20220241 Ver 1_SAW-2019-00233 RAI Comments_20220511

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
2407 W 5TH STREET
WASHINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 27889

May 11, 2022

Regulatory Division

Action ID No. SAW-2019-00233

Mr. Ron Kopplin
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
2235 Gateway Access Point
Raleigh, North Carolina,

Dear Mr. Kopplin:

Please reference your application for Department of the Army (DA) individual permit
authorization to discharge fill material in 8.96 acres of wetlands and 899 linear feet of streams
associated with expanding the existing Belgrade Quarry in Jones County, North Carolina. The
purpose of this correspondence is to provide you with comments we have received on the
proposed project (attached) and request additional information to continue processing your
request.

Enclosed are the comments received in response to your Public Notice dated February 24,
2022. These comments were previously forwarded to you on April 8, 2022, except for the
comments received by the N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) on March 23, 2022. The
Corps received comments from two federal agencies, one Indian Nation, three state agencies,
two members of the community, and one grassroots organization; however, there was no request
for a public hearing.

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Catawba Indian Nation submitted
comments; however, no further action on your part is necessary at this time.

Ms. Kim Williams expressed concerns about residents' well in the area due to the MMM
operations; please provide a comprehensive, detailed response to address this concern.

Please provide a comprehensive, detailed response to address all the site-specific comments,
concerns, and recommendations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The NC Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office
recommended a comprehensive archaeological survey be completed before any ground-
disturbing activities in the project area. From recent correspondence, MMM has obtained a
contractor that has received approval for their proposed survey work by the N.C. Department of
Natural and Cultural Resources. Once complete, please submit it to the Corps.

-2-

The Coastal Carolina Riverwatch submitted comments and concerns about the project's proposed
direct and potential indirect impacts. Please provide a comprehensive, detailed response to
address the comments regarding the indirect impacts on the aquatic resources surrounding the
proposed Bender Pit and the stormwater management measures that will be utilized.

Ms. Lauren Daniel voiced concerns about the planned increase in the mining area by MMM.
Please provide a comprehensive, detailed response to address their comments concerning
potential effects on water quality and the water table.

NCWRC submitted comments concerning the efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands
and requested these efforts be reexamined. Please provide a comprehensive, detailed response to
address their comments.

DWR submitted comments concerning the purpose and need statements, alternative analysis, and
the information supporting the preferred alternative. The Corps outlines additional information
required to evaluate the alternatives below; however, please ensure a comprehensive, detailed
response addresses their comments as well.

Please copy the Corps on your responses to the DWR’s Request for Additional Information,
dated March 23, 2022.

The current purpose and need statement does not allow for the review of a full range of
alternatives. Based on our review of the application, the Corps proposes that the purpose of this
project is “to expand the current mining operations at the Belgrade Quarry in Jones County."
This would allow for a more inclusive alternatives analysis for those requiring travel to and from
the existing facility. Please let us know if you concur with this purpose and need statement.

For us to evaluate your alternatives, you need to outline and provide the following:

x The screening criteria for evaluating alternatives and how these criteria were used to
eliminate alternatives
x A table summarizing the alternatives and screening criteria to propose the preferred
alternative.
x The no-action alternative, which is the alternative that results in no construction requiring a
Corps permit.
x Quantified impacts to aquatic resources for other alternatives evaluated and graphics
depicting the impacts
x Haul and overburden road configurations that were assessed and detailed information to
support the need for them

The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines established a three-step mitigation
sequence (Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensatory Mitigation) to be followed in the review

-3-

of proposed impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources. Proposed impacts must be
avoided to the maximum extent practicable; remaining unavoidable impacts must then be
minimized, and finally compensated for to the extent appropriate and practicable. Prior to
proposing any form of compensatory mitigation, please provide additional avoidance and
minimization proposals for the project, such as those proposed in the attached comments.

