19950153 Ver 2_Individual_20140408

ct o is- 3 v
Martin Marietta Materials
Greensboro District
413 S Chimney Rock Road
Greensboro, NC 27409
Telephone [phone] Y&E ED
Fax [phone]
April 3, 2014 "' —"� CERTIFED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7010 1670 0000 5792 1262
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: Mr. Thomas Brown
United States Army Corp of Engineers --�
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 APR tNR 8 2014
Wake Forest, NC 27587
- w ATE. , ALI
Re: 404 IP Application for Proposed Impact of Jurisdictional Wetlands -w drench
Martin Marietta's Benson Quarry, Johnston County
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am officially submitting two (2) copies a 404 Individual Permit application for approval to
impact 26 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the future expansion of the pit at Martin
Marietta's Benson Quarry. This submittal is based on the previous discussions that took place
with you and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources, in January of 2013.
Subsequently, various meetings and field inspections have occurred with NCDWR, NCDWC,
and the USFWS to evaluate this project and the success of previous project's that Martin
Marietta has completed of similar nature.
This proposed pit expansion is needed to extend the life of the quarry operation and access the
much needed aggregate reserves that exist on the property. Current reserves at this location
will be exhausted in 4 to 6 years, thus impacting the ability to provide construction aggregates
to local NCDOT projects and the surrounding community. Of most concern, is NCDOT's
plans to widen Interstate I -95 from Virginia to SC, improving our States infrastructure and
roadway network and attracting new businesses to NC, all while meeting the aggregate needs
of a recovering economy and expanding development opportunities below Raleigh.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources regulates the Mining
Act of 1972, of which we hold a mining permit ( #51 -18) for this quarry. Benson began
operations in 1996 after many years of exploration, evaluation, and ultimately permitting
through NCDENR. Since that time, we have conducted our business in an environmentally
responsible manner and are now close to exhausting all of the available reserves in the pit and
face major operation concerns if additional reserves are not achieved. With the physical
obstructions that exist on each side of the quarry, our only option is to expand to the north on
property that we lease and control.

Within this application, we have evaluated various alternatives to determine the possibilities of
accessing additional reserves and believe that the preferred alternative meets the long -term
purpose and need of this operation and would most likely, not require additional permitting
from the USACE and NCDWR in the future.
Therefore, approval of this proposed project is being requested. If sufficient reserves were
located outside of the existing wetlands that would meet the purpose and need of this quarry,
this application would not be necessary.
By copy of this letter, five (5) copies of this application have been submitted to the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit, since written approval
is also required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The required $570 application fee
to NCDWR is attached to their application copies.
This information should meet with your approval. If you have any questions, please contact me
at (336) 389 -6616 or e -mail me at brian.northgmartinmarietta.com.
Sincerely,
TIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.
x-4, 00J____
Brian K. North, PE
Division Environmental Manager
cc: NC DWR 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit (Certified Mall #7010 1670 0000 5792 1255)
Benson \404applicationcvr4 -3 -14

U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
OMB APPROVAL NO 0710 -0003
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
EXPIRES 28 FEBRUARY 2013
33 CFR 325 The proponent agency is CECW -CO -R
Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information Send comments regarding
this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense,
Washington Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Und to the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710 -0003) Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding a Q u�o shall be
for failing to with a collection of information if it does not display a currently v F! ! NOT
subject to any penalty comply 'L] ," q�
RETURN your form to either of those addresses Completed applications must be submitted to the District i 9.jurisdichon tiverJhj a location of
the proposed activity
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT APR 8 1014
Authorities Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403, Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 13 Ma ne Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, Final Rule 33 CFR 320- 2 r4=9 _Information provided on
this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit Routine Uses This information may be sh re wonf,bilil sime and other
federal, state, and local government agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a publ r _,Submission
of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued One set
of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see
sample drawings and /or instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity An application
that is not completed in full will be returned
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1 APPLICATION NO
2 FIELD OFFICE CODE
3 DATE RECEIVED
4 DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BYAPPLICANT)
5 APPLICANT'S NAME
8 AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (agent is not required)
First - John Middle -J Last - Tiberi
First - Robert Middle -T Last - Turnbull
Company - Martin Marietta Materials, Inc
Company - Environmental Services, Inc (ESI)
E-mail Address -john tiberi @martmmarietta corn
E-mail Address - rturnbull @esmc cc
6 APPLICANT'S ADDRESS
9 AGENT'S ADDRESS
Address- 2710 Wycliff Road
Address- 524 South New Hope Road
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip -27607 Country -USA
City - Raleigh State - NC Zip-27610 Country-USA
7 APPLICANT'S PHONE NOs w /AREA CODE
10 AGENTS PHONE NOs w /AREA CODE
a Residence b Business c Fax
a Residence b Business c Fax
919 - 783 -4668 919- 783 -4695
919 - 212 -1760 919- 212 -1707
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11 1 hereby authorize, Robert Turnbull, ES] to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this permit application
c�
SIGNATU OF APPLICANT DATE
AI
NA ME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12 PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
Benson Quarry Expansion
13 NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (if applicable)
14 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (if applicable)
Stony Fork
Address 13661 Raleigh Road
City - Benson State- NC Zip- 27504
15 LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude -N 3543085 Longitude -W 7849652
16 OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
State Tax Parcel ID 164100 -81 -6856, 165100 -22 -2746 Municipality N/A
Section - N/A Township - N/A Range - N/A
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE Page 1 of 3

17 DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From Interstate 40, take exit 325 for NC 242 Go east on Woodall Dairy Road and travel foi approximately 1 5 miles to the intersection of
Woodall Dairy Road and Raleigh Road The existing Benson Quarry facility is located at this intersection To access the expansion site,
turn left onto Raleigh Road and travel for approximately 0 5 mile Turn right onto Camilla Road The expansion site is located on the right
(south) side of Camilla Road
18 Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Expansion of existing Benson Quarry pit See Attachments for details
19 Protect Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
The purpose of the project is to maximize the life of the Benson Quarry facility See Attachments for details
USE BLOCKS 20 -23 IF DREDGED AND /OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20 Reason(s) for Discharge
See Attachments
21 Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
22 Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
Acres
or
Linear Feet
23 Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (see instructions)
See Attachments.
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 2 of 3

