOP 31 32 Hedrick Industries is proposing to construct ac 33 future on -site mine expansion within the curre 34 (Proposed Project Area). Hedrick Industries pla 35 Division of Land Quality Quarry Permit #55-01 36 construction aggregate product (i.e. crushed sto 37 Region of North Carolina. 38 39 Currently, the LNQ Mine provides aggregate pi 40 supporting community growth projects. A brief 41 businesses or current projects being serviced by i 42 Table 1-1 LNQ Mine Ec HISTORY AND ECONOMIC EFFECT Opened May 1985 Lincoln Count: Board of Comi - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------------------------------- Total Investment $20,000,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Employment 25 Employees Gross Payroll • Expansion projects at • Large prc Lincoln County and Rivei Airport -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------- • Optimist Road • Concrete Business Park & Lincoln, I Sally's Y 43 44 According to the NCDEQ, North Carolina is the 45 the United States. Aggregate is produced from ; 46 sand and gravel sites throughout the state. Crus 47 about 85 percent of all permitted mining operal 48 Carolinas 100 counties (NCDEQ, 2021). The LT 49 1.5 million tons of aggregate product per year. T 50 remaining equates to roughly 15 to 25 years left 51 The average production life of a crushed stone ( 52 gravel deposits are typically worked out in much 53 54 Land use within the permitted LNQ Mine food 55 overburden storage, pond fine storage, ponds, ai 56 Permitted Area Use Map). 57 58 Land use of the surrounding area of the LNQ Mir Ir!1 /T I TT T\ 1 i\ i it it 4� NORTH t s . r a � Overburden Storage & Berm : �! w Y ■ �r ■J tr ■ Lake Norman Community Association, Inc. Trilogy Home's Development NORTH' r 4 *wh a 72 VAJ 2.0 PROPC 74 Under the Proposed Action, Hedrick Indu 75 infrastructure within the permitted LNQ Mine b 76 Proposed Action is needed in support of the reqi 77 order to extend the life of the mine (LOM). 78 employment of the available capital, the ore re 79 reserves as conservative geological analysis may 80 essential to prevent the depletion of the LNQ N 81 contiguous aggregate supply to Lincoln Coun 82 Carolina. Without the expansion, any additional 83 projected LOM) would impede safety requisites 84 mining. /N !. . 3.0 PURPO 87 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to extend 88 of the LNQ Mine from 15-25 years, to betwee 89 production demands of aggregate product. 90 91 In the past three years, LNQ Mine has completed 92 and outsourcing with Geological Exploration to 93 Carlson Mining Software to determine the existir 94 mine production rate of 1.5 million tons of agg 95 estimated LOM reserve base of up to 25 years; pc 96 base by 2046. However, based on forecasted core 97 area Hedrick Industries will need to increase LN 98 tons per year, exacerbating the depletion of the L 99 this would not provide a significant amount of tii 100 101 while reserve life fluctuates with the market, thf 102 is between 75 to 100 years. Two examples of 103 Buncombe and Grove Stone Quarries located in 1 104 of over 75 years. Additionally, Hedrick Industi 105 inrrPacP ciorrifir nntly imnnrtinor flip r urrPnt T N Table 3-1 Applicable Safety Laws, Regulatio Propose Alternative must maintain a 2:1 slope if Slope the material is clayey, Protection Ratio or 3:1 slope if the material is found to have a more sandy consistency. Alternative bench In har Selection of heights must be 45 to 50 cross - Practical Bench feet (ft). Bench widths of the Height will be determined bench g during course of excav operation. 113 114 4.0 ALTERNAr 115 116 This section presents a discussion and analysi 117 considered for implementing the Proposed Actia 118 regulations. Reasonable alternatives include thos 119 and economic standpoint and use common sense 120 121 4.1 SCREENING CRITERIA 122 123 In order for Hedrick Industries to fully perform t 124 be achieved, the following screening and desig, 125 practicable alternatives considered for analysis: 126 1. The alternative must consider the geopY 127 would not hinder mining activities, such 128 product; 129 2. The alternative area must contain soils/ge 130 and Material (ASTM) standards and requi 131 Transportation, Standard Specifications f 132 3. The alternative shall consider areas that ) 152 153 4.