20211505 Ver 1_SAW-2020-00436-PN_20211221

US Army Corps
Of Engineers
Wilmington District
PUBLIC NOTICE
Issue Date: December 21, 2021
Comment Deadline: January 19, 2022
Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2020-00436
The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from
Hedrick Gravel and Sand Company- Lake Norman Quarry seeking Department of the
Army authorization to impact 3,170 linear feet (If) (2.18 acres) of Forney Creek,
associated with a proposed expansion of an existing aggregate quarry at 6941 Quarry
Lane in the Stanley community of Lincoln County, North Carolina.
Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached
plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington
District Web Site at: https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Public-Notices/
Applicant: Hedrick Industries
Attn: Mr. Jason Conner
Post Office Box 425
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
[e-mail]
AGENT (if applicable): Civil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Kevin Thomas
3701 Arco Corporate Drive, Suite 400
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
[e-mail]
Authority
The Corps evaluates this application and decides whether to issue, conditionally issue,
or deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of the following Statutory
Authorities:
® Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)
❑ Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)
❑ Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1413)
Version 6.15.2017 Page 1

Location
Location Description: Project is located at 6941 Quarry Lane, off Highway 16
approximately one mile south of Highway 73, near the Town of Stanley in Lincoln
County, North Carolina.
Project Area (acres): 499.5 Nearest Town: Stanley, NC
Nearest Waterway: Killian Creek River Basin: Catawba
Latitude and Longitude: 35.260888N,-81.012457W
Existing Site Conditions
The proposed project is located within the current permitted mine boundary at the Lake
Norman Quarry (LNQ) Mine operated by Hendrick Industries in the eastern portion of
Lincoln County. Hedrick Industries plans to operate under the current permit (NCDEQ
Division of Land Quality Quarry Permit #55-01) to meet the continued and growing need
for construction aggregate product (i.e., crushed stone) in Lincoln County and the
Charlotte Metro Region of North Carolina.
The site is currently providing aggregate product for multiple businesses and
organizations. Land use within the permitted LNQ Mine footprint consists of the pit, the
processing plant(s), overburden storage, pond fine storage, ponds, an asphalt plant and
a concrete plant (Reference Figure 1 and Figure 2). Land use surrounding the area of
LNQ Mine currently consists of a residential housing development (Trilogy Home
development) to the North; a permitted Landfill (Republic Services) to the East; a
Natural Gas Combustion Power Plant (Duke Power Combustion Turbine Plant) and the
Killian Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility to the West and Southwest. The Southern
boundary is occupied by an existing overhead transmission line Right -of -Way (ROW)
that services the combustion power plant. An additional natural gas line ROW exists
along the southern border. Blum Manufacturing facilities and the Earnhardt Grading
Company are located to the South (Reference Figure 3).
The project site is located within North Carolinas Piedmont Ecoregion. Vegetation
communities and habitats include old fields, rock outcrops, streams, and woodlands,
where species diversity for some animal groups, such as amphibians, reptiles and birds,
is relatively high. The current NCDEQ permitted mine boundary is comprised mostly of
forested land, dense thickets of tall shrubs, riparian areas, and developed or disturbed
lands.
The USDA Web Soil Survey of Lincoln County identifies the following soil mapping units
within the project area:
Version 6.15.2017 Page 2

Table 1. Project Area Soils
Soil Type
Soil Description
Hydric
Status
Acres
CeB2
Cecil sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
moderately eroded
No
47.86
ChA
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently
flooded
Partially
44.71
LdB2
Lloyd sandy clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
NO
4.65
LdC2
Lloyd sandy clay loam 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
No
6.32
MaD
Madison Sandy Loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
No
8.98
MdB2
Madison Sandy Clay Loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
No
0.73
MdC2
Madison Sandy Clay Loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
No
2.50
PaD
Pacolet Sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
No
24.28
PeB2
Pacolet Sandy Clay loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
No
95.32
PeC2
Pacolet Sandy Clay loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes,
moderately eroded
No
145.62
Pt
Pits/ Quarry
No
19.82
RvA
Riverview Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally
flooded
Partially
1.53
Ud
Urdorthents, Loamy
No
89.83
W
Water
yes
6.49
WyC
Wynott-Winnsboro-Rowan Complex, 8 to 15 percent
slopes
No
1.09
WyD
Wynott-Winnsboro-Rowan Complex, 15 to 25
percent slopes
No
0.78
The FEMA FIRMs mapping identifies portions of the project area inside the 100-year
floodplain. Under the preferred alternative, the mine wall expansion would encroach into
the 100-year FEMA floodplain. Floodway alterations would occur due to the realignment
of Forney Creek. The applicant is preparing a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) submittal package.
An aquatic resources delineation was completed within the project site and was verified
by the Corps on March 8, 2021. The project area contains 15,722 linear feet streams
(Table 2), 4.5 acres wetlands (Table 3), and 10.9 acres open waters (Table 3).
Version 6.15.2017
Page 3

