20210106 Ver 1_USACE More Info Request_20211217

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
\� ASHEVILLE REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
161 PATTON AVENUE, ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801-6006
December 17, 2021
Regulatory Division
Action ID: SAW-2021-00253
Mr. Ron Kopplin
Martin Marietta
2235 Gateway Access Point
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Mr. Kopplin:
Reference is made to your application of August 10, 2021, for Department of the
Army (DA) permit authorization to impact 2,463 linear feet (If) of unnamed tributaries to
Killian Creek, associated with the proposed expansion of an existing aggregate quarry
at 4965 NC-16 Business northwest of Denver in Lincoln County, North Carolina.
After review of your proposal, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) submitted comments by email dated September 9, 2021. They supported the
expertise of the consultants selected to design/construct the proposed permittee
responsible mitigation, however had several questions regarding this proposed
mitigation plan and details regarding the quarry's footprint/viable timeframe. Comments
are attached for your response.
Written comments were also received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) on September 15, 2021. A copy of this correspondence is enclosed
for your consideration and response. The WRC offered several comments regarding
vegetative aspects of the project and their comments are attached for your response.
A letter stating, "no comment" because they "are aware of no historic resources
which would be affected by the project." was received from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) dated October 7, 2021. While no response is necessary,
their correspondence is attached for your records.
Also, an email was received on September 10, 2021 from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
confirming the District's "...determination that the proposed work would NOT occur in
the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH)..." While no response is necessary, their
correspondence is attached for your records.

-2-
The Corps has also reviewed your request for Department of the Army authorization
and request that you provide a response to the following items:
1. By stating in the basic and overall project purpose that the operation must be
expanded "... at the existing Denver Quarry facility." and "... by expanding the
existing quarry area..." you overly restrict potential alternatives without justification,
thereby precluding appropriate analysis of off -site alternatives. Please revise the
project purpose to remove the criteria for existing location only.
2. Please provide an offsite alternative analysis that details what criteria would
be needed for offsite consideration, including details as to what economic and
business considerations to serve the relevant market area might prevent these
offsite alternatives from being practicable. For example, what are the estimated
costs of purchasing property, setting up a new plant and other various
infrastructure, transportation costs of trying to utilize existing infrastructure, etc.
and would these be practicable based on your project criteria?
3. What alternatives were assessed to avoid/minimize impacts for crossing
Killian Creek (bridge, different locations, etc.)?
4. Please clarify the impacts/mitigation for Streams C and D. The impact table
shows a loss of 124 If for Stream C and 171 If for Stream D. Restoration reaches
proposed for these features were 80 If and 200 If, respectively. Is the
approximately 280 If of restoration proposed on these tributaries deserving of credit
and warranted from a functional uplift need/improvement or being done simply for
transitioning these channels appropriately to the new Stream A? If Stream C and
Stream D are low functioning and in need of functional uplift (and therefore
deserving of credit) provide an NCSAM assessment to support this evaluation so
the appropriate mitigation ratio for impacts can be determined. The current
proposal includes 457 credits for 457 If of impact of which 62 If is for the loss on
Stream A (for which NCSAM has been submitted) and the rest is for Stream C and
D.
5. When will the need for a CLOMR/LOMR flooding impact determination be
concluded? Please update us so that we can ensure all requirements are being
met for our permit decision.
6. Please explain why the proposed culvert on Killian Creek utilizes the same
size/type of pipe, but does not include the floodplain culverts? Does this stream
have a smaller drainage area?
7. During the JD site visit, a disturbed area was found on the upper end of
Stream C or D outside the proposed project area. Further investigation as to the
nature of the disturbance and whether it was within jurisdictional waters or
authorized was needed. Please update on the findings for this area.
8. Please respond to the following questions regarding the proposed permittee-
responsible on -site mitigation:
a. I do not recall the current channel having such heavy armoring and see
plenty of rock structures, stacked boulder walls, boulder toes, floodplain sills,