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED FOR J 154 The alternatives analysis presented within this se 155 considered for the LNQ Mine expansion under t 156 4.1. The alternatives analysis includes consider 157 adjacent to or near the existing quarry (Alternati, 158 alternatives considered for a Greenfield Site loc 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 has also been included for comparison. The maximum limits of disturbance for each of 1 through 4-5. 4.2.1 Alternative 1 —Northwest Mine Wall Expc 166 Under Alternative 1, an existing mine wall wout 167 from 100 to 300 linear feet (I. f.) allowing the pit 168 ft from the current 95 feet below the exiting grout 169 Mine wall Expansion [Preferred Alternative]). Ii 170 Forney Creek would be realigned and subsequen 171 Av;Cf;1.1n 1-1111rArf TT7l1771A 11A rAmntrAA aflA rAr►1aI'AA 192 be no net loss of habitat, approximately 2,879 li 193 31 linear ft of priority 1 stream work. Priori 194 restoration work would end, and extend to the en 195 of priority 2 restoration. Priority 2 restoration w 196 with the streambed remaining at the present elev, 197 US ) for a detailed discussion of impacts towatei 198 Walk Ilk, B E3 C�Mo CL Z. D w 'r 3 All, Lsvrchartbffo . fs12018N83-8021,G1SUWa tECOf AA1f83802 ECOf FIG4.1.2 303d t.ISTED MAPrmd 4112W21 1 (A { 1 NORTH A �, Forney Creek NC DEQ's NC Waterbody Assessment of the NC Draft 2020 Integrated Report Viewer listed s Forney Crook as 303(dj since 2010 n v 1 A J 0 cc 0 a n I r' r I 2 4.2.2 Alternative 2 — No Wall Expansion, Deep 3 4 Under Alternative 2, there would be no aerial foc 5 mine pit by approximately 100 ft. 6 7 Under this alternative, Hedrick Industries consic 8 another 100 ft for a total of 450 ft, however safe 9 not be met due to wall, bank, and slope stabil; 10 elevation would also be required. Consideratioi 11 capital purchase of additional haul trucks at an e; 6 NORTH SA 1 —129 LF x{ 44 • I y c 14 15 4.2.3 16 Alternative 3 -New Quarry Pit, North Sic 17 Under Alternative 3, a new 22.8-acre quarry pit i 18 Mine (Figure 4-3 Alternative 3 —New Quarry 19 imagery reveal an existing berm (13. 1 acres) resi 20 to the permitted boundary. South of the berm apt 21 and deciduous forest, which is the location of th, 22 is the 100 year FEMA floodplain of Forney Cr 23 Encroachment impacts to the floodplain would c 24 Section 4.3.1 for a detailed discussion of floodpl 25 Alternative 3 is proposed to be moved to the sou 26 permanent impacts to approximately 2,601 linear 27 28 Hedrick Industries has previously explored the 29 northern portion of LNQ and test drilled within 30 aggregate reserves. The resulting test data prop 31 100 foot in depth at the property boundary to apt 32 to the depth of overburden, the property was purc: 33 and any future development. 55 possibility of constructing a quarry 56 quarry from 34-acre to 24-acres. 57 north of For 1 NORTH 4(* SA-1- —129 LF" reek LF #S� 5 62 4.2.4 Alternative 4 — South Expansion 63 64 Under Alternative 4, the existing quarry mine w 65 (Figure 4-4 Alternative 4 — South Expansion) by 66 aerial imagery reveal existing infrastructure wit] 67 an existing plant and roads to the south, as well a,� 68 The Alternative 4 proposed expansion area ini 69 Transmission Line and ROW to the south. The 70 existing infrastructure would need to be moved 71 resulting in approximately 3,544 linear ft of strew 72 to the FEMA 100 year floodplain would occur di 73 4.3.1 for a detailed discussion of floodplain impC- 74 75 while Hedrick Industries considered the feasibi: 76 identified that would prevent expansion in a sou 77 The first limitation includes the need to relocc- 78 transmission line located within the proposed ar 79 towards the Duke Energy Plant located west 80 Industries had discussions with Duke Energy at 81 Natural Gas Line. Duke Energy indicated that 1 R7 maim nrtPry line rnnnPrtinor to flip nmvPr n1nnt A1sIrlI�Y[Yc3��SHl•Y4IfiiFi�X�i�IrL'T1Y��irLYY.a<X�I�S<lLK"l�i•Y�I�11:`/�fJ'i1�iL�lud'f" rl-iE{11�i1L�I7t�iY�J��1rlJu' AftSA-1: -129 LF NORTH +'.