24 Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ❑No IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25 Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc , Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list)
a Address- Billy L and Janice W Woodall, Woodall Revocable Living Trust, 13523 Raleigh Road
City - Benson State - NC Zip - 27504
b Address- Dorothy Carolyn Allen, 909 E Main Street
City - Benson State - NC Zip - 27504
c Address- Pelon Lanier Paiker, P O Box 607
City - Four Oaks State - NC Zip - 27524
d Address- Teresa McLamb Blackmon, 14188 Raleigh Road
City - Benson State - NC Zip - 27504
e Address- Maurilla C and Allen Sewares, 101 Bayview Isle Drive
City - Islamorada State - FL Zip - 33036
26 List of Other Certificates or Approvals /Denials received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NUMBER
* Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27 Application is hereby made for permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application I certify that this information in this application is
complete and accurate I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant
GNATURE AP LICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT ATE
The Zpcation mu a signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
auth gent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed
18 U S C Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both
ENG FORM 4345, OCT 2012 Page 3 of 3

Section 404/401 Individual Permit Application
Benson Quarry Expansion
Johnston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Materials
Prepared by:
�] Jr- -
01999 ESf
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 South New hope Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
April 2014

Environmental Services, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -
- -- 2
1.1 Site History and Current Operations------------------------------------------------- --- ---------- -- -
- - - - -2
12 Prior Agency Coordination------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -3
2.0
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT------------------------------------ ------------------------ - -
- --- 4
30
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - -
- -- S
3.1 Alternatives Considered ----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------- -
- - - -6
3 11 No Action Alternative ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
3 12 Removal of Existing Waste Pile _______________________________ ____ ___ _________________ __ _
_ _ __ 6
3 13 Relocation of Primary Crushing Station____________________ _______________ __________ __
_ _ __ 7
3 1 4 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion Channel North of
OverburdenPile ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------
3 1 5 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion Channel South of
Overburden Pile (Preferred Alternative)_______________________________ ___________ ________________
____ 8
31 6 Narrow Pit Expansion Through Wetlands -------------------------------------------------
9
3 1 7 Construction of New Plant to Johnson Property ______ __ ______ ___ ____________________
9
3 1 8 New Piton Johnson Property----------------------------------------------------- -------- - -
- - -- 10
3 19 Passageway Under Wetlands---------------------------- - - - - -- -------- ------------------ - -
- - -- 11
3.2 Alternatives Disnussed -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
40
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE --------------------------------
I1
41 Physiograpluc, Topographic, Geology, and Land Use____________ _______________ ____________
_ ___ 12
4.2 Soils -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Water Resources ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -
- -- 12
44 Existing Conditions------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - -12
4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species______________________________________ _____________ __ __________ _ __
_ __ 13
46 Cultural Resources-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - -14
50
SECTION 404 IMPACTS AND PERMITTING________________________________ __________ ______ ____ __ _________
IS
5.1 Proposed Stream Impacts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - -
- -- IS
52 Proposed Wetland Impacts ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -
- - -- I S
5 2 1 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts______ _______ ________________________
IS
53 Compensatory Mitigation------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -------------------
- - - -16
6.0
REFERENCES -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - -18
APPENDIX A Figures and Cross - Sections
APPENDIX B NCDWR Riparian Buffer Letter
APPENDIX C. SHPO Clearance Letter
APPENDIX D: Mitigation Acceptance Letters from NCEEP and Mitigation Banks
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 nixed
pine /hardwood communities, agricultural fields, recently clear cut areas, one (1) non- junsdictional
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 pernut request, a portion of tlus 158 acre area is not presently included in
the mining permit boundary, which totals 270 acres A mining pen nit modification application has
been submitted to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Land
Quality Section to add approximately 100 acres of this property to the pen-rutted boundary Approval
of this modification request is expected by June 1, 2014
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 therefore,
submrttmg an Individual Permit application to the U S Army Comps of Engineers (USAGE) requesting
authorization to permanently impact 26 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 (purpose and need) 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 requirements
1.1 Site History and Current Operations
The Benson Quarry was originally selected and permitted by Martin in the early 1990's, due to its
location and unique geologic deposit The site was onginally secured in preparation for the
construction of Interstate 40 and began mining operations in 1996. At that time and based on years of
pervious investigation and test drilling in the area, Martin believed that this site was the only hard rock
formation of high quality aggregate located east of Garner, North Carolina, since various other
locations in the area had been evaluated and deemed unsuitable for aggregate mining 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 general area but neither
company 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 dust south of the
Benson Quarry Expansion 2

Environmental Services, Inc.
railroad The newer NCGS geologic maps did not show this outcrop or any information related to
potential construction grade aggregate 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 available
rock determined in the\ prospecting efforts, Martin discontinued additional prospecting of the
previously selected site and other locations in the area Ultimately, Benson Quarry was permitted and
was used to supply the stone for the Interstate I -40 project, as well as other projects along the 1 -40
corridor Over the years, Martin has drilled numerous prospect properties in and around the Benson
Quarry looking for other desirable minerals, including 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
Since the mid 1990's, Benson has played a mayor role in supplying construction grade aggregates
along the I -40 corridor and the surrounding community The mining process begins by removing all
of the overburden (soil) above the rock and disposing of it in earthen berms located along the property
boundaries or if possible, allowing the material to be transported off -site to nearby construction
projects to be used as fill material, if needed The berms serve as visual barriers and provide sufficient
buffer from adjoining neighbors and the rruning operation. Once the overburden is removed, drilling
and blasting of the rock is conducted, prior to the material being hauled out of the pit to be processed
The rock is processed by the use of conveyors, screens, and crushers that transport, separate, and
reduce the actual size of the material This process is repeated at various locations within the plant to
obtain the particle size and gradation requirements of NCDOT specifications for numerous types of
materials that are used in the construction industry. A typical aggregates processing plant can have up
to 3 or 4 crushers, 4 or 5 screens, and over 25 conveyors that are necessary to move the material
through the process The numerous types of aggregate products that are produced are stockpiled on-
site prior to being sold and transported offsite by either truck or rail The area of a typical plant
including stockpiles is usually 20 to 30 acres in size, excluding fresh water ponds and settling cells
that are necessary for the process. A typical professing plant can cost millions of dollars, excluding
the cost of mobile equipment utilized in the construction industry, such as drills, haul trucks, loaders,
motor graders, bull dozers, excavators, etc In addition, maintenance shops and other buildings or
facilities are necessary in the operation, including employee buildings, office, parts supply, etc These
support structures add to the overall cost of a typical quarry operation
Over the past 4 years, the volume of shipments has averaged only 440,000 compared to shipments of 1
million tons in 2007 and 2008 As the economy improves and the construction sector rebounds, we
anticipate volumes to improve to normal in the future As with any quarry, the ability to access and
process available reserves within the boundary of the operation is critical to its life and the service that
it provides to the surrounding community and the overall economy of the area.
1.2 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
Benson Quarry Expansion 3