-3-
etc., especially in the upper section. Please explain the need for such channel
and floodplain armoring of the relocated channel, especially in the context for
keeping with natural channel design for the local watershed?
b. Please explain the need for floodplain sills throughout the project and any
risks for scour because of these sills? Considering these sills and the comment
over channel project armoring, does the designer feel there is sufficient
floodplain width for natural energy dissipation? Please elaborate.
C. Considering the slope and amount of structure at the upper end of the
project, is there any need to anchor riffles in place with some sort of sill?
d. Please provide a response to the NCWRC comments regarding the
planting plans. USACE is in agreement that there is a good reference
community present on -site for determining planting plan. Although much of the
planting plan seems to mimic this community, there are some species proposed
that still may not be appropriate or should be used in lower densities. The
Exhibit E: Dwarf Heartleaf/Sumac survey had additional reference to existing
species if needed. If you feel black walnut should be utilized in a lower density,
please explain the benefit compared to the agency concerns over its
allelopathic nature. Eastern cottonwood is another species that may not be
appropriate for this county. Is there any presence already documented onsite?
If there are to be major changes to the planting plan after approval due to
unforeseen issues such as commercial availability, it is best to coordinate
substitutions with the agencies.
e. Agencies have expressed concern for the stream relocation portion of the
project due to potential soil conditions beneath deep excavated areas. This risk
concern is for several factors besides stability and includes appropriate soil
conditions for vegetative success. Will the amount of topsoil proposed be
enough to support appropriate plant success/vigor? If not, or if stormflow
washes away any of this topsoil before it can be stabilized, please include
comments as to the timeliness of monitoring these conditions and what
adaptive management solutions may be considered.
f. Adaptive management is not discussed in the mitigation plan, please
include a brief discussion as to what this would entail as needed throughout
project construction and monitoring.
g. Please include comments about what invasive species have been found
within the project area and how they will removed/treated during the monitoring
period.
h. Provide a discussion and figure regarding buffer widths associated with
the project. Current plans show floodplain widths (and typicals). Figure 6.1
shows the re -vegetation plan but it is unclear of final buffer widths throughout
the project area and in the proposed conservation easement (CE). These
widths are needed to determine overall functional uplift and appropriate
mitigation ratios.

-4-
i. The mitigation plan states the restored channel will be recorded in a CE
however few details about this are provided. The Wilmington District has a CE
template on the RIBITS website, will this be the basis for the CE? If so, submit
a redline version for review. What third party is proposed to hold this CE? They
may need to be vetted if they have not been a CE holder in the District
previously. Details will also need to be provided regarding the CE endowment
for long term monitoring and defense of the CE by the third party. Will the
crossing be internal to the CE or excluded? Will this CE be recorded prior to
project construction?
j. Who will be performing and conducting As -Built and monitoring, as well as
report submittals for this project? Make sure all aspects meet the 2016 District
Mitigation Guidance.
k. Are Streams C and D perennial? If not, or if there is concern regarding
flow reduction post channel restoration, flow measuring devices will be needed
to ensure appropriate flow duration during the monitoring period. This would
also need to be tied to performance metrics and monitoring. Please provide
further information as to this component.
I. Provide a figure showing the locations of all monitoring components
(cross -sections, photo points, devices monitoring bankfull, etc.)
Your response to the comments identified above must be given full consideration
before we can make a final decision on your application. We need your information to
address the concerns/issues raised over the proposed project. You may submit
additional information, revise your plans to help resolve the issues, rebut the issues
made or request a decision based on the existing record.
We request that you provide responses to all comments in this letter by January 17,
2022. If you fail to respond by January 17, 2022, we will administratively withdraw your
application. We will reopen your application and continue to process it once you have
submitted all of the information we have requested in this letter. If you have questions or
comments, please contact Mr. Steve Kichefski at my Asheville Regulatory Field Office
address, telephone [phone], extension 4234, or mobile [phone].
Sincerely,
Digitally signed by Steve
Steve Kichefski Kichefski
Date: 2021.12.17 11:07:16-05'00'
Steve Kichefski
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office

