19950153 Ver 2_Individual Application_20141013

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
4901 TRADEMARK DRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27610
919-212-1760 * FAX [phone]
www.environmentalservicesinc.com
October 8, 2014
Mr. David Shaeffer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Benson Quarry Expansion Response to Comments — SAW 2014-00845
Johnston County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Shaeffer,
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) is providing the enclosed revised document on behalf
of Martin Marietta Materials in response to comments received from the reviewing agencies for
the Benson Quarry Expansion Individual Permit application. The intent of this response is to
provide evidence that the proposed project will satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Please contact us if you have any additional questions or comments regarding this
application. As always, thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
Robert Turnbull
Senior Scientist
Enclosure
Cc: Todd Bowers, EPA
Jennifer Burdette, NCDWR
Vann Stancil, NCWRC

Section 404/401 Individual Permit Application
Benson Quarry Expansion
Johnston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
524 South New Hope Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
October 2014

Environmental Services, Inc.
TABLE OFCONTENTS
1.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION `2
]J Site History and Current Operations ........ __._.____ ....... _______________2
1.2 Market Analysis ............... ............................... .......... —'------------- ------------
4
1.3 Prior Agency Coordination _________________________.__________-
5
2.0
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT .___________.____.____.____._.�
3.0
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSlS_ ............... ................................................ ---_--_---.7
3.1 Alternatives Considered _---___--_-----_--__---------------__-'//
I/J No Action Alternative _______________________________._��
I1.2 Establish uNew Quarry o/u New Location -------------­ ­­ ............................
8
llJ Removal ofExisting Waste Pile ..... -------------------------------------------------------
_'y
I1.4 Relocation ofPrimary Crux6ing Station .......... -----------------------------------------
Y/
3.1.5 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion Channel 2VvrUhof
Overburden Pile _____—___----_--__-------_----_--.-----/0
3.1.6 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion Channel South of
Overburden Pile (Preferred Alternative) ---------------------------------------------------------------
/
3.1.7 Construction cf]V,wfYon/ory6ew Piton Johnson Property -- --------------
Z
3.2 Alternatives Dismissed _-_-_.—.----__----------__.-------_-_----J�
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING DF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
/5.
4.1 Pbyoio&/aykic, Topographic, Geology, and Land Oa�_____________._____.}�
4.2 8oikil5�
4.3 Water Roaouruua_.--- ......... ---_-_-_--.---- .......... ---------------------------------
5.
44 Existing Conditions ......................... -_ ......... --_--_-_.-- ...... _ .............. ......
-6
4.5 Threatened and Endangered Species ------------------------------------------- . ------------ -----------
6
46 Cultural Resources ___________________________________________��
5.0
SECTION 404 IMPACTS /UNDpB&MUITDNGl�
5] Proposed Stream Impacts --------------- --_-----_----_ ....... ...... .............. .........
8.
52 Proposed Wetland Impacts -------------------------- -------------------------------------- ...... ...........
X
5.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization ofWetlund/vY»/cts--__--_-_--__--'}4
5.3 {�oo4neoyotmry&�b�ahoo_________________________________/y
6.0
REFERENCES _________________-------_----_---------'-__-------'J/
APPENDIX &: Figures and Cross-Sections
APPENDIX B: NCD\9R Riparian Buffer Letter
APPENDIX C: SBPO Clearance Letter
APPENDIX D: Mitigation Acceptance Letters from NCEEP and Mitigation Banks
APPENDIX B: Past Correspondence with Allen Family -CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX F: /\]tunadvco Comparison Table
APPENDIX G:yEMU\Evaluation
APPENDIX U: Johnston County Special Use
APPENDIX 1: NCYVAM6vu\oudon
Benson Quarry Expansion 1

Environmental Services, Inc.
Raffanam
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 158-acre project study area, located
immediately north of the existing Benson Quarry facility, consists of mixed hardwood and mixed
pine/hardwood communities, agricultural fields, recently clear cut areas, one (1) non-jurisdictional
farm pond, and approximately 40 acres of previously verified jurisdictional wetlands.
The area into which Martin proposes this quarry expansion is an approximately 158 acre tract known
as the Johnson Property. A mining permit modification application has been approved by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Land Quality Section to add this
additional property to the permitted boundary of the Benson Quarry.
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,
submitting a revised Individual Permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
requesting authorization to permanently impact 17 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 1980's due to its
location and unique geologic deposit. The site was originally secured in preparation for the proposed
extension of Interstate 40 towards Wilmington and began actual mining operations in 1986. 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 southeast 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 in the early 1980's at other locations in
the area to ensure that this site was the best available location and was positioned in a 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. In time,
Hanson ultimately permitted a site near Princeton, NC, approximately 11 miles (straight-line distance)
east of Smithfield, NC. They also permitted their Gardner Quarry, which is approximately 3.5 miles
(straight-line distance) southwest of downtown Lillington, NC.
Benson Quarry Expansion 2

Environmental Services, Inc.
In the efforts of trying to identify and ocrodt an aggregate facility below Gacuor, North Carolina,
Martin investigated various locations to determine the feasibility and existence of available hard rock
in this region. Martin investigated property to the north of the Benson Quarry, lmmmJ on numerous
rcqucaim from property owners that rock existed oo their property. Test holes were drilled but no rook
o[ suitable quality was found for mining. Mostly, our extensive testing confirmed the existing urpoor
quality sedimentary rock and sand that was present in these areas, as indicated on the published North
Carolina geological maps. By chance, Martin came across an old NC Geological Survey Groundwater
0Lcpur{ that showed an outcrop of volcanic rock l*uoimd where Stony Fork flows under the C6X
Railroad. This parcel was identified as the MaoriOu Allen property, located just south of the railroad
below the existing Benson Quarry property. The newer NCGS geologic ooupo did not show this
outcrop or any ioKxnoadon related to potential construction grade ugg7ogu(o in this area. Bo in the
early 1980`a, Martin began to investigate the possibility of purchasing or leasing some property from
the Allen family near Highway 301 in the Benson area. Written correspondence was made with the
Allen family owner but u deal to acquire or control this property was never reached, though the land
was test drilled and evaluated.
Throughout the investigations, Martin determined that there was actually on old Nello`7ecrborrow pit
on the north side of the railroad tracks, on what iu known uathe McLamb property, that exposed about
two uorca of rock. Martin conducted an ezrunoke prospecting evaluation of the property, including u
too1 shot and materials evaluation. Based oo the positive results from this prospecting effort, Martin
eventually secured o lease on the property with the McLuudbfamily. Based oo the quality and quantity
of the available rock determined in the prospecting efforts, Martin discontinued additional prospecting
of the previously evaluated site and other l000duna in the area. This MoCaonb property is now the
present pit n[ the Benson Quarry.
Ultimately, Benson Quarry was permitted in March of|984and was used Wsupply the stone for the
extension of Interstate 1-40 hdvvccm Benson and Wilmington, as well as other projects along the 1-40
corridor. Over the years, Martin has dd||cd numerous prospect properties iu and around the Benson
Quarry looking for other dcoi,ohie zuioeraio' including sand. Occasionally, Martin will conduct
prospecting efforts in response to u local landowner that believes that they have rock or sand ootheir
property. It should be noted that if there was available rock located between 8eoaoo and Raleigh
(along the 1-40 corridor) Martin believes that they n/oo\d have located it or noorbcr industry
competitor would have secured site. However, to Martin's knowledge and through their extensive
research of the area, the Benson Quarry was selected and opened, due to its location to the market and
its ooignc geologic deposit. As of this application, no other aggregate oonopeb|oz has located u
nnhohle og@rcgo(o material to permit and mine in this region of North Carolina. & 000p of the un:am
tested in the region of Benson io provided an Figure 5io Appendix /\.
Though Martin never completed u property deal with the Allen family, we have continued to stay io
contact with the heirs of this property. In 200l` correspondence was made with Mr. Allen's daughter
indicating our desire to purchase or lease the aunoe property that was originally evaluated.
Unfortunately, Martin could never secure control of this property, though they tried for many years.
Copies of all of the correspondence with the Allen family are included in Appendix E. Note that this
io/brombon is labeled to contain trade aocru\e and conditional hoaioeao or financial infonnahon
exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Benson Quarry Expansion 3

Environmental Services, Inc.
Aa stated, the Benson Quarry was ultimately permitted by the NC DENR inl084. After afew years of
overburden removal, berm construction, and plant construction, the operation was opened for business.
Since the extension of 1-40 towards Wilmington, Benson has played o major role in supplying
construction grade aggregates along the 1-40 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 ozutehol to be
transported off-site to nearby oouo1rnudou projects to be used as fill material, if needed. The berms
serve as viunu\ barriers and provide onfDoicm| buffer from adjoining neighbors and the mining
operation. Once the overburden is removed, drilling and blasting of the rock is conducted, prior to the
material being hauled out o[the pit 1ohoprocessed. The rock io processed hy the use uyconveyors,
occmcom, and onuahcro that transport, separate, and reduce the uo{oul size of the material. This pxooumo
is repeated at various locations within the plant to obtain the particle size and gradation requirements
ofNCD0I oyocifioutiuou for numerous types of materials that are used in the construction industry.
Atyyion| oggrogu(oo processing plant can have up to 3 or crushers, 4 or 5 acn:cuu, and over 25
conveyors that are uccumuory to move the material through the process. The onnoczoua types of
aggregate products that are produced are stockpiled on-site prior tobeing sold and transported oUisi(e
hy either truck ozrail. 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|ypicul processing
plant can cost nuU]iona of dollars, excluding the cost of mobile equipment utilized in the construction
industry, such osdrills, buu} trucks, loaders, motor graders, bull dozers, excavators, c1o. In addition,
maintenance shops and other buildings or facilities are necessary io the operation, including employee
buildings, office, pails supply, etc. These support structures add to the overall cost ofu typical quarry
Over the past 4 years, the volume of shipments has averaged only 440,000 tons per year compared N
annual shipments of million tons in 2007 and 2008. As the economy iogvovca and the construction
sector rebounds, Martin anticipates vohuzoum 1m improve to normal in the future. As with any quarry,
the ability to aooenm and pzoocaa available reserves n/idbio the boundary of the operation is critical to
the guony`n ability to service the surrounding uornoouody` n/bicb inupaoio the overall uoouonuy of the
area.
1.2 Market Aoulym1u
Figure in Appendix /\ presents u comparison of the overall geologic [orumdooa around the Benson
area. This portion of cmu1azu Nm1b Carolina has u general dividing |bnc along the I-95 corridor
between various types of iXpc000 and acJirnen1nry deposits. 8uzuuo`a deposit is u rou{uvo)uooiu
deposit unique iu this area of sedimentary and soft rock formations.
Figure 3 in Appendix A provides information related W the overall market area that Benson serves and
the surrounding quarry locations in the amalcro pm1iuo of North Carolina. Humon`m Princeton and
Gardner quarries are the only two quarries located uuur Benson. In general, the industry standard in
transporting aggregates ia around $0.]0to$O.22 per ton per mile.
The Benson Quarry supplies 4 ready mix concrete plants and 2asphalt plants. These customers serve
the Benson area with concrete and asphalt paving materials, reducing the cost of these products if the
materials had 1ohetrucked in from longer distances. The same concept applies io providing u local
market with construction grade aggregates. The transportation of this material greatly ioOucuoem and
ioore000m the direct costs of aggregates to the customer. Therefore, an increase in over $4.00 per ton
would be ioouczud on local fixed-based (ready-mix and asphalt) plants, as well as the local ooe|ocouxa
if this material were to be transported approximately 20 iniles or supplied by one of Hanson's quarries.
Benson Quarry Expansion 4

Environmental Services, Inc.
With an approximate cost of $9.00 to $12.00 per ton from Benson, this represents an additional cost
increase of approximately 33 to 44% to the local market if Benson were not in operation.
As a comparison and in general, the cost of producing quality aggregates from marine limestone
operations is about twice that of hard rock operations. Therefore, transporting this already high -cost
product to serve the southern market area shown on Figure 3 prevents this material from being a viable
alternative.
Benson serves a southern market for approximately 55 miles down I -40 and to the areas indicated in
Appendix G. Our research has determined that very little quality hard rock aggregate is available
below the I -95 corridor. Most revealing, is the number of surrounding locations that Martin operates
and has permitted to meet the large demand for aggregates in this region. It is our belief that another
source of quality reserves may not exists below this 1 -95 corridor. Undoubtedly, if one exists, other
aggregate companies have not 'located a source of potential reserves and of the quality that would be
necessary to serve this market. Issues related to zoning, neighbor concerns, secondary roadways with
NCDOT load restrictions, depth of overburden, capital investment for constructing a plant and
associated facilities support the lack of other hard rock producers in this market.
With Benson located near the intersection of I -40 and I -95, it has a direct advantage in transportation
to the counties located to the south. Duplin and Sampson counties are rural, agricultural communities
that need quality stone for farin roads and agricultural pens that support the production of turkeys,
hogs, and chickens. No other hard rock producer has the opportunity to provide these much needed
products to this market. Appendix G supports Martin's on -going and extensive search for both hard
rock and marine limestone operations in the central coastal plain of North Carolina.
Martin's Castle Hayne quarry has an adjacent rail yard that Martin operates, which receives hard rock
material from our Lemon Springs Quarry. 'Phis material is used to supply the Wilmington market,
with both hard rock from Lemon Springs and marine limestone mined locally at Castle Hayne. On
average, material that is delivered to the Castle Hayne Yard via rail from Lemon Springs has an added
transportation cost of approximately $8.00 per ton. With an existing cost of around $12.00 per ton at
Lemon Springs, hard rock sold from the Castle Hayne Yard is approximately $20.00 per ton. This
66% increase in cost illustrates the added cost to the local customers and the overall economy when a
local source of aggregate is not readily available.
Over the years that Martin has operated in the central coastal plains, no other producer has invested the
time, money, and effort to locate available reserves to serve these important markets of North
Carolina's economy. In review of the Benson Quarry market (Appendix G), it would appear that
Martin's Selma Quarry could be utilized to supply the necessary aggregate reserves long -term that
Benson lacks. For clarification, Selma is located approximately 20 miles from the intersection of I -40
and I -95. Based on the additional transportation costs described above, supplying the northern market
of Benson from Selma would increase the transportation costs by 25 -33 %. In addition, Selma was
permitted as an additional aggregate source to provide construction aggregates to the growing
Wilmington market via the adjacent railroad that exists. The projected capital costs of opening up a
new quarry, removing and disposing of overburden, constructing a new plant, office, and maintenance
shop, etc. is not practicable to serve a market such as Benson.
1.3 Prior Agency Coordination
Prior coordination with USAGE and/or DWQ regarding this project includes:
January '15, 2013 - Initial 206 -acre parcel delineation results reviewed by Thomas Brown of
USACE.
Benson Quarry Expansion 5