The 2008 Mitigation Rule established a hierarchy for compensatory mitigation: approved
mitigation bank, in-lieu fee program (North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services; NCDMS),
and permittee-responsible mitigation. This hierarchy is based upon the likelihood of a mitigation
plan being both successful and sustainable. Compensatory mitigation provided by an approved
mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program is presumed to be environmentally preferable to
permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) because it involves larger, more ecologically valuable
aquatic resources and more rigorous scientific and technical analysis. Applicants must first check
to see if a private bank is available, but if not, NCDMS is the next option for compensatory
mitigation.

MMM’s compensatory mitigation proposal includes preserving a 104-acre tract of land. This
proposal alone does not follow the established hierarchy for compensatory mitigation. Currently,
no compensatory mitigation is proposed for the stream impacts for this project. Typically, the
North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) is the appropriate and practicable method
for making conditional assessments of tributaries within the Wilmington District and is used to
establish compensatory mitigation amounts for DA permits. If you propose to mitigate for any
specific stream at less than a 2:1 ratio, please provide a completed NCSAM for those specific
streams.

Please submit all comments and responses to Ms. Emily Thompson by Friday, June 10, 2022
(30 days out) via email at [e-mail]. Should you have any questions,
please feel free to contact Ms. Thompson at telephone [phone].

Sincerely,

Andrew E. Williams
Acting Chief, Washington Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers

Enclosures

Date: 2022.05.11
16:10:09 -04'00'

-4-

Cc (via email without enclosures):

US EPA, Wetlands and Regulatory Section – Mr. Daniel Holliman - [e-mail]

US FWS, Fish and Wildlife Enhancement – Mr. Pete Benjamin – [e-mail]

NMFS, Habitat Conservation Division – Pace Wilbur - [e-mail]

NC DEQ, DWR/Winston Salem Regional Office – Sue Homewood -
[e-mail]

1Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)From:Jocelyn Karazsia - NOAA Federal <[e-mail]>Sent:Thursday, February 24, 2022 4:25 PMTo:Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)Subject:[URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] SAW-2019-00233 Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Mr. Ron Kopplin)Hi Emily,  NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the project described in public notice SAW‐2019‐00233, dated February 24, 2022.  Based on the information in the notice, we confirm the District's determination that the proposed work would occur in the vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Mid‐Atlantic Fishery Management Council, or the NMFS.   Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed work and no further action is planned.  This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the proposed work.  If further coordination on this action is needed, please let us know.  Jocelyn Karazsia Acting Atlantic/Caribbean Branch Chief NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region, Habitat Conservation Division, West Palm Beach Office Google voice: (561) 247‐2101 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: CESAW‐PublicNoticeList <CESAW‐[e-mail]> Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 3:14 PM Subject: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice To:   As you requested, you are hereby notified that Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices portion of the Regulatory Division Home Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory‐Permit‐Program/Public‐Notices/   As with anything you download from the internet, be sure to check for viruses prior to opening. The current notice involves: 
1Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)From:Kim Williams <[e-mail]>Sent:Saturday, February 26, 2022 10:58 AMTo:Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)Subject:[Non-DoD Source] Martin Marietta Expansion in Jones County  I have read the article on the expansion of the Martin Marietta quarry in Jones County.  I lived in that area for 24 years.  The company has done some high explosive charges, which sent waves underground.  Highway 58, just beyond the Catfish Road vibrates when heavy trucks pass over it.  Limestone is fragile and it is just a matter of time before there is a sinkhole.  The area beyond the quarry has a high amount of limestone.  The residents’ wells in that area have dried up.  Martin Marietta should have it’s history of practices considered.  I did all I could do, to alert the NC Mining, but this company is a powerful international company   Have a good day and a better evening!  Kim Williams It is better to listen with the intent to understand, than to listen with the intent to reply. 
1Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)From:Bowers, Todd <[e-mail]>Sent:Thursday, March 17, 2022 2:58 PMTo:Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)Subject:[URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] EPA comments on PN SAW-2019-00233 MMM Belgrade QuarryEmily, The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch has reviewed the subject Individual Permit Public Notice under DA Action ID SAW-2019-00233 dated February 24, 2022. It is our understanding that the applicant, Mr. Ron Kopplin of Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) is seeking Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material in 8.96 acres of wetlands and 899 linear feet of stream, associated with the expansion of the existing Belgrade Quarry in Jones County, North Carolina. Specifically per the Public Notice: As stated by the applicant, the overall project purpose is to cost-effectively continue operation of the limestone aggregate quarry facility at Belgrade by expanding the existing quarry area to mine suitable stone reserves in a systematic and economically viable fashion for supply to the market during the short and medium term. According to the applicant, MMM is currently mining the northern portion of the existing North Pit, and they propose to expand it approximately 8 acres. MMM is proposing to move a previously modified stream north, around the proposed mining area containing limestone reserves. Impacts associated with moving this segment of stream would be 793 linear feet. Additionally, MMM proposes two new road crossings, expanding an existing road crossing, and mining within wetlands. A new haul road is proposed in the southeast corner of the current pit limits and would be in alignment with an existing road that travels to the plant area. This haul road would cross two wetland areas with a total of 0.45 acres of wetland impacts. MMM proposes to expand and upgrade an existing crossing, located at the north-eastern tip of the proposed pit, which would be used as a product haul road. This expansion would result in 0.18 acres of wetland impacts. A second proposed haul road would impact 0.90 acres of wetlands and 106 linear feet of stream. The applicant has stated it is proposed in the narrowest area of the wetland system that divides the two pits and would allow for the safest and most direct travel for hauling overburden material to the existing mined out southern end of the current pit. MMM proposes to mine 7.43 acres of wetlands for the Bender Pit. MMM proposes to mitigate for impacts to 8.96 acres of wetland at a 11.6:1 ratio by preserving approximately 94 acres of wetland and 10 acres of non-wetland floodplain, located within a 104-acre property owned by MMM. The 104-acre property is located adjacent to the Croatan National Forest and is comprised of high-quality Riverine Swamp Forest wetland, located in the floodplain of the White Oak River, just downstream of the proposed Bender Pit.