-5-
Cc via email: w/enclosures
Mr. Thomas Brown — Martin Marietta Ms. Sue Homewood - NCDWR
Mr. Byron Hamstead — USFWS Ms. Olivia Munzer — NCWRC
Mr. Todd Bowers — USEPA Ms. Renee Gledhill -Early - NCSHPO
Mr. Scott Jones — USACE Ms. Krysta Stygar - USACE

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary D. Reid Wilson
October 7, 2021
Steve Kichefski
Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.
steven.l.kichefskigusace.army.mil
Re: Quarry Expansion, 4965 NC-16 Business, Denver, Lincoln County, ER 21-2247
Dear Mr. Kichefski:
Thank you for your email of September 8, 2021, regarding the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the submission and offer the following comments.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or environmental.reviewgncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
�Sincerely,
Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

From:
Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
To:
Thomas Brown
Cc:
Grea Jenninas
Subject:
RE: NCWRC Comments - MMM Denver Quarry
Date:
Wednesday, September 15, 2021 8:37:00 AM
Thanks, I had not received those.
Steve
From: Thomas Brown <Thomas.Brown@ martinmarietta.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 7:58 AM
To: Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Greg Jennings <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] FW: NCWRC Comments - MMM Denver Quarry
Steve,
Just wanted to make sure you received a copy of the comments from NCWRC below.
Thanks again,
Thomas
From: Greg Jennings <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 7:41 AM
To: Munzer, Olivia <[e-mail]>
Cc: Stygar, KRYSTYNKA B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>;
Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Thomas Brown
<Thomas.Brown@ martinmarietta.com>
Subject: Re: NCWRC Comments - MMM Denver Quarry
Olivia,
Thank you for your feedback. We will revise the planting plan as requested.
Thank you, Greg
Greg Jennings, PhD, PE
Jennings Environmental PLLC
919-600-4790
areaCmenningsenv.com

This information is confidential and is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. Any disclosure, copying,
distribution or taking action in relation to this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:32 AM Munzer, Olivia<olivia.munzerCu�ncwildlife.org> wrote:
Good morning,
I have few comments on the Denver Quarry PCN on the planting plan.
• Pease remove hard fescue as it is non-native. We do not recommend fescue species.
• Add some diversity to the flowering herbaceous. The seed mix is mostly grasses. You also
have the same two flowering species in the floodplain/streambank mix as the hillslope.
Also, please be consistent with the Coreopsis lanceolata common name.
• Since black gum, mapleaf viburnum, umbrella magnolia, fringtree, and mountain laurel
currently occur at the site, consider including these species in your planting plan and
reducing tulip poplar and walnut. Walnut is great wildlife value, but it is allelopthic. For the
floodplain plantings, consider adding boxelder and reducing sycamore.
• In general, use the current plant community to help shape the community in the
revegetation plan.
Please let me know if you have questions.
Olivia Munzer
Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Rogers Depot
1718 NC Hwy 56 W
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Office: 919-707-0364
Cell: 336-269-0074
olivia.munzer(@ncwi1d1ife.or2
www.ncwildlife.org
a 0 12 LVa.M
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Pace Wilber - NOAA Federal
To: Kichefski. Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
Date: Friday, September 10, 2021 9:57:58 PM
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the project described in public notice SAW-
2021-00253, dated September 8, 2021. Based on the information in the notice, we confirm the District's
determination that the proposed work would NOT occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH)
designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, or the NMFS. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed work and no
further action is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the
proposed work. If further coordination on this action is needed, please let us know.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:55 PM Young, Lindsay A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<Lindsay.A.Young(a4usace.army.mil> wrote:
As you requested, you are hereby notified that the Wilmington District, United States Corps
of Engineers, has issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the
Public Notices portion of the Regulatory Division Home Page. Each Public Notice is
available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at:
The current notice involves:
Corp Action ID#: SAW-2021-00253 Martin Marietta. Denver Quarry
County: Lincoln County
Issue Date: September 8, 2021
Expiration Date: October 8, 2021
Point of Contact: Steve Kichefski - [phone] ext. 4234
Steven, L.Kichefski(c4usace, army.miI