Table 2: Project Area Streams
Stream Name
Stream
Classification
Approximate Length of
Perennial Stream
(linear feet)
SA 1 (Forney Creek)
Perennial
5,194
SA 2
Perennial
77
SA 3
Perennial
3391
SA 4
Perennial
296
SA 5
Perennial
3257
SA6
Perennial
3507
TOTAL
15,722 linear feet
Table 3: Project Area Wetlands and Waters
Wetland Name
Approximate
Acreage
WA 1
4.5
Pond 1
6.8
Pond 2
0.8
Pond 3
0.9
Pond 4
0.3
Pond 5
1.2
Pond 6
0.9
The site is located within the Catawba River Basin. The waters on site drain to Killian
Creek, a tributary within the 030501011303 USGS HUC. A functional assessment of the
aquatic resources was not submitted as part of the application package.
Applicant's Stated Purpose
The applicant proposes to extend the Life of Mine (LOM) expectancy and projected
reserve base of the LNQ Mine from 15 years, to between 75-100 years to meet the
current and future economic production demands of aggregate product.
Project Description
The proposed action area footprint encompasses approximately 11 acres. Under the
preferred alternative, the existing mine pit would be expanded laterally, to the northwest
ranging from 100 to 300 If allowing the pit floor to be deepened, vertically by, by an
extra 100 feet from the current 95 feet below the exiting ground surface. The proposed
action area footprint encompasses approximately 11 acres and would require an
estimated 3,170 LF of Forney Creek (SA-1) to be relocated. Forney Creek is an
impaired EPA listed 303d aquatic resource, characterized by low water quality and
highly unstable banks. Within Forney Creek a low head dam is located along the
Eastern portion of the project action area and would be removed. An existing
Version 6.15.2017 Page 4

undersized culvert would also be replaced with a bridge span. Stream relocation and
enhancement would occur by realigning Forney Creek to a more stable configuration
using Natural Channel Design methodologies.
Avoidance and Minimization
The applicant did not specifically address efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the
aquatic environment , however, they did lead provide information regarding their
alternative analysis.
In order for Hedrick Industries to fully preform the functions for which aggregate
production can be achieved, the following screening and design criteria were
considered when developing the practicable alternatives analysis.
1. The alternative must consider the geophysical integrity of the site, choosing areas
that would not hinder mining activities, such as overburden stability and or depth to
viable product.
2. The alternative must contain soils/geology that meet the American Society of
Testing and Material (ASTM) standards and requirements set by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Roads and Structure
(NCDOT 2018).
3. The alternative shall consider areas that would not significantly impact sensitive
resource areas (including but not limited to state and federally protected species'
habitats, water resources (such as wetlands), and/or cultural resource areas.
4. The alternative shall consider areas that would not significantly impact the
surrounding land uses, considering adverse impacts to the surrounding residential
and industrial areas.
5. The alternative area must be located within a one -mile radius from the LNQ Mine to
meet the requisite aggregate product trucking/transportation needs. Specifically, the
proposed expansion areas would need to be located close enough to the LNQ Mine
as to minimize travel distances, particularly on public roadways.
6. The alternative must be sited on property owned by the proponent, or on at least
100 acres of contiguous industrial zoned land available for purchase.
7. The alternative must consider areas that would not conflict with existing high voltage
transmission power lines, as mining could take place underneath.
8. The alternative area must be constructed in an area in which slope stability
concerns do not create a safety hazard.
During the design of the proposed project, the applicant has identified and evaluated
five on -site alternatives, and one potential off -site alternative (Table 4).
Version 6.15.2017 Page 5

