19950153 Ver 2_Emails_20140131

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Brian North [briars .north @tnartinmarietta.com]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 8:37 AM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a, Robert Turnbull (rurnbull @ESINC.CC)
Cc: Brown, Thomas L SAW; Stancil, Vann F; john_ellis @fws.gov
Subject: RE: Benson Project
Jennifer,
The new channel was art alternative that we looked at when we had all of our management team
review this project. This concept removes some of the potential reserves that we would like to
achieve but also eliminates the uncertainty for wetland mitigation costs down the road for
possible changes to the characteristics of the wetlands on the east side of the property, if the
outer channel was constructed.
The proposed diagonal channel requires some form of access across the new channel to utilize
the north side of the property, which we have shown as possible overburden disposal. Without
some form of access, this land would be cut off from our operation.
I do not expect that a permanent culverted access will pass a FEMA model, as one does not pass
under the channel relocation previously discussed. Some form of bridge is expected to allow
this access, which will have to be incorporated into the new FEMA evaluation. A discussion with
our FEMA consultant will take place on Tuesday of next week to begin evaluating this new
scenario.
Providing an access across the natural channel or the diversion channel is not the purpose of
this project. Finding a solution to reach the much needed reserves for this quarry is the intent
of this project, which will include some form of a permanent access across the new diversion
yi^rnrj I s e:F �
now, + %„d { it b i .-ect5 .4. " . am n ct e. n ± ini �-�n d ppt reven ts r c =5- .� t A {L ... ., noIr t
This diagonal diversion gill udd cost to the project in the form of a permanent access and
reduced potential reserves `..1- also off sets potential wetlands mitigation costs that may have
to be paid in the future if the original design were to be accepted. This new design also
I:� .� c ri grtrt• r, ti ^ h1V I!! �:,,!eJICiF -I ii, t��� -. ,per f i- rri:an -e", i�` tis�. r, we.'�'ln_mr, .7,�nd
I,elr "ti_i ��.? ! -3n IJn� -1 4f i!!(� F'. 2/E�j!J`.SI�Ft l.�M !.
eliminates the monitor'no discussed iii prevlolls Teetings,
This new scenario will meet the intent of what is needed at Denson (more reserves) while
preventing future costs to be associated in the project on issues that are beyond our physical
control. Honestly, I like this scenario better and I believe it will be better for the agencies as
well because it removes all of the "uncertainty" from the previous discussions.
Let me know if you have any other questions.

Brian K. North, PE
Division Environmental Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
(336) 389 -6616 (Office)
(980) 721 -1212 (Mobile)
From: Burdette, Jennifer a [ mailto: Jennifer.Burdette(cbncdenr.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:47 PM
To: Brian North; Robert Turnbull (Turnbull (&ESINC.CC)
Cc: Brown, Thomas L SAW; Stancil, Vann F; john ellis0d fws.gov
Subject:
Brian & Robert,
I like that this alternative counts the wetland impact from where the water is diverted out of the natural channel to
where it is discharged back into the natural channel.
However, could you please explain how it is possible to design and construct a culverted crossing of the diversion
channel, but not the natural channel. Do you know if this new crossing would be acceptable under the requirements of
FEMA?
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer A. Burdette
401 /Buffer Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Wetlands Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources - Water Quality Programs
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
(919) 807 -6364 phone
(919) 807 -6494 fax
*Ennail correspo.-i lerice'to ai-;tl`r:;,rr; thos address fnay be subject to the Noun Carolina Pily)l , Records Law ai -id ri-tay le
disclosed to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation.*