�►+ I, f f � ! a � I Forney Creek SA-2:--4,450 LF .., ?: { I, + A Killian Creek SA-3: -3,200 LF I I SAS -7961 F f i I 97 4.2.5 Alternative 5 — East Mine Wall ExpansioA- rb: 99 Under Alternative 5, an existing mine wall wouli 100 5 East Mine wall Expansion) extending the ar 101 reveals that storage and series ponds (Pond 102 Alternative 5 expansion area, which reaches the 103 where overburden is currently stored. The storal 104 the southern portion of the site (50.2 acres), rest 105 permanently impacted. Encroachment impacts tc 106 to the rise in flood elevations (Refer to Sectic 107 impacts). 108 109 while Hedrick Industries considered the feasibi: 110 identified that would prevent expansion of the n III for additional infrastructure in addition to adver 112 approximately 10.5 acres. The Pond System, is 113 gravity fed system and designed to settle out th( 114 discharging into the freshwater pond then pump( 115 material. If the Pond System were to be reloca 116 property, it would no longer be a gravity fed sys 117 Qpttlp nut flip finPc nrinr to hPinor nummad hnr k tr P.120181183-6021-G WajmkECOI AM183602-ECOI A� MAP.rmd 1111612021 1.48 PAI 6M SA-1: -12-0 LF6AW,' Coll " NORTH 4e Forney Creek SA-2, -4,450 LF 4t A % 1t ��!'kr, ��` .y nor Killion Creek SA-3. -3.200 LF 134 4.2.6 Alternative 6 —Greenfield Site 135 136 Under Alternative 6, Hedrick Gravel & Sand CO 137 to a proposed Greenfield Site location. For this 1 138 within Lincoln County would need to meet the 139 contain at least 100 acres of land, after the req 140 applied, available for purchase, be zoned as indu 141 owner of multiple contiguous parcels. Additiona 142 existing companies or infrastructure and must 1 143 wetlands. 144 145 Under these criterions, eight potential relocati 146 Potential Greenfield Site Locations presents th, 147 overview of all eight locations). However, all s 148 under the above screening criterion. A summary 149 below: 150 151 • Greenfield Site - Alternative Area 1, 01 152 southern end of Lake Norman. The site i� 153 153.3 acres within 3 parcels that contain 1 Sd YlnTTP PY1efiYl[T 1YlTYaefril(`t77YP `/ATY1PYl tY1P ";11 175 • Greenfield Site - AA5 is a mine site cur 176 There are approximately 170.6 acres in tl 177 this total, approximately 68 acres are exi 178 be insufficient under the site screening e1 179 acres remaining when the 50-foot buffer I' 180 • Greenfield Site - AA6 is currently the Lin 181 218.3 acres in one parcel and 4,778 line,, 182 are the existing airport and surrounding 183 the site screening existing infrastructure r 184 are 143 acres left in this area. 185 • Greenfield Site - AA7 is the Timken P] 186 power transmission products. The Timke 187 one parcel and 719 linear feet of stream. r 188 the total. Nearly 177 acres remain once i 189 land is not available for purchase — elimii 190 • Greenfield Site - AA8 is an industrial arc 191 are approximately 128 acres and 3,663 lii 192 34 acres are existing buildings of the 193 accounting for the required 50-foot buffe 194 land the requirement. r 2 2 :17. � _ / \ 2 AA tu w �\ LL QL -Cn f � � kR �/� r ng2) k/> ,a 7 _ 4 « �x��Lu - - 0�/ zO�� m 2//2 7 ct �$ \ L) 220� m . .. - LU ae � @�LLJ w 3 Lde fr -/ w� . :l�+ . �, , d �� _ ... ■ _ _• � % 2 _ .. • . ��. , 2 . . ` � f� �. A k I 2 4.2.7 Alternative 7- No Action 3 4 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed A 5 not be expanded. As a result, the current LOM a 6 to 25 years, pending economic aggregate produc- 7 Annual County Taxes, a loss of 25 direct jobs N 8 organizations job loss of 128 employees. 9 10 4.3 METHODS OF EVALUATING IMPA 11 RESOURCES 12 13 This section summarizes the evaluation of the pi 14 that could occur at each of the five on -site al- 15 Proposed Action. The evaluation was conducted 16 reviews, on -site woUS determination and deline 17 pedestrian survey evaluations. 