Table 4: Screening Criteria Constraints for Alternative Analysis
Alter-
native
Number
SCREENING CRITERIA CONSTRAINTS
Infra-
structure,
geophysical
integrity
Impacts
to
existing
infra-
structure
Impacts
to
sensitive
resource
areas
Impacts to
surrounding
land use
Meets
safety
require-
ments
Impacts
to NWI
resources
Impacts
to
flood -
plains
1
*
X/+
*
*
*
X/+
X/-
2
X
*
*
*
X
*
NA
3
X
*
*
X
X
X/-
X/-
4
X
X
*
*
*
X/-
X/-
5
X
X
*
*
*
X/-
X/-
Notes: * = meets criteria/no impacts: X= does not meet criteria/ will impact: + = impacts
would be beneficial: - = impacts would be negative
The alternatives analysis includes consideration of five on -site design alternatives
located adjacent or near the existing quarry (Alternative 1-5), as well as a potential off -
site alternative, considered for a Greenfield Site Location (Alternative 6). The No -action
alternative has also been included for comparison. A short description of each
alternative is listed below.
Alternative 1: (Preferred Alternative)
Under alternative one, an existing mine wall would be expanded laterally, to the
northwest ranging from 100 to 300 If allowing the pit floor to be deepened, vertically by
an extra 100 ft from the current 95 feet below the exiting ground surface. In order to
expand the mine wall to the northwest Forney Creek would be realigned and
subsequentially restored Under this action approximately 3,170 Linear Feet of Forney
Creek would be impacted.
Alternative 2: No -wall expansion, Deepen Current Pit
Hedrick Industries considered no aerial footprint expansion, only a deepening of the
current mine pit by approximately 100 feet. Safety requirements could not be met due to
wall, bank, and slope stability requirements. Dewatering the pit at this elevation would
also be required.
Alternative 3: New Quarry Pit, North Side
A new 22.8-acre quarry pit would be excavated on the north side of the LNQ Mine. The
overburden resulting from alternative 3 is proposed to be moved to the southern portion
of the site resulting in permanent impacts to 2,601 If of stream. The cost to remove the
overburden was deemed prohibitive.
Version 6.15.2017 Page 6

Alternative 4: South Expansion
The existing quarry mine would be expanded to the south by approximately 56 acres.
The proposed expansion area includes infrastructure within the project footprint. This
includes an existing plant and roads to the south, ponds to the southeast, and Duke
Energy's Transmission line and ROW. Approximately 3,544 linear feet of stream would
be impacted and floodplain impacts. Cost, and movement of ROW lines was prohibitive.
Alternative 5: East Mine Wall Expansion
An existing mine wall to be expanded to the east, extending the area to approximately
40.1 acres. Aerial imagery reveals that storage and series ponds currently reside within
the proposed alternative expansion aera, and those would need to be moved to the
southern portion of the site. Resulting in approximately 3,310 linear feet of stream
impacts along with floodplain impacts. Additional infrastructure in addition to adverse
stream impacts. The pond fine stockpile that would need to be relocated would pose
another constraint.
Alternative 6: Greenfield Site
Hedrick Industries would move its current operating facilities to a proposed Greenfield
Site location. The following screening criteria: the potential site to contain at least 100
acres of land, after the required NC DEQ 50 ft property buffer boundary is applied,
available for purchase, be zoned as industrial, be one contiguous parcel or have the
same owner of multiple parcels. The potential site locations could not contain existing
companies or infrastructure and must have minimal potential to impact streams and
wetlands. All sites were deemed insufficient.
Alternative 7: No -Action
The proposed action would not occur and the quarry mine would not be expanded. As a
result, the LOM and potential reserve base would expire within 15 to 25 years, pending
aggregate product demand.
Compensatory Mitigation
The applicant attempted to avoid and minimize impacts where possible and will use
permittee-responsible mitigation to offset the remaining unavoidable losses to the best
extent practicable. The applicant proposes the following permittee-responsible plans for
the unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States.
The applicant's plan includes a design that will relocate Forney Creek away from the
LNQ Mine, using priority 1 and priority 2 restoration, and brings the stream invert to the
current invert of the low head dam (Reference Drawing 1- Nature of Activity Display).
Stream relocation and enhancement would occur by realigning Forney Creek to a more
stable configuration using Natural Channel Design methodologies. Priority 1 restoration
and enhancement techniques would be applied to 2,848 linear feet of the existing
stream, while Priority 2 restoration and enhancement techniques would be applied to
Version 6.15.2017 Page 7