Environmental Services, Inc.
• July l2,0l3— Met with Thomas Brown and Jean Gibby ofUSACBtoreview project area
and discuss potential impacts.
• August |V,20|3— Met with Thomas Brown and Jean (7UbyofDS/\CB, Jennifer Bordo|eof
DWR, and V000 Staooi| ofNCVVIkC oo-odc 10 zcvicvv project area and dbaouaa potential
impacts.
• October 2,20]3— Met with Thomas Brown ofUSACB, Jennifer Burdet(oofDWB, and Vann
Stunci| ofNCVVflC to review stream diversion projects completed ai the Pon000uand Hickory
Quarries.
• November |3,20l3— Met with Thomas Brown ofUS/\C2, Jennifer Burdd1eofNVVK,Vann
8tuncUofNCDVVC` and John Ellis ofOBFVV8to discuss alternatives and contents ofSection
404/4O| permit application submittal.
• B&orob 28, 2014— An individual 404 permit application was submitted to request approval to
inupooi 26 uorcm of jurisdictional wetlands.
• August l3,20|4— Met with David Schaeffer o{US&CB, Jennifer BurJcUonfNCDVPR,and
Vann 8ioucil ofNCTVTlC, and Todd Bowers with O8BP/\ (conference call) to review the
conu000z|a received from each agency after ihcb review of the March 20, 2014 404 ly
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT
The overall purpose uy this project ioto mine quality construction grade aggregate io order onsupply
the surrounding market need ina systematic and cost effective manner. The Benson Quarry iounique
in that it is one of the only quarries providing construction grade aggregate to the central coastal plain.
The current service area ruugcm from Eao(over. N[ to the west, Blizubob1on/o, NC to the uouLb' to
Wallace, NC along 7'40, and /\i6o1ano, NC to the vvcm1, as oboxm in Appendix G. Currently
configured, the Benson Quarry facility will deplete the existing permitted reserves in approximately 4-
6 years, based ou current and expected sales vo|onnco for this facility. Therefore, Martin has identified
an alternative that provides suitable amounts of reserve to provide quality aggregates for an estimated
40-50 years. Martin would also prefer to accomplish this purpose by obtaining one comprehensive
Section 404/401 permit at this time in order to avoid the need for future perouh applications on the
property currently owned and ]eased byMartin. However, additional permit applications could still be
necessary i[ additional property iy obtained io the future u1 the Benson Quarry.
The pending and future NCDOIprojects planned for the central coastal plain area in North Carolina
will require substantial amounts ofcrushed stone m meet the needs of the surrounding community and
the improving economy n[ North Carolina. lf the necessary reserves of the Benson Quarry are limited
to existing permitted reserves, an udeguuic supply of construction aggregates will not be readily
available ut minimal costs. The Benson Quarry ia ahootud ivastrategic location with uvery limited
number of other permitted aggregate facilities nearby (See Figure 4). The nearest quarries to the
Benson Quarry are Martin's Garner 0nony, located 30 nnJon north oour Ln{eze1utc 40, Booaoo
Aggregates' Gardner quarry, located 40 miles to the west, Hanson's Princeton quarry located 25 miles
to the east, and Martin's Castle Dayoe0uuoy, located 85 noUuu south of the Benson Quarry near
Interstate 40.
Due to the distance of these 6oihdce from the Bumaou 0oarry, the cost of providing aggregate to
future construction projects io the area would increase the overall oomi of given project, due 1othe
excessive transportation costs associated with the delivery of the crushed stone products. Future
Benson Quarry Expansion 6

Environmental Services, Inc.
NCDOT projects that are planned for this area include the widening of 1 -95, which is located just
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 were quite substantial. Based on our extensive research of this area, no other location
offers the construction grade aggregates that Benson provides and is located to effectively serve the
market area currently serviced by Benson. Most importantly, issues and permitting related to potential
wetland impacts at other locations may be similar in nature and scope as to this application request.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has developed the drivi.11 5. oni website to educate
the public on this major project facing North Carolina. I -95 was originally constructed between the
1950's and the 1980's as a four -lane interstate corridor. This 182 -mile interstate is a major corridor
between Virginia and South Carolina that transports goods, services, commuters, vacationers, etc.,
through and within North Catalina. The overall project will consist of 484 lane miles of renovated or
newly constructed roadway.
In 2013, the N.C. General Assembly mandated NCDOT to conduct an economic assessment studying
various ways of paying for improvements to I -95, and how each of those methods of payment would
economically impact the corridor. As of July of 2103, the economic assessment was finalized. Public
meetings were held to obtain comments for the project. According to NCDOT, the estimated cost for
this project will be $4.4 Billion. Phase I of this project, consisting of 60 miles, will be from Benson to
Lumberton, widening the existing 4 lanes to 8 lanes. This portion is projected to be completed by
2019, once funding has been established. The remaining 122 miles stretch is projected to be
completed by 2032. The volume of aggregates needed for this the first phase of construction is
estimated at 3.2 million tons.
The stated purpose and need to mine quality construction grade aggregate in order to supply the
surrounding market need in a systematic and cost effective manner is critical to the overall economic
success of North Carolina and the surrounding communities along this major interstate corridor.
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 permitted
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
Benson Quarry Expansion 7

Environmental Services, Inc.
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.
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 ability to locate a new
quarry as a substitute for Benson, 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), and a new pit or plant site on the Johnson
property.
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. In order to access the existing limited reserves,
897,000 yards of overburden would be required to be removed and stored on the existing
waste pile just west of the pit. In this alternative, only 5.10 million tons of available reserves
remain in the current pit, which would be exhausted within 4 to 6 years. This alternative is
not practicable because it does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant and
cannot provide the necessary volume of available reserves to mine construction aggregates to
supply the market in a systematic and cost-effective manner. See Figure 2.1 in Appendix A
for this alternative.
Conclusion: The No Action Alternative does not meet the stated purpose and need and as
such was removed as a viable alternative.
3.1.2 Establish a new Quarry at a new Location
The previous efforts described in Section 1.1 above to locate, test, acquire sufficient land,
zone, and permit a substitute for the Benson Quarry were quite substantial. Based on our
extensive research of this area, no other location in the general area offers the construction
grade aggregates that Benson provides to effectively serve the market area currently serviced
by Benson. No other hard rock location has been identified or permitted by Martin or another
Benson Quarry Expansion 8

Environmental Services, Inc.
industry competitor. It is our belief that the Benson Quarry is unique in its geology and
location within a geological area of sedimentary rock formations. Due to the cost of securing
property, the time it would take to zone and conduct the necessary environmental studies to
support the environmental permitting process, the cost of developing and constructing a new
site, and the potential opposition of the proposed operation from the surrounding neighbors,
Martin believe that this alternative is not practicable to meet the stated purpose and need of
this project. Martin has not been able to locate a suitable aggregate operation in the
general area of Benson, nor has any industry competitor. The overall geology of this area
of North Carolina does not provide the natural resource of construction grade aggregates, as
found at Benson, See Figure 5 in Appendix A for the location of sites that were investigated
during the establishment and permitting of Benson.
Conclusion: As no suitable aggregate operation is available within the market are of the
Benson Quarry this alternative does not meet the stated purpose and need and is not a
practicable alternative. The option of a new location quarry was removed as a viable
alternative.
3.1.3 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 open up limited amounts of available
reserves. 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 may 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) just west of Raleigh Road.
Approximately 2.7 million yards of 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. This would require thousands of truckloads of material to
be moved and would cost about $9.2 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.
Ecological Engineering has prepared a letter that outlines the necessary requirements for
obtaining FEMA approval for a permanent crossing. Though Martin has yet to initiate the
approval request for such a crossing, preliminary evaluations have been conducted to
determine the effects of such a crossing. A bridge or a multiple-pipe crossing structure will be
Benson Quarry Expansion 9

Environmental Services, Inc.
required to prevent flooding of the upstream properties. Martin understands that a
CLOMR/LOMR process will be necessary for FEMA approval but desires not to initiate this
process until the 404 IP has been issued. Ecological Engineering's letter is included in
Appendix G.
In light of the potential reserves obtained in this alternative, 11.9 million tons of available
reserves would be achieved without impacting any wetlands outside of the access road (if it
were possible) across the wetlands. However, this limited amount of volume would be
exhausted within 12 to 15 years. Therefore, this alternative is not practicable because it 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 2.2 in
Appendix A for this alternative.
Conclusion: Removal of the existing waste pile and expansion of the existing pit is not
practicable as it does not fully meet the stated purpose and need as it only provides for 12 to
15 years of additional life. This alternative is deemed not practicable and has been removed
from consideration.
3.1.4 Relocation ofPrimary 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 549,09$ 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 3.1.3, and would cost
approximately $1.6 million. The cost of constructing a new primary station is estimated to be
approximately $7 million, which would add an approximate cost per ton of $0.57 in
depreciation. The relocation and disposal of the existing overburden in this area would result
in a reserves potential of 6.2 million tons which would be exhausted within 6 to 8 years. See
Figure 2.3 in Appendix A for this alternative.
Conclusion: This alternative is not practicable because it does not provide the necessary
volumes needed to provide construction aggregate to the Benson market and will likely result
in future requests for Section 404/401 permits on the Johnson Property. Therefore, this
alternative does not meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant and has been removed
from consideration.
3.1.5 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 miles of offsite drainage that comes through the existing
wetlands. The diversion channel would require the removal and disposal of approximately 1.1
million cubic yards of overburden at an expected cost of $3.3 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 mine through approximately 17 acres of wetlands, leaving the remaining 20.43
Benson Quarry Expansion 10

Environmental Services, Inc.
acres of wetlands towards the west and a small portion of wetlands located towards the east
side of the Johnson property undisturbed. This alternative could open 39 million tons of
reserves in an additional 45 acre pit expansion, providing approximately 40 to 50 years of
available construction aggregate.
While this alternative does meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant, 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 noted in the original application. 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 west of the proposed wetland impacts, of up to 20.43 acres. Based on the amount of
elevation difference between the inlet of the relocation diversion channel and the proposed pit
expansion through the wetlands, 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 west, resulting in a conversion of the wetland to a surface water.
The high potential for these secondary impacts to these areas and the monitoring/mitigation
costs associated with those secondary impacts over time, prevent this action from being the
preferred alternative. See Figure 2.4 in Appendix A for this alternative.
Conclusion: This alternative does meet the basic purpose and need of the applicant; however,
due to extensive potential future wetland impacts resulting from hydrologic changes in the
wetland system that cannot be reasonably predicted unintentional impacts may occur.
3.1.6 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion Channel South of Overburden Pile
(Preferred Alternative)
This alternative would expand the pit through the wetlands as described in the previous
alternative, and would also require the construction of a permanent diversion channel.
However, this alternative proposes to construct the diversion channel diagonally through the
middle of the Johnson Property, south of a proposed overburden disposal area. This proposed
diversion channel would require the removal and disposal of approximately 400,000 cubic
yards of material but allows for on-site disposal of up to 3.35 million cubic yards of
overburden on the current Johnson tract. The proposed channel and overburden storage area
meets the requirements of the Special Use restrictions by off-setting any proposed
disturbances outside of the 250' setback from Camilla Road and along the east and west
boundaries of the Johnson property. The proposed channel could be constructed in uplands
and significantly reduces secondary impacts to additional wetlands on the property as
described in Alternative 3.1.5. This channel would also allow Martin to meet the permitting
requirements of FEMA by constructing a permanent 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.
Benson Quarry Expansion 11

Environmental Services, Inc.
Ln this alternative, Martin would need approval mmine through approximately l7 acres o[the
existing wetlands, which iau35% reduction from the original application request of26acres
of wetland impacts. Martin believes that the existing g.7y acres of wetlands to the west of the
proposed ioopuo1 could be monitored to ensure that the upstream wetlands maintain their
existing characteristics and could avoid any potential nuhigu|ioo cnyra for secondary wetlands
inpuu|a Due to the limited elevation difference 6etvvceo the inlet of the proposed diversion
obuonc| and the future pit expansion area, monitoring of this kind could beconducted and is
similar to oibcz requirements Martin oonupUce with at other permitted quarry )ooudoue.
Martin would conduct these 000ui1odug efforts by providing hydrology to the wetlands
upstream of the proposed pit expansion hy utilizing the current pit discharge. The downstream
wetlands would continue to be hydrated, due to the restriction that is provided by the existing
box oo\vu1s nudoc the CSX railroad. It should also be oNu] that no additional wetlands
would be impacted due to the proposed overburden disposal indicated in this alternative.
The existing pit would 6e expanded uo additional 46acres, which iso25Y6 reduction form the
original 404 uoo6cuikn of 60 acres. The proposed expansion would also open 39 million
hoow of reserves. This alternative would expand the amount oI available reserves over 40 to
50 years. Therefore, this o|1eroudvu is the preferred alternative that coucia the LED9&
objectives and the stated purpose and need.
U obonN he ooul that the lease agreement with the Johnson faud}y indicates that the
landowner retained the timber rights mthe property. Recently, the landowner exercised his
right to the timber, prior to it being added to the mining permit. The Special Use permit
requires the planting of trees in areas that existing vegetation is not acceptable. The proposed
berm construction will provide the rcgniro] noise and visual barrier between the quarry
operation and the neighbors.
Though this alternative provides an equal volume of possible reserves as Alternative 3.1.5,
&4urdu acknowledges that this alternative would require the approval and oouakooboo of an
access across the new diversion channel io access the proposed overburden storage pile in the
future. Martin believes that this access could be accomplished below $750,000. Although
404 permit may be possible for a bridge across the channel, a permanent roadway io not likely
to be approved through FBMA, based on the drainage area that puaaos d000gb the Deoaoo
Quarry and the potential for flooding resident's properties opakcuro. Therefore, Martin has
begun to evaluate the engineering aspects of such an access and have provided design criteria
from Ecological Engineering to be included in the FBM& model that is currently being
prepared in conjunction vvirb this project. See Figure 2.5 in Appendix /\ for this alternative
and Appendix (} for Ecological Engineering's yBMA opinion letter.
Conclusion: This alternative meets the stated purpose and need ofthe applicant and
minimizes permanent and secondary wetland impacts and is the preferred alternative.
3.1.7 Construction ofo New Plant ^r New Pit on Johnson Property
lu this alternative, the use of the Johnson property ia being considered. The first option would
be to relocate the p|uo1 to the Johnson Property and the existing plant area would he 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
Benson Quarry Expansion 12

Environmental Services, Inc.
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 a comparison, Martin constructed a new primary plant in 2009 at a cost of $4.2 million at
our American Stone Quarry near Chapel Hill, NC. Prior to that, a secondary plant was
constructed at our Burlington location at a cost of $9.1 million. It is estimated that a new plant
for Benson would easily cost $13 to $15 million.
The construction of a new plant while the existing plant continues to operate puts extra capital
burden on Martin and is not considered practicable. The cannibalization of the existing plant
once the new plant is operational would also not be practicable, as the useful life of the
existing plant would not be achieved prior to its removal. It should also be noted that the
equipment used in the mining process has numerous "wear" parts that need replacement
instead of actual equipment items themselves. These include conveyor rollers, conveyor
belting, motors, idlers, pulleys, crusher manganese, etc. Though actual screens and crushers
are replaced at times, these units can operate over 25 years, based on their maintenance and
the type of aggregate being processed.
Johnston County approved the zoning and Special Use for the Johnson Property on December
8, 2003. In this approval, various special conditions restricted the use of this property, to meet
the concerns and objections of our operation from the public. In the motion to approve the
Special Use, Commissioner Allen L. Mims, Jr. requested "that ifl)ossible the rock crusher be
used at the original site to minimize the noise for the residents along Camelia Road", of
which Martin agreed to. Therefore, it order to utilize the Johnson property as future plant
area, crushing of aggregate material would be necessary, which would be in opposition to the
conditions within the approved Special Use. Other Special Use conditions related to buffers
and setbacks, Camelia Road restrictions, pre-blast surveys, property value evaluations, and site
plan approvals are also required. A copy of the Special Use that was issued by Johnston
County is provided in Appendix H.
Due to the variable size and weight of the material that is the result of blasting, the aggregate
industry does not have a technological solution to conveying "shot rock" in a manner that is
safe and practicable. Boulders can weigh 4 to 5 tons or more, which would require some form
of crushing prior to their transport. Again, this crushing activity would be in opposition to the
approved Special Use permit for the Johnson property.
If this alternative were to be used, Martin would be required to pursue a revision of the Special
Use 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
Benson Quarry Expansion 13