18 19 4.3.1 Natural Resources 39 opaca), and mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia 40 (Arundinaria gigantea) and Japanese silt grass (l 41 42 Migratory birds are protected under the Mid 43 Conservation Concern (BCC) are a subset of MI 44 as those in greatest need of additional conservat 45 Hedrick is located within the Piedmont Bird Con we 47 ESA Listed Species — In accordance with Section 48 accessed to request an official species list. Cur 49 (status) that "may be present" in the area design 50 this analysis. No critical habitat was identified 51 presented in Table 4-1 below. Refer to Appen( 52 2021b). 53 54 Table 4-1: Federally Listed Species with Potc Common Name Scienl Mammals Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentr Plants Dwarf -flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis nai Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii SS C TTOUAITO 1n111- 77 Water Shed —The LNQ Mine is located within th 78 within the permitted mine boundary include the i 79 five series ponds, two streams —Forney Creek 80 (Figure 4.7). 81 82 The Proj ect's subject properties are included in th 83 County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas (' 84 of August 16, 2007 and are shown on the FEMA 85 3 7103 69100J and 3 7103 69200J with an effectiv 86 portion of the subject property is located in a Spec 87 "AE" for Forney Creek. Zone "AE" is an area wh 88 of Flood) have been determined. Portions of the 89 Floodway for Forney Creek. Approximate impai 90 91 FEMA Floodplain Encroachment Impacts 92 93 Alternative 1 Northwest Mine Wall Expansion (1 94 mine wall expansion would encroach into the 1 95 would occur due to the realignment of Forney Cr 96 a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision 97 construction is completed, CEC would also pre: 98 submittal package. 119 Alternative S East Mine Wall Expansion — Ur 120 encroachment impacts would occur as part of th 121 would result in fill in the floodplain, ultimatel 122 accommodate designs, potentially causing a sign Wap.-AECOI AMOMPM838 NORTH WPowd W2 125 126 4.3.2 Waters of the United States (Wo US) 127 128 This section summarizes the evaluation of the po 129 of the on -site alternatives (Alternative 1-5) as a i 130 The evaluation was conducted via desktop geo€ 131 data and also included site -specific survey data 132 Appendix F: WoUS Report and SAW-2020-004 133 A summary of findings is presented below. 134 135 In March, 2020 Kevin Thomas, PWS and NC 136 Professional Botanist of CEC, performed prelirr 137 the entire permitted LNQ Mine site. Multiple aqu; 138 however only one feature was determined to be 139 Report and SAW-2020-0043 6 PJD Concurrence; 140 141 Alternative 1 Northwest Mine Wall Expansion 142 ecologists Kevin Thomas, NC Stream Assessm, 143 NCSAM along approximately 3,000 linear ft c 144 Alternative 1 (refer to Appendix B NCSAM Rep 145 assessing approximately 200 to 850 linear ft of st 1 A 4 ri n ' T r% T r Al T., 5 167 property line. Maintaining hydrology to the we 168 raising the channel bed elevation to current dam 169 in a rise of the 100 year water surface elevation 170 to laterally expand flood flows in the vicinity of tI 171 elevation. Expanding the valley wall reduced pos- 172 0.25 ft of pre -project levels. 173 A description of the existing conditions of Forne 174 Forney Creek Existing Conditions 175 1. Dam upstream 176 a. Creates open water wetland upstr( 177 b. Low gradient Rosgen E stream hc- 178 in the open water portion of the wi 179 area of 8.55 square miles (mil) crc 180 (ft2) with a width to depth ratio 181 Carolina State University predicts 182 area. The close agreement betwe 1tcr ronr►1'% 199 surface elevations in the section 200 estimating bankfull water surfa( 201 analogous to the traditional me 202 indicators and assuming bankfull 203 direction. The 2D hydraulic m 204 manning's roughness within reasc 205 indicators. The 2D model then i 206 reach. The use of the 2D mod, 207 advantage over traditional methoi 208 channels that affect water surface 209 channel width. Refer to `Appendi) 210 Plan Natural Channel Design' foi 211 Hazard Index (BEHI) ratings fc 212 restoration had a geometric mean 213 eroding. Forney