the remaining 322 If of stream. Priority 1 restoration and enhancement of Forney Creek
will include establishing bank full stage at historical floodplain elevation, replacing
incised channel with a new, stable stream at a higher elevation.
To ensure that there would be no net loss of habitat, approximately 2,879 linear feet of
stream would be restored and enhanced, creating an additional 31 linear feet of priority
1 stream work. Priority 2 restoration would begin where priority 1 work would end and
extend the life of the proposed tie-in for a total of 160 linear feet of priority 2 restoration
and enhancement. Priority 2 restoration and enhancement will create a new floodplain
and stream alignment with the streambed remaining at present elevation.
Applicant provided Goals and Objectives (Table 5).
Table 5: Goals and Objectives
Stream
Goals
Objectives
Forney Creek
Maintain and improve
floodplain connectivity
Reduce BHR to 1.2 or less and
increase entrenchment ratio range
from 3.6 to 6.5 to ensure long-term
stability of the design reach
Maintain or improve
bedform diversity
Install riffle structures to increase
length and restore natural pool to
pool spacing and pool depth ratio
Maintain or improve lateral
ability
Install in channel habitat
consisting of large woody debris,
and in channel structures for
lateral stability
Maintain and improve
riparian vegetation buffer
Establish riparian buffers with
native vegetation
Establish long term
protection
Protect the sites with the creation
of a conservation easement.
Essential Fish Habitat
The Corps' determination is that the proposed project would not effect EFH or
associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service.
❑ This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of
the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Implementation
of the proposed project would impact (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY- marine
substrate, estuarine substrate, water columns, emergent wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation, artificial reefs, hardbottoms) (see project description) utilized by
various life stages of the following species: (CHOOSE ALL THAT APPLY — coastal
migratory pelagics, corals, golden crab, shrimp, snapper grouper, spiny lobster,
Version 6.15.2017
Page 8

Atlantic highly migratory species). Our initial determination is that the proposed
action would not have a substantial individual or cumulative adverse impact on EFH
or fisheries managed by Fishery Management Councils and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Our final determination relative to project impacts and
the need for mitigation measures is subject to review by and coordination with the
NMFS.
❑ The Corps will consult under the Magnuson -Stevens Act and will not make a
permit decision until the consultation process is complete.
❑ The Corps has initiated consultation the Magnuson -Stevens Act and will not
make a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.
Cultural Resources
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Appendix C
of 33 CFR Part 325, and the 2005 Revised Interim Guidance for Implementing Appendix
C, the District Engineer consulted district files and records and the latest published
version of the National Register of Historic Places and initially determines that:
❑ Should historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, be present within the Corps' permit area; the proposed activity requiring
the DA permit (the undertaking) is a type of activity that will have no potential to
cause an effect to an historic property.
❑ No historic properties, nor properties eligible for inclusion in the National
Register, are present within the Corps' permit area; therefore, there will be no
historic properties affected. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from
the SHPO (or THPO).
❑ Properties ineligible for inclusion in the National Register are present within the
Corps' permit area; there will be no historic properties affected by the proposed
work. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from the SHPO (or THPO).
❑ Historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, are
present within the Corps' permit area; however, the undertaking will have no
adverse effect on these historic properties. The Corps subsequently requests
concurrence from the SHPO (or THPO).
❑ Historic properties, or properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, are
present within the Corps' permit area; moreover, the undertaking may have an
adverse effect on these historic properties. The Corps subsequently initiates
consultation with the SHPO (or THPO).
❑ The proposed work takes place in an area known to have the potential for the
presence of prehistoric and historic cultural resources; however, the area has not
Version 6.15.2017 Page 9