Environmental Services, Inc.
o 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
o 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
o November 13, 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
® March 21, 2014 — A Nationwide Permit #14 application was submitted to request approval to
construct a temporary roadway access across Stoney Fork The access is necessary to allow
for the transport of available sand on the Johnson Property to be used in the processing of
ABC or base material at the quarry Previous meetings with the regulatory agencies listed
above are familiar with Martin's desire and intent on requesting this NWP, which would be
Martin's intent even if the IP application was not necessary
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The overall project purpose is to maximize the life of the Benson Quarry, due to the amount of limited
reserves that are available for mining at this time. 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 tlus 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 perrmt at this time in order to avoid the need for future penult 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 fixture to extend the life of the Benson
Quarry. In fact, Martin has postponed this request for jurisdictional impacts only after exhausting
(within 4 -6 years) all available reserves at tlus location A previous request for jurisdictional impacts
could have been submitted earlier, while many years of available resources still existed. However,
Martin felt that approval may not have been obtained due to the amounts of reserves still available at
that time Due to the time it would take for purchasing (or leasing) additional property, obtaining the
required zoning approvals, obtaining the necessary permitting approvals to conduct such musing
efforts, Martin has postponed this request with only lunited amounts of permitted reserves remaining,
such that the life of the quarry is critical
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' Lillmgton quarry, located 40 miles from the Benson Quarry, and Martin's Rocky
Point Quarry, 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 a very limited number of other permitted aggregate facilities nearby Future
Benson Quarry Expansion 4

Environmental Services, Inc.
NCDOT projects that are planned for this area include the widening of I -95, which is located dust
south of the Benson Quarry This project alone will require extensive amounts of aggregates that
would greatly influence the overall costs of this project without Benson Quarry being in operation
The previous efforts described above to locate, test, acquire sufficient land, zone, and permit the
Benson Quarry was quite 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 Based on our extensive
research of this area, no other location offers the construction aggregates that Benson provides Most
importantly, issues and pernuttmg related to potential wetland impacts at other locations may be
similar in nature and scope as to this application request.
In order to remove the overburden on the Johnson Property, Martin has also submitted an application
for a separate Section 404/401 Nationwide Permit #14 to construct a temporary crossing over the
wetland system on the property. As discussed in pervious conversation with the NC DENR -DVWR,
and the USAGE, this permit application would be submitted regardless of the decision on the Section
404 /401 Individual Permit being submitted for this 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 penrutted
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
aquatic ecosystem, it may be possible to limit, or eliminate altogether, the number of alternatives
which have to be evaluated for practicability.
Benson Quarry Expansion 5

Environmental Services, Inc.
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 with a diversion channel north of the overburden pile, the expansion of the pit through the
on -site wetlands with a diversion channel south of the overburden pile (preferred alternative), a narrow
pit expansion through the wetland system, a new pit on the Johnson property, relocation of the plant to
the Johnson property, and construction of a passageway under the wetland system
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. In this alternative, only 5.50 million tons of available reserves remain in
the current pit, wluch would be exhausted within 4 to 6 years In order to access these
Imuted reserves, 897,000 yards of overburden would be required to be removed and a portion
of this material stored on the existing waste pile dust west of the pit The addition of potential
property for overburden storage would also be necessary if some of this overburden material
could not be used for local construction fobs and hauled off -site See Figure 1.1 for this
alternative.
3 12 Removal of Existing 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 overburden material
The purchase of additional land west of the existing berm adjacent to Raleigh Road for waste
storage would also be required The cost of purchasing adjoining property, if available, would
far exceed the $7000 per acre Martin paid in 2004 for the land used for overburden disposal
(the existing waste pile) dust west of Raleigh Road The overburden 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 a waste berm were to be 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 and around to the Johnson property Tlus would require thousands of truckloads of
material to be moved and would cost about $7.5 million to move over 3 million cubic yards of
overburden and material currently deposited on the waste berm
In the discussion of this alternative, Martin contracted with Ecological Engineering in Cary,
NC to perform a FEMA evaluation to determine if a permanent access or roadway across the
existing wetlands was possible to waste overburden on the north and east side of the Johnson
Property It was determined that a permanent roadway to cross the wetlands (with the
installation of adequate storm drainage pipes to carry the expected 100 -year discharge) would
not be possible without causing an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation and potentially
flooding property owners upstream. In light of the potential reserves obtained in this
alternative, 12.3 million tons of available reserves would be achieved without impacting any
Benson Quarry Expansion 6

Environmental Services, Inc.
wetlands outside of the access road (if it were possible) across the wetlands. Tlus option
would provide the quarry an extended life of 15 to 18 years Therefore, tlus 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 See Figure 1.2 for this alternative.
3 13 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 12, 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 pernuts on the Johnson Property, and therefore
does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant. See Figure 1.3 for this alternative.
3.14 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion Channel North of Overburden Pile
Expanding the pit through the wetlands would require the construction of a permanent
diversion channel around the north and east side of the Johnson property to carry the
approximately seven square rules of offsrte drainage that comes through the existing
wetlands The diversion channel would require the removal and disposal of approximately 12
million cubic yards of overburden at an expected cost of $3 00 per yard or $3.6 million The
proposed channel could be constructed without impacting a portion of the existing wetlands on
the property This channel would allow Martin to meet the 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 rune through approximately 20 acres of wetlands, leaving the
remaining wetlands towards the west and a small portion of wetlands located towards the east
side of the Johnson property undisturbed Tlus alternative could open 52 million tons of
reserves in an additional 60 acre pit expansion This alternative would extend the life of the
quarry for approximately 65 to 70 years.
VWlule tlus alternative does meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant by maximizing
the life of the Benson Quarry, the location of the diversion channel could allow for future
secondary impacts to the hydrology in the undisturbed portions of the wetland system The
proposed diversion channel for this alternative would be located north of the overburden pile
and would divert water around the north and east edges of the Johnson Property In addition,
current zoning requirements would not allow the diversion channel to be constructed within
250 feet of Camilla Road, thus impacting the potential reserves as calculated below. The
long -term effects of diverting this drainage in the manner described may have an
undetermined impact on the hydrology and wetland characteristics within the undisturbed
portions of the wetland system to the east and west of the proposed wetland impacts. It is
highly likely that these wetland areas would either lose the necessary hydrology for
maintaining the quality of the wetland or water would be impounded in the area to the east,
Benson Quarry Expansion 7