Project Description: The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an
application from Martin Marietta seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact
2,463 linear feet (If) of unnamed tributaries to Killian Creek, associated with the proposed
expansion of an existing aggregate quarry at 4965 NC-16 Business northwest of Denver,
Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This email was sent out as a result of subscribing to the Wilmington
District regulatory program public notices. Please reply to this email with the subject line or
message "unsubscribe" to remove your address from future mailings
Pace Wilber, Ph.D.
HCD Atlantic Branch Supervisor
NOAA Fisheries Service
331 Ft Johnson Road
Charleston, SC 29412
843-460-9926 < ---- Office Number
843-568-4184 < ---- Office Cell Number
Pace. Wilber(a_noaa.gov

From:
Bowers, Todd
To:
Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Subject:
[Non-DoD Source] FW: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice SAW-2021-00253
Date:
Thursday, September 9, 2021 1:47:36 PM
Attachments:
imaae003.Dno
Steve,
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch has reviewed the
subject Individual Permit Public Notice under DA Action ID SAW-2021-00253 dated
September 8, 2021. It is our understanding that the applicant, Mr. Ron Kopplin of Martin
Marietta Materials (MMM) is seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact 2,463
linear feet (If) of unnamed tributaries to Killian Creek, associated with the proposed
expansion of an existing aggregate quarry at 4965 NC-16 Business northwest of Denver,
Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Specifically per the Public Notice:
As stated by the applicant, the primary purpose of this project and the proposed action is to
cost-effectively continue operation of the aggregate quarry facility at Denver by expanding
the existing quarry area to mine suitable stone reserves in a systematic and economically
viable fashion. According to the applicant, their preferred project alternative involves the
restoration and relocation of approximately 1749 LF of Stream A, an Unnamed Tributary to
Killian Creek in order to expand the existing aggregate quarry. Along with this relocation
two smaller tributaries, Stream C and Stream D will be reconstructed and shortened due to
the proposed location of Stream A. MMM is also proposing to install a culverted road
crossing on Killian Creek, south of its confluence with Stream A. This Culvert will allow
access to a high ground area for the purposes of storing overburden material.
Proposed impacts and compensatory mitigation include approximately 1590LF of Stream A,
118 LF of Stream C and 21 LF of Stream D would be relocated. Relocating Stream A to the
east would also result in a loss of the lower portions of Streams C and D. However, MMM
believes that the NCSAM evaluation reflects that Stream A is currently degraded and that
construction will result in a higher quality system.
MMM proposes to mitigate for impacts associated with the project by using natural channel
design to build a high -quality stream system instead of redirecting stream flow through a
straight channel. Doing so will provide a higher quality stream system than currently exists
on site. Furthermore, MMM is proposing to mitigate for the total loss of 457 linear feet of
stream by purchasing 457 stream credits from the Environmental Banc & Exchange
Dogtown Mitigation Bank.
At this time, EPA Region 4 has a few site -specific comments, concerns and
recommendations with the project as presented in the Public Notice. Several questions
exist pertaining to the on -site permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) to be provided by
Jennings Environmental and North State Environmental and are based on the 60% drawing
plans. Understandably, many parameters of the on -site mitigation plan cannot be
determined based on the limited information provided. However, the PRM proposed
appears to fall short of the recommended site conditions and/or monitoring for a fully
functioning stream restoration project to provide compensatory mitigation credit.