been formally surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. No sites eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are known to be present
in the vicinity of the proposed work. Additional work may be necessary to identify
and assess any historic or prehistoric resources that may be present.
The District Engineer's final eligibility and effect determination will be based upon
coordination with the SHPO and/or THPO, as appropriate and required, and with full
consideration given to the proposed undertaking's potential direct and indirect effects on
historic properties within the Corps -identified permit area.
Endangered Species
Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Corps reviewed the project area,
examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest North
Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on available information:
® The Corps determines that the proposed project would not affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
❑ The Corps determines that the proposed project
may affect, not likely to adversely affect federally listed endangered or threatened
species or their formally designated critical habitat.
❑ By copy of this public notice, the Corps initiates consultation under Section 7
of the ESA and will not make a permit decision until the consultation process is
complete.
❑ The Corps will consult under Section 7 of the ESA and will not make a permit
decision until the consultation process is complete.
❑ The Corps has initiated consultation under Section 7 of the ESA and will not
make a permit decision until the consultation process is complete.
❑ The Corps determines that the proposed project may affect federally listed
endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat.
Consultation has been completed for this type of activity and the effects of the
proposed activity have been evaluated and/or authorized by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion or its
associated documents, including 7(a)(2) & 7(d) analyses and Critical Habitat
assessments. A copy of this public notice will be sent to the NMFS.
❑ The Corps is not aware of the presence of species listed as threatened or
endangered or their critical habitat formally designated pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area. The Corps will
make a final determination on the effects of the proposed project upon additional
review of the project and completion of any necessary biological assessment
Version 6.15.2017 Page 10

and/or consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National
Marine Fisheries Service.
Other Required Authorizations
The Corps forwards this notice and all applicable application materials to the
appropriate State agencies for review.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR): The Corps will generally not
make a final permit decision until the NCDWR issues, denies, or waives the state
Certification as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt
of the application and this public notice, combined with the appropriate application fee,
at the NCDWR Central Office in Raleigh constitutes initial receipt of an application for a
401 Certification. Unless NCDWR is granted a time review extension, a waiver will be
deemed to occur if the NCDWR fails to act on this request for certification within 120
days of receipt of a complete application. Additional information regarding the 401
Certification may be reviewed at the NCDWR Central Office, 401 and Buffer Permitting
Unit, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons
desiring to make comments regarding the application for a 401 Certification should do
so, in writing, by February 18, 2022 to:
NCDWR Central Office
Attention: Mr. Paul Wojoski, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
(USPS mailing address): 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Or,
(physical address): 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM):
❑ The application did not include a certification that the proposed work complies
with and would be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved
North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2
(b)(2) the Corps cannot issue a Department of Army (DA) permit for the
proposed work until the applicant submits such a certification to the Corps and
the NCDCM, and the NCDCM notifies the Corps that it concurs with the
applicant's consistency certification. As the application did not include the
consistency certification, the Corps will request, upon receipt„ concurrence or
objection from the NCDCM.
® Based upon all available information, the Corps determines that this application
for a Department of Army (DA) permit does not involve an activity which would
affect the coastal zone, which is defined by the Coastal Zone Management
(CZM) Act (16 U.S.C. § 1453).
Version 6.15.2017 Page 11

Evaluation
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable
impacts including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest.
That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of
important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors
which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative
effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use,
navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation,
water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs,
considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the
people. For activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the
United States, the evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will
include application of the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Commenting Information
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials, including any consolidated State Viewpoint or written position of
the Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be
considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition
or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess
impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general
environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are
used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine
the overall public interest of the proposed activity.
Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice,
that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings
shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a
public hearing will be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues
raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing.
The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will receive written comments pertinent to
the proposed work, as outlined above, until 5pm, January 19, 2022. Comments should
be submitted to Mr. Steven Kichefski, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton
Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.
Version 6.15.2017 Page 12