Enviromnental Services, Inc.
resulting in a conversion of the wetland to a surface water. The high potential for these
secondary unpacts to these areas and the monitoring/nutigation costs associated with those
secondary impacts on time, prevent this action from being the preferred alternative.
The 60 -acre pit expansion does maximize the life of the Benson Quarry since no additional
reserves are immediately available once tlus action is complete Tlus action would not result
in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property since all remaining
reserves are not accessible. Future permit requests may still be necessary if additional
property is purchased to extend the life of the quarry However, this alternative does meet the
basic purpose and need of the applicant, but allows for potential future wetland impacts due to
hydrologic changes in the wetland system that cannot be reasonably predicted. See Figure 1.4
for this alternative
3 15 Pat Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion Channel South of Overburden Pale
(Preferred Alternative)
This alternative would expand the pit through the wetlands as in the previous alternative, and
would also require the construction of a permanent diversion channel However, tlus
alternative proposes to construct the diversion channel diagonally through the middle of the
Johnson Property, south of a proposed overburden disposal area Tlus proposed diversion
channel would require the removal and disposal of approximately 400 thousand cubic yards of
material but allows for on -site disposal of up to 2 70 million cubic yards of overburden on the
current Johnson tract. The proposed channel and overburden storage area meets the
requirements of the zoning restrictions by off - setting any proposed disturbances outside of the
250' setback from Carmlla Road and along the east and west boundaries of the Johnson
property The proposed channel could be constructed in uplands and avoid impacts to
additional wetlands on the property as described in Alternative 3 14. Tlus channel would also
allow Martin to meet the penmttmg requirements of FEMA by constructing a permanent
bridge access across the new channel to access the future disposal area to the north Based on
the FEMA model currently being evaluated, the diversion channel would have a bottom width
ranging from 100' to 150' (Trapezoidal channel) with a base flow channel of approximately
26' wide, as indicated in Cross - Section No. 1.
In this alternative, Martin would need approval to none through approximately 26 acres of the
existing wetlands While this is a larger initial impact than Alternative 3 1 4 for expanding
through the wetlands, it avoids the possibility of future secondary impacts to the wetland
system upstream and downstream of the future pit The undisturbed wetlands on the property
are directly upstream and downstream of the proposed diversion channel, therefore, the
possibility of changes in hydrology to the undisturbed wetlands would be avoided
The existing pit would be expanded an additional 64 acres and could open 55 million tons of
reserves. This alternative would expand the life of the quarry over 75 to 80 years, which is
the maximum life extension of all alternatives presented in this document Therefore, this
alternative is the preferred that meets the LEDPA objectives 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.
Benson Quarry Expansion 8

Environmental Services, Inc.
Though this alternative provides the highest volume of possible reserves, Martin
acknowledges that this alternative would require the approval and construction of a bridge or
access across the new diversion channel to access the proposed overburden storage pile in the
future Although a 404 permit may be possible for a bridge across the channel, a permanent
roadway is not likely to be approved through FEMA, based on the drainage area that passes
through the Benson Quarry and the potential for flooding resident's properties upstream
Therefore, we have begun to evaluate the engineering aspects of such a bridge and have
provided design criteria to be included in the FEMA model that is currently being prepared in
conjunction with this project See Figure 1.5 for this alternative
316 Narrow Pit Expansion through Wetlands
Pit expansion could also be achieved by mining through a smaller portion of the wetland
system to reach the reserves located underneath portions of the Johnson Property This 20-
acre wetland impact would be the smallest possible impact, while still allowing for access
from the existing pit However, as in Alternative 3 14, current hydrologic conditions in the
remaining undisturbed portions of the wetland system would be in jeopardy and could result in
future, secondary impacts to the wetland system due to the removal or increase in water.
This alternative would open approximately 41 acres of additional pit by opening up 36
Million tons of reserves and expand the life of the Benson Quarry up to 40 to 50 years With
the estimated setbacks from Camilla Road as described in alternative 3.1 4, the amount of
potential overburden storage would be reduced, thus requiring some additional purchase of
adjoining property for future overburden storage 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 since reserves would still be available under the undisturbed
portions of the wetland system. Therefore, this alternative does not meet the basic purpose
and need of the applicant See Figure 1.6 for this alternative
3 1 7 Construction of a New Plant to Johnson Property
In this alternative, the plant and processing area would be relocated to the Johnson Property
and the existing plant area would be used for future mining reserves. This alternative would
allow mining activities to take place through the existing plant area, once the construction of a
new processing plant was completed on the Johnson Property. The issue of permanent access
or connection between the new plant and the pit would require a permanent access across the
wetland system, as discussed in the previous Alternatives Also, all new plant equipment
would need to be purchased and constructed while the existing plant continued to be operated
Approval from the N C Division of Air Quality would also be required before construction
and processing of any material could take place on the Johnson Property
As with alternative 3 15, this alternative would require either the use of the adjacent public
roads or the construction of permanent structure for moving material across the wetland
system to the new plant. Although a 404 permit may be possible for a temporary road across
the wetlands (as in the case of the NWP #14 currently under consideration), it is unlikely that
FEMA could approve a long -term roadway for this option, due to the excessive volume of
potential discharge during a 100 -year flood. With the relocation of the plant, a new quarry
office, scales, and other support structures would be required, adding additional costs to this
alternative.
Benson Quarry Expansion 9

Environmental Services, Inc.
Additional constraints of this alternative are associated with zoning. In December 2003,
Martin obtained zoning approval for the Johnson Property as quarry property The zoning
conditions include a ban on quarry access from Camilla Road into the Johnson Property. 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 along 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 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 33.8 million tons of reserves, providing approximately 45 to
49 additional years to the quarry The cost of constructing a new processing plant, office,
scales, and support structures would easily be above $15 Million This alternative is not
viable because it does not maxinuze 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. See Figure 1.7 for this alternative
31.8 New Pat on Johnson Property
This alternative is technically smular to the 3 1.7 alternative in the actual utilization of the
Johnson Property and encounters the same types of constraints mentioned above Martin
could establish a new pit on the Johnson Property instead of constructing a new processing
plant, thus altering the actual use of the Johnson Property from future plant to future pit. This
action would require the disposal of approximately 9 million cubic yards of overburden, wluch
would require Martin to acquire additional land because current disposal options previously
described would not be adequate to store this anticipated volume
To open a new pit, much of the proposed area for the future pit would be utilized for sloping
of the overburden to get down deep enough to reach the reserves Overburden depths of 80'
are present to the north of the Johnson Property, while a depth of 60' of overburden has been
determined to near the existing wetlands. With the 250' zoning setback requirements along
the east, north, and south property lines of the Johnson Property and the sloping of soil
material (2.1 maximum) much of the Johnson Property would not be available for actual rock
extraction To illustrate this issue, Cross - Sections 2A and 2B can be used to evaluate the
potential reserves in a comparison of tlus alternative and that described in Alternative 1.5
Cross - Section 2A indicates the scenarios of mining a separate pit on the Johnson Property or
expanding through the wetlands (as described in Alternative 1 5). Using a North/South view
of each of these alternatives, Cross - Section 2B illustrates the potential volume of reserves in a
new pit on the Johnson Property or the potential of the pit if it were expanded through the
wetlands in Alternative 1.5 Even if a new pit were to be selected, the wedge of reserves that
would be lost would ultimately be desired to access and would require a future permitting
request to impact the existing wetlands on this property.
A "cork- screw" approach would be the result of such a limited surface area of a new pit area
to access and transport the material out of the pit for processing This alternative would result
in approximately 30 million tons of reserves and expand the life of the quarry by
Benson Quarry Expansion 10

