20070861 Ver 1_WRC Comments_20070613 (2)

~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ~
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cyndi Karoly
NCDWQ
FROM: Steven H. Everhart, PhD ~`~~~~
Southeastern Permit Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 13, 2007
SUBJECT: §401/404 Permit Application for Martin Marietta -Selma Quarry -Johnston County
DWQ#07-0861
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed
the subject application for impacts to wildlife and fishery resources. Our comments are provided
in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et. seq.), Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (as amended),
and the North Carolina Mining Act of 1971 (as amended, 1982: G.S. 74-76 et seq., 15 NCAC 5).
The applicant is requesting authorization mining granite from a 503 acre site located adjacent to
the Neuse River, off Bear Farm/Brown Rd. (SR 1914), approximately 1 mile from its
intersection with US 70 Alternate, and approximately 3 miles northeast of Selma, in Johnston
County. Approximately 2,884 linear ft of stream and 58.57 acres of wetlands exist on the
property. Expected mine depth is 400+/- feet as measured from the natural ground level with an
average depth of 400 feet. The proposed excavation area is 157.9 acres. Construction of the
mine and associated infrastructure will result in excavation and filling impacts to 2.7 acres of
wetlands and 1301inear ft of stream. The applicant states that a 50 foot undisturbed buffer will
be maintained adjacent to any remaining wetlands and watercourses on-site. Final reclamation
will result in a lake left for water storage, recreation, wildlife sanctuary, or other uses. Slopes of
2:1 will be maintained around the pit and these are to be planted with a mixture consisting
primarily of grasses.
The Coastal Plain/Piedmont Heath Bluff community type occurring in this area has been
identified by the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) as a Significant Natural Community Type that
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

Martin Marietta -Selma Quarry §401/404
June 13, 2007
is rare or uncommon in North Carolina. Additionally, this habitat type provides valuable
resources for wildlife.
We have the following concerns regarding the proposed project:
• A natural community type important to many species of wildlife may be impacted
directly by this project.
The NCWRC does not support the filling of wetlands for development and any required
permit authorization will receive a recommendation for denial unless the project has
significant public benefits and all wetlands or aquatic habitat impacts are fully mitigated.
In addition to purchase of credits from NC EEP for steam impacts as well as wetland
impacts, we recommend that all remaining wetlands on-site be preserved through
conservation easement/deed restriction using language consistent with U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) guidelines for the preservation of wetlands. This language
prohibits cutting, pruning, mowing, or burning of vegetation; construction of any kind;
use of herbicides; any land disturbing activities; dumping or storing of soil, trash, or other
waste; and the pasturing, grazing or watering of animals, or any other agricultural or
horticultural purpose within wetlands.
Water from the pit is to be pumped to a retention/clarification pond where it is to
discharge to the Neuse River. The waters of the Neuse River in this area are classified as
Water Supply IV -Nutrient Sensitive Waters. We recommend that a sufficient
monitoring/contingency plan be developed and implemented to prevent the introduction
of nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorous, into these nutrient sensitive waters.
• Although, the applicant states that a 50 ft undisturbed buffer will be maintained adjacent
to any undisturbed wetlands and watercourses on-site, we recommend a 100 ft native
forested buffer be maintained adjacent to the Neuse River. It is not clear from the
information provided whether or not excavation will occur within the 100-yr flood zone,
but we recommend that excavation not occur in that zone.
• The applicant states that other on-site alternatives were not practicable. However, it
appears that further minimization of impacts could be practicable.
o Impact # 1 should be relocated eastward to the narrowest point in the wetland
o Impact #5 should be converted to bridge, eliminating impact
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this application. If you have any
questions or require additional information regarding these comments, please call me at (910)
796-7217.
cc: James Shern, USAGE
Scott Pohlman, NCNHP