1. I have full confidence in Jennings and North State to provide a properly constructed
natural channel when relocating Streams A, C and D based on site constraints and
watershed characteristics.
2. 1 appreciate the applicant's approach to expand the mine and avoid further impacts
to Killian Creek, maintaining 50-foot riparian buffers and designing streams that will
improve function and raise the quality of waters across the site.
3. The natural channel design proposed includes 1590 If of Stream A relocation and
reconstruction. This design does not detail the width of a new forested riparian
buffer. In many places it appears to be constrained by the narrow floodplain outlined
in the drawing plans. Riparian buffers need to be at least 50 feet wide offset by the
top of bank or stream beltwidth. Without a fully functioning riparian buffer, this would
not be a suitable design for full credit if this was a restoration site built for
compensatory mitigation purposes. I recommend the applicant provide a design
that includes suitable buffer widths to achieve a fully functioning stream
system.
4. Is there a plan to protect the relocation and restoration of Stream A in perpetuity as
part of the PRM? A conservation easement including the stream and a minimum of
50-foot riparian buffers is necessary for the applicant to receive the maximum
amount of restoration credit for the stream impacts.
5. To what extent and how long will the stream relocation for mitigation credit be
monitored? This needs to be known if the applicant is proposing full restoration credit
for stream relocations. I recommend the applicant provide a full mitigation plan
for PRM on -site stream restoration including the proposed approaches for
each reach, performance standards, monitoring schedule, site protection
instrument, planting plan, financial assurances, adaptive management plan,
and long-term stewardship.
What is the extent of the proposed quarry excavation? No clear boundary on the
provided plans with the PN delineates the quarry operation itself. Will the quarry
expansion provide enough space to establish a suitably wide conservation easement
to provide full restoration credit for Stream A? The applicant states that all streams
and wetlands not impacted by the property will maintain 50-foot buffers but this is
unclear without the proposed new quarry boundary and disturbance limits.
How long will the Denver quarry expansion continue to provide mined aggregate and
provide market supply? Is there any anticipated need to expand again 20 or more
years in the future? Will that anticipated expansion require the eventual elimination
of Streams A, C and D and/or impacts to Killian Creek?
The use of the RES Catawba Umbrella Mitigation Bank — Dogtown Site is approved
based on the amount of credits released following site construction approval.
However, I am concerned with temporal loss since this site was just approved for
construction and is currently 5-7 years before restored stream function is fully
realized. I recommend providing mitigation at a 2:1 ratio to minimize the risk of
lost stream function should the Dogtown Site fail to provide all proposed
credit or seek currently functioning stream credits in the Catawba 01 HUC.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on DA Action ID SAW-2021-00253

seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact 2,463 linear feet (If) of unnamed
tributaries to Killian Creek, associated with the proposed expansion of the MMM Denver
quarry in Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Best Regards,
Todd Bowers
Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch
61 Forsyth St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404.562.9225
Bowers.todd(,)epa.gov
Note: I am currently teleworking and away from the office. Please contact me via email or at
919.523.2637.
09tD i rq
f
From: Young, Lindsay A CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 4:56 PM
Subject: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice
As you requested, you are hereby notified that the Wilmington District, United States Corps of
Engineers, has issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices
portion of the Regulatory Division Home Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT
(.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at:
https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Public-Notices/
The current notice involves:
Corp Action ID#: SAW-2021-00253 Martin Marietta Denver Quarry
County: Lincoln County
Issue Date: September 8, 2021
Expiration Date: October 8, 2021

Point of Contact: Steve Kichefski - [phone] ext. 4234,
Steven. L.KichefskiPusace.army.mil
Project Description: The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from
Martin Marietta seeking Department of the Army authorization to impact 2,463 linear feet (If) of
unnamed tributaries to Killian Creek, associated with the proposed expansion of an existing
aggregate quarry at 4965 NC-16 Business northwest of Denver, Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This email was sent out as a result of subscribing to the Wilmington District
regulatory program public notices. Please reply to this email with the subject line or message
"unsubscribe" to remove your address from future mailings