Environmental Services, Inc.
n
approximately 35 -40 years Tlus 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 See Figure 1.8 for this alternative.
31 9 Passageway Under Wetlands
Like Alternative 3 1.7 and 3.1 8, tlus alternative involves the future use of the Johnson
Property as either a new pit or a new plant processing area but actually focuses on the "access
issue" between the existing pit and the Johnson Property To address the access issue across
the wetlands, this alternative would propose to construct a passageway underneath the 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 mayor loss of valuable reserves due the configuration
requirements of the new pit area that would allow this form of haul road layout The cost of
this portal, assuring two lanes, would be approximately $1.2 million to $1.6 million. The
other issues related to the two previous alternatives would still be included if this alternative
were to be selected The issue does not provide the intent of reaching or obtaining the much
needed reserves at this quarry in order to maximize and extend the life of the quarry, which is
the focus and intent of the application Therefore, 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 See Figure 1.9 for this alternative.
3.2 Alternatives Dismissed
The no action alternative, removal of existing waste pile, relocation of primary crushing station, pmt
expansion through wetlands with diversion channel north of overburden pile, narrow pmt expansion
through wetlands, 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
Benson Quarry Expansion 11

Environmental Services, Inc
4.1 Physiographic, Topography, Geology, and Land Use
The project study area is located on the U S Geologic Survey (USGS) 7 5- rmnute topograpluc
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
USGS or NRCS mapping Martin Richmond, formerly 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 # 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 Existing Conditions
Elevations on the property range from a low of approximately 140 above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in
the wetland system to a high of approximately 210 feet above MSL near Canulla Road.
Benson Quarry Expansion 12

Environmental Services, Inc.
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 Tlus 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
Uplands on the Johnson Property consist of Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, clearcut areas, and
agricultural communities. Vegetation in the Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest is dominated by loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) Clearcut areas include saplings of those
species with pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), and dog fennel
(Eupatorium capill folium) The agricultural communities on the property appeared to be recently
active; remnants of corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max) are present.
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.). Four (4) species are
listed as T or E 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 2014). red - cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio
steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
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 mule (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 dommnated 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 January 2014, indicates no known occurrence of RCW
within 10 mule 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 January
Benson Quarry Expansion 13

Environmental Services, Inc.
2014, indicates no known occurrence of dwarf wedgemussel within 1.0 rule of the project
study area
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Tar River 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 January 2014,
indicates no known occurrence of Tar River spinymussel within 1.0 rule 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 opemngs 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 a species - specific survey for Michaux's sumac within these areas. No
individuals were observed A review of NCNHP records, updated January 2014, 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 "Sigmficant" 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 sigmficance 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 14

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 mayor 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 maximize 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, 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 (hinted 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 dust 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
preferred alternative that represents the minimum amount of impact to natural resources while still
meeting the project purpose. As a result, approximately twenty -six (26) acres of impacts to Section
404 wetlands will result from this quarry expansion action These impacts will occur wmtlun the
wetland system located north of the existing quarry
521 Avoidance and Minimization of Wetland Impacts
The existing quarry facility is proposed to expand northward towards the wetland system The
proposed action will rmmmrze 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 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 jurisdictional wetlands, of which, 35.08 acres are located on
property controlled by Martin. The USACE approved the Jurisdictional Determination in
January of 2013 Incorporating core drilling data and potential wetlands around the property,
Benson Quarry Expansion 15

Environmental Services, Inc.
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 direct and secondary impacts to wetlands upstream and downstream of the proposed
pit, Martin is proposing to construct a diversion channel that will start at the downstream end
of upstream wetlands and transport water in the system to wetlands downstream of the
proposed expansion This design will prevent future impacts to wetlands outside of the
proposed expansion area and maintain hydrologic conditions in the undisturbed wetlands. The
acreage of the impacts is the minimum possible to avoid the potential for these future
secondary impacts to wetland hydrology
Therefore, it is our opinion that the 26 acres of impact proposed in this 404 application is
unavoidable in order to meet the project goals and 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 ntigation 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 (RS) and the other is the Nue -Con.
Westbrook Lowgrounds Bank that is managed by Environmental Banc and Exchange (EBX), LLC
On November 4, 2013, contact was made with Ms Kelly Williams with the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) to discuss this project On November 18, 2013, NCEEP provided an
acceptance letter to offset any mitigation credits that would not be available to obtain through RS or
EBX
With Martin's previous involvement with RS, a meeting was held on October 28, 2013 to discuss the
possible wetlands credits available from the Pancho Mitigation Bank As a result, RS provided written
authorization on November 8, 2013 of the credits that would be available for this project, including the
NWP pernut application previously mentioned in this report.
On November 12, 2013, a meeting was also held with EBX to discuss the mitigation credits available
for both of the projects under consideration at Benson Written documentation was provided by EBX
on November 18, 2013 that outlines the mitigation credits available and the work that is necessary to
move forward with EBX on this project
Both RS and EBX proposed Pernnttee Responsible Mitigation (PRM) to offset the necessary credits
that would be needed after all existing credits were purchased from the two existing mitigation banks
described above After much discussion internally, Martin has decided to move away from the PRM
process and seek NCEEP for all outstanding credits that the two mitigation banks cannot provide. RS
and EBX have been notified of this decision and written correspondence has been requested to revise
each proposal outlining the available credits that Martin could purchase for this project Once those
revised proposals are received, they will be forwarded to the USACE
Benson Quarry Expansion 16

Environmental Services, Inc.
Therefore, the necessary mitigation credits needed for this project may be provided by a combination
of credits from RS, EBX, and the NCEEP Copies of the original written authorizations or acceptance
letters received from RS, EBX, and the NCEEP are included in Appendix D
Benson Quarry Expansion 17