Environmental Services, Inc.
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 option would result in 33.8 million tons of reserves, providing approximately 35 to 40
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
practicable due to the existing restrictions contained in the Special Use permit for this site and
the economic costs of constructing the facilities necessary for this alternative.
The other option in this alternative would be for Martin to 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 4.9 million cubic yards of overburden, which 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 near the existing wetlands. With the 250' Special Use setback requirements along
the east, north, and west 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, the cross section on Figure 2.7 in Appendix A can be used
to evaluate the potential reserves in a comparison of this alternative and that described in
Alternative 3.1.6. 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 25 million tons of reserves, providing approximately 25 -30 years of
available reserves.
In each of the alternatives presented, it should be noted that the disposal of overburden is
critical to reach the much needed reserves. Typically this material is wasted in berms along
the perimeter of mining operations to provide a visual and noise barrier between the quarry
and the adjoining neighbors. Construction activity in the area may sometimes need beneficial
fill material but development must be close to the quarry to justify the transport of this martial
as well. The last and final option for overburden disposal would be to put the material inside
the pit. Issues related to the NPDES pit discharge sampling requirements (Turbidity, and
Settable Solids) make this an undesirable and potentially damaging alternative if the analytical
limits for these parameters cannot be achieved. Disposing of overburden inside the pit
reduces any chance of reaching much needed reserves. See Figure 2.6 in Appendix A for this
alternative.
Benson Quarry Expansion 14

Environmental Services, Inc.
Conclusion: This alternative is not practicable because b does not provide the necessary
volumes needed to provide construction aggregate to the Benson market and would conflict
with The approved Zoning and Special Use Pocozd. Therefore, this alternative has been
removed from consideration.
3.2 Alternatives Dismissed
The o* action alternative, removal n[ existing waste pile, locating and permitting a new quarry site,
relocation of primary crua6inga\a(ioo,piiexpuosioothroughw/u1lundo"dUb/bvcrakmcbunoo}northof
overburden pile, and new ph or new plant couoorncioJ on the Johnson Property are all dismissed
from further evaluation because they cannot practicably meet the applicant's stated purpose and need
in light of the positive ut/rUzuica that the preferred alternative p000umocy. A comparison of all
alternatives presented inthis document is provided in Appendix F.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This section [vcmeo1m existing environmental conditions of the p roject study area and db000uocm
environmental impacts uotici udoouresul|o[dupropuecd project. The project study area has been
visited several times 6yBBT and agency personnel to evaluate existing conditions and to document
physical and biological resources. The site in located on southwest ofthe intersection n[ Raleigh Road
(8Il |330) and Curuelia Road (SR l354). Refer to Figure | for u Project LouatimoMop. Total size o[
the project study area ieapproximately 158 acres.
4.1 Physiographic, Topography, Geology, and Land Use
The project study area is located on the U.S. Geologic Survey (JSG8) 7.5-zoinmie topographic
quadrangles of Benson and Four Oaks, NC (J8(}S 1973, }986). More specifically the site ia located
northeast o[ Benson and west of Four Oaks, NC. Johnston County ioio the western part u[ the coastal
plain n6yaimgrunbio providence o[ North Carolina.
Elevations on the site range from alow of approximately 140 feet above mean sea level (MSUwithin
the wetland system 1ou high o[ approximately 2O5 feet above M8L near CooueliaRoad.
The Benson Quarry expansion site is located in the Middendorf formation inthe Cretaceous portion of
the coastal plain ohyoiregion (NCDBNR 1985). The project study area is located in the
Neuse River Basin.
4.2 Soils
The Soil!un+y of Johnston County, North Carolina (USDA 1994) (Figure ]) depicts the following
soil mapping units vvh6iu the study area: Ako`dotu fine sandy |0000 (0'2% slopes, occasionally
flooded), Augusta sandy loam (0-2% slopes, occasionally flooded), Bibb sandy loam (frequently
flooded), GUcmJ sandy loam (2-8% o|uyco), Gilead sandy |ouon (0-15Y6 slopes), and Leaf silt ]oonn.
These are combined into the G lead- Dobce-0ibh soil uaanciaiimu, *biob is comprised of gently sloping
to moderately steep, well drained, moderately well drained, and poorly drained soils on uplands of the
yiodcnoo\ and coastal plain.
4.3 Water Resources
The project stody area is in suhbaoin04n[ the Nzmac River Basin and is located inO8UShydrologic
unit 03020201 (USDA 2012, NCDWQ 2010). The Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules place
Benson Quarry Expansion 15

Environmental Services, Inc.
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 Camilla Road.
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. This wetland system is characterized as Bottomland
Hardwood Forest per the North Carolina Weiland Assessment Method (NCWAM). NCWAM
Weiland Assessment Forms are included in Appendix I. 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 styracfflua). Clearcut areas include saplings of those
species with pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), winged sumac (Rhos copallinum), and dog fennel
(Eul3atorium capillifolium). 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
Benson Quarry Expansion 16

Environmental Services, Inc.
IMEEMMMEMMIM
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 mile (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 dominated 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 1.0 mile 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 1.993a).
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
2014, indicates no known occurrence of dwarf wedgemussel within 1.0 mile 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 mile of the project study
area.
Miehaux'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 openings 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,
Benson Quarry Expansion 17

Environmental Services, Inc.
therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, and 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. "Significant" 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 significance 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).
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 Q.
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 major 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 mine quality construction grade aggregate in order to supply the
surrounding market need in a systematic and cost effective manner.. 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 (limited 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
Benson Quarry Expansion 18

Environinental Services, Inc.
WEEMEMOMM=
of this project nor an on-site alternative that would allow a complete avoidance of impacts to the
wetlands located just 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 seventeen (17) acres of
impacts to Section 404 wetlands will result from this quarry expansion action. These impacts will
occur within the wetland system located north of the existing quarry. A cost breakdown of each
alternative is presented in Appendix F.
5.2.1 Avoidance and Minimization qf'Wefland Impacts
The existing quarry facility is proposed to expand northward towards the wetland system. The
proposed action will minimize 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 but have yet to issue the actual JD letter. In addition, ES1 conducted a NC
WAM evaluation on July 29, 2014. This report is included in Appendix J. Incorporating core
drilling data and potential wetlands around the property, 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 minimize direct and secondary impacts to wetlands upstream 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 inininturn possible to avoid the potential for these future secondary
impacts to wetland hydrology.
Therefore, it is our opinion that the 17 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 mitigation 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
Benson Quarry Expansion 19

Environmental Services, Inc.
acceptance letter to offset any mitigation credits that would not be available to obtain through RS or
EBX. The mitigation approval from NCEEP was extended on April 8, 2014 and again on September
30, 2014. A copy of this extension is included in Appendix D.
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 permit 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 Permittee 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.
Therefore, the necessary mitigation credits needed for this project inay be provided by a combination
of credits from RS, EBX, and the NCEEP. Based on NCWAM results, Martin respectfully requests a
mitigation ratio of 1.5:1. Copies of the written authorizations or acceptance letters received from RS,
EBX, and the NCEEP are included in Appendix D.
Benson Quarry Expansion 20

Environmental Services, Inc.
INNEMEMENEM
6.0 REFERENCES
[NCDWQ] N.C. Division of Water Quality. 2010. Basinwide Information Management System
(RIMS). Stream Classification. <h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims> accessed September 2013.
[NCNHP] N.C. 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 Spinymussel 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
(Picoides 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- minute
quadrangle map. United States Geologic Survey, Washington, D.C.
Benson Quarry Expansion 21

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

t 1 i
,,,,rr,► �,. � +''S i .�-. • 1]71 � � � 1t
AI.
IZ
\ a
/ O \-.!f _' • � �(_W�Lf j jjp p.< If � rd r -;,I Q , ( r�F �:
? • •'mss
s
J � •
�`� � �,.�� 1.'► �� ate' � ` \� _ - �_ '�, � � � �.
i'
—
Pr Boundary*
o'ect r•
'Location and extent is approximate.
0 1,000 2,000 A. '-
Feet
1
Source'. 2011 Nalonal Geographic Society /ESRI ' -tubed
seamless USGS quadrangle s(Benson and Four Oaks NC),
Project boundary a pprommated by
ESI.
Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure Is for ♦a0 + _ ;_ •'/
i nform atonal purposes only and was not preps 2d for. _ • \ -
and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes. • Yrt»
ENVIRONMENTAL Project: ER12191.00
SERVICES, INC. Project Location
524 S_ New Hope Road Benson Quarry Date: Oct 2014
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919(22 -,769 Johnston County, North Carolina Drwn /Chkd: KT /RT
(919) 2112 -1707 FAX
mentalsemces /nc.com Figure: 1

N
f it
.Av ",X.
la�� l ��� � �rr) � � � � tom— s •`����— � ..fir -- �. `
r � •s�� `` rte') � , -,�� \, "-L -.
yj
Sir
u
RESERVES: 5,107,443 tons
0 350 700
Feet
Martin
- -
Sourceamage and Features provided by Martin Marietta
Materials.
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.
4901 Rale Tr. North Carolina
Raleigh, North Ca rollna 27610
(9,9)2,2 -1760
'919' 212.1707 FAX
3.1.1 No Action Alternative
Quarry
Johnston County, North Carolina
Project: ER12191.01
Date: Oct 2014
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
POTENTIAL STORAGE:
Figure: 2.1
991,011 yds @ eleu 260'
I
e
STRIPPING: 897,103 yds
r
u
RESERVES: 5,107,443 tons
0 350 700
Feet
Martin
- -
Sourceamage and Features provided by Martin Marietta
Materials.
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.
4901 Rale Tr. North Carolina
Raleigh, North Ca rollna 27610
(9,9)2,2 -1760
'919' 212.1707 FAX
3.1.1 No Action Alternative
Quarry
Johnston County, North Carolina
Project: ER12191.01
Date: Oct 2014
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
www.en „enmenta,=enKa ;n cem
Figure: 2.1
Path'. P:1GeoGra \Projects \2012 \191 \01 \GIS \PPS Fig 2_1_v2. mzd Date: 106/2014 4'.07:06 PM

POTENTIAL OVERBURDEN STORAGE: r J^ I!
2,771,780 yds
,J r. m
1
POTENTIAL STORAGE.
3,201,375 yds 0 elev. 320'
'
�,I
ba
i0m 1
r
RESERVES: 11,891, 059 tons
0 350 700
Feet
i;
Martin
- r- I,- - -
SourceArnage and Features provided by Martin Marietta
Materials.
I Disclaimer The informcdch 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.
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919)212 -1760
(919)212 -1707 FAX
... mentafsewice —ccom
313 Removal of Existing aste Pile
..g
Benson Quarry
Johnston County, North Carolina
Project: ER12191.01
Date: Oct 2014
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
Figure: 2.2
'°
� ��- � t 1. � • II
I
) � 1
s
STRIPPING :3,078,716yds
mi
ba
i0m 1
r
RESERVES: 11,891, 059 tons
0 350 700
Feet
i;
Martin
- r- I,- - -
SourceArnage and Features provided by Martin Marietta
Materials.
I Disclaimer The informcdch 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.
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919)212 -1760
(919)212 -1707 FAX
... mentafsewice —ccom
313 Removal of Existing aste Pile
..g
Benson Quarry
Johnston County, North Carolina
Project: ER12191.01
Date: Oct 2014
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
Figure: 2.2
191 \01 \GIS \PPS Fig 2 . mxd Date '.1

N
' , Ay _ _ .+ •_..�yJy r I �' � � CIE,
250' Buffer
Jr
� 1
4• POTENTIAL OVERBURDEN STORAGE.
2, 771, 780 yds '
{° 4, r'
-
...� —)),x - (�
I
J +'�' —�. 1 t�M1 a�• �, (� - ,�rrrf ! J. I _. _ .'� {'°i 11 • rr 11 — vl \�
� � � � ' � I r r�h� +r I� Ij rs r;�` jl 1 - �, � .✓ � , i F {�i � � � �� "1 i' � %• �•
"-�
,
f { ,r
ty1'�
mot+ • i t,'� _ � .r
•r!i
STRIPPING:
a _ RESERVES: 6,237, 600 tons
0 350 700
Feet
Martin
-- r-i -_ - -- _
Source mage and Features provided by Martin Marietta
Materials.
Disclaimer The informabon depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
o my and wa s not prepared for, and is notsurable for legal or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
3.1.4 Relocation of Primary Crushing Station Project: ER12191.01
Date: Oct 2014
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Benson Quarry
(919Y 2,2 -1760
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
(9,9,2,2- ,707FAX
Johnston County, North Carolina
ww n comenrar -- Iasi —com
Figure: 2.3
v2.mxd Dale: 10/612014 4'.45'.39 PM

I
125' Wide Channel Cut: 1,099,740 yds
f {} I 250' Buffer
40' High Storage Capacity: 2,585,974 yds �.
1
` r
,1I ,,, t 1 i I I �i11f�` II I• � ' 7 � � _ _ ; r ��-
POTENTIAL 45.6 ac. Pit
RESERVES: 39,573,504 tons
' s
STRIPPING: 5,197, 612 yds
1
Proposed 17 ac. Wetland Impact o 350 goo
Potential 13.71 ac. Secondary Wetland Impact
Feet
Martin
SourceArnage and Features provided by Martin Marietta
Materials.
Disclaimer The information depicted on this figure is forinformalional purposes
only antl was not prepared for, and is not such bie for legal or engineering purposes
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
3.1.5 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with
Diversion Channel North of Overburden Pile
Project: ER12191.01
Date: Oct 2014
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919) 212 -1707 FAX
w.en r, —e—i= i—in—
Benson Quarry
y
Johnston County, North Carolina
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
Figure: 2.4
Path'. P'. \GeoGra\Projece\2012 \191\01 \GI S \PPS Fig 2_4_v2.mxd Dale'. 1082014 4'.12'.55 PM

I
J
r
1 /
A
t
/� !!l }• , ,alb, '/
• Y � q'• -C � �1ew
1 �
_ s
Martin
- - -
Sourceamage and Features provided by Martin Marietta
Materials.
Disclaimer, The i°fermabon depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
only and was not prepared for and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
3.1.6 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with Diversion
Project: ER12191.01
SERVICES, INC.
Channel South of Overburden Pile (Preferred Alternative)
Date: Oct 2014
4901 Trademark Drive
rzaleigh,N °r�,Gamlina2761°
(919)212 -t 707 FAX
on,im mentatso— ce —c com
Benson Quarry
y
Johnston County, North Carolina
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
Figure: 2.5
Path'. P'. \GeoG ra \Projects\2012\191\01 \G IS \PPS Fig 2_5_v2. mxd Date'. 105/2014 4:15.52 PM