2At this time, EPA Region 4 has a few site-specific comments, concerns and recommendations with the project as presented in the Public Notice. Several questions exist pertaining to the on-site permittee-responsible mitigation (PRM) to be provided by MMM as preservation of aquatic resources. 1. EPA acknowledges and appreciates the applicant’s avoidance of much of the wetlands to the east of the Bender Pit. Does MMM have any plans to expand the pit and mine these areas in the future? Would MMM be interested in preserving these areas if a potential threat of future mining exists in order to prevent their destruction? What is the functional condition of these avoided wetlands per the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM)? 2. MMM has offered a substantial amount of mitigation for wetland impacts but several issues or questions remain. There are several aspects of the applicant’s compensatory mitigation plan that may not be suitable and more information needs to be known in order for a full analysis of their replacement for lost aquatic resource function to be completed. a. The condition, per NCWAM, of the 7.43 acres of wetlands proposed for impact in the Bender Pit should be known so that a proper replacement of function can be determined. b. The condition, per NCWAM, of the wetlands proposed for preservation should be known as well. Since no functional uplift is to be gained by a purely preservation approach to providing mitigation, it is imperative that the applicant provide additional information to justify preservation. Preservation of a particular area should protect wetlands of exceptional quality and provide important physical, chemical, or biological functions for the watershed. c. The applicant should also demonstrate a clear and present threat to their continued existence, and a protective instrument such as a conservation easement should be established to provide evidence that these wetlands will be protected in perpetuity. d. Per the 2008 Mitigation Rule, preservation may also be used as the only form of compensatory mitigation, at the discretion of the district engineer, but this should only be allowed where preservation of specific resources has been identified as a high priority using a watershed approach, and in this case higher compensation ratios should be required. The applicant has chosen a strategy that includes a replacement ratio of 11.6:1 which seems to meet this criteria but is not much above the standard minimum of 10:1 replacement to impact ratio. e. EPA recommends that the applicant choose a mitigation strategy that involves some sort of demonstrable uplift in aquatic resource function such as restoration, rehabilitation, or enhancement in conjunction with preservation. 3. The condition and status of the “previously modified” stream to the north of the North Pit needs to be known. a. Why was this stream “modified” and was it used for any compensatory mitigation credit for past mining impacts? b. What is the current condition of the stream per the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and what is the expected condition following relocation? c. Will this stream be restored using Natural Channel Design and are there any plans to monitor or protect this stream under a conservation easement or similar instrument? 4. If the stream impacts will not be properly compensated for on-site, purchasing a suitable amount and type of credits from an established mitigation bank or in-lieu fee site should be considered. Replacing stream impacts with wetland credits, however obtained, is an out-of-kind replacement and highly discouraged per the 2008 Compensatory Mitigation Rule. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on DA Action ID SAW-2019-00233 seeking Department of the Army authorization to discharge fill material in 8.96 acres of wetlands and 899 linear feet of stream, associated with the expansion of the existing Belgrade Quarry in Jones County, North Carolina. Best Regards,
3Todd Bowers Todd Allen Bowers US EPA Region 4 Oceans, Wetlands and Streams Protection Branch 61 Forsyth St. SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404.562.9225** [e-mail] **Note: I am currently teleworking and away from the office. Please contact me via email or at 919.523.2637.  “Do unto those downstream as you would have those upstream do unto you.” — Wendell Berry   From: CESAW‐PublicNoticeList <CESAW‐[e-mail]>  Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2022 2:25 PM Subject: US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice Importance: High  As you requested, you are hereby notified that Wilmington District, United States Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Public Notice. The text of this document can be found on the Public Notices portion of the Regulatory Division Home Page. Each Public Notice is available in ADOBE ACROBAT (.pdf) format for viewing, printing or download at https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory‐Permit‐Program/Public‐Notices/  As with anything you download from the internet, be sure to check for viruses prior to opening. The current notice involves:                 Corps Action ID#: SAW‐2019‐00233  Applicant: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.       Mr. Ron Kopplin (Jones County)  