Creek is accurate 214 to entrenchment ratios greater that 230 channel through the pond. On eith 231 wetland area. Further upstream 232 formation is more mature levee df 233 h. The existing stream profile (pres( 234 Stream Relocation Plan Natural C 235 bankfull flow event and the left ai 236 Many streams in the Piedmont arf 237 deposition as a result of histor 238 sediments reduces floodplain acce 239 shear stress during large flow eve, 240 i. There is a road crossing on Fornej 241 At the road crossing Forney Cre( 242 culvert is undersized and currently 243 the geomorphic survey scour fron 244 j . To assess annual stream bank 245 combined with Near Bank Stre 261 equating to banks with low ero<, 262 parameters occurred, a new BEHI 263 During this process assumptions 264 representative reaches for each 265 assessments can be found in A 266 Relocation Plan Natural Channel 267 1. To assess annual stream bank ero� 268 evaluated using the BEHI works] 269 Stability and Sediment Supply (I 270 David L. Rosgen (Rosgen, 2009). 271 using RiverMORPH software. Nc 272 3 -11 in RiverMORPH software a 273 reference material. During the BED 274 Bankfull Height (ft), Root Deb 275 (degrees), and Surface Protectic 276 sections of RiverMORPH, work; 291 Rating was generated and the dour 292 rate. 293 2. The primary driving factor in channel d 294 flood flows within the bankfull channel. 295 produces symptoms of channel degradc- 296 volumes of sediment (sand to cobble) thc- 297 aquatic habitats. Course sediment particle 298 where present are surrounded by fine 299 distribution. Evidence of fine sediment 300 particle size distributions and lack of poc 301 of pools that are typically associated with 302 a. BEHI ratings for Forney Creek i 303 eroding throughout all 64 reaches 304 of Forney Creek throughout the pr 305 4.1-3 Forney Creek Existing BEf 306 have High susceptibility to bank 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 WE kill] 331 332 333 334 335 d. Root Density — Plant roots on the and protect against erosion. The r species to obtain a deep rooting planting trees and shrubs. Roo individual particles to help prever e. Bank Angle — The higher the bar order to keep the erosion down, degrees. f. Surface Protection — Structures su can be used along with herbaceou g. Near Bank Stress Level 1 — The cl to avoid converging flow. The strf valley direction to prevent down i h. Near Bank Stress Level 2, Radius maintained greater than 2.2 times 336 low range. However, the radius 352 transported through the proposed i 353 events approached nearly 2.5 lb f 354 stress we increased the width de- 355 respectively. Reach 1 and 3 are , 356 reach 2 has riffle side slopes of 357 reference reaches in the Piedmor 358 because our experience working ti 359 slopes are more resistant to erosic 360 to establishment of stabilizing ve, 361 reach 2. Reach 1 has slopes ran, 362 downstream of the existing dam. 363 k. To maintain hydrology in the wet 364 the proposed stream matches the 365 for fish passage and restoration sp 366 grading the proposed stream to the 367 of the dam and brings the stream i 383 restoration reach causing fine sed 384 bridge allows water to flow unob 385 fine sediments derived from upstr 386 On April 1 St, 2020 CEC submitted a Preliminary, 387 Hedrick, with CEC's findings of WoUS to the t 388 Charlotte regional office SAW-2020-0043 6. Z 389 Manager Catherine Janiczak and then to Mr 390 departure. A site visit was held on July 15th, 2021 391 provided concurrence with CEC's findings. Hou 392 in September of 2020 that Project Manager Kry; 393 March 3rd1 2021 Ms. Stygar provided PJD Verifil 394 395 Under Alternative 1, post -construction mitigation 396 mine wall expansion, removal of culvert and to 397 relocation and restoration of Forney Creek). As 398 (PRMP) has been prepared as part of the USACI 399 G). 400 401 Alternative 2 No Wall Expansion, Deepen Cui 402 wetlands would occur. 