N
250' Buffer.
l ' 1 Overburden Storage: 2, 771,780 yds
Potential 28.5 ac. Pit Area
Potential Plant Area
Pot
,
~Y
r v�
{ 1J1 i � , 1 '•'F, `'1 i 41 ` 4 = l _ � t�_ ,1 i. _ f
STRIPPING (Pit Area): 4,978,040yds
STRIPPING (PlantArea): 5,395,485yds
_
F SERVES (Pit Area): 24,733,440 tons
SERVES (PlantArea): 33,845,760 tons
1> -- 0 350 700
t F'
t
r' Feet
Martin
Source:lmage and Features provided by Martin Marietta Disclaimer. The information depicted on thisfgure is forinfermational purposes
Materials. only and was not prepared for and is net suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Raleigh,
3.1.7 Construction of New Plant or Pit on Johnson Property Project: ER12191.01
Date: Oct 2014
Benson Quarry
(919) 212 -1760
Drwn /Chkd: JRN /RT
(919'212- 1707` "X
Johnston County, North Carolina
menralserviuee;nc. cam
Figure: 2.6
Path'. P'. \G- Gra \ProlectsT012 \191\01 \GIS \PPS Fig 2 6 v2.mxd Dale: 10r6/2014 4:17:46 PM

a
0
o
�
a
W
'a
Y
8
v
L
U
ai
s
o
�
�
D
D
� n
3m
5m
a�
s�
E
C
e
� U
N � �
0
Q � z
c
� = U
W O
�
C
m
O
r
a
0
a
v
a10i
LL
A
A
V
0
zz
zWoA �
zwo��m`
3
V
a
R
Ci
N
Y
R
U R.
a
3 m 3
-
C
LT-
C 0 � j
O �
a
LL y� C C
Y d
� p N
� R
3 �
0
� y
C �
R =
C3 lf,
i R
R
� N
d
R �
7
� P
O
R
CY P
V m "
j.
R �
a 2i a
U- R
2i C'1 ,may
T R a C
Ci R
N � o
� o
_ � a
O E
Q- N
C7
� s

z
-
�
v
N
z
Z
�
m
e
m
N
�
w
N
O
N
f0
�
Y
L
C
7
S
All
e'
=
.R
i
9
cu
co�
Q '�
p (Y
45 H
- _
E
/
L
S�(I'
N
.o o
z is
G 12
mZry -
�smW
� '5S
t
S i
f
f

V
U
VAMA
a
8
i�
J-1-i
X7.7 iris L �`
r
v
F-
N
cu E ti
C _
�O (6 N
W
D
Of�tG C
O
- _
E p C
C N (6
0 o E
O !A O (6
_0 E o 0
c
U U .0 O U C.
L N 7 L
°
v
F-
W
D
Y
t
U
S
t
ag
€q
a
€
c
_
E
o
o
L
0
O
z
T
a Oo
~
= U
y
m°
o
9
O
a
m
LL
O
A
d
E
N
O
.a
i
Z w o gym"

r
a
is
�f. t
1
m
f i i�f''iI ! +•I. jl coo
T 4
1i �lijll 1111' ,
I I �
I .
�.:.
0
... .. ....... ... ...... r+
}, �?
3 .._..._. ..... ... -.0 O
0
�\ N
.... .. .. .. ... .. ..l. O
Y
C
I �
m
e
.. ...... .. .... ... ...... o
0
E
_..
a`
i 1
'� 4 11A1 11A19 I! !1114} 1 .9
Elnmtae
U
a v �
m o �
C3
rn N Y ti
� CV U N
W O -o
E Y
L
$ N aj C 3
AR,
3
�
+'
�
G2
D
Ll..
t
o�
�m
a�
o�
E
r
O
U
O � L
z �
o � o
z
c y
o =
U O C
N �
� �
U
V/
O
U
L
O
m
c
�
a
°o
0
n
d
2
m
m
E
ui
rl
i�
r
a
is
�f. t
1
m
f i i�f''iI ! +•I. jl coo
T 4
1i �lijll 1111' ,
I I �
I .
�.:.
0
... .. ....... ... ...... r+
}, �?
3 .._..._. ..... ... -.0 O
0
�\ N
.... .. .. .. ... .. ..l. O
Y
C
I �
m
e
.. ...... .. .... ... ...... o
0
E
_..
a`
i 1
'� 4 11A1 11A19 I! !1114} 1 .9
Elnmtae
U
a v �
m o �
C3
rn N Y ti
� CV U N
W O -o
E Y
L
$ N aj C 3
AR,

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

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 Call
Isolated or EIP Call
® Neuse (15A NCAC 2B 0233)
Start@
Stop@
❑ EphemeraUlntermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar - Pamlico (15A NCAC 2B 0259)
A
Swamp
❑ Isolated Wetland Determination
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 213 0267)
No Channel
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
EII/P*
Not Subject
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
Survey
USGS
To o
A
Swamp
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
*E /d /P — Ephemeral /lntermittent/Perenn : al
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 l 24,000 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
"Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify it to be a stream There may Carolina
aturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Raleigh Regional Office Surface Water Protection Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet www newaterquality org 1628 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1628 FAX [phone]
An Equal OpputunitylAffirmative Acton Employer— 50% Recycled /10 %m Post Consumer Paper

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 be referred to the Director in writing c/o Karen Higgins, DWQ We$SCaPe 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,
Martin Rich and
Environmental Specialist
cc WeBSCaPe — 1650 Mail Service Center
RR.O /SWP File Copy
1

r,* r mxd Printed 0710X1008 3 22 pm

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

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bavos, Administrator
Govmor Pat McCrory
Secretary Susan Kluttz
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 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 919-807-6579 or renee.gledhill-
earleyQncdcL.gov, In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
( aouLwc
�ramona M. Bartos
Location: 109 Fast Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax:[phone]-6599

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

AY!1r1V1
ASIA�' w
North Caroiina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Brian Neon. PC
Martin Marietta V1ater'iatls. lne.
# 13 S. C: hlinnle� Rock Road
Grew °nshuro. NC 27.109
Project: ,`v1Wattin Marietla's fiens,t>rt OLIXr
Michael Ellison, Director John E Skvair a lil
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Secretary
September 10. 201-4
Ftipirarion of:iecepl auce: Moich 3d)_
(tun": JahaN011
I lia purpose of thii, lenel i, to notii sou 111,11 the North Carolina Pro,urualt 1 •t. I I III is twifliaiwt to'wcept
Pa; "sent fire cermpuntiomi mitir=W&I—I 6w inwactw associnted ivith the above re reni:'c:d prtaQ as i "dic;rnd in Ow We hAm 1'le.tas:e
polo dual this deem >iun dens nut assure+ 111,11 participation in the NC EF V trill he aaprwowd Q ow perm, kwain~ ac" Ws gas mwipwlian
for project ianap:aclt,. It is tile lesponsihilits of the applian't tit contaart these a gencics 1ta determines if pas mwit w the V 1 1.1' w ill hc!
alapasoved. �;crta Irttt t. alto t;a�li.lal (ti ss_ith all other state. (�dcl'ttl tat local �otierlatapeott..��.trat7hts ic�ul,ati,ral, ua zltrlhul ir<atirala st,�cai irtt��Cl
%W the proposed actatiitw includIlIg SL ?(RN ; T An Act qi {'rtyYr��crte tlay..,C1wc_fa1 t _C'aati�lcutw,l,)irl'� Miti .ar Kai Mks as dnn^nded b.\
`A. "2011_ x-4:1.
I Iris acceprancc is salid Isar sit nta>>tt as tram the date of this Nucr and is naat tnan;Itirtahalw:. If me haac not received a cobs~« of arts
issued 404 Pertnit /401 ( crtihcation /CAiMA permit Inhhin phis tine laanae. thin acceptance will cWhw 11 is Q applicant's
respc «nsil>ilit. 1t' "anal copies oldie pci: niN to NO I flice N( TEl'rcuh -ew a cop, nf me po rntWq an &"mv wwill he "^.sued hascd
on the r"Wired rithi_mion in that perzatit anr.I py meat must be made: pricer ter conducting the aut40/0 14mT I he i iniunt of the In-
I_icu l=ee to be paid to NCILP ha, an aalalalicaam is calculated timed upon We Fee Schedaalc seas.) pu "vie 6i,twd aI ... ncecynat.
Raascd on Ow inlirrnaatson supplied 11) Gou in sour r <yucst to ttse the N( TA 11 ill,: hrapacls t,ti nl,it rcc(ulrc 0anipcnSdI0I� ltaiti��mion
arc n"nunah/of in the fullutaing table, Ile antoarn ofmi6gattkni reel rived and tts^sO ed to N h:I 1' Wr phi," h lase( is deIvnath,e d h,
pemaattang amacks and rna, exceed the impact arnoms sho"n hem"
River (,I StIe,antfeel)
I3aa_ in Location
_ C'aeld C`o,al-
Intiaac °t NCIIsr" 0,1020201 U tl
ti5 stress
RipaI i a n
?6
'vt c'il,utwis 1 tte e a�w �
Non - Ripm i,m
ii
13teiIwr I But'i4r II J
(Scl I L I (Sep. ft.)
(c ,s•a,i( "w m, h
L!pwni acsC'w�il7t rar`i7a�ittcnt. Fl:f' w ill take' respunsibilit� f(tr prowUng the etyat'tpcnsmm, wig ati € +la l la� m si .;aaiarn to iY� d�c pc °rti�nncd
in accordance w III ltc N.C.. I7c [ml IIaac:nt ate Isnv it oil and NaturaaI Rcsr:a ircc,,' I ~cor 'tc °on C III ta IWcntCttl Pl.O a'v'dHI I I a I WH f co
@raslettmeart dated July ".'S_ �'i)lt').
I'h ank tiou f'or sour ilatcrcq it to Nt I I R Kpm hate wy qw`5 tins o nwsctd additional iGIIQ -mi0ki n_ p @c'JIC come 1c1 K He sae- illitinr,,u
(9 10) 7U",8 Q I7
`+In"Wiv
4
Erna 3 5i.ntr11
Ms�sc °�. lanaar�c�laaciat ti�.lp�E, i .< <r
cc: D: 1a Id `oc1mHL -1. i S F.. Raalcix�ha
Mrtin Uhmrund. Nt D" R Ialrip h
`2 v" ad Sewe l.t ml( We yth, ids A & ar tin,.MAP 5 V
pro wro 91 s 170 Men! Aw�a roe ; ;
'=�n Iota". ,,�7�fr, i i✓ �g, n taut. Avon rr~ pby h . 1�. r jur P•3 �W OV&

Neu-Con Wetland and Stream Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Statement of Availability March 19\2O14
NC Division of Water Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Katie Merritt/Mr. Eric Ku|z Mr. James Lastin8er
512 N. Salisbury St., Raleigh, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
9th floor 3331 Heritage Trade Center, Suite 1OS
NC276O4, Archdale Building Wake Forest, NC27587
Re Project: Temporary Stream Crossing Wetland Impacts at the Benson Quarry Project
This document confirms that Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. /Aop|icant\ for the temporary
stream crossing at the Benson Quarry Pr ject\hasexpressedanin1enesttouti|izeQ.50
Riparian-Riverine Wetland Mitigation Credit Vnn EBX sponsored Neu-Con Stream Unnbne||o
Mitigation Bank (Bank)in the Neuse-HUCO3O202O1, Cox ||Site. As the Bank official Sponsor,
EBX, attests to the fact that mitigation is available for consumption at this time.
Banker will notify applicant ifthe become
considered "At Riok"of not being available prior to permit issuance. Credits are not considered
secured until payment in full is received from the applicant resulting in the issuance of an
Affidavit of Sale by the bank acknowledging that the applicant has fully secured credits from
the bank and the Banker has accepted full responsibility for the mitigation obligation requiring
the credit(s).
The Banker will issue the Affidavit of Sale within ten (10) days of receipt of the balance of the
Purchase Price. Banker shall provide to Applicant with a copy of the Affidavit of Sale and a
documented copy of the debit of credits from the Bank Official Credit Ledger showing the
permit number and the resource type secured by the applicant. A copy of the Affidavit ofSale,
with an updated Official Credit Ledger will also be sent to regulatory agencies showing the
proper documentation.
If any questions need to be answered, please contact me at 239-872-1678
Best Regards
A44& k
Matthew R. Fisher
EBX'EM,Lb[
909 Capability Drive Suite 3100. Raleigh, NC 27606

Mitigation Credit Reservation Confirmation Letter
Statement of Availability
Pancho Stream & Wetland Mitigation Bank
March 17, 2014
NC Division of Water Resources U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1650 3331 Heritage Trade Center, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Reservation of Compensatory Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits
Project: Benson Quarry — Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
This document confirms that Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Applicant) has reserved for
purchase 1.0 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credit from the Pancho Stream & Wetland Mitigation
Bank.
Restoration Systems (RS) attests to the fact that 1.0 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits is
currently available for immediate transfer from its Official Bank Credit Ledger to Applicant and
that as of this date RS has placed 1.0 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credit into "no- sale " -
reservation status under the name of the project referenced on this document (Project).
This credit will remain in reservation status until payment in full is received from the Applicant,
resulting in the issuance of a Transfer of Mitigation Responsibility form by RS acknowledging
that the applicant has fully secured credits from the bank and RS has accepted full
responsibility for the mitigation obligation requiring the credits. If RS does not receive
payment in full for the Mitigation Credits within thirty (30) prior to the initiation of Project
construction, RS has the right to terminate this Reservation Letter, in which case RS will have no
further obligation to provide mitigation credits to the Applicant.
RS will issue the Transfer Certificate within five (5) days of receipt of the Purchase Price. RS
shall provide to Applicant the Transfer form debiting credits from the Bank Official Credit
Ledger showing the permit number and the resource type secured by the applicant, and will
Benson Quarry— Martin Marietta, Inc. -- Compmsatory Mitigation —RS— Page I

send an a copy of the Transfer Certificate with an updated Official Credit Ledger to regulatory
agencies showing the proper documentation.
If any questions need to be answered, please contact me at 919-334-9119
Best regards,
Tara DioyA1|den
Regulatory Manager
Restoration Systems, LLC
Benson Quarry -w"*w=u~*"-c°np—t° wxwp= RS - Pagc2

Environmental Services, Inc.
EM
Appendix F
Alternatives Comparison Table
Benson Quarry Expansion

CA
CA
O
O
7C C
O
GO;
E c,
IC
M
C, y h
E C,
O
W
0 C,
C c
13"
N U.
�
Im. -tz 00
P.
cn
E
Ic
CL
M.
vim,
N
Ic
vii
61)
Go�
> -,Uj
CL
0
ui
CL
'r 0.
Gol
b Do
N
E m
0
r
00
NAG
O
P
r
CL
ol
O
O
7C C
O
GO;
E c,
IC
M
C, y h
E C,
O
W
0 C,