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary D. Reid Wilson Deputy Secretary, Darin J. Waters, Ph.D.

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898
March 21, 2022

Emily Thompson [e-mail]
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889

RE: Belgrade Quarry Expansion, Onslow County, ER 85-8058

Dear Ms. Thompson:

Thank you for your February 28, 2022, submission concerning the above-referenced project. We have
reviewed the project and offer the following comments.

We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on historic structures.

While the northern expansion of the Belgrade Quarry falls within previously agriculturally disturbed land,
the Area of Potential Effect (APE) of the proposed Bender Pit is in proximity to a number existing
prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and contains geographical features that suggest site probability.
Due to this, along with the lack of any previous archaeological surveys in the proposed Bender Pit APE, we
recommend a comprehensive archaeological survey be undertaken prior to any ground disturbing activities
in the project area.

The purpose of this survey is to identify archaeological sites and make recommendations regarding their
eligibility status in terms of the NRHP. This work should be conducted by an experienced archaeologist
who meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards. A list of archaeological
consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is available at
https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey. Please note that our
office requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review Archaeologist to discuss
appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation.

One paper copy and one digital copy (PDF) of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as a digital copy
(PDF) of the North Carolina Site Form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State
Archaeology (OSA) through this office, for review and comment as soon as they are available and in
advance of any construction or ground disturbance activities. OSA’s Archaeological Standards and
Guidelines for Background Research, Field Methodologies, Technical Reports, and Curation can be found
online at: https://files.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA_Guidelines_Dec2017.pdf.
ER 85-8058, March 21, Page 2 of 2

Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6898

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579
or [e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.

Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer

March 24, 2022

Attention: Emily Thompson
Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889

Re. THPO # TCNS # Project Description
2022-56-16 SAW-2019-00233 – expansion of the existing Belgrade Quarry in Jones Co., NC

Dear Ms. Thompson,

The Catawba have no immediate concerns with regard to traditional cultural properties,
sacred sites or Native American archaeological sites within the boundaries of the
proposed project areas. However, the Catawba are to be notified if Native American
artifacts and / or human remains are located during the ground disturbance phase
of this project.

If you have questions please contact Caitlin Rogers at 803-328-2427 ext. 226, or e-mail
[e-mail].

Sincerely,
Wenonah G. Haire
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Catawba Indian Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
1536 Tom Steven Road
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730

Office 803-328-2427

Coastal Carolina Riverwatch
700 Arendell Street, Suite 2
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
March 26th, 2022
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Ms. Thompson,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
application associated with the expansion of Belgrade Quarry in Jones County, North Carolina.
We submit these comments on behalf of Coastal Carolina Riverwatch. We represent a coalition of
eastern North Carolina citizens, committed to protecting the waterways of the White Oak River
Basin.
1. The proposal’s purpose and need are too narrowly defined. On page 3 of the “Public Notice,”
the applicant states the purpose of this project is “to cost-effectively continue operation of the
limestone aggregate quarry facility at Belgrade by expanding the existing quarry area to mine
suitable stone reserves in a systematic and economically viable fashion for supply to the market
during the short and medium term.”
This purpose does not indicate the Corps has exercised independent judgment. The Corp should
have a basis to set up alternatives and select the best. It also does not notify the public that the
Bender Pit is a new proposed pit, not an expansion of the existing mine pit farther north. Finally,
the purpose and need as currently articulated are too narrowly drawn to allow consideration of
alternatives, such as alternate locations.
2. The application shows that aggregate mining at the proposed expansion is not a
water-dependent use, because the applicant states most of the proposed mining is uplands.
a. Because the use is not water-dependent, the applicant has not met its burden to
rebut the presumption that wetlands can be avoided .
1
b. The lack of a water-dependent use may affect the avoidance and minimization
criteria for this proposal.
3. The proposal’s impacts may be greater than the total acreage of wetlands impacts (8.96).
1 LII / Legal Information Institute. 2022.40 CFR § 230.10 - Restrictions on discharge.<https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/230.10>
CoastalCarolinaRiverwatch.org
1
a. The Bender Pit expansion site is entirely surrounded by jurisdictional wetlands.
Compare the side-by-side images below. There is also a 6.19-acre freshwater pond
directly adjacent to the new proposed pit (shown in blue on the map at right).
b. Excavating the upland separating the White Oak River and Black Swamp Creek
may alter existing hydrology over a larger area. There is a need for more
information about how the expansion will affect the surrounding hydrology.
c. One of the proposed haul roads goes over a major wetlands complex. This road
may not be justified, and more information is needed to evaluate how the road
would affect the wetland complex. Additionally, there seems to be another way to
access the pit through uplands, raising questions of whether the proposal
adequately avoids and minimizes impacts to wetlands.
d. Impacts to edge of jurisdictional wetland boundary and the freshwater pond
adjacent to Black Swamp Creek may require a Clean Water Act § 402 discharge
permit .
2
4. A jurisdictional determination is necessary for the proposal.
a. There is no approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) for this proposal.
Although the applicant is proceeding on a preliminary jurisdictional determination,
satellite photos indicate some land clearing and some ditches present. This presents
a question of whether those activities have altered the natural hydrology and
influenced the jurisdictional determination, and if so, whether this alteration was
legal under Clean Water Act § 404 . Accordingly, an AJD is needed for this proposal
3
to proceed.
3 US EPA. 2022.Overview of Clean Water Act Section 404 | US EPA.<https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/overview-clean-water-act-section-404>
2 US EPA. 2022.Clean Water Act, Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System | US EPA.
<https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-402-national-pollutant-discharge-elimination-system>
2
5. The preservation of existing wetlands does not accomplish the mitigation needs for this
project.
a. According to the mitigation hierarchy in 40 C.F.R. § 230.93(a)(2) provides that
4
mitigation by restoration is generally preferable to establishment, enhancement, or
preservation. With regard to the use of mitigation banks in particular, §
230.93(b)(2) describes a number of benefits to using mitigation bank credits and
5
then provides that “[f]or these reasons, the district engineer should give preference
to the use of mitigation bank credits when these considerations are applicable.”
Furthermore, § 230.93(b)(3) provides that, under certain conditions described in
6
the regulation, “in-lieu fee mitigation, if available, is generally preferable to
permittee-responsible mitigation.” Also, § 230.93(e)(1) provides that in-kind
7
mitigation is generally preferable to out-of-kind mitigation.
b. The applicant’s proposed preservation of the 404 jurisdictional wetlands on the
preservation tract are not likely subject to development in the future, meaning the
preservation of the land does not compensate for the losses the proposal would
cause.
c. There may be more meaningful mitigation opportunities elsewhere, e.g. habitat
or hydrologic restoration elsewhere in the White Oak watershed to help offset
impacts of the proposal.
6. The provisions for appropriate stormwater management are vague, leading to question of
sufficiency.
a. On Page 5 of the “Public Notice” document, the applicant states intent “to
minimize impacts to wetlands and other waters, MMM will use stormwater
management and erosion control techniques that preserve downstream water
quality.” This does not specify methods of stormwater management, nor indicate
if stormwater provisions have been developed or proposed by appropriate,
unbiased engineers and/or field experts.
