20220241 Ver 1_USACE More Info Requested_20220921

Strickland, Bev
From: Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 1:44 PM
To: Thomas Brown; Homewood, Sue
Cc: Brian North; Phillip Pressley
Subject: [External] RE: Martin Marietta Belgrade Quarry Preservation Area
Attachments: Belgrade Preliminary Wetland Impact Map 1-31-2019.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Hi Thomas,
In reviewing your responses to USACE/DWR and the most recent compensatory mitigation proposal, the Corps requests
additional information to facilitate our review of the proposed project. Comprehensive, detailed information regarding
the alternatives analysis and avoidance/minimization efforts needs to be provided. MMM concurred with the project
purpose and need statement, "to expand the current mining operations at the Belgrade Quarry in Jones County;"
therefore, MMM needs to conduct an offsite alternative analysis to identify parcels of land outside of the existing MMM
property/lease boundaries that are potentially suitable for extracting mineral reserves and traveling to the Belgrade
Quarry for processing. Evaluate these sites to determine if they could be mined while accomplishing the overall project
purpose, meet MMM's needs, and result in less aquatic impacts compared to the proposed extraction of the remaining
reserves at the Belgrade Quarry. While there is flexibility for small landowners regarding offsite alternatives analysis in
accordance with RGL 95-01, in this case that does not apply, and you as the applicant, are required to perform an offsite
analysis.
Proposed project screening criteria should be specific and the supporting rationale for the use of the criteria must be
provided. Avoid using ambiguous and unmeasurable terms by targeting measurable limits, factors, and thresholds that
constitute and relate to practicability. For each criterion, provide:
• A definition of the criteria.
• A discussion of what constraints or limiting factors are the basis for the criteria.
• The thresholds at which those constraints or factors are not practicable.
The screening criteria for this project appear to be safety, mineral reserves, impacts to aquatic resources, and cost from
the information provided. The evaluation of cost does not include the applicant's financial standing or desired profits — it
is a comparative analysis of the cost of different alternatives. Please let us know if others are used during your analysis.
Your offsite alternatives analysis information should provide comparisons, including cost, between the alternatives
presented, utilizing the selection criteria that will either lead you to exclude an alternative or carry an offsite alternative
forward for further study. This information would address offsite alternatives that may have less jurisdictional impacts
than the applicant's preferred alternative. You will also need to provide maps of the evaluated properties, including
proposed mining operations for each. For the evaluation of potential impacts for each offsite alternative utilization of
soils and NWI maps at a minimum is appropriate. We recommend utilizing your selection criteria in a tabular format to
compare the sites.
Please add to your alternatives analysis to further explore a No Action alternative that would have no impact to waters
of the U.S.; therefore, this would include any upland areas within the MMM owned/leased boundaries. This could
1

involve bridging for access to the proposed Bender Pit and configurations to avoid impacts to aquatic resources; this
could also include the proposed Northern Expansion without impacts to the stream in that area. The No Action
alternative should provide details on the minable acreage this alternative would provide and information on why this
alternative is not practicable or would not meet the project's stated purpose and need. Note this alternative is different
from the No Build alternative, which should also be presented.
The Corps received a preliminary plan dated January 1, 2020 (attached), that with an accurate delineation, proposes
impacts to 3.936 acres of wetlands within the Bender Pit and no impacts to streams. It appears that this alternative was
not assessed with the most recent submittal, but further explanation is necessary for us to be able to determine why
this is not a viable alternative. Other considerations for avoidance would include the potential for bridging the crossings,
which would be cost -compared with the compensatory mitigation required for impacting aquatic resources, and the
potential for avoiding areas currently proposed with the preferred alternative.
MMM responded to NCDWR's questions about secondary impacts to aquatic resources indicating that there are
wetlands surrounding the existing pits and that the wetlands surrounding the Bender Pit receive hydrology input from
the backwater of the White Oak River. Does this mean that after completion of the mining operations, these wetlands
may be impacted? Secondary impacts to these wetlands may include any alteration of the existing conditions, including
hydrology and vegetation. Please provide further details on the potential secondary impacts to the surrounding aquatic
resources (wetlands and streams). Should it be determined that a loss of function will occur from your analysis,
mitigation will be required and should be included in your final compensatory mitigation plan.
On February 6, 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to
comply with the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to
waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and
practical steps to reduce impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensation for remaining unavoidable impacts
to the extent appropriate and practical.
There may be further changes necessary once MMM addresses the additional information requested above; however, at
this time, the compensatory mitigation plan proposed by MMM is inadequate for the quality of aquatic resources
proposed to be impacted by this project. The current proposal includes donating a 104-acre tract containing
approximately 94 acres of wetlands (Woods Property) to the Croatan National Forest, purchasing 6.72 riparian wetland
credits from Bachelor's Delight Mitigation Bank, and purchasing 674 stream credits from Bachelor's Delight Mitigation
Bank.
As directed in 33 CFR 332.3, preference should generally be given to satisfying compensatory mitigation requirements
through mitigation banks if available, secondly by in -lieu fee program, and lastly by on -site restoration, creation, or
preservation, based on a variety of considerations. Furthermore, the following guidance in Section 332.3(h) of the
Mitigation Rule states, "in general, preservation may be used to provide compensatory mitigation for activities
authorized by DA permits when all the following criteria are met:
1. The resources to be preserved provide important physical, chemical, or biological functions for the watershed;
2. The resources to be preserved contribute significantly to the ecological sustainability of the watershed. In
determining the contribution to those resources to the ecological sustainability of the watershed, the district
engineers must use appropriate quantitative assessment tools, where available;
3. Preservation is determined by the district engineer to be appropriate and practicable;
4. The resources are under threat of destruction or adverse modifications; and
5. The preserved site will be permanently protected through an appropriate real estate or other legal instrument
(e.g., easement, title transfer to state resource agency or land trust)."
A fundamental question would be whether the Croatan National Forest would permanently protect the tract by
implementing a legal protection mechanism. Preserving the Woods property does not meet all the criteria. MMM would
have to provide a more detailed analysis demonstrating how preservation would meet these criteria and be consistent
2