Environmental Services, Inc.
6.0 REFERENCES
[NCDWQ] N C. Division of Water Quality 2010. Basmwide Information Management System
(BIMS) Stream Classification <h2o enr state.nc us /bims> accessed September 2013
[NCNHP] N.0 Natural Heritage Program 2014. January 2014 NHP Element Occurrences, Raleigh,
NC. Accessed February 2014
[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 Spmymussel 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
(Picoldes borealis) Second Revision. Atlanta, Georgia 296 pp
[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 February 2014
[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- rmnute
quadrangle map United States Geologic Survey, Washington, D C
Benson Quarry Expansion 18

Environmental Services, Inc.
Appendix A
Figures and Cross - Sections
Benson Quarry Expansion

File: P: \GeoGra\Projec6 120 0611 3 4 \GIS1Plkllocation.mxd Printed: 011028006 3:22 pm
�� �i-�• -�
"� C'
E
i' �) ���
ii
� -
�• %}
_ _
., __
l
�'
4 _ /
� \ � `ter r•
INS
��-/
-- X4
f � •1356
'� - S � / 'j
° "fY1 ;� ��� ;4'
•
�_ `.
�S
200
-n
Project Boundary* - "'" < '(,�� _-`
••
`Location and extent is approximate. l
- • \
�`✓ �' f + •.
`
0 1,000 2,000 -
Feet
Source: 2011 National Geographic SocietylESRI, I -cubed
seamless USGS quadrangles (Benson and Four Oaks, NC); \/ {(� r•
Project boundary approximated by �—� 1 �._ _. _r
�'
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for •�` ,' _��� �"
Informational purposes only and was not prepared for
and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
524 S. New Hope Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919)212 -1760
Project Location
Benson Quarry
Project: ER12191.00
Date: Mar 2014
Drwn /Chkd: KT /RT
(919) 212 -1 707 FP J(
www.en environmentalservicesinc . com
Johnston County, North Carolina
Figure:
File: P: \GeoGra\Projec6 120 0611 3 4 \GIS1Plkllocation.mxd Printed: 011028006 3:22 pm

walip
GeB AUCC
y �Bb �y t
GeB
,y Bb 8b G6
r •
Ge6'
GeB
8b �.
Gee GeB
' GeB Bb
Bb s o AaA
AaA As AaA StA '
,
eB Bb ,
.. Bb GeB
ed No,8
Q d Le
,,....
Gee' r
r (; GeB WoB
A
!'r, ` '
Noe r % �S'�� NoB
�' G�E3 , ' GeB �'� -•
oProject Boundary* Gr
NRCS Soil Boundary Gel) �'� r/ NoB
'Location and extent is approximate. W 301
0 500 1,000 G @B U C B
Feet �_ Soil Mapping Units
Source: NRCS Soil Survey of Johnston County, 1994; AaA Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 -2% slopes, occasionally flooded
Project boundary approximated by
ESI. '•_ ASA Augusta sandy loam, 0 -2% slopes, occasionally flooded
Bb Bibb sandy loam, frequently
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for Informational
flooded
purposes only andwas not prepared for, and is notsuitable forlegal or ��., +., GeB Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
engineering purpose s. This information presented is n c for regulatory d
ev'law and is intended for use only by a Professional Land Surveyor 1X30 GeD Gilead sandy loam, 8-15% slopes f
pd or to regulatory review. . "il► Le Leaf silt loam {
ENVIRONMENTAL Project: ER12191.00
SERVICES, INC. NRCS Soils
524 S. New Hope Road Benson Quarry Date: Mar 2014
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919) 2121760 Johnston County, North Carolina Drwn /Chkd: KT /RT
l9 19) 212 -1707 FAX
www w
w.environmenfalservicesinc. com Figure: 2
File ;P:\GeoGra\Projects\2006\1 34 \GISIPIA locabon.mxd Printed; 0110220083:22 pm

s
V �
O
•i �
a N
U
O I-
LL
O
0
z
O_
H
U
W
O
U
s
L
V
q�
G
ti
M
fJ
'i
t4
ti
f3
2
0
Jx�
O d
O
0
o
- m
0
d
0
�o
tiff
s
V �
O
•i �
a N
U
O I-
LL
O
0
z
O_
H
U
W
O
U
s
L
V
q�
G
ti
M
fJ
'i
t4
ti
f3
2

L - L �j `' ✓ r� ),•r.
Pn
� rr - ,:..r`, ( � � �(�� -... �� ; g � ; ,;`� _ �- -.�-�� ✓ter ;
N
0
z
coo
W
I
1
U
N
10
IT
g
ti
M
e_i

O
�
a
I
III
(
- -la
11
is
�I.
-
�-
(.111.11
-
!
II
I
T1
--
_
II_
1
;
►
II
-I
I I
I
I
I
((I
III
T(I
I I
II
1-1, T _ -(I
111111 I
IT
i
! 11
III.
l
_
II
�_.II-
I
I
'I
1(
� 11
H-1
II
I
I
J_
Etnadan
N
z
0
H
W
a
U

Environmental Services, Inc
Appendix B
NCDWR Riparian Buffer Letter
Benson Quarry Expansion

_A *10
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCroy Charles Wakdd PE
Governor Director
Robert Turnbull
Environmental Service, Inc
524 South New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
March 11, 2013
Revised May 7, 2013
John E Skvarla, III
Secretary
Subject. Surface Water Determination Letter
NBRRO #13 -031
Johnston County
Determination Type
Buffer Cali
Isolated or EIP Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B 0233)
Start@
Stop@
❑ Ephemeral /Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar - Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B 0259)
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 2B 0267)
X
Project Name Benson Quarry
Location/Directions Subject property is an undeveloped tract located adjacent to exist Quarry
in Benson
Subject Stream UT to and Stony Fork
Date of Determination: January 30, 2013
Feature
E/UP*
Not Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
Survey
USGS
To o
A
Swamp
X
No Channel
X
X
B
Swamp
X
No Channel
X
X
C
X
X
X
Pond C
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
E
X
No stream
X
- *E111P = Ephemeral /Intermittent/Perennial
Explanation The feature(s) listed above has or have been located on the Soil Survey of Johnston County, North
Carolina or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 124,000 scale Each feature that is checked
"Not Subject" has been determined not to be a stream or is not present on the property Features that are checked 0.,
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream There may Carolina
aiura!!y
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection
Intemet www rimaterquality org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1628
An Equal OpportundylAffirmatrve Acton Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Phone [phone] Customer Service
FAX [phone]