7. Finally, we emphasize the importance of careful and diligent review and consultation of
other sections listed in “Public Notice” regarding essential fish habitats, cultural resources, and
endangered species.
7 See 40 CFR § 230.93
6 See 40 CFR § 230.93
5 See 40 CFR § 230.93
4 LII / Legal Information Institute. 2022.40 CFR § 230.93 - General compensatory mitigation
requirements.https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/230.93
3
For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Us Army Corps of Engineers not issue permit for
the work proposed by the applicant. Moving forward, we request a careful assessment of the above
considerations and a thorough evaluation of potential impacts.
Respectfully,
Lisa Rider, Executive Director
Coastal Carolina Riverwatch
[e-mail]
Rebecca Drohan, White Oak Waterkeeper
Coastal Carolina Riverwatch
[e-mail]
4
1Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)From:Lauren Daniel <[e-mail]>Sent:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:41 AMTo:Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)Subject:Re: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non-DoD Source] Martin Marietta Quarry in Jones Co.To Whom it May Concern;  I am writing to voice my concern about the planned increase in the mining area in Jones County by Martin Marietta.  Before this permit is authorized, I'd like to make 3 key points for consideration: 1‐ If Martin Marietta intends to continue dewatering, this will continue to decrease the water quality and alter the natural water quantity flowing through the White Oak River. Section 404 of the CWA reminds us that no discharge may be permitted if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded.  I'd like to point to how fragile our smallest river basin in NC is. Using the latest approved 303d list, the White Oak River has several impaired streams and monitoring sites frequently prohibit shellfish harvesting due to several parameters not meeting criteria.   2‐ If Martin Marietta continues to expand their mine, the White Oak River will struggle to ever meet criteria thus prohibiting harvesting shellfish or other wildlife.  We need to work together as a community to manage this water resources so it can support the economy in other ways besides mining operations.  Without seeing a valid Environmental Impact Statement with quantitative values and consistent monitoring on site, it is impossible to suggest the expansion of such an effort will not continue to degrade the ability for this river to support its natural ecological diversity.  Expanding the mine in conjunction with the imminent development, the White Oak River has no chance to ever support ecological diversity. Discharging water into the river with extensive suspended solids will absolutely degrade its quality. Please take a moment to consider the latest basin plan written for the WOR‐ and notice the primary classifications for this river rely heavily on maintaining the highest water quality. 3‐ Destroying Wetlands is not a sustainable way to manage our water resources.  As Carteret County (downstream of site) continues to rubber stamp riverside development, allowing the wetlands on the MMM site to be destroyed and "moved" will simply continue to knock down the dominoes toward degrading the White Oak's Water Quality.  We depend on these wetlands to soak up flood waters during hurricanes and large storms.  We also depend on these wetlands to provide habitat for the wildlife our community values.  I know that many folks scoff at the impacts to endangered species, however it's important to recognize that this permit is one of the hundreds of similar efforts to degrade the natural environment and hydrology of Eastern North Carolina's valuable coastal ecosystem.  Please note that there are several oyster leases in the White Oak River and as the Shellfish Farming Industry continues to grow, there is an increased need to protect our human impacts to the river. Moreover, there are already existing portions of this river that COULD allow for shellfish harvesting, but are closed permanently due to water quality degradation.  Let's not add to this problem by authorizing an expansion for the Bender Pit, or any additional mining. Finally, I would like to point out that I completely support economic growth in our area, however this must be done without impeding the natural ecosystems that thrive here and draw tourism (and drive our community's overall economy). I'd also like to point out that local community members are deeply concerned with continued impacts to the hydrology in our area but do not have the technical knowledge to address complex permit requests‐ so please do not interpret a lack of public comment about this as a lack of interest or concern.  The people in these surrounding communities are deeply concerned about the continued expansion of commercialized development in these coastal counties.  Our children deserve to inherit these lands without also inheriting catastrophic environmental degradation issues.   Thank you for your time and consideration, 
2Lauren Daniel Peletier, North Carolina    On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:58 AM Lauren Daniel <[e-mail]> wrote: Sounds wonderful. I will write up some comments now and send them to you within the hour.  Do you send these comments electronically? If so, if I include hyperlinks in my comments, can those links be included? Also‐ can I expect any response to my comments from Martin Marietta?   Thanks for your time, Lauren  On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:39 AM Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> wrote: Good morning Lauren,   The article references the public notice issued, and there you will find additional information about the project. The public notice commenting period has ended, and I’m working on compiling comments this week to send to the applicant. After reviewing, please send any questions you may have to me as soon as possible.  Sincerely, Emily   Emily B. Thompson Regulatory Specialist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington Regulatory Field Office 2407 W. 5th Street Washington, NC 27889 [phone] 
[e-mail]   We at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch are committed to improving service to our customers. We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is located at: https://regulatory.ops.usace.army.mil/customer-service-survey/    Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey.   From: Lauren Daniel <[e-mail]>  Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022 8:19 AM To: Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> Subject: [URL Verdict: Neutral][Non‐DoD Source] Martin Marietta Quarry in Jones Co.   Hi Emily‐   I'm curious to learn more about this proposed project.  Is there any additional information for me to review and share with the community? I'm mostly interested in learning the impacts of this quarry to the adjacent river.  The article about this project provides little data about the proposal‐ so I'm hoping you may have some additional information included on the permit request?  My main concern is learning about how the draw down of the water table will impact the base flow of the White Oak River as this river already struggles with nutrient loading.    Thanks for any help/data you can provide. ‐Lauren 
1Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)From:Dunn, Maria T. <[e-mail]>Sent:Thursday, April 7, 2022 4:03 PMTo:Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)Subject:[Non-DoD Source] Martin Marietta Materials Belgrade Quarry, Jones CountyGood afternoon Emily. I hope you are well.  NCWRC has reviewed the public notice for the above project. We exchanged some dialogue with you and NCDWR, but neglected to comment officially during the comment period. I apologize for this oversight but do hope the following comments can be considered during your review of the applicant’s request.  MMM Belgrade proposes to expand their existing quarry to include the fill of 8.96 acres of wetlands and 899’ of stream. These wetland impacts are primarily within a leased area known as the Bender Pit. The Bender Pit is the applicant’s preferred alternative, proposing to mine an area with wetland impacts whose lease will expire and may not be renewed rather than proceed to an owned parcel with no wetland impacts. Since the NCWRC does not review a project on the basis of economics, but rather impacts to environmental resources, we have concern with the project as proposed. We believe avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands has not been adequately demonstrated and should be further discussed.  Wetlands provide important wildlife opportunities and perform necessary water quality functions. The project area is adjacent to several tributaries and creeks of the White Oak River, including Black Swamp Creek, an unnamed tributary to the White Oak River, and the White Oak River itself. The Bender Parcel is partially wooded and exhibits hydric soils. The applicant has proposed avoidance of some wetland areas but could further reduce wetland impacts to the parcel if the lower (southern) portion of the tract that is wooded and is bisected by a wetland is avoided. This would minimize wetland fill and provide hydrologic and wildlife connectivity (aquatic and terrestrial passage) between Black Swamp Creek, the White Oak River, and other habitats past the confluence of these systems upstream the proposed mitigation site. Additional wetland areas near the edge of the Bender parcel that could be avoided include the eastern most wetland and the wetland/headwater stream. This alternative to further reduce impacts in the Bender parcel was not explored in the public notice but could be a viable option. Additional minimization of wetland impacts in the northern and western sections may possible if after a reduction in minable area within the Bender parcel leads to less need for two haul roads – each of which requires wetland fill.   Overall, the NCWRC requests additional avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts be examined. This may include the reduction of wetland impacts within the Bender parcel or the elimination of the Bender parcel all together. If wetland impacts are authorized, we request mitigation for the impacts be appropriate, potentially including higher ratios or different types of mitigation than currently proposed.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Please continue to include the NCWRC in discussions as this project progresses.  Maria   
2------------------------------ Maria T. Dunn Coastal Coordinator NC Wildlife Resources Commission 943 Washington Sq. Mall Washington, NC 27889 office: 252-948-3916 www.ncwildlife.org     Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.  
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000
March 23, 2022
Corps Action ID# SAW-2019-00233
DWR# 20220241
Jones County
Emily Thompson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Delivered via email to: [e-mail]
Subject Project: Belgrade Quarry Expansion
Dear Ms. Thompson:
On behalf of the NC Division of Water Resources, we respectfully request that you consider the
following comments within your review of the 404 Individual Permit request for the above referenced
project:
1. The applicant has stated that the purpose of the project is to expand mining at the existing
Belgrade Quarry facility. The Division requests that you consider whether this purpose has been
so narrowly defined as to preclude a thorough alternatives analysis.
2. Notwithstanding comment #1 above, the Division is concerned that the applicant has repeatedly
relied on their own stated purpose, the burden of cost, and “market demand,” throughout their
alternatives analysis without specifically defining or justifying these terms/assertions.
3. Notwithstanding comment #1 above, the applicant states that they have access to an alternative
permitted mining area (Bryan Pit) but it is their preference to reserve this location for later
development. The applicant prefers this approach in order to serve the market over a longer
term and so that they do not lose the potential to mine the Bender Pit area due to a possible
lease expiration. The Division requests that you consider whether this business preference
satisfies the LEDPA.
4. The applicant has stated that a second haul road is necessary for efficiency and cost, however
they have not provided detailed information to support these conclusions, nor have they
provided alternative alignments for this second haul road to demonstrate that the proposed
location of the second haul road has avoided and minimized resource impacts to the maximum
extent practicable.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1611 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
919.707.9000
Martin Marietta
Corps Action ID# SAW-2019-00233
DWR# 20220241
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 2
5. The Division is unable to complete a review of the project for compliance with 15A NCAC 02H
0506 at this time. The Division has requested additional technical information from the
applicant and requests that the USACE also consider the attached letter during the review of the
application.
Thank you for your considering the Division’s comments during your review of this Individual Permit. If
you have any questions, please contact Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Paul Wojoski, Supervisor
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Enclosure: Request for Additional Information Letter from DWR to Martin Marietta (March 23,
2022)
Electronic cc: Thomas Brown, Martin Marietta
Maria Dunn, NCWRC
DWR WaRO
DWR WiRO
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file
Filename: 20220241 Belgrade Quarry_Jones_PN Comments to USACE.docx