with the standards for creating private banks. Further discussions about the compensatory mitigation for the proposed
wetland impacts will be necessary; however, we would require a 3 to 1 ratio for high -quality wetlands impacted based
on the NCWAM forms.
Current USACE district guidance regarding Wilmington district implementation of NCWAM and NCSAM issued via Public
Notice on April 21, 2015, states; generally, impacts to wetlands and stream channels will continue to require mitigation
at a 2 to 1 ratio. However, the results of NCWAM and NCSAM may now be considered by the District, along with other
factors, to adjust the typical 2 to 1 mitigation ratio to account for high or low -quality aquatic resources and ensure that
compensatory mitigation requirements are appropriate. The District still retains final authority to make decisions
regarding the compensatory mitigation requirements for all permitting decisions.
A 0.75 to 1 ratio is not acceptable for the 793 linear feet (LF) of stream in the proposed Northern Expansion because it
would not be consistent with current District guidance. Please provide further information to justify your proposed
mitigation ratio. An NCSAM was not completed for the 106 LF of stream within the proposed Bender Pit; therefore, a 2
to 1 ratio would be required for these impacts. Please revise your proposal and provide documentation for the
availability of stream credits.
We believe a meeting between MMM, DWR, and USACE would be beneficial to answer any questions you may have and
ensure MMM can provide the necessary information to move forward with our review
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: Thomas Brown <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 10:03 AM
To: Homewood, Sue <[e-mail]>; Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brian North <[e-mail]>; Phillip Pressley <[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Martin Marietta Belgrade Quarry Preservation Area
Sue and Emily,
I just wanted to reach back out to you about Belgrade and the possibility of donating the Woods Property to the
National Forest as our form of preservation.
Would you be willing to have a call with the Croatan Ranger to discus how the property would be protected?
Thanks,
3

Thomas Brown, PWS
Wetland Specialist I East Division
Martin Marietta
2235 Gateway Access Point
STE 400, Raleigh, NC 27607
m. (919) 268- 5297
e. [e-mail]
www.martinmarietta.com
From: Thomas Brown <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 8:25 AM
To: 'Homewood, Sue' <[e-mail]>; 'Thompson, Emily B CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)'
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Brian North <[e-mail]>; Phillip Pressley ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Martin Marietta Belgrade Quarry Preservation Area
Sue and Emily,
We have been in contact with The Nature Conservancy and The Coastal Land Trust. Both groups recommended
donation to the National Forest Service due to their proximity to our property and the benefit that this donation would
have to the general public. The Nature Conservancy contacted the Croatan Ranger, Mr. Ron Hudson, on our behalf and I
recently spoke with Mr. Hudson again last week.
Mr. Hudson assured me that this wetland area would not be timbered and that they only timber areas where they are
working to restore the natural habitat. He shared the attached land and resource management plan. Section 2.1.6 and
Section 3.5 are related to maintaining Cypress Wetlands, such as what exists on the proposed preservation
property. There are several other sections related to maintaining and restoring wetland hydrology and vegetation.
Please consider this information and let me know your thoughts on using donation to the National Forest Service as our
preservation method. Mr. Hudson stated that he would be happy to have a call with all parties if needed.
Thanks again,
Thomas Brown, PWS
Wetland Specialist I East Division
Martin Marietta
2235 Gateway Access Point
STE 400, Raleigh, NC 27607
m. (919) 268- 5297
e. [e-mail]
www.martinmarietta.com
4

Confidential Commercial Information. Disclosure Prohibited.
Apr-.w 7
•
Impact Road B
O'.038ac
Impact D
0.924ac
Impact E
2:343ac
Alk Martin
Marietta
Belgrade Quarry
Preliminary Wetland
Impact Map
N
A
Drawn by: Thomas Brown
1 /31 /2020
For Planning Purposes Only
DigitalGlobe,
DDT USDA, o
Impact B
0.001 ac
Impact C
0.038ac
G
Aer@GRID
Plant Site
Impact Road A
0.225ac
Impact A
0.008ac
Legend
Wetland_Impacts
Wetland Boundary
Proposed Road
Future Pit LOD
eoEye, Ert'1'n ]7eaggimp k 0:�.1-Ana
1,000
500
0
1,000 Feet