Benson Quarry
Johnston County
March 11, 2013
Page 2 of 2
other streams located on your property that do not show up on the maps referenced above but, still may be
considered ,jurisdictional according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and/or to the Division of Water Quality
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that
dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority may request a determination by the
Director. An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) days of date of this letter or from the date the affected
party (including downstream and /or adjacent owners) is notified of this letter. A request for a determination by the
Director shall he referred to the Director in writing c/o Karen Higgins, DWQ WeBSCaPe Unit, 1650 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.
This determination is final and binding unless, as detailed above, you ask for a hearing or appeal within sixty (60)
days.
The owner /future owners should notify the Division of Water Quality (including any other Local, State, and Federal
Agencies) of this decision concerning any future correspondences regarding the subject property (stated above). This
project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries should be directed to the
Division of Water Quality (Central Office) at (919)- 733 -1786, and the US Army Corp of Engineers (Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office) at (919) -554 -4884.
Respectfully,
w
Martin Ric and
Environmental Specialist
cc WeBSCaPe —1650 Mail Service Center
RRO /SWP File Copy

FiM V1GeeGMWT-pcb @00l11741GISWl loc"m m.0 rrimw ui"' --ec pm

Environmental Services, Inc
Appendix C
SHPO Clearance Letter
Benson Quarry Expansion

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M Bartos, Adn=strator
Governor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Ktuttz
July 30, 2013
Terri Russ
Environmental Services, Inc
524 South New Hope Road
Raleigh, NC 27610
Re Benson Quarry, Johnston County, ER 13 -1452
Dear Ms Russ
Thank you for your letter of July 16, 2013, concerning the above project
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
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 Comphance 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- 807 -6579 or renee.p_,ledhill-
ea.tley@ncdcr gov In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number
Sincerely, , n U
(2� b5YRamona M Bartos
Location. 109 Fast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Madutg Address 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 Telephone /Fax [phone] -6599

Environmental Services, Inc
Appendix D
Mitigation Acceptance Letters
Benson Quarry Expansion

Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
November 8, 2013
Mr. Brian North, P.E.
Division Environmental Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
413 S. Chimney Rock Road
Greensboro, SC 27409
RE: Compensatory Wetland Mitigation Proposal - Benson Quarry
Dear Brian:
Please accept this letter proposal as a follow up to the discussion at our office last
week regarding compensatory wetland mitigation for Martin Marietta's planned
expansion of the Benson Quarry in Johnston County, NC. In preparing our proposal,
we kept the following key points in mind:
• The proposed impact may be up to 30 acres of riparian wetland; requiring up
to 60 acres (or credits) of compensatory wetland mitigation.
• Martin Marietta's site construction plans include an engineered diversion
channel with ecological features that will provide onsite water quality and
quantity (transport and holding) benefits that should be accounted for in the
mitigation ratio applied by the regulatory agencies.
• Two 404/401 permits may be involved - a nationwide permit (NWP) for site
access and crossing; an Individual Permit for the quarry itself.
P Martin Marietta is working with the Corps (Thomas Brown) to complete the
permitting process within the next four to six months.
This proposal takes into account the above points and presents a compensatory
mitigation approach that will accomplish Martin Marietta's goals of an efficient and
timely permitting process and cost effective, high quality ecological compensation
Wetland Mitigation Proposal
Go - to provide 30 to 60 acres (or credits) of riparian wetland.
Pilot Mill ° 1101 Haynes St, Suite 211 -Raleigh, NC 27604 ° wwwrestorationsysterns corn *Phone [phone] *Fax [phone]

Recognizing that the permitting process is fluid, Restoration Systems understands
that the mitigation need is not a definite, known number at this point We believe
that the best approach is to offer a mix of released credits from our Pancho Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Bank and permittee - responsible mitigation (PRM).
The purchase of released and available mitigation credits enables mitigation to
occur in advance of project impacts For Martin Marietta's permit, Restoration
Systems offers to sell all available (or soon to be available - December 2014)
riparian wetland credits from the Pancho Stream at Wetland Mitigation Bank for
$65,000 per credit These credits will provide necessary mitigation for the proposed
NWP for access and account for any issues related to temporal loss that may be
raised by the regulatory agencies in consideration of PRM.
For an impact to riparian wetlands such as this, both the size and timing make it
difficult to provide mitigation solely through the purchase of credits; PRM must be
considered as an option by the regulatory agencies. In the present case, PRM is not
only practical (insufficient banked credits available) but also preferable because it
enables the permittee and regulatory agencies to accomplish a high degree
ecological restoration that is readily identifiable with the permitting action. By
contract with Martin Marietta, Restoration Systems will accept full responsibility
and liability for the acquisition, implementation, monitoring and longterm success
and stewardship of the mitigation project. Restoration Systems will work directly
with the Corps and other regulatory agencies to ensure that the project meets or
exceeds all relevant standards.
Restoration Systems has identified a complex of land parcels in the watershed and
adjacent to the Neuse River that would meet the present need exactly in that the site
could be assembled and implemented to provide between 40 and 60 acres of
wetland restoration. Additionally, the site has available stream restoration that
though not needed under the present permitting strategy may provide additional
value to the project. Restoration Systems would provide this PRM mitigation to
Martin Marietta at a cost of $58,000 per credit of riparian wetland mitigation
Summary of Proposed Mitigation
7.4 riparian wetland credits at $65,000 per credit. $481,000
40 to 60 acres of PRM restoration at $58,000 per acre: $2,320,000 to
$3,480,000
• Total: $2,801,000 to $3,961,000; dependent on final permitted mitigation
requirement; no stream included at this time.
2

Proposed Diversion Channel
As part of its site design, Martin Marietta has proposed to construct a diversion
channel to move water from the top of the quarry area, around the impact site, and
into an existing culvert. Restoration Systems understands and appreciates that this
diversion channel will be constructed to provide active, biological improvements to
water quality that should be accounted for in the determination of mitigation
quantities required for the project. As a part of this proposal, but at no extra cost,
Restoration Systems will work closely with Martin Marietta and the permitting
consultant to determine the best means to account for the value added or the
lessening of the proposed impact by construction of the diversion channel.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to you We are available to
discuss further anything that may need clarification. The next steps are to reach
agreement terms and begin work.
Best regards,
Tara Disy Allden
3