421 5.0 COMPARISON 422 423 CEC assessed five on -site alternatives (AlternatiN 424 Greenfield Sites) in order to identify the locatiot 425 LNQ Mine expansion, while resulting in the LEI 426 427 Under the site screening criteria (Section 2.1), a] 428 are located within the permitted LNQ Mine be 429 trucking/transportation needs. Additionally, all 430 ASTM standards and requirements. However, Al 431 or more of the following constrictions: site screen 432 exceptional prohibitive costs; restrictive sch 433 requisites needed to move the existing infrastruci 434 435 Alternative elimination rationales are listed belo, 436 437 o Alternative 2 No Wall Expansion, Deese; 438 to natural, cultural, of wetland resources, t 439 due to safety constraints. Hedrick Industr 440 an additional 100 ft without potentially vi 441 requirements. 463 464 465 floodplain encroachment impacts would i area. 466 o Alternative 5 East Mine Wall Expansio 467 constraints, as well as cost constriction; 468 Under Alternative 5, the storage and sE 469 southern portion of the site (55.1 acres). 470 similar size pond would cost approximc- 471 constraints under this option. The series 472 would also need to be relocated and 473 approximately 10.5 acres. Additionally, 1 474 as approximately 3,310 linear ft of stre 475 FEMA floodplain encroachment impacts 476 storage area. 477 478 o Alternative 6 Relocation to a Greenfield 479 due to diminution of feasible Greenfield 480 as projected cost constrictions estimates 481 excludes the consideration of financial 482 unknown at this time), and/or additional 483 needed to move the existing infrastructurc A n A 1 1. r'v" I . 1 . !` . 1 M 490 5.1 CONCLUSION 491 Hedrick Industries has identified Alternative 492 alternative, as it would result in the LEDPA as ei 493 4.1). Additionally, the restored Forney Creek wo 494 provide increased in -channel habitat for aquatic 495 habitat quality and diversity. The newly propo 496 strategies to engage floodplains, promote wetl 497 processes. The restoration design will enhance f 498 dam located at the upstream portion of the projc 499 downstream end of the project. 500 501 For Hedrick, implementation of Alternative 1 we 502 the safest extraction of aggregate product (ba,( 503 1). Under this action Hedrick Industries would 1 504 lands within the permitted mine boundary. Existi 505 extraction of aggregate product, minimize costs 506 to the other proposed alternatives), and appeass 507 Alternative 1 will help achieve the obj ectives of i 508 and prevent the depletion of LNQ's projected mi 509 510 6.0 REF 511 512 Doll et al., 2003. Stream Restoration — A Natural Channel 513 Stream Restoration Institute and North Carolina 514 Karen R. Hall. James Halley. William A. Harman 515 https://semspub.epa.gov/work/01/554360.pdf on 516 Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 517 of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi 518 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2021. Overview 519 Section 303(d) of the CWA I Clean Water Act Se, 520 Loads (TMDLs) I US EPA. Accessed online at: k 521 restoring -impaired-waters -under-section- 303d-ciA 522 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC 523 online at: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/eneU 524 survey/geo science -education/crushed-stone -in-nc 525 North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2 526 North Carolina Department of Transportation Rat 527 https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Specification 546 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2018. Migratory 547 Questions. Accessed online at: https://WWW.fws.g 548 regulations/Nestdestructionfaq.pdf on 24 March 549 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2020. National 550 online at: https://fws.gov/Wetlands/data/Mapper.fi 551 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2021a. National 552 Accessed online at: https://fwsprimary.Wim.usg_s. 553 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2021b. Informat] 554 Conservation Online System. Accessed online at: APPE?� LNQ MINE PI APPEr FORNEY CREEK CONCEPTUAL STR CHANNE] APPE?� DUKE ENERGY COST ESTIMATE (Al APPE?� GREENFIELD SITE LOCATIONS APPEr NATURAL AND CULT APPV WoUS REPORT AND SAW-2W APPE?� PERMITTEE-RESPONSI]