Envirom-nental Services, Inc.
Appendix G
FEMA Evaluation
Benson Quarry Expansion

October 2, 2014
Mr. Brian North
Division Environmental Manager
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
413 S. Chimney Rock Road
Greensboro, NC 27409
336.389.6616
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, North Carolina 27518
(919) 557 -0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
RE: Evaluation of permanent crossing through wetlands and FEMA compliance at Benson Quarry, NC
Mr. North,
According to our data, the Marin Marietta Materials, Inc. (Martin) quarry in Benson, NC is subjected to
be impacted by the flooding of Stony Fork in the event of a statistical 100 -year storm. Johnston County,
NC is a member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and therefore, Stony Fork is regulated
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a Zone AE with regulated non - encroachment
limits. The Benson Quarry is situated along the corners of Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) numbers
3720164000J, 3720164100J, 3720165000J, and 3720165100) with an effective date of December 2,
2005.
You have indicated your desire to expand the Benson Quarry and relocate Stony Fork to an area slightly
north within the Martin property and to construct a two way crossing for truck passage. In accordance
with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 44, section 60.3(d), encroachments, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements and other developments are prohibited within the adopted
non - encroachment area that would generate any increase in flood. The only method to achieve your
chosen development within the regulated flood zone is to pursue a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and subsequently a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) once the project has been finalized. This
applies to any combination of stream relocation and /or structural crossing as both would require fill
within the regulated non - encroachment area. I am attaching a copy of 44 CFR 60.3 for your use.
Pursuant to your desire to assess all solutions to your needs, preliminary evaluations were conducted on
an alternative to stream relocation. This involved modeling a crossing though the existing wetlands with
the objective of creating minimal rise in water surface elevation crossing and minimizing impacts to
upstream structures. Further, the crossing was designed to be fully operational without abandoning for
an overtopping at storm event. Any allowable impacts to Raleigh Road or Shade Tree Road will likely
require an encroachment agreement from NCDOT. There are several solutions that could meet the
requirements. Preliminary results indicate that it would require a 120 -ft bridge at 80 feet wide to
Ecological Engineering, LLP Project No. 20502 -002 Page 1 of 2

provide enough conveyance to limit the rise to only Raleigh Road. A 300 -ft long bridge would be
required to fully span the wetlands and would avoid impacts to all existing upstream structures. A
culvert solution would require a minimum of seven (7) @ 9' x 10' reinforced concrete box culverts
(RCBC) at 95' long to avoid fully impacts to Shade Tree Road and minimize impacts to Raleigh Road. In
order to fully avoid impacts to both upstream structures with culverts, more than eleven (11) RCBC are
needed. Any design that causes a rise at Raleigh Road will require a more in -depth analysis of the homes
in the vicinity of the floodplain to determine potential impacts to insurable structures.
If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to contact me at (919)624 -1284.
Sincerely,
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
JSFjmis
Cc: File
...... ....,....w........nm...,...w..M ....... .............�.......,.......m. MMM M ran ... �. �..... �. a. �,... �...... �... m..... �.._. a......n.x,. m......,,.... m.._ .........._.....�...........�.. MEMEMMOMMMM .o.. ..�..............�...�.�. M..... ml
Ecological Engineering, LLP Project No. 20502 -002 Page 2 of 2

Environmental Services, Inc.
Appendix H
Johnston County Special Use
Benson Quarry Expansion

Meeting of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners
December 8, 2003
The Johnston County Board of Commissioners met in regular sessionMonday, December 8, 2003, at 1:00
p. ri, in theCommissioners'WetingRoom, Johnston County CourtbouseAnnex, Smithfield, North Carolina, The
following members were present:
Present: James H. Langdon, Jr,, Chairman, CooldePope, Vice Chairman, ThomasM. Moore, Allen
L. Mims, Jr., Wade M. Stewart, Jeffrey P. Carver and W. Ray Woodall
Absent: NT011c
Also Present: Rick J. Hester, County.Nlanager, Joyce H, Em-ds, Clerk to the Board and I Mark Payne,
County Attorney.
'Me Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was transacted:
The Chainmn recognized Bay Scouts from Troop 77 of Smithfield and welcomed them to the Board of
Commissioners meeting.
rUUe.CojqmP,)jtq -No one spoke at this time
Case 03.44 - Motion on )', Won Tabled from November 10, 2003 MWW2
Case 03-44 Petition to rezone approximately 2.623 acres of a 6,41 acres parcel of land located on Now Creech
Road (SR 1943) in O'Neafs Township from AgriculturaVResidential (AR) to
Agricultural/Residential-SI)ccialUse District (AR -SUD). Tax ID: 11LO6019V. Pei itioners/Owners:
Simon Segundo-Carmona and Celida German Bojorquez.
Chairman Langdon noted a committee met with the School Board about use of recreational facilities, and
the issue is still being studied. He suggested the Board might want to continue this decision until a later date,.
Al
�qt:Lo jtjRernoved from tbe Table for Consldgratfo
Commissioner Thomas M. Moore stated in his opinion, the Board should go ahead and make a decision on
this case, and moved to take from the table the motion made on N"mernber 10, 2003, to deny the rezoning.
Conrnissioner Cookie Pope seconded the motion, w1dch carried by unanimous vote.
Co mn-iissioner Thornas M. Moore moved the Board deny the rezonin g a fca se 03 -44 based on his bel iefth at
this type of activity can not be made to bt compatible with residential, and based on the fact that the residents were
There first. Commissioner Wade M. Stewart seconded the motion.
Vote., The motion carried by trianimous vote,
Commissioner Jeffrey P. Carver stated lie would like for staff to continue to look at this matter and bring
some proposed language back to the Board for consideration as an amendment to the ordinance that would give
specific guidelines for these types of cases.
Otto. _QLr with Miller and Long Concrete Construction Company stated his company has a large number
of Hispanic working for them, and they would be willing to donate the needed materials and help build the -fields if
someone would donate suitable land for seem fields. The County Manager agreed to talk further with Mr. Gir•
about his proposal.
2. Public Hearina - 12ezmrinb Cases and Special Use Caseg
Advertised: The, Smithficld Herald - 11/25/03; l2 /2103. Certified letters were mailed to adjoining property
oNkmers on November 26, 2003 and notices posted at the Imilions on November 25, 2003,
The Chairman opened the Rezoning Public Hearing on Case 03-45.
Case 03 -45 Petition to rezone a .71 acre parcel of land located onNCHighway 50 in Elevation Tomist.up from
Agri cu Itu ral(Residential (AR) to Industrial 1- Special Use District (l I -SUD). Tax ID: 07E06055ft
Petitioner: Ben F. Smith, ONNT)ers: Norman and Carrie Wallace.

WE
December 8, 2003 (Continued)
Planning Director, Steven Finn, indicated theproperty on the GIS map and noted the surrounding zoning is
Agri cu ltu ra VResident i ai.
Ben Srrtitlt.2873 ElevationRoad, Four Oaks, stated heis currentlyrenting a shop, but would like to relocate
his business to this property. He offered to annwr any questions the Board might have,.
In response to comments from Board members, Mr. Smith stated he and his brother repair heavy equipment
for his own company and other contractors.
Mr. Finn stated the Planning Board recomrnended approval.
There being no further comments, the Chairman recessed the RezoningPublicHearing for Case 03 -45.
Decision ongzonine Case 03 45
Case 03 -45 Petition to rezone a.71 acreparcel of land located on NCHighway 50 in Elevation Township from
AgriculturaYResidential (AR) to Industrial i- Special Use District (II -SUD). Tax ID:
07E060551f. Petitioner: Ben F. Smith. Owners: Norman and Carrie Wallace.
Upon a motion by Commissioner Cookie Pope, seconded by Commissioner Thomas M. Moore and carried
by unanimous vote, the Board approved rezoning case 0345, a.71 acre parcel of land located on NC lliglnvay 5o
inFlevationTownship from AR to I -1 SLID foi petitioner, Ben F. Smith, and owners, Norman and Carrie Wallace.
The Chairman opened the Special Use Permit Hearing for Case 03 -45.
Case03 -45 Special UsePerinit Application to allow fbrihecorsh-Liction and operation ofa general service and
repair of industrial equipment, vehicles, and grading machines and businessoftice. Applicant :Ben
F. Smith.
Those wishing to speak on special use pernnt case 03 -45 were sworn in by the Clerk to the Hoard,
Mr. Finn entered the following summary of evidence oncase 03 -45 into the record:
A pre - application consultation wes held with the applicant for Case 03 -45 on September 9, 2003. At that time, the
applicant was informed ofthe following:
• If approved, applicant Most provide to the Planning Office a Site Plan for their review and approval.
• Applicant must comply with the requirement of the Johnston County Land Development Code regarding
landscaping, buffering and fence or any additional requirements as approved by this Board.
Applicant will be notified in writing of the Board's decision.
If denied, no application can be accepted for the same use affecting the same property for a period oftwelve (12)
months and that their right ofappeal to the Superior Court inust be exercised within thirty (30) days ofthe receipt
of notice ofdenial by the Board of County Commissioners.
• Applicant's Special Use Permit will expire at the end of twenty- four (24) months ifit is notused aspemritted within
the time period,
IV1ten necessary, stad'infonned the applicant of further Planning and Zoning Department requirements and the
requirements of other departments such as: soil erosion and sedimentation requirements, Health Department
regulations, stonnwaler and public utility requirements.
Subsequent to thepre- application consultation, all required notices weremailed to property owners Mthin 500 feet.
The property was posted and notices ofpublic hearings were advertised in accordance with the requirements ofthe
North Carolina General Statutes.
On October 21, 2003, the Johnston County Planning Board held a public hearing regarding rezoning and special use
Case 03 -45 and inade the followhig recommendations:
The Planning Board recommended approval with a voteof6.0 for the Special Use Permit to allow for the construction
and operation of a general service and repair of industrial equipment, vehicles, and grading, machines, and business office.
Pindin of racts:
1. That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated se as to maintain or promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. 'That the use or development appears to complywith all required use and intensityregirlations of Articles H and
1V of the Johnston County Land Development Code and the applicable specific standards in section 14 -257 and
with all applicable regulations;

PM
December 8, 2003 (Continued)
1 That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the
value ofconfigows property, or that the use or development Is a public necessity;
4. That theuse ofdevelopment conforms with general plans for the physical development ofthe Countys Planning
jurisdiction, the Design Manual, or other development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners; and
5. That the use asproposed is a unique and valuable service tothe construction community.
5peciat Conditions,
1. Submission oldetailed site plan.
2. Sign age and buffering as required by the Johnston County Land Development Code and Design Manual
3, Hours of operation: Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
4. The easement to the shop area be no less than 30 feet in width.
5. Erection ofan 9 foot solid fence for any outdoor storage
Mr. Smith stated he Nvishes to have his office on the property, as well as the repair shop. He rioted the
conditions recommended by the Plamling Board would be satisfactory to him.
The Chairman recessed the special Use Pennit Hearing for Case 03-45,
Decision on SVecialUse Perinit Application for Case 03.4
Case 03-45 Special Use PcmaApplication to allow for the construction and operation of general service slid
repair ofindustrial equipment, vehicles, and grading rnachincs andbusinessofrice. Applicant: Ben
F. Smith. Owners: Norman and Currie Wallace.
Based on the same findings of fact listed above, and with the aboveconditions attached, Commissioner W. Ray
Woodall moved the Board authorize the PlanningDepartmont to issue a special use permit to Den F. Smith for the
construction and operation of a general service and repair ofindustrial equipment, vehicles, and grading machines,
and business office. Commissioner Cookie Pope seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
The Chairman re-opened the Rezoning Public Hearing for Case 03-46
Case 03-46 Petition to rezone 188 acres of four parcels of [and located on Camellia Road (SR 1354) in
Elcvatioji Township from Agricultural/Residentiat (AR) to Industrial 2-Speeiaf Use District (12-
SUD). Tax ID: 07GO9061,07GO9061C,0709910L Petitioner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc:
Owners: Teresa M. Blackmon, M.G. Jr. and Betty Johnson.
Mr. Finn pointed out the parcels on the GIS map and noted this request is to rezone 188 acres of land in order
to expand flic Martin Marietta quarry and aggregate operation,
Attorney Leo T.Nuph![y 5 Lakeview Place., Smithfield, spoke on behalf of Martin Marietta. He noted the
company has been in Johnston County since 1986 and is currently operating on 212 acres adjacent to these tracts.
He stressed that expanding the acreagedws not inean an increascinintensity or volume. The State requires mining
operations to have a ten -year plan.'I'hey must bopeniutied by both tlie. Stale and the Federal goverrunLrits, and their
operations are closely monitored by both goverrullental levels.
PaxtonBadha vice 1) resident ofMant in Marieft a, noted N s company is the second Ip rge-st aggregate compa ny
in the United States, They leave over 40 quarries in North Carolina and have been in Johnston County since 1986.
He noted the company has tried bard to be good neighbors and have had virtually no complaints until the Planning
Board meeting concerning this proposed expansion.
Mr. Badham pointed out there is a great need to have a local supply of crushed stone as it is extremely costly
to transport. The reason for this request is in order to increase the life of the quarry, and supply the loc-d I market
longer, The company has about 20 more years of reserves at their current location, however, they need to begin a
transition to the new site in approximately I Oyepxs, Only about 85 acres of the new land would Ile mined. He noted
the company met with thencighbors before making this request and agreed to two additional conditions; a pre,-blast
survey, and a promise to makeup any loss of value to a homeowner who sells his property, if it is proven the quarry
operation created the loss.
Christine Johnson, 385 Camelia Road, stated she has lived on her property for sixty years. When Martin
Marietta first opened thoplarit, there was very little noise. She retired in 1992 and began worldng in firer yard, and
now thonoise has gotten worso and it has become a real bother. She voiced her concem for the neighbors who have
built homes and plan to retire there in the future.

December 8, 2003 (Continued)
Scott Johnson. 342 Camelia Road, stated he lives Eectly across from the 85 acres proposed for the expansion
of the mining operation. He showed the Board members pictures of (fie view from his front door, and noted the large
mound of eart h is supposed to be a sound barrier; however, the noise ofih e plant wakes him up each morning at 6:46
a.m. He maintained that no one would purchase his home, and he feels as though he is stuck with being there
whether hel'Lkes it or not, He noted Martin Marietta did agree to compensate the neighbors if there was any loss of
property value due to their operation, but according to what lie understands, they are only speaking of thehouse
itself; not the land. He questioned who would buy his house Nvithhim still owning the land.
Appraiser j).t(&Pgftr, who lives at 803 Rrogden Road, voiced his belief that the value of the surrounding
property would definitely be affected by the quarry. He noted that raw land in the area'could, in his opinion, be
developediftheplantwas not so close, and suggcstodAith tbeexpansion ofthequarry, The residential and land value
along Camelia Road will decrease by approximately 50%. In response to a question from Commissioner Allen L.
Minis, Jr., Mr. Parker stated Reis a certified residential and commercial appraiser, When asked byCommissioner
Jeffrey P. Carveriflic had examined any other mining operations, 1&. Parker stated he did not need to go anywhere
else, or consider comparables. He continued to state that, in his opinion, the property would decrease in value by
approximately 50 %,
Haywood Parker, 193 Camelia Road, read aprepared statement summarizing theconcems he and his neighbors
have about the proposed expansion of the quarry. He noted the quarry is about 4000 feet away note, but if they
expand, the operation will be within a few hundred feet from their homes. He referenced the noise from the rock
crusher and from the dump trucks that have very loud backup warning buzzers in order to be heard over the noise
oftheoperation. He spoke of the safety concerns from thedynamite blasting, the flying debris, the dust and the late
operating hours that are bad now, and will only be worse if they move closer to their homes. He noted be once
worked insurance claims in Gatifbrria and experienced earthquake aftershocks that were not nearly as strong as the
shaking he has felt from the blasting at the quarry. He complained of the potential loss of value to the surrounding
property, and noted the berms, in his opinion, do nothing more than bide from vicw what is creating all the noise.
Mr. Parker spoke ofhis neighbors arid thotime, money and energy they have invosted in their life on Camelia
Road, Ile stressed the quarry expansion is not just about noise and nuisance and land and houses, but about home
and family life, neighbors, relatives, memories, and values. Ile asked the Board to decline orpo stpotic this rezoning
until the neighbors can reach some resolution with the people at Martin Marietta. I I e sta fed several options including
a complete buyout by the company of their homes and land, or compensation for the decrease in value if the
neighbors choose to stay, which would also hicludepayment for structural damage or damage to their well water.
In addition, he requested the County reduce their property value for tax purposes. Asa final thought, Mr. Parker
stated lie would Nvant a guarantee that the quarry wouldrever have a road entrance on Camelia Road.
Russell Brawn. 1159 Cornelia Road, stated he has ]arid on the south side of the road that physically touches
the proposed expansion area. He voiced concern with the loss of value, and noted that Martin Marietta's appraiser
will say the property value will not decrease, but the compair6bles fie has used are, in his opinion, not true
coirparables.
Paxton Badham responded to some of the comments that were made. He toted that after ft Planning Board
meeting, a sound survey was conducted that showed that at times, a bird chirping is louder than the plant ranting.
Ile maintained the suggestion that property values would decrease by 50% is not correct and noted his company has
sold property across from their Raleigh/lDurbam operation recently that brought $100,000 per acre. He asked the
group ofv:perts.1re brought with him to make comments.
John Hatch ofFour Oaks, stated be is a certified general appraiser. He was asked to detern-dric if the property
values arou rid the quarry would be affected by the expansion. He looked at the houses and land within a one mile
radius, including 33 properties in Carrie Woods Subdivision, and compared them with properties in Cedar Cove
located outside the one-mile radius. In addition, he looked at homes in two developing subdivisions, Glen Field
Estates located .9 mile from the quarry and Critcher Farms, which is located approximately 3.5 miles away. In
comparing sales, the properties inside the one mile sold for as much or more per square foot than the properties
outside the one mile subdivision.
Mr. Hatch noted he looked at properties near the Princeton quarry and found no sales withiri the one mile radius
ofthatfacility. Houses in a nearby subdivision, however, range from 2100 sq, ft. to 3,800 sq. ft., with asscsscdvnluc
from $190,ODO to S29D,000, Based on his findings, it is his opinion the expansion of the quarry will not
significantly affect the value of surrounding properties.

WN
December 8, 2003 (Continued)
DimWiegand, manager of Explosives Engineering for Martin Marietta, reported on the effects of the blasting
activities and equipment noise from the proposed expansion. He addressed four concerns: fragmentation of rock,
movement of rock, vibration, and noise, He noted blasting involves using explosives to break up the rock. This
operationis by experienced people who are trained in safe liandlingand offectiveuse ofthe. different explosives. This
is strictly regulated by Federal, State and Local authorities that enforce safety standards, Blasting does create
vibration that can be felt by neighboring residents, however the energy created by the blast dissipates with distance.
A seismograph is used to monitor ground vibrations at nearby structures and the information is recorded, Martin
Marietta has aninterrial goal to hold its vibration limit considerably below thelimit imposed by theStatcand Federal
government, The audited shock report for the Benson quarry over a three year period show the -vibration at well
below the allowed levels. He concluded that, in his opinion, there would be no damage on the homes of the local
residents.
Chris Reinhardt, licensed geologist with Skelly and Loy ofRaleigli, stated his firm conducted a bydro-geologic
impact study on the proposed expansion of the quarry. It was deterullned by the study that there would be no
significant impact on the ground water or the water supply wells in the area. Operation at the existing quarry has
had no impact on the closest well, which is located approximately 1,000 feet from the pit, Mr. Reinhardt also rioted
the County has recently run water to that area of the County and the people will be able to connect to public water.
Steven Whitt, manager of Environmental Services at Martin Marietta, addressed the issue of air quality or air
pollutant emissions created by the quarry. The plant has a 4000 gallon water truck that controls emission on the
roads. All the truck wheels are washed before they leave the facility. A water fogging system controls emissions
from the crurshers, screens and conveyors. As in other areas of the mining operation, the State and Federal
Governments have standards that must be met. Compliance testing over theyears: has shown the emission levels at
the Benson quarry fall well below the limits set by those regulating agencies. He wncluded fly stating the expansion
is not expected to impact the air quality in the area.
Mr. Whilt rioted that he, was the one who conducted the noise study and stated the study was done with tbeplarit
in full operation.
Mr. Daughtry spoke briefly again to say that he has represented Martin Marietta for Over ten 3wrs and has
found them to be more than willing to do whatever is needed to assure that their operation has no negative impact
on the community. He asked the Board to favorably consider this request,
Commissioner Allen L Mims, Jr. asked for clarification on Martin Marietta's agreement concenting
compensation to cwricrs who can show loss of fain market value whezi selling their property, He noted thopcople,
in the area understand the agreement is for the house alone and does net include the land.
Mr. Badharn replied the companywould include liouse and theland theficuscis on, butnot open, unimproved
land,
Scott Johnson stated the day the noise survey was conducted, he asked neighbors who (lid not know the study
had been done if they had been bothered with noise. The neighbors replied that the pla nt must have been shut down
for the day as it was very quiet.
Charles Keenert who works for Martin Marietta stated theplant was in full operation and the rock crusher was
being used when the survey was conducted.
Mr, Finn stated the Planning Board recommended approval of this rezoning,
There being no further comments, the Chairman closed the Rezoning Public Hearing for Case 03-46.
Occhion on Rezoning Case 03-46
Case 03-46 Petition to rezone 188 acres of four parcels of ]arid located on Cannella Road (SR 1354) in
Elevation Township from Agri cultura VRcside ni ia I (AR) to Industrial 2-Special Use District (12-
SUD). Tax ID: 07G09061, 07G09061C, 07(399101, Petitioner, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Owners: Teresa M. Blackmon, M.G. Jr. and Betty Johnson,

December 8, 2003 (Continued)
Upon a motion by Commissioner Allen L. Mims, Jr., seconded by Commissioner Thomas M. Moore, and
carried by unanimous vote, (L- Board approved the rezoning of case 03-46 offour parcels ofland totaling 189 acres
on Qqmclia Road in Elevation Township from Agricultural/Residential to Industrial 2, Special Use District for
petitioner Martin Marietta Materials, Inc, and owners; Teresa M. Blackmon, M.G. Jr. and Betty Johnson,
The Chairman re-opened the Special Use Public Hearing for Case 03-46.
Case 03-46 Special Use Permit Application to allow for the expansion an,] development of quarry/mining
facility, Applicant: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Those wishing to speak on special use permit case 03-46 were sworn in by the Clerk to the Board.
Attorney Leo Daughtry asked that the statements given during the previous rezoning hearing be made a part
of this hearing, and noted that written statements are a part of the agenda package for this meeting.
Mr. Haywood Parker also asked that the statements made by him and his neighbors be incorporated in the
record of this hearing,
Mr. Finn entered the following summary of evidence on case 03-46 into the record:
A pre- application consultation was held with theapplicant for Case 03-46 on Septernbet-22,2003. Atthat time,the applicant
was informed of the fallowing:
• If approved, applicant must provide to the. Planning Office a Site Plan for their review and approval.
• Applicant must comply with the requirement of the Johnston County Land Development Code regarding
landscaping, buffering and fence or any additional requirements as approved by this Board.
• Applicant will be notified in writing of the Board's decision.
• It'denied, no application can be accepted for the same use affecting the same property for a period oftwelve (12)
months and that their right ofapp,--al to the Superior Court must be exercised within thirty (30) days ofthe receipt
ofnotirc, ofdenial bythe Board of County Commissioners,
• Applicant's SpecirdUsePermit will expire at ihe end oftwenty-four(2,I)montlas ifitis not usedaspermitted within
the time period.
When necessary, stafffnfortned the applicant offurtber Planning and Inning Department requirements and the
requirements of other departments such as: soil erosion and sedimentation requirements, Ileal(b Department
regulation; stoTmwater and public utility requirements.
• Subsequent to the pre-application consultution, allrequired noticcswLreniailed toproperty owners within 500 feet,
,rheproperty was pasted and notices ofpublic hearings were advertised in accordance with the requirements oftbe
Norih Carolina General Statutes.
On October2l, 2003, the Johnston CcAmly Planning Board held a public hearing regarding rezoning and special use
Case 03-46 and made the following recornmondations:
The Planning Board recommended approval with a vote of 6 -0 for the Special Use Permit to allow for the expansion
and development ofe quarry/mining facility
Finding ofFoct :
1, That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles 11 and
IV ofthe Johnston CountyLand Development Code and the applicable specific standards in section 14-257 and
with all applicable regulations;
3. That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the
value ofcontiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity;
4. That the use or development conforms with general plans for the physical development of the County's Planning
jurisdiction, the Design manual, or other development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners; and
5. That the use as proposed is a regional need for construction services,
Special Conditions:
1. Applicant will provide a pre-blast survey to neighboring property owners, as described by applicant,
2. Applicant will provide a property value guarantee to neighboring property owners as described by applicant,
3, Within at least I year of anticipated relocation, applicant will submit to the Board an operations plan, as per
ordinance subsection (2), and will notify neighbors of same.
4. Special attention to buffer standards, per (5) (g) of Code ofOrdinances CD 14:66.
5. The County's 24 -month window, according to Special Use Permit, would be- waived to the extent necessary in this
instance,
6. Meet and follow all requirements established byUn d Development Code, including butnot cxclusiveofCD 14:66 -
Mining Operations.

Uri",
December 8, 2003 (Continued)
Commissioner Allen L. Mims, Jr. asked if the entire operation would be moved to the now site, or if perhaps
some of the noisy equipment, such as the rock crusher, could remain at the original plant. Mr. Badham replied he
was not SUM at this time, In discussing the berms, Commissioner Minis referenced the picture Scott Johnson
provided the Board and suggested the existing and new berms should be landscaped to provide a better view than
the one afforded Mr. Johnson.
Commissioner Cookie Pope asked what would happen to the old pit once its usage was exhausted. Mr. B adham
stated it will simply fill with water, and could possible be used as a water source; however, he noted it would be a
long time before Martin Marietta abandoned that pit. lie pointed out that his company only owns 60 acres of the
property. The rest, including the pit area is leased land
Mr. Finnnoted the Planning Board reconimencled approval subject to six conditions.
There being no further comments, the Chairman recessed the Special Use Hearing for Case 03-46.
Decision on Special Use Permit Application for Case 03-46.
Case 03-46 Special Use Permit Application to allow for the expansion and developmorit of a quarry /mining
facility. Applicant: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Commissioner Allen L,Mims, Jr. noted howould like to set- the following stipulationsincluded in the conditions
as either amendments to the recommended conditions from fire Planning Board, or as additional conditions:
I ) Prior to any blasting on the new property, and subject to the property owners` perriission, a pro-blast
survey will be performed by an independent consultant, at Martin Marietta's expense,, on all non-company omied,
occupied structures existing as of the date of the permit, withini 1000 feet of the proposed blasting activities on the
property, with a copy of the result provided to each property owner, A record of the seismograph reading of each
blast event will be kept for a minimum of five years at the quarry office and may be inspected by the County
Manager orllisdesignee. No explosives will be stored on the property and will be brought onto the site on the day
of the blast.
2) Martin Marietta will provide a property value gu arantee to neighboring property owners within 1,000
feet of the perimeter of the property on their homes and the ]and on which the home is situated. This would not
include vacant, unimproved land,
3) No entrance to the mining operation on Caniclia Road.
Commissioner Mims also suggested if possible the rock crusher be used at the original site to minimize the
noise for the residents of Camlia Road. He rioted the I andowners would have the right to appear before the Board
of Equalization and Review when they convene again concerning property tax values.
Based on the following findings of fact, Corturrissioner Allen L. Mims, Jr. moved the Board authorize the
Plairriffig Department to issue a special use perm to Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. for the expansion and
development of a quarry/ruiribig facility on 188 acres located on Cenicha Road in Elevation Township, subject to
the following conditions: Commissioner Thomas M. Moore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
Finding; of Facts:
I. That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or
promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity regulations of Articles
11 and IV of the Johnston County Land Development Code and the applicable specific: standards in
section 14-257 and with all applicable regulatiom;
3. That the rise or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or
enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity;
4. That the use or development conforms with general plans for thcplrysical development of the Courty's
Planning jurisdiction, the Design manual, or other development policies as adopted by the Board of
Corrunissioners; and
5. That the use as proposed is a regional need for construction services,

F---MMF]r,A
L-TAIL7
O�p
December 8, 2003 (Coriiinued)
Special Conditions:
1. Prior to any blasting on the new property, and subject to the property owners' permission, a pre-blast
survey will beperformedby an independentconsultant, atMartin Marietta's expense, on allnon-oompany
owned, occupied structures existing as of thedateofthepunnit, within 1000 feet of the proposed blasting
activities on the property, with a copy of the result provided to each property owner. A record of the
seismograph reading of each blast event AU be kept for a rriHmumof fiveyeaTs at the quarry office and
maybe inspected by the County Manager or his designec. INTO explosives will be stored on the property
and will bebroughi onto the site on the day of the blast.
2. Martin Marietta will p rovide a proper ty value guarantee to neighboring property owners within 1,000 feet
of the perimeter of the property on their homes and the land on wbich the home is situated. This would
not include vacant, Imirrprovoil land
3. Within at least I year of anticipated rdcoatlor4 applicant wit] submit to the Board anoperations plan, as
per ordinance subsection (2), and will notify neighbors of same,
4. Special attention to buffer standards, per (5) (g) of Code of Ordinances CD 14:66.
5. The County's 24-month window, according to Special Use Permit, would be waived to the extent
necessary in this instance,
6, Meet and follow all requirements established by Land Development Code, including but not exclusive of
CD 14:6 6 - Mining Operallons.
T No entrance to the mining operation on Cametia Road
Call for Public Hearing - Amendment to County Code of Ordinances - Section 14-105
Upon a motion by Commissioner W. Ray Woodall, seconded by Commissioner Thomas M. Moore and
carried by unanimous vote, the Board scheduled a public hearing for January 12, 2004, on a proposed amendment
to the Johnston County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14, Section 14-105 Water Supply Watershed Protection
District, The hearing will be held following the regularly scheduled rezoning and special use hearings.
Board Reports and Comments
uttongn ro d Resea rch
and Tr 9 injAg.Zone T&
The Chairman called for a special meeting on Monday, December 15,2003at 8:00a.m. for the purpose
ofconsidering a resolution on the proposed Research and Training Zone (RT7,),
Closed Session - NCGS U43-318.11(a)(4) - LocaftqXxpanslon of Industry
Upon a motion by Commissioner Gookie Pope, seconded by Commissioner Thomas M. Moore and carried
by unanimous voto, The Board recessed to meet m closed session.
Upon a motion by Conin-tissioner Allen L. Mims, Jr., seconded by Commissioner W. Ray Woodall and
carried by unanimous vote, the Board adjourned closed session and resumed regular session,
There being no further business, Commissioner Allen L. Mims, Jr. moved the Board adjourn.
Commissioner W. Ray Woodall seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote.
Jarnes H. Langdon, dr., Chairmait
Joyce H. Ennis, Clerk to the Board

Case # 03-46: Petition to rezone 188 acres of four parcels of land located on Camelia
Road (SR 1354) in Elevation Township from Agricultural- Residential (AR) to Industrial
2-Special Use District (12-SUD) to allow for the expansion and development of a
quarry /ruining facility. Tax ID: 07G09061, 07G09061C, 07E07199C, 07G99101.
Petitioner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Owners: Teresa M. Blackmon, M.G. Jr. and
Betty Johnson. Applicant: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc,
Mr. Jeremy Smith introduced case 403-46 directing attention to the map, the
location, and the surrounding zoning.
Mr. Leo Daughtry of Smithfield, Attorney representing the applicant, gave a brief
overview of the history of the applicant's business here in Johnston County. He stated
Martin Marietta has been in business here since 1986. He stated there would be no
changes or increase in intensity or volume of the activities, there have been no violations,
and the business is regulated by the State. He introduced several officials and experts
relating to this business, some of whom will give presentations and answer questions as
needed.
Mr. Paxton Badham, Vice President of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc,, stated
MMM is the 2'a largest such company in the U.S., and operates in about 35 states. He
noted they have been here, and it is important to them to continue to be a "good
neighbor," He offered that the existing quarry will run out in approximately 10 years, so
they are begim-dng the process now to determine what their fixture here may be. He noted
there is a wide band of wetlands, which necessitates obtaining a permit from the Army
Corps of Engineers; a long process in itself. He said their permit includes a reclamation
plan, including a bond. He said their record of operation has been excellent so far; as he
is unaware of any complaints, He stated they have taken efforts to afford protection to
the neighbors: a 30' high berm to provide total visual screening and cut down on noise;
no access to Camelia Road, to keep disturbance to minimum; they have contacted
neighbors and met with them and; as regards possible damage due to blasting, they
provide a "pre-blast survey" to each surrounding homeowner. Further, a property value
guarantee is provided, involving professional appraisals, for those concerned about de-
valuing neighboring property.
[Attachment A:"Proposed Conditions/Addendum to Application for Special Use District"
was submitted to the Secretary at this time.]
Mr. Dan Weigand, Manager of Explosives -Engineering for Mai-tin Marietta,
discussed the impact of blasting as regards to this site. He stated the levels of vibration
and noise are well below federal acceptable levels of 27/second, actually measuring under
their own internal control level of .5"Isec; averaging". 1 "/second. In response to a
question about the hours of blasting, it was stated that they try to keep it during '�nom­ial
working hours" between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. In response to a follow-up question
about a previous statement that there would be no significant increase in the intensity of
blasting; he reiterated that there will not be a significant impact on the intensity of
blasting and it will always be within the regulations.

[Attachment. B: Vibration, Airblast and Noise Evaluation for the Proposed Expansion of
the Benson Quarry Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. was submitted at this time.]
Mr. Steven S. Whitt, Manager, Environmental Services for Martin Marietta,
discussed the impact on the air quality of the proposed expansion. Mr. Whitt stated that
the B enson plant, being a new plant, falls under the strictest regulations, and that the
Benson plant falls well below the standards in all fields. He noted that the entrance and
exits are paved, that they do a "wheel wash" to eliminate dust being tracked out of the
site on the trucks, and also dust control operations are available on a regular basis, and
used as often as conditions dictate. [Attachment C: Statement prepared by Steven W11ittj
Mr. Chris Reinhardt, P.G., NC Licensed Geologist, with Skelly and Loy, LLP,
offered his report regarding the hydrogeologic impact of the proposed expansion on the
neighboring properties, particularly the wells, stating they do not believe there will be
any impact on the wells; that the closest residence is 1000 feet from the edge of the pit. In
response to a question from the Board, Mr. Reinhardt stated the wells that are out there
are 100-200 feet deep, in the fractured bedrock, some shallower ones are 50-60 feet deep.
[Attachment D: Estimated Hydrogeologic Impact...]
Mr. John Hatch, 418 Pine Drive, Appraiser with Williams- Crocker & Associates,
looked at the economic impact of the proposed quarry. His report shows virtually no
impact on assessed value of neighboring properties.
[Attachment E: Economic Impact Study...]
Following the prepared presentations, the Board noted its appreciation for the fact
that the neighbors had been contacted by Martin Marietta and informed of the proposal;
and asked about the reclamation plan. The response was that there would be reservoirs
that could be used for recreation and development; that would be 250 feet of clean, clear
water. Further, most of the property is leased, so it will belong to the owners.
No further comments in favor were offered,
Chairman Jenkins asked for 3 spokespersons to speak on behalf of those in
opposition.
Haywood Parker, 193 Caviclia Road, spoke on behalf of he and his wife, Bonnie,
and his father, Julius Parker, who owns properly on flic corner of Carnelia Road and
Raleigh Road. Concerns raised are: that the proposed quarry will be a lot closer to thein
than it is now, therefore the noise will be worse than it is now, and it is very prominent
now from grinders, crushers, trucks; blasting will be closer and on a greater scale and
therefore more disruptive than it is now, vibrating and shaking things in their home where
lie also has an office; dust will be worse; debris could be dangerous with the closer
proximity to the road and their home; and property values will be negatively affected. ITO
will be able to seethe berm from his home and sees it as ablinder, not aresolution. He
summarized that a business should not be at someone else's loss, and that rezoning would
affect their quality of life, peace, and their property value.

Scott Johnson, 341 Camelia Road, voiced concerns regarding the wells in the
area, his is only 35 feet deep, concerns for the safety of his and other children in the
neighborhood, and concerns about damage to his home and property such as shaking of
the panes of glass, and cracks and shifting in parts of his house, which he attributes to the
operations of the quarry. He says he has lived there all his life, 34 years, and had hoped
to retire there, but now he may have to move to somewhere else in the county. He stated
that the noise starts prior to 7:00 a.m, and has been known to be going on at 1:00 a.m.,
and sometimes when you're going to bed; not often, he said, but it does happen.
Russell Brown, 1159 Camelia Road, stated his father's well ran dry, and a ground
water specialist was brought in, and they were told that the creek between their property
and the quarry was their barrier which would protect their well. But, he pointed out, the
proposed operations would come across the creek, putting there in jeopardy of losing
their well; and county water does not come out there; nor does he want to be forced to
take it because the quarry took his. He disputed Mr. Hatch's report oil property values
not being affected; he stated their property values "would have to go down, nobody
would want to buy a house next to a rock quarry." He summarized: "there is nothing
positive about this for the people on Camelia Road, we're just kind of stuck."
Mr. Jenkins called upon staff for its recommendation, Mr. Smith gave staff's
reconan-tendation for approval, based on certain fmdings and conditions.
The Public Hearing closed at 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Mansell stated that he was glad for the pro-blast survey, and felt that would
head off a lot of possible problems. Nt. Jenkins added that the property valuation should
also be helpful. Hours of operation were discussed as regards running later or earlier than
the normal business hours, and it is determined that there are some times when it may be
necessary, like responding to an emergency or natural disaster, but those are not often.
Upon motion by Mr. Schulz, seconded by Mr. Underwood and carried by a
unanimous vote of 6-0, the Board reconunended approval of case #03-46 to rezone 188
acres of four parcels of land located on Camelia Road (SR 1354) in Elevation Township
fi-oin Agricultural-Residential (AR) to Industrial 2- Special Use District (12-SOD).
Upon motion by Mr. Mansell, seconded by Mr. Underwood and carried by a
unanimous vote of 6-0, the Board recommended approval of the Special Use Permit to
allow for the expansion and development of a quarry/mining facility based on the
following:
F:wding oi�Facts:
I That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so
as to ii-taintain.or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;

2. That the use or development appears to comply with all required use and intensity
regulations of Articles 11 and IV of The Johnston County Land Development Code and the
applicable specific standards in section 14-257 and with all applicable regulations;
3. That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so
as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or
development is a public necessity;
4. That the use or development conforms with general plans for the physical
development of the County's Planning jurisdiction, the Design manual, or other
development policies as adopted by the Board of Commissioners; Enid
5. That the use as proposed is a regional need for construction services,
Special Conditions:
1. Applicant will provide a pre-blast survey to neighboring property owners, as
described by applicant.
2. Applicant will provide a property value ue guarantee to neighboring property owners
as described by applicant.
3. Within at least I year of anticipated relocation, applicant will submit to the Board
an operations plan, as per ordinance subsection (2), and will notify neighbors of same,
4. Special attention to buffer standards, per (5) (g) of Code of Ordinances CD 14:66.
5. The County's 24-month window, according to Special Use Permit, would be
waived to the extent necessary in this instance,
6. Meet and follow all requirements established by Land Development Code.
Johnston County Code of Ordinances CD14:66 re: Mining operations
(d) Extraction of earth products, mining operations. Note: The removal of top soil,
and other surface grading activities are exempted from this section.
(1) A site plan, and/or information prepared by a state registered land surveyor,
engineer, architect or landscape architect, shall contain the following:
a. Extent of area to be excavated or mined;
b. Aerial photograph of site and all areas within 1,000 feet of the perimeter
of the property;
c. Neighboring land use, road system, natural features and topographical
(minimum ton-foot contour intervals) details;
d. A site cross-section showing extent of overburden, extent of sand and
gravel deposits, and water table;
c. Location of proposed handling and storage areas for overburden,
byproduct and excavated materials;
f. Location and results of groundwater boring showing depth to
groundwater;
g. Any areas proposed for ponds or water collection and storage;
h. Wind pattern details and on-site windbreaks;

i. Soil conditions, soil descriptions and statement addressing agricultural
productivity and reclamation;
j. Traffic impact analysis addressing the capacity of the roads to serve the
site;
k. Access roads to the site, as well as on-site roads, with indication of surface
treatment to limit dust; and
1. Required setback areas, including buildings, landscape sore ening/buffering
existing and/or proposed. If plant materials are to be installed, the
number, location, size and type of plants are to be identified.
(2) An operations plan which shall include:
a. The date proposed to commence operations and their expected duration,
b. Proposed hours and days of operation.
c. Estimated type and volume of extraction,
d. Description of method of operation, including the disposition of topsoil,
overburden and byproducts.
e. Methods to control and respond to spillage of extracted materials,
overburden or byproducts and vehicular mud on off -site roads.
f. Description of equipment to be used in the extraction process.
g. Methods to prevent pollution of surface water and groundwater.
I Operational test wells including schedule of results, analysis and response,
i. Compliance with provisions of the state mining program.
j. Depth of extractive operations.
k. Any phasing of the operation and the relationship among the various
phases,
1. Operating practices that will be followed to comply with the performance
standards applicable to such operation.
(3) A rehabilitation plan which shall include:
a. A statement of planned rehabilitation of the excavated land, including
detailed methods of accomplishment and planned future use of the
rehabilitated land;
b. A plan of the site showing the final topography, after rehabilitation, to the
same scale as the site plan, depicting any water areas and methods of
preventing stagnation and pollution thereof, landscaping and ground cover
proposed;
c. Typical cross-sections showing planned rehabilitation;
d. A phasing and timing plan, related to the phasing and timing portion of the
operations plan, showing the progression of the rehabilitation and the date
when it will be complete;
e. The methods of disposing of all equipment, structures, dikes and spoil
piles associated with the operations; and
f A copy of the rehabilitation/reclamation plan as required by the state
mining act where applicable.

(4) Standards of evaluation. The following standards shall be used in evaluating
an application:
a. That the applicant demonstrates that the extractive use operation fulfills
primarily a local need as opposed to a regional need in terms of supplying
sand and/or gravel for building and construction purposes.
b. That all operations associated with extraction shall conform to the
following performance standards:
1. Direct illurnination resulting from the operation shall not fall
upon any land not covered by the application,
2. Equivalent sound levels at the boundaries of the extraction site
shall not exceed the following standards:
i. Between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 68dBA.
ii. Between 7:00 p,m. and 7:00 am,, 58dBA,
c. That vibration levels at the boundaries of the extraction site shall not
exceed a maximum peak particle velocity — steady state 1.0 inches/second;
and impact of 2.0 inches/second, Note: The maximum particle velocity
shall be the product of two times the frequency in cycles per second times
the sum of three mutually perpendicular displacement components
recorded simultaneously. Fox purposes of this article, steady state
vibrations are vibrations which are continuous, or vibrations in discrete
impulses more frequent than 60 per minute. Discrete impulses which do
not exceed 60 per minute shall be considered impact vibrations.
Maximum air blast vibration, measured at the lot lines of the zoning lot
containing the extractive -use, shall be 125 decibels on the linear scale,
(5) The following standards shall apply.
a. The permanent roads, defined as those to be used in excess of one year
within the excavation site, shall be surfaced with a dustfice material such
as soil cement, bituminous concrete or Portland cement concrete from the
nearest public road to the yard area. Also, all permanent roads located
w ' ithin 300 feet of residentially zoned land shall be treated the same.
b. Roads other than permanent roads shall be treated with dust inhibitors, to
be specified in the operations plan, which will reduce to a minimum the
generation of dust from the road surfaces as a result of wind or vehicular
action. Properly operated wafer wagons shall be an acceptable method of
dust inhibition.
c. Where the proposed extraction shall take place within 300 feet of a
dwelling, school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial building,
public building, or public land, a security fence at least six feet in height
shall be installed,

d. Spoil piles and other accumulations of byproducts shalt not be created to a
height more than 40 feet above the original contour and shall be so graded
that the vertical slope shall not exceed the material's natural angle of
response.
e. The operations plan and the rehabilitation plan shall be coordinated so that
the amount of disturbed land is kept to the absolute minimum consonant
with good practices and go that rehabilitation proceeds in concert with
filling.
E, No land disturbance shall take place within 250 feet of the zoning lot line
or the property line where the zoning line and the property line are one and
the same.
g. Within the 250-foot setback area, existing vegetation shall be retained for
the purpose of providing a visual screen and noise buffer. No disturbance
or removal of vegetation shall be permitted except for access toads leading
from the excavation area to public roads. Where vegetation within the
250-foot setback does not exist, the applicant shall be required to provide
a dense, evergreen buffer consistent with the purpose cited above. The
buffer shall be in place prior to the initiation of any excavation activities.
h. The applicant shall submit operational reports prepared on an annual basis,
detailing the amounts of materials extracted, extent of extractive area,
depth of extractive area, and results of groundwater test boring.
i. Annual inspections of the operation shall be conducted by the zoning
officer following submittal of the annual operations reports to determine
compliance with the provisions of the special use permit,
j. In cases of abandonment or termination of operations for a period of 12
consecutive months, application for a new special use permit is required.
k. For all extractive uses, a performance guarantee shall be submitted to the
county in order to ensure that the provisions of the rehabilitation plan are
met. Such performance guarantee shall be in a form approved by the
county attorney. The amount of such guarantee shall cover the cost of
rehabilitation on a per acre basis, if the cost does not exceed the amount
posted with the state. If the rehabilitation cost exceeds the amount
required by the state, then the difference shall be made up in a bond to the
county.

- Environmental Services, Inc.
Appendix I
NCWAM Evaluation
Benson Quarry Expansion

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
mull -_d!C;U;dtQF version +A
Wetland Site Name Benson Quarry - Wetland Site 1 Date 7/2912014
Wetland Type l Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization J. Harbour - ESI
Level III EcoregionF- iddle Atlantic Coastal Plain Nearest Named Water Body Stony Fork
River Basin Neuse P USGS "igit Catalogue Unit 03020201
(0 . Yes C. No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude /Longitude (decl-deareesl 35.4277 -78.4998
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page if evidence of stressors Is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, In recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc,)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear - cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? (7. Yes (F No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
I— fish
F Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
F Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)- listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-llsted stream
What type of natural stream Is associated with the wetland, If any? (check all that apply)
(71 Blackwater
(F. Brownwater
F Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind (7 Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal r
(7 Yes (*-. No
Yes (7. No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
A (e- A Not severely altered
B (7 15 Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate), exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both Increase and decrease In hydrology. Refer to the current MRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches in hydric soils. A ditch
!; 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface "ter only, while a ditch > I foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
(F A fs A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
(7 B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment arealwetland type condition metric (answer for non-marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA WT
3a. r. A (-a " A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
B (7" B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 Inches deep
(7 D C D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. (7 A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
(S B Evidence that maximum depth of 'inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of Inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil TexturelStructure — assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
r. B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redox[morphic features (concentrations, depletions, Or rNzospheres)
C, C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
C D Loamy or clayey glayed soil
47.F Histosol or hisfic epIpedon
4b. C A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
to B Soil ribbon a I inch
4c. (0- - A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
S. Discharge Into Wetland - opportunity metric
Check a box In each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
(-k A (9-. A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C. C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box In each column). Evaluation Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoreglions and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F_ A r_ A F A a 10% Impervious surfaces
Fo B Fo s F B < 10% impervious surfaces
F C F C F C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
F D F0 D F D a 20% coverage of pasture
F E r- E F E a 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F a 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F G F_ G F G a 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F H F H F H Little or no opportunity to Improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer -assessment arealwetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Ce Yes ( ' - ' No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of the wetland,
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank Is welland? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
(a- A 2: 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
(7 D From 5 to < 15 feet
(_r E < 5 feet gl buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width, if the tributary Is anastomosed, combine widths of channeWbraids for a total width.
(- :5 15-feet wide ( - a- > 15-feet wide ( - - Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend Into the bank of the tributary/open water?
(9- Yes (7 No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(.a-, Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic,
C-. Exposed - adjacent open water with width ? 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box
in each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT
WC
(a, A
a— A
z 100 feet
(7 B
B
From 80 to < 100 feet
C
f C
From 50 to < 80 feet
D
f D
From 40 to < 50 feet
E
E
From 30 to < 40 feet
C. F
f F
From 16 to < 30 feet
G
G
From 5 to < 15 feet
C H
H
< 5 feet

9� In=daocmmvraUon - psswssmomvmo*mdmnnmwmc
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(-A Evidence o[sw»*dmmoon inundation (<7 consecutive days)
[e Evidence or saturation, without evidence nfinunuaopn
@F.c Evidence of long-duration Inundation or very long-duration Inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators cf Deposition - assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since depmsiVon).
(�x Sediment deposition ix not excessive, but at approximately natural levels. r. n Sediment deposition is excessive, p. hmo^ovomhd wetland.
'
(~C Sediment deposition /s excessive and iy overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size -wetland itype/wetlandcomp|ex condition metric
Check abox in each column. Involves acUS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the veUonuarea: the
size m the wetfanutype vr the wetland complex (wc), and the size nf the forested welland(Fvv ) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries v, these evaluation areas. If assessment area is*ear-nvt. select ''K' for the pvvcolumn.
WT WC Fw (if applicable)
�A (~A rA u500acres
(-a (~o (^e From 10000 <m0acres
7O /o' C (mC From 58m<1UVacres
G-D (~D rD From 25m^onacres
rE (~E re From 10 to<unacres
rF rF rp From nto<1oacres
ro ro ro From 1m< 5ocra
rH (`H H From 0.5 to <1acre
F! (~| (-| From 0.1m<O.5acre
rJ (-J rJ From 0.01 to <O.1acre
[`% (`K /~K «V.O1 acre p_[ assessment area is clear-cut
12. Welland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for rocosiosonly)
rA Pvma|n/o the full extent (?.- 9O%)o/ its natural landscape size.
ro pnoosi*ie<90%of the full extent v( Its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity tv Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13m. Check appropriate hvx(*w)(v box may hw chocked in each oWvmn). m,v*ns aG|S effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appmpnmte). Boundaries are formed hy four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a fbur-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet wide.
Well Nneyy
rA (~A �:o00acres
(~B re B From 10om«noDacres
,~C rc From auu,<1ooacres
�m (-D From 1V*n^V0acres
65 E (-E <10acres
rr rp Welland type has a poor o,^v connection m other natural habitats
1ab. Evaluate for marshes only.
[~ves [^mo Welland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14, sugoEffem- wem|and type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May involve oo|a effort with field adjustment Estimate distance from wetland type boundary tv artificial edges. Artificial edges include
nvn'mrestedoreao � 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
r`A mu artificial edge within 15O feet in all directions
rmB Np artificial edge within 15O feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
(^C An artificial edge occurs within 1n0 feet inmore than four (4) directions [r assessment area i*clear-cut
1s Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
(-68 Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wettand type. This may include oomm unities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum.
16. Vegetativeoivemity - wssessmwmareacondition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
rA Vegetation diversity is high and i* composed primarily o[ native species (<10Y6 cover of exotics).
rB vegetahundiversity Is low or has >1VY&moV% cover of exotics.
rC Vegetation io dominated uy exotic species (`ao% cover oroxomrs).

17. Vegetative Structure - assessment arealwetland type condition metric
17a. is vegetation present?
to Yes (' No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18,
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A a 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace
Dense shrub layer
above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately,
06 B
AA
WT
(- C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
(-a A
06 A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
0
B
f B
Canopy present but opened more than natural gaps
(- C
C
C C
Canopy sparse or absent
.2
C A
f A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
(a- B
0 B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C
(- C
Mid - story /sapling layer sparse or absent
o r A
(- A
Dense shrub layer
2 (-9 B
06 B
Moderate density shrub layer
C
(- C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
A
r A
Dense herb layer
(9- B
G B
Moderate density herb layer
(�' C
(- C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags- wetland type condition metric
to A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(' B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution - wetland type condition metric
0' A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 Inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 Inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris - wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
(6- A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches In diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
t- B Not A
21. VegetatlonlOpen Water Dispersion - wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water,
A D
6
22. Hydrologic Connectivity- assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision
(a- A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NCVVAMWetland Rating Shea
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.i
Wetland Site Name Date
Wetland Type Bottorniand Hardwood Forest A*mewnorNameK)rgmniznhnn J. Harbour -
Notes on Field Assessment Fomn(Y/N)
Metrics/Notes
NO__
Presence ofmgulalory considerations (Y/N)
Condition
YES�
Wetland im intensively managed 0oN>
Condition
mO__
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YESL__
Assessment area is substantially altered hy beaver (Y/W)
O
���
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
_yES___
Assessment area ismno coastal island (Y/N)
HIGH
_lwO_'
Sub4unction Rating Summary
Function Sub-function
Metrics;
Ratin2
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
L}W/__
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
---_N{�___
Particulate Change
Condition n o»
HIGH�__
Condition/Opportunity
}IGH__
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
yES___
Soluble Change
Condition
HIGH��
Condition/Opportunity
—__HIwG{__
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
yES___
Physical Change
Condition
nn on
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
M*Gf__-
Opportunity Presence? (YYN)
YES__-
Pollution Change
Condition
_—_-NA—__
Condition/Opportunity
__--N/�__-
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics/Notes
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Habitat
Conditon
HIGH
Overall Wetland R*h

Benson Quarry NCWAM Evaluation — Site I
Wetland Photo Page
Photo Sheet I of 1

NC WAM WETLAND ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Weiland Site Name Benson Quarry - Weiland Site 2 Date 7/29/2014
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor NamelOrganization.J. Harbour- ESI
Level III Ecoregionj Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Nearest Named Water Body Stony Fork
River Basin[ - Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
(07. Yes C No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude[Longitude(deci-denreesI 35.4264 -78.4967
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on last page If evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if
appropriate, in recent past (for instance, approximately within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited
to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby
septic tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, Insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? f Yes (6- No
Regulatory Considerations (select all that apply to the assessment area)
r Anadromous fish
7 Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
F" NCDWQ riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
7 N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
r- Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
F Designated NCNHP reference community
F Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
(W_ Brownwater
r Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar (7 Wind C., Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal Island? Yes (ia'. No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver?
area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall cond
(7 Yes No
Yes No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition -assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure
(VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,
then rate the assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
(a-.. A (7 A Not severely altered
B (m-r B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
less diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub - surface storage capacity and
duration (Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. Refer to the current NRCS lateral effect of ditching guidance for
North Carolina hydric soils (see USACE Wilmington District website) for the zone of influence of ditches In hydric soils. A ditch
< 1 foot deep Is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > I foot deep is expected to affect both surface and ditch
sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
ile'. A (6- A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
8 B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C W ater storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result In vegetation
change) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines)-
Water StoragelSurface, Relief - assessment areatwetiand type condition metric (answer for non-marsh wetlands only)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland
type (WT).
AA
WT
3a. (me. A
ila- A
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > I foot deep
(78
(7 B
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
(- G
C
Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
(7 D
D
Depressions able to pond water -e 3 inches deep
3b. (-A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
(3, B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
(' , C Evidence that maximum depth of 'inundation is less than 1 foot

Sall Texture/Structure -assessment area condition metric
Check a box from each of the three soil prop" groups below. Dig soil profile In the dominant assessment area landscape
feature. Make soil observations within the 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for
regional indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
(7 D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
(_ E Histosol or histic eplpedlon
4b. CA
Soil ribbon < 1 inch
(a- B
Soil ribbon a I Inch
4c. (78 A
No peat or muck presence
C B
A peat or muck presence
Discharge Into Welland - opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub).
Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
r. A 6 A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use - opportunity metric
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources
draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the
assessment area (SM), and within 2 miles and Within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). Effective riparian buffers
are considered to be 50 feet wide in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont ecoregfons and 30 feet wide in the Blue Ridge Mountains ecoregion.
WS 5M 2M
F A F A F A a 10% impervious surfaces
F B F F7 B < 10% impervious surfaces
F_ C F C F C Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants)
I- D Fle- D F 0 20% coverage of pasture
[--, E F E F1 E 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
F F F F F F a 20% coverage of maintained grassiherb
Fe- G F G F G > 20% coverage of clear-cut land
F H F H F H Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from hydrologic alterations
that prevent drainage or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
Weiland Acting as Vegetated Buffer - assessment arealwetland complex condition metric
7a. Is assessment area within 50 fee of a tributary or other open water?
(k. Yes (-. No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Weiland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average Width of the wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is weltand? Descriptor E should be selected if ditches effectively bypass the buffer.
(a-. A ? 50 feet
B From 30 to - 50 fed
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary Is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
(- 5 15 -feet wide re. > 15-feet wide (-- Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend Into the bank of the tributary/open water?
G. Yes ( - No
7e. Is tributary or other open water sheltered or exposed?
(a-,. Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
(-. Exposed - adjacent open water with width 2 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Welland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland typetwetland complex metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Check a box In each column. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT)
and the wetland complex at the assessment areas (WC), See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
(9- A (*- A ? 100 feet
B t�'. B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E (7 E From 30 to < 40 feet
F C F From 15 to < 30 feet
G C G From 5 to < 15 feet
H (7 H < 5 feel

Inundation Duration - assessment area condition metric
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
(­ A Evidence of short - duration Inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
(7 B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of Inundation
(e-. C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long - duration Inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition - assessment area condition metric
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
(a-, A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural revels.
CS Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the Welland.
(- C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland typetwetland complex condition metric
Check a box
In each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See
the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if applicable)
A
A
C A 2t 500 acres
B
B
C B From 100 to < 500 acres
C
(we C
Co C From 50 to < 100 acres
(a- D
D
D From 25 to < 50 acres
E
E
E From 10 to < 25 acres
F
F
F From 5 to < 10 acres
G
G
G From 1 to < 5 acres
H
C' H
H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I
f I
I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J
C J
f J From 0.01 to< 0.1 acre
C f (- K < 0.01 acre or assessment area Is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness - wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
r A Pocosin is the full extent (a 90%) of its natural landscape size.
(- B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas -landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be chocked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
metric naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility
line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, fields (pasture open and agriculture), or water > 300 feet Wide.
Well Loosely
A (­ A ? 500 acres
B (6- B From 100 to < 500 acres
C f C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
(iii E < 10 acres
f F W etland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
(­ Yes (- No Welland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters /stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect -wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
May Involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas a 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors and clear-cuts.
Consider the eight main points of the compass.
(- A No artificial edge within 150 feet in all directions
0 B No artificial edge within 150 feet in four (4) to seven (7) directions
(" C An artificial edge occurs within 150 feet In more than four (4) directions g[ assessment area is clear-cut
15. Vegetative Composition - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
ila- B Vegetation is different from reference condition In species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may Include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearculting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition. Expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species). Exotic species are dominant in
at least one stratum,
16. Vegetative Diversity - assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and Is composed primarily of native species (<10% cover of exotics),
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (>50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment arealwetland type condition metric
17a, Is vegetation present?
Cc' Yes (— No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A 2: 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box In each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure
In airspace
Dense shrub layer
above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
to B
AA
WT
C C
0
(— A
(' A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
r_
R
C' B
(-9 B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
(— C
Q C
f G
Canopy sparse or absent
A
f A
D...e mid - story /sapling layer
B
(—a B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C
(— C
Mid-storylsapling layer sparse or absent
.0 (— A
A
Dense shrub layer
2 (— B
to B
Moderate density shrub layer
rn 65 C
C C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
(9 A
A
Dense herb layer
a) (— B
(R— B
Moderate density herb layer
m C C
(— C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric
(— A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12-inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(—e B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution — wetland type condition metric
A Majority of canopy trees have sterns > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12-inch DBH.
0 Majority of canopy trees are < 6 Inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
(—w A Large logs (more than one) are Visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
(— B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion —wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater
Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B D
l
v�
....... . ...... .... ..
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity Include intensive
ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision.
is A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered In the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area,
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
Assessment area has been selectively timbered within past 1-2 years.

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 4.1
Rating Calculator Version 4.1
Wetland Site Name Benson Quarry - Wetland Site 2
Date
7/29/2014
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Narne/Organizatton
J. Harbour - ESI
Notes on Field Assessment Form (YIN)
YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Welland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (YIN)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall
conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-funotion
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub-Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
- MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
- HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition /Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics/Notes.
Rating
Hydrology Condition
LOW
Water Quality Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence? (YIN)
YES
Habitat Conditon
MEDIUM
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

Benson Quarry NCW"Evaluation — Site
Wetland Photo Page
Photo Sheet I of I