Memo 11/18/2013
To Brian K North, PE
Division Environmental Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc
From Matt Fisher
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX)
Subject Benson Quarry Expansion, Johnston County, NC
Brian
Per our conversation, EBX would like to provide a turn-key mitigation solution for Martin Marietta
Materials, Inc - Benson Quarry Expansion, located in Johnston County, NC
The turnkey contract is much like a Permittee Responsible Mitigation (PRM), however, EBX would include
a scope of work consisting of project site assembly, securing conservation easements, design, construction,
monitoring, and maintenance of the project sites, performance bonds and long -term endowments Under
the proposed contract, the turnkey scope of work will be coupled with indemnification against liability for
the ecological performance of the project under a fixed price, performance guaranteed structure
A turn -key mitigation solution contract is conducted in three phase.
Phase 1: Site Identification and Conceptual Nhtigation Plan EBX has two properties under contractual
control that are anticipated to produce between 30 -55 Riparian wetland credits at each property Both sites
are located in Neuse 03020201 drainage basin Over the next several months EBX will coordinate with
your office, and consultants as directed, to match the site that best benefits Martin Marietta Materials, Inc
mitigation needs for this project EBX will address the assembly and production of the conceptual
mitigation plan to a level appropriate for submission with the 404 permit application for the project and
determination of a fixed turnkey price
Phase 2: Final Nhtigation Plan: As a team member, EBX will develop the Final Mitigation Plan to the
level required by the USACE to allow 404 permit issuance
Phase 3: Implementation: EBX will implement work activities as defined by the Final Mitigation Plan
and assume long term monitoring and management of the project
Next Step:
EBX will provide a full proposal that will outline the three phased costs and scope of work associated To
do this EBX would like to meet with Martin Marietta Materials, Inc to further understand timelines and
project impacts The proposal is structured in multiple phases to provide the ability to respond to input from
the regulatory agencies and to provide Martin Marietta Materials with flexibility during the process
Brian EBX understands that an option for Martin Marietta Materials, Inc is to propose to the U S Army
Corp of Engineers (Corps) to pay into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) at
current rates of $68,502 per acre NCEEP may or may not be allowed to accept the payment due to size of
the wetland impacts It can be assumed that a Not -To- Exceed amount would be below $68,502 per acre
EBX understands that fixed pricing for a turn-key project must be below this amount to warrant the effort
and benefit by Martin Marietta Materials, Inc
Best Regards
Matt Fisher
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC (EBX)
matt @ebxusa corn

ECPSYStp
PROGRAM
November 18, 2013
Bi ian North, PE
Martin Mai ietta Materials, inc
— — 413 S- C- hunney -Rock- Road - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - --- - - - -- ---
Greensboio, NC 27409 Expiration of Acceptance- May 18, 2014
Project: Martin Marietta's Benson Quaiiy County Johnston
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Caiolma Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is willing to accept
payment for compensatory mitigation for impacts associated with the above referenced pioJect as indicated in the table below Please
note that this decision does not assure that participation in the NCEEP will be approved by the permit issuing agencies as mitigation
for protect impacts It is the iesponsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to deter mine if payment to the NCEEP will be
approved You must also comply with all other state federal or local government permits regulations of authorizations associated
with the proposed activity including SL 2009 -337 An Act to Piomote the Use of Compensatory Mitigation Banks as amended by
S L 2011 -343
This acceptance is valid for six months fiom the date of this letter and is not transferable if we have not received a copy of the
issued 404 Permit /401 Certification /LAMA permit within this time frame, this acceptance will expire It is the applicant's
responsibility to send copies of the permits to NCEEP Once NCEEP receives a copy of the pei mrt(s) an invoice will be issued based
on the required mitigation in that pen-nit and payment must be made prior to conducting the authorized woi k The amount of the In-
Lieu Fee to be paid to NCEEP by an applicant is calculated based upon the Fee Schedule and policies listed at www nceep net
Based on the information supplied by you in your request to use the NCEEP, the impacts that may require compensatory mitigation are
summarized in the following table The amount of mitigation iequned and assigned to NCEEP foi this impact is deteunined by
permitting agencies and may exceed the impact amounts shown below
Impact
River
Basin
CU
Location
Stream (feet)
Wetlands (acres)
Buffer I
(Sq Ft)
Buffer II
(Sq Ft )
Cold
Cool
Warm
Riparian
Non -Ripai ran
Coastal Marsh
Neuse
1 03020201
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
Upon receipt of payment, EEP will take responsibility foi providing the compensatory mitigation The mitigation will be performed in
accordance with the N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program in -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010
Thank you for your interest in the NCEEP if you have any questions of need additional information, please contact Kelly Williams at
(919) 707 -8915
Sincerely,
Jame Stanfill
Asset Management Supervisor
cc Karen Higgins, NCDWR Wetlands /401 Unit
Thomas Brown, USACE- Raleigh
Martin Richmond, NCDWR - Raleigh
File
�Zuto .. .. PYDt2Gt OGGY StG P� ®��
,9• NC ®EI�Et
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 - 707 -8976 / www nceep net

Martin Mariettim MatareaAs
VENDOR NO.
PO BOX 30013 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 276 22 -001 3
155242
DATE:
CHECK NO.
1470318
03/26/14
DATE
INVOICE/CREDIT
GROSS AMT
ADJ DESC
DISCOUNT
NET AMOUNT
03/18/14
15524244206031814
57000
401 prmt app fee Bens
57000
L L
THE ATTACHED CHECK IS IN PAYMENT
FOR ITEMS DESCRIBED
ABOVE
TOTAL:
__
570.00
570.00
' Martin Mariana Mai tereals ® � Wells Fargo BanK,N A s 65316 CHECK NO. 01470318
PO BOX 30013 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27622 -0013
DATE CHECK AMOUNT
03/26/14 $ * * * * ** *570.00
FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY AND
PAY TO NC DENR
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
1617 MAIL SERVICE CTR
! ° RALEIGH NC 27699 -1617
II "014703LIDO 1:05310156110 207990013481411'
g'4 U�- M-4x�'
Authorized Signature

ru ru
tv ru
a 17-1
ru ru
Er" ET'
r` r,-
L1 Ln
M E3
E7 ED
E7 M
O C7
� d
Postage $
Certified Fee
Petum Receipt Fee T
(Endorsement Required)
Restneted Delivery Fee
(Endorsement Required)
PosImark,
Hera
—M Total Postag
r-4 a PN& Thomas Brown
o ® ro
-------Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
a _ US Army Corps of Engineers
� O 6treet,Apt No,
r� rt or Po sox No 3 331 Heritage Trade Dr , Suite 105
671V :5 §re, zi: Wake Forest, NC 27587

-PS
e
Ln
Ln
® Ln
Ln
Dr1 ® r r ♦ r r
® ru
ru
® n'
^''
Er'
I.
® r`
r\-
Postage
Ln
Ln
O
O
Certified Fee
® M
E3
Return Receipt Fee Postmark
Hers
E3E3
(Endorsement Required)
®
Restricted Delivery Fee
® p
O
(Endorsement Requ red)
17`
r`-
`0
Totes Post
a
a
NC Division of Water Resources
® o
®
Sent ro
& Buffer Permitting Unit
r-a
a
401
® O
O
° reet' Apt t "'
1650 Mail Service Center
r-
r�
or?oBoxt,
,ctrytt° Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650
or oe
� e: