19950153 Ver 3_More Info Received_20150728

Martin
Marietta
July 22, 2015
Mr. David Schaefer, Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
United States Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: Martin Marietta 404 Permit Application - Benson Quarry
Dear Mr. Schaefer:
Brian K. North, PE
Division Environmental /Land Manager
The enclosed Addendum to Section 4041401 Individual Permit Application Benson Quarry
Expansion Johnston County, North Carolina document (the "Addendum ") are intended to clarify and
supplement our previous submissions to your office, and to: (1) fully respond to your office's requests for
additional information and analyses in support of Martin Marietta's Section 4041401 Individual Permit
Application Benson Quarry Expansion Johnston County, North Carolina application document dated
October 2014 (the "Application "); and (2) further and fully satisfy all Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
application requirements for issuance of a permit in accord with the Application and Addendum.
The additional information and analyses provided in the Addendum are directed to your office's
requests, which were discussed in our meeting with you on Tuesday, April 13, 2015 and which you
outlined in an April 19 "Outstanding Issues" document that you conveyed to me via email on April 20,
2015 (Addendum Appendix J), and which were further discussed in our meeting with you on June 30,
2015, at which we presented and discussed a draft version of the Addendum.
Martin Marietta is pleased to provide the enclosed Addendum (with appendices), and appreciates
your office's attention and consideration. We look forward to continuing to work with you towards
issuance of a 404 permit in accord with the Application and Addendum. Please do not hesitate to contact
me with questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Brian K'. North, PE
Division Environmental /Land Manager
cc: Mr. Mike Jones
Mr. Paxton Badham
George House, Esq.
Alexander Elkan, Esq.
Mid - Atlantic Division
413 S. Chimney Rock Road, Greensboro, NC 27409
t. (336) 389 -6616 f. (336) 605 -3628 m. (980) 721 -1212 e. brian.north @martinmarietta.com
www.martinmarietta.com

Addendum To
Section 404/401 Individual Permit Application
Benson Ouarry Expansion
Johnston Countv, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Martin
Marietta
Prepared bv:
I
(C 19u9 tSl
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, NC 27610
July 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
7.0 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENT
2
8.0 SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION / ANALYSES / DISCUSSION
2
8.1
Practicability of Utilizing Allen/Sewares Properties
2
8.2
Benson Quarry Market Area
4
8.3
Selma Quarry Market Area
5
8.4
Overburden Removal Cost
6
8.5
Compensatory Mitigation — Direct Impacts
6
8.6
Compensatory Mitigation — Indirect Impacts
7
8.7
Monitoring Plan
7
8.8
On -Site Compensatory Mitigation
7
8.9
Land Acquisition — Estimated Costs
8
8.10
Wetlands Crossing — Technical Details
8
8.11
Wetlands Crossing — Cost Details
8
8.12
Reserves Estimates
9
8.13
Estimated Reserves — Figures
10
8.14
Estimated Reserves — Scope
10
8.15
Facility Relocation / Construction — Additional Information
10
8.16
Clarification of Figures
12
8.17
Additional Miscellaneous Issues Raised at June 30 Meeting
13
8.18
Additional Cost Issues Raised at June 30 Meeting
13
List of Appendices
14
APPENDIX J: USACE "Outstanding Issues" (April 19, 2015)
APPENDIX K: Revised Alternatives Comparison Table
APPENDIX L: Allen/Sewares Adjacent Property Owner Information
APPENDIX M: Revised / Supplemental Figures
APPENDIX N: Real Estate Summary Table and Listing Information
APPENDIX O: Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan
APPENDIX P: Present Value Costs Memorandum (with consultant
economist resume)
APPENDIX Q: USGS Stone (Crushed) Annual Minerals Commodities
Summary (January 2015)
1
Benson Quarry Expansion

7.0 SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
The scope and purpose of this Addendum to Section 404/401 Individual Permit
Application Benson Quarry Expansion Johnston County, North Carolina (the "Addendum ") is
to: (1) clarify and supplement Martin Marietta's Section 404/401 Individual Permit
Application Benson Quarry Expansion Johnston County, North Carolina (dated October
2014) (the "Application "); (2) fully respond to the USACE's requests for additional
information and analyses in support of Martin Marietta's Application, which were outlined in
a USACE "Outstanding Issue[s]" document (dated April 19, 2015) (Appendix J) conveyed by
the USACE to Martin Marietta via email on April 20, 2015; (3) address additional issues
raised during a June 30, 2015 meeting with USACE personnel concerning a draft version of
this Addendum; and (4) further and fully satisfy all Clean Water Act Section 404 permit
application requirements for issuance of a permit in accord with the Application and this
Addendum.
8.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION / ANALYSES / DISCUSSION
To accomplish the purpose of this Addendum, each issue identified in the USACE
"Outstanding Issues" document (Appendix J) is summarized and a corresponding response
provided in the below subsections. Additional issues raised by USACE at the June 30, 2015
meeting regarding a Draft version of this Addendum are also addressed.
8.1 Practicability of Utilizing Allen /Sewares Properties
USACE Issue
USACE requested "more information ... to address the practicability of utilizing
known rock on the Allen/Sewares property ... [and] to explain in detail why mining the
Allen/Sewares property is not practicable." Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
As a general matter, "practicable" is defined as "available and capable of being done
after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes." 40 C.F.R. 230.3(q). The Application and this Addendum provide
information regarding factors relevant to a determination of whether an alternative is
"practicable" in this context.
More specifically, detailed responsive information and analyses are set forth in the
below discussion, Addendum Appendix K (Revised Alternatives Comparison Table),
Addendum Appendix L (Allen/Sewares Adjacent Property Owner Information), and
Application Section 1.1 and Application Appendix E (Correspondence with Allen family).
Martin Marietta had previously attempted to reach an agreement with the Allen family
for the purchase of the Allen/Sewares property located south of the railroad (shown in
Appendix M, Figure 6) when the Benson Quarry was first sited and created (Application at
2
Benson Quarry Expansion

Appendix E). However, the purchase and use of this property at this juncture for quarry
expansion is impracticable due to a number of circumstances discussed below.
• Pro-oertv acquisition uncertaintv and cost. , Prior to the use of this property, Martin
Marietta would need to first purchase the rights to mine the property. There is a high degree
of uncertainty as to whether the necessary property may be acquired at all. The necessity of
purchasing multiple tracts from multiple owners would likely increase this uncertainty. If
Martin were able to negotiate the purchase of the property necessary to undertake mining
activities, Martin estimates that the cost of purchasing the properties would exceed $8,000 per
acre. This estimate is based on the real estate materials summarized and provided in Appendix
N, which show an average per acre cost of approximately $4,021 for recent sales of
comparable raw land, and Martin's experience negotiating for the purchase of property
adjacent to existing quarry operations as discussed more specifically below in Section 8.9.
• Potential reserves are limited. If the property could be acquired, estimated potential
reserves are limited to a total of 7,745,472 tons due to the configuration of the property and
required 250 -foot set -backs (assuming that the property were able to be re -zoned for mining).'
The potential reserve areas are shown in Appendix M at Figure 6. Additionally, utilization of
the Allen/Sewares property would be even more limited without obtaining additional
adjoining property due to the configuration of the property. See Addendum Appendix L
(Allen/Sewares Adjacent Property Owner Information).
• Land - use /rezoning uncertaintv and costs. Prior to the use of the Allen/Sewares
property for quarry expansion, the property must be rezoned and a special use permit must be
obtained from the Johnston County Board of Commissioners. Significant cost and uncertainty
are associated with these actions. The necessary land use authorizations are likely to be
contested because the land use would impact 13 additional individual owners of the 18 parcels
of property adjacent to the Allen/Sewares property. See Addendum Appendix L
(Allen/Sewares Adjacent Property Owner Information). As in all such rezonings, there will
likely be concerns raised by landowners about proximity to blasting, noise, dust, vibration,
traffic, and impacts on property values. Therefore, opposition by adjacent property owners
may prevent Martin Marietta from obtaining the Johnston County land use authorizations
necessary to utilize this property for quarry expansion. The cost, timeline, and uncertainty of
' Pursuant to Johnston County Ordinance 14- 257(d)(5), 250 -foot setback areas from property
lines are required for mining activities. Johnston Cty. Ord. 14- 257(d)(5)f. ( "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. "). Johnston Cty. Ord. 14-
257(d)(5)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 roads 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. ").
3
Benson Quarry Expansion

obtaining the necessary land use authorizations are significant barriers to the use of this
property for mine expansion.
• Logistical limitations re2ardin2 placement of overburden and potential crossing of
NC Hwv. 301 to the south for overburden placement_ Further limiting the practicability of use
of the property are the limited options for placement of overburden, which would likely
require purchase and rezoning of additional properties to use for placement and storage of
overburden, and/or arranging for means by which to cross the railroad tracks and/or the
heavily traveled state road (NC Highway 301) to the south of the properties to place an
estimated 1,151,920 cubic yards of overburden removed (assuming a minimum 60 -foot
overburden depth), which would require an estimated 46,076 truckloads (assuming 25 cubic
yards per load) and associated costs. There is significant uncertainty as to whether permission
to cross the road may be negotiated due to potential safety concerns and other factors. If
permission could be negotiated, such permission would likely be costly and time - consuming
to obtain. Moreover, construction costs alone associated with a road crossing are estimated to
be approximately $312,000 based on Martin's experience at other similar sites.
• Railroad crossing uncertaintv and cost. Access to the Allen/Sewares property would
also require negotiating and obtaining permission to cross the railroad in order to effectively
transport quarried rock to the existing facility for processing. There is significant uncertainty
as to whether such permission may be negotiated, and may not be possible due to potential
safety concerns and other factors. If permission could be negotiated, such permission would
likely be costly and time - consuming to obtain. Moreover, construction costs alone associated
with a railroad crossing have been estimated at a minimum of $99,000 based upon Martin's
experience at other similar sites.
• Additional stream / wetlands impacts. Accessing the Allen/Sewares property across
Stoney Fork would also require impacts to existing streams and necessitate 401/404
permitting and mine permitting. It can be assumed that the crossing would be perpendicular to
the stream and would result in a minimum of 100 feet of impact to Stony Fork, a perennial
stream. Mitigation required for this impact would be at a 2:1 ratio, so a 100 feet impact would
cost $76,200 through NC DENR EEP at current rates.
8.2 Benson Quarry Market Area
USACE Issue
USACE had indicated some confusion concerning the discussion of market area for
the Benson Quarry, and had requested additional narrative to address market area in light of
the general rule -of -thumb 30 -mile radius for trucking and the circumstances of the Benson
Quarry operations. Appendix J.
4
Benson Quarry Expansion

Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta notes that 33 CFR 320.4(q) provides, "When private enterprise makes
application for a permit, it will generally be assumed that appropriate economic evaluations
have been completed, the proposal is economically viable, and is needed in the market place."
Nonetheless, additional narrative regarding market analyses is set forth below in addition to
that already provided in Application Section 1.2 and Appendix A (Figures 3 and 4).
In sum, as discussed more specifically below, the economics of transporting aggregate
plays a major role in determining what quarry (or stone yard) will be utilized to meet market
needs at the lowest cost and with the best service. The metavolcanic deposit at the Benson
Quarry site is unique for the area, as shown on Application Appendix A, Figure 4. The
general rule -of -thumb of a 20 -mile to 30 -mile market radius for construction grade aggregate
does not strictly apply to the Benson Quarry because it does not serve a typical market area
via truck. Rather, due to the limited ability of other quarries to economically provide product
to the market southeast of I -95 because of the lack of deposits in that geographic area, and
Benson's geographic location in close proximity to I -95 and I -40, the Benson Quarry has a
relative competitive haul advantage for granite material markets in areas southeast of I -95.
Benson is located just north of the Intersection of I -40 and I -95 in Johnston County.
Hanson Aggregates operates the Gardner Quarry 40 miles to the west and the Princeton
Quarry 25 miles to the east. Neither of these two quarries have a quick or direct access to I-
40. Therefore, Benson has a competitive haul advantage to any customer that may desire
granite material southeast of 1 -95. Due to the weight of construction grade aggregate, a
typical quarry will serve a market of 20 to 30 miles. However, Benson is not a typical quarry
nor does it serve a typical market area via truck. With the added cost of transportation via rail
of hard rock material from Martin Marietta's Lemon Springs Quarry to Martin Marietta's
Castle Hayne Yard, in some cases it may be cheaper to deliver the stone beyond the typical
20 -30 mile service area via truck from Benson to serve the customer, rather than servicing the
customer from the Castle Hayne rail yard. Once delivered to the Castle Hayne Yard, granite
material is approximately 67% more expensive than material that is purchased from Benson.
Therefore, to transport this material north on I -40 towards Benson would add additional
transportation costs (via truck) for the customer. Therefore, it may be more expensive than
transporting this same material from Benson to the given project down I -40, which may in
some cases, be outside of the typical 20 -30 mile service area of the typical quarry.
8.3 Selma Quarry Market Area
USACE Issue
USACE had requested "more information ... to address the practicability of utilizing
known rock on the Martin Marietta mine site in Selma ... [to] satisfy at least some of the
market need." Appendix J.
5
Benson Quarry Expansion

Martin Marietta Response
With reference to 33 CFR 320.4(q), additional information and analysis of the
impracticability of the Selma Quarry to satisfy the Benson market need is set forth below in
addition to that discussed in Application Section 1.2 and Appendix A, Figure 3.
Application Appendix A, Figure 3 identifies the overall market area that the Benson
Quarry may serve. The Selma Quarry is located just to the north of that market area,
approximately 20 miles northeast of Benson and 20 miles from the intersection of I -40 and I-
95. In general, the industry standard in costs of transporting aggregates is approximately
$0.18 to $0.22 per ton per mile (an average of $0.20) — resulting in a roughly $4 per ton
increase in cost in comparison to aggregate transported from Benson Quarry. With an
approximate cost of $9 to $12 per ton from Benson, this represents a cost increase of
approximately 33% to 44% in comparison to the Benson Quarry for all of the Benson Quarry
market area east and southeast of the I- 40/1 -95 intersection, which could not be effectively
served by the Selma Quarry. It is theoretically possible that Selma could service a very small
area in the very northernmost market area served by Benson, to provide product to locations
where there would be lower transportation costs from the Selma Quarry than from the Benson
Quarry, taking into account the Benson proximity to the 1- 401 -95 corridor. However, the use
of the Selma Quarry to serve this very small geographic area would require significant
unplanned investment in the development of the Selma Quarry, which costs are estimated to
be in excess of $15m. This investment in Selma is not merited due to a number of reasons,
including current market restrictions that put Selma at a disadvantage relative to other Martin
quarries as well as competitor quarry operations. In short, the Selma Quarry is not a viable
option to provide product to any significant portion of the Benson Quarry market.
8.4 Overburden Removal Cost
USACE Issue
USACE had requested that Martin Marietta "revise the cost of each alternative to
assume the same overburden removal cost. Unless there is a good reason for the cost to be
different." Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta has revised Application Appendix F (Alternatives Comparison Table),
which is presented in its revised form as Addendum Appendix K (Revised Alternatives
Comparison Table) so that the overburden removal and disposal costs associated with each
alternative all reflect a consistent estimated cost of $3.00 /cy3, which represents a general
overall average cost estimate based on Martin's experience and professional judgment.
8.5 Compensatory Mitigation — Direct Impacts
USACE Issue
USACE had requested that Martin Marietta revise the costs incorporated into each
alternative to reflect a required compensatory mitigation ratio of 2:1 for any direct impacts to
the wetland system. Appendix J.
6
Benson Quarry Expansion

Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta accepts the 2:1 mitigation ratio for direct wetland impacts. The
mitigation cost in each alternative has been revised to reflect this ratio, as shown in Appendix
K (Revised Alternatives Comparison Table).
8.6 Compensatory Mitigation — Indirect Impacts
USACE Issue
USACE had noted that the mitigation cost for alternatives 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 include both
direct and indirect impacts to wetlands, but that the cost of indirect impacts is usually less
than the cost for direct impacts; and had requested that, for the purposes of the analysis, the
cost of indirect impacts be calculated based on a 1:1 ratio. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta accepts the 1:1 mitigation ratio for the indirect wetland impacts.
Indirect mitigation values have not been incorporated into Appendix K (Revised Alternatives
Comparison Table) per the request of NC WRC, and as noted in footnote (f) of Appendix K.
8.7 Monitoring Plan
USACE Issue
USACE had requested that Martin Marietta submit a plan to monitor the remaining
wetland system, and that the plan include a proposal to compensate for any indirect functional
loss that occurs from the mine expansion. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
A wetland monitoring plan is included at Addendum Appendix O, and includes a
proposal to mitigate for any indirect functional loss that occurs from the mine expansion at a
l: l ratio by payment to a private mitigation bank at the time the impacts are documented to
have occurred. If credits are not available from a private mitigation bank at that time, Martin
intends to make payment to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Division of Mitigation Services In -lieu Fee Program, in accord with N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 143- 214.11 and 143- 214.20.
8.8 On -Site Compensatory Mitigation
USACE Issue
USACE indicated that should Martin Marietta propose an on -site compensatory
mitigation plan for the wetlands that have the potential to develop along the newly
constructed channel, as there may be a potential to offset any unavoidable impacts to the
wetlands that may be indirectly affected from Stoney Fork's relocation. Appendix J.
7
Benson Quarry Expansion

Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta does not intend to request future compensatory mitigation credits for
any wetlands that may form in the constructed channel.
8.9 Land Acquisition Estimated Costs
USACE Issue
USACE requested that the cost of land acquisition be consistent throughout the
Application and representative of 2015 land values. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Application Section 3.1.3 and Appendix F addressed the issue of land acquisition
costs, which are also addressed again in this Section 8.9 and in Addendum Appendices K
(Revised Alternatives Comparison Table) and N (Real Estate Summary Table and MLS
documents). Comparable MLS listings were obtained with assistance from Whitco Properties
in Benson, NC and show an average of $4,021 per acre. However, based on Martin's
experience of acquiring adjacent properties for mine expansion under similar circumstances,
Martin estimates actual acquisition costs at approximately $8,000 per acre as indicated in the
Application and Addendum Appendix K.
8.10 Wetlands Crossing — Technical Details
USACE Issue
USACE had indicated a view that there were inconsistencies regarding the crossing of
the wetland system — that the Application stated that a permanent roadway crossing the
wetland would not be possible without an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation, which was
interpreted to contradict the letter provided by Ecological Engineers indicating that a
minimum of 11 RCBC culverts would be necessary to fully avoid impacts up and down
stream. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Martin has reconfirmed that there is a need for a minimum of 11 RCBC culverts in
order to avoid an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation above Raleigh Road, if Alternative
3.1.3 were undertaken. This is consistent with the Ecological Engineers letter, which is
included in Application Appendix G. The Application stated that a permanent roadway
"would potentially flood property owners upstream." The use of 11 RCBS culverts would
alleviate this potential impact.
8.11 Wetlands Crossing — Cost Details
USACE Issue
USACE had requested a clarification regarding the practicability of crossing the
wetland system, noting, "according to the footnote in the alternative tables, it would cost the
same to build the road over the wetland/stream. If a road can be built over the natural wetland
8
Benson Quarry Expansion

system and it cost the same to cross a constructed channel, why is the road crossing being
used to establish that this alternative is not practicable ?" Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Application Section 3.1.6 and Appendix F provide information relating to this issue,
and Addendum Appendix K shows the information and clarification requested, which is also
set forth below.
Expected costs for constructing a permanent crossing through or over the existing
wetlands were obtained from average bids from multiple State DOT's for major roadway
construction.
Access across the existing wetland system
Bridge - $1.92 Million. To support the expected loads of mining equipment, a bridge
of sufficient size and capacity will cost approximately $200 /sq. ft. of deck. This takes
into account the end bents, interior bents, etc. Therefore, for crossing the existing
system with a 120' x 80' bridge, the cost would be $200 /sq. ft. x 120' x 80' _ $1.92
Million.
Box Culverts - $2.97 Million. To avoid an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation
above Raleigh Road, a crossing of eleven - 9' x 10' Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts
(RCBC) would be required. The expected cost of such a structure would be $30 /Sq.
Ft. of Opening /LF. Therefore, $30 /sq. ft. x 90 sq. ft. of Opening x 100' long x 11
culverts = $2.97 Million.
Access across the New Diversion Channel - The costs of a permanent structure in the
proposed channel will be $30 /Sq. Ft. of Opening/LF. Therefore, $30 /sq. ft. x 100 sq.
ft. of Opening x 100' long x 4 culverts = $1.20 Million.
Again, these costs are reflected in Appendix K.
8.12 Reserves Estimates
USACE Issue
USACE requested clarification regarding the variation in potential reserves among
previous submissions. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta has sought to provide accurate, up -to -date values for potential
reserves in its previous 404 permit application submissions, including the Application. The
differences in the figures provided on different dates is due to depletion of reserves as
production has taken place over time. Therefore, previous 404 permit application documents
should not be used to determine current reserve totals. Accordingly, and as reflected in
Addendum Appendix K, reserve estimates have been further revised for this submission based
9
Benson Quarry Expansion

on recent and more thorough and accurate estimates, which compensate for previous
estimation errors.
8.13 Estimated Reserves — Figures
USACE Issue
USAGE noted that the alternative 3.1.4 map showed the current location of the
primary crushing station as being mined, but that the alternative 3.1.7 map appeared to show
this area excluded from the potential pit area. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Alternatives 3.1.4 and 3.1.7 are presented as individual alternatives, as they have been
discussed during the initial meetings and presented in the Application. Estimated reserve
volumes for each alternative have been reassessed and reconfirmed and the revised figures
provided for each alternative in Appendix M (Figures 2.1 -2.6) accurately show the actual area
of reserves for each alternative, including the figures for Alternatives 3.1.4 (Figure 2.3) and
3.1.7 (Figure 2.6). The reserve quantities for each Atternative are also accurately stated in
Addendum Appendix K.
8.14 Estimated Reserves — Scope
USACE Issue
USACE noted that the original Application Figure 2.1 for alternative 3.1.1 it appears
that the reserves currently available under the no action alternative are included in the 3.1.3
alternative, and requested clarification as to whether the existing minable reserves are
included in the reserve quantities of the other alternatives. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
It has been reconfirmed that reserve quantities shown for alternatives 3.1.1 (2,200,000
tons — Addendum Appendix M, Figure 2.1) and 3.1.3 (8,983,616 tons — Appendix M, Figure
2.2) are accurate and are independent of each other. However, it should be noted that the
alternatives "build" on each other. For instance, if the overburden presented in 3.1.3 were to
be removed and the reserves mined in this area, the pit would need to first progress as shown
in 3.1.1. Therefore, 3.1.3 could not be mined without first conducting the mining expansion
presented in 3.1.1, and so includes the reserves shown for Alternative 3.1.1. For spacial
comparison of these two alternatives and the reserves associated with each, please refer to
Appendix M Figures 2.1 and 2.2.
8.15 Facility Relocation / Construction — Additional Information
USACE Issue
USACE requested that any alternative that involves moving crushing equipment, etc.
to another location on the property include a level of detail necessary to understand the time
10
Benson Quarry Expansion

required to relocate equipment and /or build a new facility that would allow the mine to
continue to operate, or, otherwise, the general ramifications upon the employees, customers
and long term customer base. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
As set forth in Application Section 3.1.7 and more specifically below and shown in
Appendix K, each alternative that describes the relocation of an existing crushing plant or the
construction of a new crushing plant involves many aspects that would make that alternative
impracticable, which include the following.
• A new plant will cost at least $15M in construction costs, plus additional costs of
engineering design and site development. This would be an immediate up -front cost.2
Moreover, a new plant would necessarily be constructed with all new equipment, if the
existing plant continued to operate while the new plant is being built. In terms of a timeline,
engineering and design of a new plant may take approximately 12 months and construction an
additional 9 to 12 months.
• Once the construction of the new plant is completed, the "old" plant would need to
be removed before the area could be mined. The demolition alone could easily take up to 6
months. After the "old" plant is removed, the overburden beneath the "old" plant would need
to be removed before mining could be initiated in that area. Though not all of the 5.395M
cubic yards of overburden calculated in this alternative (3.1.7) would necessarily be removed
at one time, grading for at least 6 months would be required to open up enough pit area to
ensure sufficient reserves were uncovered, while the additional overburden is removed.
Again, these are up -front costs.
• Removing an existing plant from operation before its useful life is achieved, would
result in substantial economic burden. Extensive effort is required to design, construct, and
operate these facilities and removing a plant before it has achieved the financial return on
investment represents a dead - weight loss of the remaining value of that asset, as little value
may be recovered by salvaging the used equipment as scrap metal, or by attempting to move
the facility to another location.
• The financial implications described in the above paragraphs would render any
alternative requiring this work impracticable.
2 As discussed below in Section 8.18 and in Appendix P (Present Value Costs Memorandum),
based on comments from USACE personnel at the June 30, 2015 meeting, Martin Marietta
further revised Appendix K (Revised Alternatives Table) to show the present value of costs
for each Alternative to provide a common relative basis for comparison of costs among
Alternatives.
3 The life span of an aggregate quarry plant is generally in the range of 50 years.
11
Benson Quarry Expansion

• Additionally, if capital funds were not available to construct a new plant, the old
plant would have to be dis- assembled and re- constructed, after the future plant site was
designed and graded. In the interim, the economic ramifications of taking the facility "off -
line" would include, but certainly not be limited to, the following:
o Employees would have to be laid off with no guarantee that they would be available
when mining was to resume;
o Customers could not be provided with the necessary materials to conduct their
businesses, straining customer relationships and potentially losing customers;
o Vendors and suppliers would be impacted with possible jobs being lost;
o New business (jobs that will require aggregate) could not be accepted or achieved
due to the plant not being operable;
o Trucking companies' revenues and driver jobs would be eliminated or greatly
reduced;
o Local gas stations and heavy truck repair shops would lose business, and similar
ripple effects would impact the local and regional economies.
o Other similar ripple effects that would impact the local economy.
8.16 Clarification of Figures
USACE Issue
USACE requested that maps of alternatives include a legend and key as to what the
various colors represent for easier comprehension. Appendix J.
Martin Marietta Response
Revised and supplemental figures are provided in Appendix M, with the requested
legends/keys and other revisions intended to aid comprehension.
8.17 Additional Miscellaneous Issues
USACE Issue
USACE raised several miscellaneous issues for the first time at the June 30, 2015
meeting regarding a Draft version of this Addendum.
Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta has addressed a number of issues raised at the June 30, 2015 meeting
in the above responses. These include the following: (1) additional information regarding
acreage for potential indirect impacts, which is shown in Addendum Appendix M Figures 2.4
and 2.5 and Appendix K, footnote (f); (2) additional information regarding typical lifespan of
12
Benson Quarry Expansion

a quarry plant, which is stated in Section 8.15 at footnote 3 above; (3) amendment of
Alternatives figures to be consistent in showing overburden storage and to indicate that
overburden shown on each figure is the maximum overburden storage potential and the bases
for the calculation, which has been addressed in Appendix M, Figures 2.1 -2.6. Various
additional minor and technical typographical issues associated with the Draft document were
also addressed.
8.18 Additional Costs Issues
USACE Issue
USACE raised several costs - related issues for the first time at the June 30, 2015
meeting to discuss a Draft version of this Addendum. These included questions as to whether
the incremental costs associated with each Alternative should be presented and assessed in
present -value terms, and how the present -value of incremental costs per ton associated with
each Alternative compare among alternatives in relation to overall cost or value per ton for the
crushed stone industry.
Martin Marietta Response
Martin Marietta retained a consultant economist to calculate the present value of
incremental costs associated with each alternative. These calculations were undertaken as
discussed in Appendix P (Present Value Costs Memorandum), and are presented in
Addendum Appendix K, which was further revised after the June 30 meeting to incorporate
the present -value incremented cost per ton achieved calculations.
Of particular note, as stated in the Present Value Costs Memorandum (Appendix P),
the present value incremental cost per ton associated with the applicant - preferred Alternative
3.1.6 is 20 cents in comparison to the 53 cents per ton for Alternative 3.1.7 (new plant). This
33 -cent incremental cost difference is unreasonably expensive for Martin Marietta, is not cost -
effective, and is not practicable. See 40 CFR 230.10(a)(2); 45 Fed. Reg. 85336 at pp. 6 ( "to be
practicable, an alternative must be capable of achieving the basic purpose of the proposed
activity ") and 11 ( "If an alleged alternative is unreasonably expensive to the applicant, the
alternative is not 'practicable."'). In terms of present value of total incremental costs,
Alternative 3.1.7 (new plant) is $21,251,903, which is more than two and a half times the
$7,970,799 associated with Alternative 3.1.6.
To provide additional context for the unreasonableness and cost - ineffectiveness of the
additional incremental cost burden of Alternative 3.1.7 (new plant) in comparison to
Alternative 3.1.6, one may look to the USGS Stone (Crushed) Annual Minerals Commodities
Summary (Appendix Q), which provides a price /value figure of approximately $9.21 per ton
($10.15 per metric ton) for 2014 (the most recent year for which annual data are available). In
this context, the additional 33 cents in present value incremental cost per ton of 3.1.7 (new
plant) (53 cents) in comparison to Alternative 3.1.6 (20 cents) would represent an additional
incremental cost burden amounting to approximately 3.6% of the general industry price /value.
This 3.6% additional incremental cost per ton would carry through over the entire life of the
permit — 50.1 years under Alternative 3.1.7 (new plant). In the highly competitive crushed
13
Benson Quarry Expansion

stone commodities industry, such a burden is unreasonably expensive and neither cost -
effective nor practicable.
14
Benson Quarry Expansion

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX J: USACE "Outstanding Issues" (April 19, 2015)
APPENDIX K: Revised Alternatives Comparison Table
APPENDIX L: Allen/Sewares Adjacent Property Owner Information
APPENDIX M: Revised / Supplemental Figures
APPENDIX N: Real Estate Summary Table and Listing Information
APPENDIX O: Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan
APPENDIX P: Present Value Costs Memorandum (with consultant
economist resume)
APPENDIX Q: USGS Stone (Crushed) Annual Minerals Commodities
Summary (January 2015)
15
Benson Quarry Expansion

APPENDIX J: USACE "Outstanding Issues" (April 19, 2015)
16
Benson Quarry Expansion

4/19/2015
Outstanding Issue -
SAW- 2014 -00845
• More information is needed to address the practicability of utilizing known rock on the
Allen /Sewares property. It is clear that Martin Marietta pursued the Allen /Sewares
property up until 2001 well after Benson Quarry was well established in its current
location. Why would Martin Marietta pursue the purchase /lease a piece of land that
they didn't think they could mine from their existing facility? Accordingly, the applicant
needs to explain in detail why mining the Allen /Sewares property is not practicable.
This would entail providing some of the information at the 13 Apr 15 meeting about
additional property owners and their proximity to the mine, revisions to the mining
plan, crossing of the railroad tracks, etc.
• Martin has contended throughout this process that the market area is a 30 -mile radius
of Benson due to the granite reserves, yet the map provided in Martin's October
submittal showed the market area served by Martin extending almost to Wilmington.
The discussion in the meeting on 13 Apr 15 was very insightful about trucking vs. rail
and the Corps would appreciate the revised document to provide a narrative to address
what appears to be a greater than 30 -mile radius market area.
• More information is needed to address the practicability of utilizing known rock on the
Martin Marietta mine site in Selma, as it has already been permitted by the Corps. In
your second submittal for Alternative 3.1.2 (Locate a New Quarry), Martin contends that
the available reserves are not available based on extensive research, the cost of the
property, cost of environmental studies and time to permit. The Corps needs
clarification as to why this wouldn't satisfy at least some of the market need. You
provided some justification in the meeting on 13 Apr 15 -this needs to be provided in
greater detail.
• Need to revise the cost of each alternative to assume the same overburden removal
cost. Unless there is a good reason for the cost to be different.
• Compensatory mitigation for any direct impacts to the wetland system would be
required at a 2:1 ratio. The cost of each alternative should be revised to reflect this
ratio.
• The mitigation cost for alternatives 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 include both direct and indirect
impacts. In reality, the cost of indirect impacts is usually less than the cost for direct
impacts. For the purposes of the analysis, the cost of indirect impacts should be
calculated based on a 1:1 ratio.
• A plan to monitor the remaining wetland system must be submitted. The plan must
include a proposal to compensate for any indirect functional loss that occurs from the
mine expansion. The Corps will not consider the use of pumps to maintain wetland
hydrology.
• Consequently, while no stream mitigation credit will be given for the newly constructed
stream channel, should Martin propose an on -site compensatory mitigation plan for the

wetlands that have the potential to develop along the newly constructed channel and to
monitor them through a typical 7 year plan, there is potential that these areas could
offset any unavoidable impacts to the wetlands that may be indirectly affected from
Stoney Fork's relocation. However, this plan would need to be to the level of detail that
it could be finalized and incorporated into the final permit. No DA permit will be issued
based upon the submittal of a conceptual mitigation plan. There is no DA requirement
to pursue this, but if Martin doesn't take this step, then it would be very difficult to get
agencies to agree to provide mitigation credit after 7 years if no plan was ever
implemented, much less monitored.
• The cost of land acquisition needs to be consistent throughout the application and
representative of 2015 land values.
• Inconsistencies regarding the crossing of the wetland system need to be addressed. The
application states that a permanent roadway crossing the wetland would not be
possible without an increase in the 100 -year flood elevation. The letter provided by
Ecological Engineers states that more than 11 RCBC culverts would be necessary to fully
avoid impacts up and down stream. These statements seem to contradict.
• Clarification regarding the practicability of crossing the wetland system needs to be
provided if used to establish that a particular alternative is not practicable. According to
the footnote in the alternative tables, it would cost the same to build the road over the
wetland /stream. If a road can be built over the natural wetland system and it cost the
same to cross a constructed channel, why is the road crossing being used to establish
that this alternative is not practicable?
• It is unclear why the potential reserves for the various alternatives have varied from the
VY submittal to the most recent submittals. During the 13 Apr 15 meeting, you
mentioned existing mining rates (around 150,000 tons per month ?). Make sure that you
mention that in the next submittal as it helps to support some of the discrepancies that
we are seeing in the various alternatives has this project has progressed.
• On the alternative 3.1.4 map, it shows the current location of the primary crushing
station being mined. On the alternative 3.1.7 map it appears to exclude this area from
the potential pit area. Why was this area excluded from the possible pit area? Wouldn't
adding this increase the reserves associated with this alternative?
• On alternative 3.1.3 it appears that the reserves currently available under the no action
alternative are included in the 3.1.3 alternative. It is unclear whether these existing
minable reserves are included in the reserve quantities of the other alternatives.
• As was discussed in our 13 Apr 15 meeting, you need to make sure that any alternative
that involves moving the crushing equipment, etc. to another location on the property
involves the level of detail necessary to understand the time required to relocate
equipment and /or build a new facility that would allow the mine to continue to operate;
otherwise, the general ramifications upon the employees, customers and long term
customer base.

• When preparing your maps of alternatives, please provide a legend as to what the
various colors represent for easier comprehension.

APPENDIX K: Revised Alternatives Comparison Table
17
Benson Quarry Expansion

Benson Quarry Alternatives
Alternative 3. 1.1
Alternative 3.1.2 Locate
Alternative 3.1.3 Remove
Alternative 3.1.4 Relocate
Alternative 3.1.5 North
Alternative 3.1.6 South
Alternative
3.1.7
No Action
a New Quarry
Waste Pile
Primary
Diversion
Diversion (Applicant
Preferred Alternative)
New Plant
New Pit
Estimated Potential
2,200,000�a�
Not available based on
8,983,616
6,237,600
39,573,504
39,573,504
40,038,360
24,733,440
Reserves Available (Tons)
extensive research
Estimated Years of
(b)
2.75
N/A
11.23
7.80
49.47
49.47
50.05
30.92
Reserves
Estimated Volume of
Overburden Removal Required
to access Estimated Available
897,103
N/A
3,078,716
549 098
6,297,352
5 597 612
5,395,485
4 978 040
'
Reserves (YD 3)
Estimated Costs of
Overburden Removal and
$2,691,309
N/A
$9,236,148
$1,647,294
$18,892,056
$16,792,836
$16,186,455
$14,934,120
Disposal (c)
Cost of Permanent Access
over Existing Wetlands or
N/A
N/A
$1,920,000
$0
$0
$1,200,000
$1,920,000
$1,920,000
Proposed Channel (d)
Proposed Direct Impact to
Existing Wetlands (Acres)
0
N/A
1
0
17
17
1
1
Total Mitigation Costs for
(e)
$0
N/A
$139,472
$0
$2,371,024
$2,371,024
$139,472
$139,472
Direct Wetland Impacts
Additional Costs (f)
$20,000,000
$7,000,000
$15,000,000
Overburden stored on
Time and uncertainty
May require access across
Will require demolition of
May involve acquisition of
Will have less potential
2003 zoning/SUP
May involve acquisition
existing disposal pile
associated with E.upc. ty
wetlands and/or
the existing P,hiia,y Thant
additional property (g) for
indirect impact to existing
requested no crushing
of additional property(g)
acquisition, environmental
acquisition of additional
prior to mining available
overburden disposal after
wetlands. May involve
on Johnson Property.
for overburden disposal
Other Practicability Factors
studies, permitting,
property (g) for overburden
reserves.
24 years of reserves mined.
acquisition of additional
May involve acquisition
after 17 years of
Not Included in Total
development, time of plant
disposal after 10 years of
(h>
property (9) for overburden
of additional property(g)
reserves mined. (h)
Marginal Cost Figures
construction and associated
reserves mined. (h)
disposal after 32 years of
for overburden disposal
facilities, etc.
reserves mined. (h)
after 26 years of
37,373,504
N/A
30,589,888
33,335,904
0
0
reserves mined. (h)
(464,856)
14,840,064
Difference of Reserves Lost
compared to AP
(Tons and %)
94%
N/A
77%
84%
0%
0%
-1%
38%
Total Incremental Raw Cost
(')
$1.22
N/A
$1.26
$1.39
$0.54
$0.51
$0.83
$0.69
Per Ton Achieved
Present Value of Total
Incremental Cost Per Ton
$1.07
N/A
$0.91
$1.32
$0.18
$0.20
$0.53
$0.32
Achieved 0)
$0.87
N/A
$0.71
$1.12
-$0.02
$0.00
$0.33
$0.12
Difference of Present Value
Incremental Costs Per Ton
com ared to AP $and %
°
435 /o
N/A
355%
560%
-10%
0%
165%
60%

Footnotes
(a) - Due to the diminishing available reserves of the current quarry, additional reserve estimations and calculations were recently undertaken using a more thorough and refined methodology than that used for previous estimates in order to more
accurately assess the diminishing reserves. Martin believes this revised estimate is more accurate than the estimate previously reported in the Application. This revised estimate is shown in reserve calculations for Alternatives 3.1.1 and 3.1.3.
(b) - In the interest of consistency and simplicity in showing and comparing the estimated years of reserves for each Alternative as a single number, rather than a range as was previously estimated and shown in the Application, estimated years of
reserves for each Alternative is calculated by using an overall average of 800,000 tons production per year for all alternatives, and is based on Martin Marietta's professional judgment and projected market needs. .
(c) - Estimated costs of removal and disposal for all Alternatives is calculated using an average cost estimate of $3.00 per cubic yard, which is based on Martin Marietta's professional judgment and experience at this and other quarries. The
construction of the proposed diversion channel in Alternatives 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 is included in the volumes presented in the "Overburden Removal" values and also included in the overburden costs estimates.
(d) - Estimated costs of access across wetlands (bridge or pipes) or over new channel are included in the Cost Per Ton Acheived calculations.
(e) - Current NCDMS Riparian Wetland Mitigation Compensation is $69,736 per acre. 2:1 mitigation ratio is used in cost evaluations for Direct wetland impacts.
(f) - The additional costs presecribed and associated with each listed Alternative are as follows: 3.1.2 - development of property and facility; 3.1.4 - construction of new primary; 3.1.7 (New Plant) - construction of a new processing plant. As
requested by the NC WRC, costs for each Alternate does not include the costs for I7ndirect wetlands impacts.. However, Martin Marietta accepts the required 1:1 mitigation ratio for any potential Indirect wetland impacts that may result from this
project. As shown in Addendum Appendix M, Figures 2.4 and 2.5, the estimated potential Indirect wetland impacts are 13.71 acres for Alternative 3. 1.5 and 10.66 acres for Alternative 3.1.6, a difference of 3.05 acres.
(g) - Property values obtained with the assistance of Whittco Properties in Benson, NC averaged $4000 per acre. See Addendum Appendix N. Property purchases by Martin Marietta would most likely result in a higher cost per acre - in the range of
$8,000 per acre, based on Martin Marietta's experience and profesional judgement.
(h) - In order to provide an estimate of the timing of potential property acquisition for overburden disposal, constant and equal overburden removal was assumed throughout the life of the reserves for each alternative and calculated by dividing the
Estimated Volume of Overburden by the Estimated Years of Reserves.
(i) - The term "Incremental Raw Cost Per Ton Achieved" reflects the costs per ton associated with each Alternative in addition to costs per ton achieved that are common to all Alternatives, such as personnel, machinery, utilities, etc. Martin believes
that these impacts can be properly avoided
(j) - "Present Value of Total Incremental Cost Per Ton Achieved" is calculated by discounting the future costs to present value for the purposes of relative comparisions amoung Alternatives, as discussed in the Present Value Costs Memorandum
attached as Addendum Appendix P.

APPENDIX L: Allen/Sewares Adjacent Property Owner Information
M
Benson Quarry Expansion

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
N
Scale: 1:3357 - 1 in. = 279.76 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2151676.1644475
Y Coordinate:
609588.76536979
id:
07G 10005B
Tag:
07G10005B
Tax Unique Id:
4154832
NC P i n:
165000 -29 -1755
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
SEWARES, MAURILLA C
ALLEN
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
101 BAYVIEW ISLE DR
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
ISLAMORADA, FL 33036 -3308
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
04281
Page:
0108
Market Value:
77460
Assessed Acreage:
17.61
Calc. Acreage:
17.61
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
2013 -04 -23
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
Elevation Water District
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

&OH�i'pN
N
NORTH.CAR4L13VA
* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
Parcel Report
X Coordinate: 2153502.3699887
Y Coordinate: 609305.12067936
id: OIGIOO14
Tag: O1G10014
Tax Unique Id: 4162336
NCPin: 165000 -39 -7592
Mapsheet No: 1650
Owner Name 1: CASTLEBERRY, JOHN L JR
Owner Name 2: CASTLEBERRY, MARGIE
Mail Address 1: 205 PEELE PLACE
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3: RALEIGH, NC 27610 -0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book: 01048
Page: 0617
Market Value: 151810
Assessed Acreage: 29.49
Calc. Acreage: 29.93
Sales Price: 0
Sale Date: 1987 -0401
Township: Elevation
Water District: N/A
ETJ: N/A
City Limits: NIA
Town Zoning: N/A
County Zoning: AR
Overlay Zoning: N/A
Scale: 1 :3357 - 1 in. = 279.76 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet wlth no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2153033.9002402
Y Coordinate:
608930.39914341
id:
01GIO016
Tag:
01 G 10016
Tax Unique Id:
4232905
NC P i n:
165000 -28 -9165
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
ALLEN, HERBERT M
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
3515 VESTA DRIVE
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
RALEIGH, NC 27603 -3887
Site Address 1:
9385 US 301 HWY
Site Address 2:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -
Book:
00465
Page:
0143
Market Value:
142950
Assessed Acreage:
18
Calc. Acreage:
17.22
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
1947 -01 -01
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
NIA
City Limits:
NIA
Town Zoning:
NIA
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
NIA
A
Scale: 1:7521 - 1 in. = 626.71 feet
Johnston county GIS
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape an a size sheet with no page scaling.) May 18, 2015

* * * DISCLAIMER
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
N
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2152563.8669344
Y Coordinate:
608399.4355942
id:
OlGlOO16B
Tag:
OIGIOO16B
Tax Unique Id:
4218884
NCPin:
165000 -27 -5616
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
JERNIGAN, CARLTON B
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
C/O ERIC S JERNIGAN
Mail Address 2:
408 PINE DR
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -9403
Site Address 1:
9539 US 301 HWY
Site Address 2:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -
Book:
00981
Page:
0180
Market Value:
65390
Assessed Acreage:
8.1
Calc. Acreage:
9.51
Sales Price:
5500
Sale Date:
1985 -04 -01
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Scale: 1:7521 - 1 in. = 626.71 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
.Johnston County G1S
May 18, 2015

cation represented here.
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2152415.8934862
Y Coordinate:
608242.75782558
id:
O1 G10016C
Tag:
OIGIOO16C
Tax Unique Id.
4162320
NC P i n:
165000 -28 -4107
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
LEE, BARBARA ADAMS
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
1308 NC 27 WEST
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
BENSON, NC 27504 -0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
01418
Page:
0255
Market Values
144640
Assessed Acreage:
1.1
Calc. Acreage:
0.99
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
1994 -12 -22
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
NIA
Scale: 1:7521 - 1 in. = 626.71 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

cation represented here.
Parcel Report
X Coordinate: 2152276.6243586
Y Coordinate:
608216.64486415
id:
OIG10039C
Tag:
OIG10039C
Tax Unique Id:
4218906
N C P i n:
165000-28-2055
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
BROWN, RUTH JANELLE
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
9595 HWY 301 S
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -0000
Site Address 1:
9595 US 301 HWY
Site Address 2:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -
Book:
01759
Page:
0401
Market Value:
152510
Assessed Acreage:
1.98
Calc. Acreage:
1.83
Sales Price:
9000
Sale Date:
1998 -10 -30
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
NIA
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Scale: 1:7521 - 1 in. = 626.71 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

iation represented here.
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2152093.8336285
Y Coordinate:
608251.46214606
id:
Ol G10020B
Tag:
Ol G 10020E
Tax Unique Id:
4162321
NCPin:
165000 -28 -0285
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
PO BOX 1049
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
SMITHFIELD, NC 27577 -0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
01201
Page:
0031
Market Value:
1340
Assessed Acreage:
0.06
Calc. Acreage:
0.06
Sales Price:
1000
Sale Date:
1991 -03 -21
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
NIA
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Scale: 1:7521 - 1 in. = 626.71 feet
Johnston County GtS
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.) May 18, 2015

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2152024.1990647
Y Coordinate:
608086.08005696
id:
OIG10039B
Tag:
O1Gl0039B
Tax Unique Id:
4218905
NCPin:
165000 -28 -0041
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
NORRIS, SHARON R
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
9609 US 301 SOUTH
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -0000
Site Address 1:
9609 US 301 HWY
Site Address 2:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -
Book:
02102
Page:
0932
Market Value:
60720
Assessed Acreage:
1.22
Calc. Acreage:
1.34
Sales Price:
20000
Sale Date:
2001 -08 -21
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Scale: 1:7521 - 1 in. = 626.71 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

cation represented here.
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2151597.6873612
Y Coordinate:
608347.20967133
id:
OIGIOO17
Tag:
OlGlOO17
Tax Unique Id:
4209063
N C P i n:
165000-18-6339
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
STEVENS, HOWARD BURLAN
JR
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
P O BOX 55
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
BENSON, NC 27504 -0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
03930
Page:
0725
Market Value:
40710
Assessed Acreage:
5.23
Calc. Acreage:
5.23
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
2010 -12 -16
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Scale: 1:7521 - 1 in. = 626.71 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.) Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

nwsy
* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the information represented here.
C
f
i
3
t
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2151481.8872623
Y Coordinate:
607335.15002111
id:
OIG10022
Tag:
OIG10022
Tax Unique Id:
4156062
NC Pi n:
165000 -27 -1121
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
SEWARES, MAURILLA A
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
101 BAYVIEW ISLE DR
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
ISLAMORADA, FL 33036 -3308
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
Page:
Market Value:
179700
Assessed Acreage:
68.6
Calc. Acreage:
68.61
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ :
NIA
City Limits:
NIA
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Scale: 1:3357 - 1 in.= 279.76 feet
{The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.l
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
C�
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2150921.1120676
Y Coordinate:
607241.81298005
id:
OIG10035J
Tag:
O1 G10035J
Tax Unique Id:
4162369
N C P i n:
165000-06-8845
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
WILKINS, JOHN P
Owner Name 2:
WILKINS, DORIS M
Mail Address 1:
40 WILKINS ONEAL RD
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
00903
Page:
0842
Market Value:
38250
Assessed Acreage:
5
Calc. Acreage:
5.162
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
1981 -01 -01
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
NIA
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
OverLay Zoning:
NIA
N Scale: 1:4055 - 1 in. = 337.93 feet
Johnston County GIS
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.) May 18, 20115

�U�li4�CON �
N' QRTIL.0 AR(i L l N n
f 1
(V
I
4
*** DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
z
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2150592.570075
Y Coordinate:
607453.018546671
id:
01 A99003F
Tag:
OIA99003F
Tax Unique Id:
4217390
NC Pi n:
165000 -07 -4355
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
EARNEST, DONALD V
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
9820 US HWY 301 S
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -0000
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
01569
Page:
0846
Market Value:
22500
Assessed Acreage:
1
Calc. Acreage:
0.996
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
1997 -01 -14
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
N/A
Scale: 1:4055 - 1 in. = 337.93 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GiS
May 18, 2015

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the information represented here,
Scale: 1 :4055 - 1 in. = 337.93 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2150268.7215395
Y Coordinate:
607434.24471856
id:
01GIO034D
Tag:
OIG10034D
Tax Unique Id:
4218903
NCPin:
165000 -07 -1377
Mapsheet No:
1650
Owner Name 1:
EARNEST, DONALD VAN
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
9820 US HWY 301 S
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -0000
Site Address 1:
9820 US 301 HWY
Site Address 2:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -
Book:
00971
Page:
0163
Market Value:
69670
Assessed Acreage:
1
Calc. Acreage:
1.03
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
1984 -01 -01
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
N/A
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
N/A
County Zoning:
AR
OverLay Zoning:
N/A
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
J
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2149874.4711484
Y Coordinate:
607481.I7928893
id:
O1 G l 0034F
Tag:
O1 G 10034F
Tax Unique Id:
4218904
N CPi n:
164000 -97 -7397
Mapsheet No:
1640
Owner Name 1:
MIZNER, ERIC P
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1:
PO BOX 1490
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -0000
Site Address 1:
9870 US 301 H'WY
Site Address 2:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -
Book:
03I67
Page:
0907
Market Value:
149820
Assessed Acreage:
2.18
Calc. Acreage:
2.468
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
2006 -07 -28
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
Elevation 'Water District
ETJ:
NIA
City Limits:
N/A
Town Zoning:
NIA
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
NIA
:v
Scale: 1:4055 - 1 in.= 337.93 feet
Johnston County CIS
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.) May 18, 2015

* * * DISCLAIMER * * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
Scale: 1 :4055 - 1 in. = 337.93 feet
Y(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Parcel Report
X Coordinate:
2149536.5422417
Y Coordinate:
60740139051931
id:
01 G 100320
Tag:
OIG10032C
Tax Unique Id:
3990581
N C P i n:
164000 -97 -4083
Mapsheet No:
1640
Owner Name 1:
MCLEAN, MIRANDA MOORE &
Owner Name 2:
MCLEAN, REGINALD
PHILBERT
Mail Address 1:
10008 U S 301 S
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -8939
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book:
04451
Page:
0591
Market Value:
41810
Assessed Acreage:
5.53
Calc. Acreage:
5.39
Sales Price:
45000
Sale Date:
2014 -05 -23
Township:
Elevation
Water District:
Elevation Water District
ETJ:
NIA
City Limits:
NIA
Town Zoning:
NIA
County Zoning:
AR
Overlay Zoning:
NIA
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

M
* * * DISCLAIMER * "
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the Information represented here.
1 ,
i
Parcel Report
G X Coordinate: 21493769647025
Y Coordinate: 607147.94383932
id: OI G10032B
Tag: OIG10032B
Scale: 1:4055 - 1 in. = 337.93 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015
Tax Unique Id:
4218878
N C P i n:
164000-96-3721
Mapsheet No:
1640
Owner Name 1:
MCLEAN, MIRANDA MOORE &
Owner Name 2:
MCLEAN, REGINALD
PHILBERT
Mail Address 1:
10008 U S 301 S
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -8939
Site Address 1:
10010 US 301 HWY
Site Address 2:
FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -
Book:
01659
Page:
0658
Market Value:
61300
Assessed Acreage:
4.55
Calc. Acreage:
4396
Sales Price:
0
Sale Date:
1997 -12 -18
Township:
Banner
Water District:
Elevation Water ]district
ETJ:
N/A
City Limits:
NIA
Town Zoning:
NIA
Zoning:
AR
\County
Overlay Zoning:
NIA
Scale: 1:4055 - 1 in. = 337.93 feet
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County GIS
May 18, 2015

..... rucr•l AIOAPR * * *
:ion represented here.
Parcel Report
x Coordinate:
2149231.4675343
Y Coordinate:
607467.09891792
id:
01 G 16032A
Tag:
01 G 10032A
Tax Unique Id:
4230761
P"
164000 -96 -1715
In In.
Mapsheet No: 1640
owner Name 1: MCLEAN, NHPANDA M
owner Name 2: MCLEAN, REGINALD
Mail Address 1: 10005 US HWY 301 S
Mail Address 2:
Mail Address 3: FOUR OAKS, NC 27524 -0000
Site Address 1: 10120 US 301 HW'Y
Site Address 2: FOUR OAKS, NC 27524
Book: 03080
page: 0482
Market Value: 131610
Assessed Acreage: 6.11
Calc. Acreage: 6.036
Sales Price: 50000
Sale Cate: 2006 -03 -10
Township: Elevation
` Water District: Elevation Water District
ETJ: N/A
City Limits: N/A
Town Zoning: N/A
County Zoning: AR
overlay Zoning: NIA
Scale: 1:4uaa - 11", --
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a size sheet with no page scaling.)
Johnston County 613
May 18, 2015

QHI�jCON ,.
NO$'ffi +CAROLINA
* * * DISCLAIMER * *
Johnston County assumes no legal responsibility for the information represented here.
parcel Report
X Coordinate: 2148823.1367721
X Coordinate: 607298.1344645
id: O1GIO024
Tag: OIGI0024
Tax Unique Id- 4162345
NCPin: 164000 -76 -7761
Mapsheet No: 1640
Owner Name 1: KiNSE`ai, FREDDY G
Owner Name 2:
Mail Address 1: 199 LAFAYETTE DR
Mail Address 2: E, NC 28001 -7847
Mail Address 3: AI BEMARl-
Site Address 1:
Site Address 2:
Book: 01002
page: 0049
Market Value: 171310
Assessed Acreage:
Cale. Acreage: 40.886
Sales Price: 0
Sale Date: 1986 -01 -01
Township: Banner
VVater District: Elevation Water District
ETJ: NIA
City Limits: N/A
Town Zoning: NIA
County Zoning: AR
Overlay Zoning: NIA
Ili\
scale: 'Au3a - - escaling.y
(The scale Is only accurate when printed landscape on a slxe sheet with no pa9
Johnston County GIS
may 18, 2015

APPENDIX M: Revised / Supplemental Figures
19
Benson Quarry Expansion

uuunsoicuonai vveuano Hrea reef
SourceArnage Features by Martin Marietta
IMarti
1 I/II� h`%� c -r iett _7
iii
and provided ' The information
Materials. only and was not prepared for,
depicted on this figure is for
and is not suitable for legal
informational purposes
or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
3.1.1 No Action Alternative
Project:
ER12191.01
SERVICES, INC.
Date:
July 2015
4901 Trademark Drive
Benson Quarry
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Raleigh,
(919)212 -1760
Drwn /Chkd: DB /KT
(919)212 -1707 FAX
Johnston County, North Carolina
wwwenvironmentalservicesinc. com
Figure:
2.1
Path: P: \GeoGra \Projects \2012 \191 \GIS \01 \PPS Fig 1_1_DAN.mxd Date:
7/6 /2015 3:59:55 PM

1?
1 t.
t
f
} j
ddr
i
4td l s,,
i_j Potential Storage ; �`
Ilttd
Future Stripping g � ` o sso goo
D Future Pit Expansion
.r
OJurisdictional Wetland Area Feet
/AMartinSouroearrlage and Features provided by Martin Marietta Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
- 1 cr ieft � Materials. only and was not prepared fof, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
`\ ENVIRONMENTAL 3.1.3 Removal of Existing Waste Pile Project: ER12191.01
SERVICES, INC.
4901 Trademark Drive Date: July 2015
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 Benson Quarry
(919)212 -1760 Drwn /Chkd: DB /KT
(919)212 -1707 FAX Johnston County, North Carolina
www.environmentalservicesinacom
Figure: 2.2
Path: P:\GeoGra \Projects \2012 \191 \GIS \01 \PPS Fig_13DAN .mxd Date: 7 /6/2015 4:01:16 PM

L.
1,
f
1
1
1
OJurisdictional Wetland Area Feet
/AMartinSource:lrriage and Features provided by Martin Marietta Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
-mcrietto Materials. only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes
ENVIRONMENTAL 3.1.4 Relocation of Primary Crushing Station
SERVICES, INC.
Trademark Drive
Rale Benson Quarry
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919) 212 -1760
(919)212 -1707 FAX Johnston County, North Carolina
wwwenvironmentalservicesinc. com
Path: P: \GeoGra \Projects \2012 \191 \GIS \01 \PPS Fig_14DAN .mxd Date: 7 /6/2015 1:34:30 PM
Project: ER12191.01
Date: July 2015
Drwn /Chkd: DB /KT
Figure: 2.3

J�
Potential Storage
Future Pit Expansion
Proposed Diversion Channel
M Wetland Impact Of/V
D Indirect Wetland Impact v
V�
I0 350 700
1
=J-
Feet
,
Martin,
SourceArnage Features by Martin Marietta
_ 1.,i;, r ieftr �
and provided
Materials.
only and was not prepared for, and
I I Disclaimer: The information depicted
on this figure is for
is not suitable for legal
informational purposes
or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
3.1.5 Pit Expansion Through Wetlands with
Project:
ER12191.01
SERVICES, INC.
Diversion Channel North of Overburden Pile
Date:
July 2015
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Benson Quarry ry
(919) 212 -1707 FAX
Drwn /Chkd:
DB /KT
wwwen— mentalservicesinc.com
Johnston County, North Carolina
Figure:
2.4
Path: P:NGeoGra \Projects \2012 \191NGIS \01 \PPS Fig_1_5_DAN .mxd Date: 716/2015 2:11:04 PM

Wetland Impact
=Indirect Wetland Impact Feet
/AMartinSourCeArnage and Features provided by Martin Marietta Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
_ 1 f crieftr 11 Materials. I 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: July 2015
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 Benson Quarry ry Drwn /Chkd: DB /KT
(9
19) 212 -1707 FAX
www— monmentalservicesinc.com Johnston County, North Carolina Figure: 2.5
Path: P: \GeoGra\ Projects\ 2012 \191 \GIS \01 \PPS Fig_16DAN .mxd Date: 7/7/201510:14:45 AM

J
1 W VV
` I Rv
Potential Storage c`
Future Stripping
D Future Pit Expansion o sso 700
OJurisdictional Wetland Area r Feet
/AMartinSourceArnage and Features provided by Martin Marietta Disclaimer: The information depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
_ \ 1�1 IG�� Materials. only and was not prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
"\ ENVIRONMENTAL Project: ER12191.01
SERVICES, INC. 3.1.7 Construction of New Plant or Piton Johnson Property
Date: July 2015
4901 Trademark Drive Benson Quarry
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
(919)212 -1760 Drwn /Chkd: DB /KT
(919)212 -1707 FAX Johnston County, North Carolina
wwwenvironmentalservicesinc. com Figure: 2.6
Path: P: \GeoGra \Projects \2012 \191 \GIS \01 \PPS Fig_17DAN .mxd Date: 7 /6/2015 2:56:41 PM

tST
C�7
f.
Property Boundary
Potential Overburden Storage Area
0 Potential Pit Area
0 350 700
mmi__ M111
A
N •:n.eMan. N e,nt Feet
MartinSourceArnage
Features by Martin Marietta
BrieMaterials.
} �_� _
and provided
Disclaimer: The info malion depicted
only and was not prepared for, and
on this figure is for
is not suitable for legal
informational purposes
or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Allen Property
Project:
ER12191.01
SERVICES, INC.
Date:
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Benson Quarry
June 2015
(919)212 -1760
Drwn /Chkd: KT /RT
�°`'"
(919)212 -1707 FAX
Johnston County, North Carolina
warvv.env�ronmentalservicesinc. coin
Figure:
6
Path: P:NGeoGra \Projects \2012 \191 \01 \GIS \PPS Fig_AIIenTractV2_2.mxd
Date: 6 /15/2015 2:18:45 PM

APPENDIX N: Real Estate Summary Table and Listing Information
20
Benson Quarry Expansion

Recent Property Listings near Benson, NC
Information obtained from Whittco Properties (919) 820 -2491
Julia Whittington, JGWRealtor @aol.com
Property MLS# I
List Price I
Sale price I
Acreage
Cost per Acre I
1972981
$37,690
$32,000
22.0
$1,455
1838316
$79,900
$54,000
8.9
$6,067
1972983
$43,810
$40,000
14.0
$2,857
1938316
$79,900
$54,000
8.9
$6,067
1995984
$25,000
$25,000
5.7
$4,371
1994551
$129,500
Pending
54.0
$2,398
1990769
$169,900
Pending
20.5
$8,288
1993848
$175,999
$162,000
44.0
$3,682
1921001
$320,000
Pending
67.3
$4,755
TOTAL ** 1 $986,400 1 245.3 1 $4,021 1
** - Total Includes List Prices for those "Pending" to determine the Average Cost per Acre presented.

Agent Detail
Julia Whittington
Pr fPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties
JGWReallor (@acl.com
www.whiticooror)erties.com
Views
TMLS Buyer Full vr
Listings
400 Holly Grove Road
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1972981 Price: $32,000
Triangle MLS, Inc.
Print
Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 919.820 -2491
Whitteo Properties -OFC: 919. 207 -1700
MLS #:9972981 Status:CLOSED
400 Holly Grove Road Unit#: 1 Lot#: 3A
y Area: 3251J
;.`'' L't , ` Benson , NC 27504 (City Limits Of):
Subd: Not in a Subdivision /Nghbd:
Possession: At Time Of Closing
I Remarks
I I
Classified as Farm Use /Forestry Tract in the Meadow Township- Property
Lot Size: 22.00
with approximately 22 acres located off Hwy 50 on a paved road with no
thru traffic arid within 1 V2 miles of 140 access. this is one of two parcels
Apprax Lot SgFt
for sale on this road. This parcel is treed. Listing agent related to Seller.
Road Frontage
Cleared Acres 4.00
Wooded Acres 22.00
Directions
Price per Acre 1,713.00
f
Location Rural
Intersection of 140 and Hwy 96, take Hwy 96 112 miles to Hwy So, T!R on Hwy
50, go 1 mile, T1R on Holly Grove
School Information
El 1: Johnston - Meadow EI 2:
Mi 1: Johnston - Meadow Mi 2:
Hi t: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
General Information
Year Built New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: ,Ownership:
Prim Res:
Property Leased: No Month to Month: Lease Expires:
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: $37,690,00 Tax Rate 0.78000
Zoning: Inside City: N
Financial Comments Oil/Gas Rights Severed?
www.whitteoproperties.com
JGWRealtor @aol.com
LAND
DOM:81 LP: $37,690
CDOM:81 SP:$32,000
Financial Concessions None
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 3/2/2e15
ESUCIOsing Date 3/26/2015
Measurements- Lot
Lot Dim 994x877x116x139x806.,
Total HOA Dues:
Lot Information
Perk Test No
Perk Test Date
WaterlSewer Fee
# of Beds Yielded
Deed Restrictions None known
Restrictive Covenants No
I Features
Improvements No Improvements Restrictions Sub)_ Zoning
Vegetation Heavy Wood
i
1
7
I

View Listings
Agent Detail
Julia Whittington
PrfPh: 919- 820 -2491
Whittco Properties
JGVVRealtorna aol.com
www.whittc:or)ror)erties.com
Views
TMLS Buyer Full
Listings
1380 Morgan Road
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1938316 Price: $54,000
Triangle MILS, Inc.
_, Pint
Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties - OFC: 919 -207 -1700
MLS #:1938816 Status: CLOSED
1380 Morgan Road Unit#: r Lot#: 000
Area: 325/K
Benson NC 27504 (City Limits Ot):
4� Subd: Not in a Subdivision INghbd:
Possession: At Time Of Closing
Page 1 of 1
www.whittcoproperties -com
[e-mail]
LAND
DOM :191 LP: $79,900
CDOM:372 SP:$54,000
Financial Concessions
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 8/23/2014
Est/Closing Date 1011/2014
I Remarks
I I
Measurements- Lot
Country Living at its finest! This beautiful nearly 9 acre track has the
Lot Size: 8.90
Lot Dim: See Remarks
peace & quiet of the country with the convenience of diners and shops
Approx Lot SgFt
Total HOA Dues:
just a few miles away! Perfect for horses, gardens, and your dream home!
Land includes older cottage for renovation, if desired. SeptieWell on site.
I
Lot Information
Three lots: 7a on lot with cottage, nearly 2a across road. MOTIVATED
seller will divide.
Road Frontage
Perk Test No
Cleared Acres
Perk Test Date
Wooded Acres
WatedSewer Fee
Price per Acre
V. of Beds Yielded
I Directions
I Location
From 195 South, take Exit 79. Turn LEFT at the end of the ramp, go apx. 112
mile and turn LEFT onto Morgan Road. Follow Morgan Rd for 2 miles and
Deed Restrictions None
you have reached the property.
Restrictive Covenants No
School Information
El 1: Johnston -Benson El 2:
Mi 1: Johnston - Benson Mi 2:
Hi 1: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
General Information
Year Built New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Property Leased: Month to Month: Lease Expires
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: $67,760.00 Tax Rate 0.00000
Zoning: Inside City: N
Financial Comments Oil/Gas Rights Severed?
Features
Road Description Public Maintenance, Street Vegetation Brush, Cleared
http: / /triangle.paragonrels. com /publink/ default. aspx? GUID= f78c8dae- Oc5e- 479a- aOc4- 8130642d89aa &Report=Yes 5/28/2015

View Listings
Triangle MILS, Inc.
Agent Detail Print
Julia Whittington Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 919 - 820 -2491
PrfPh: 919 -820 -2491 Whittco Properties - QFC: 919- 207 -1700
Whittco Properties
J t _ol.com
www.whiftcoDrot)erties.com _ MLS #:1972983 Status: CLOSED
Views Lot 3B E Holly Grove Road Unit#: / Lot#: 38
Area: 325lJ
Benson NC 27504 (City Limits Of)
TMLS Buyer Full Subd: Not in a Subdivision / Nghbd:
Listings Possession: At Time Of Closing
Lot 38 E Holly Grove Road
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1972983 Price: $40,000
I Remarks
Classified as Farm Use in the Meadow Township. Property with Lot Size: 14.00
approximately 14 acres located off Hwy 50 on a paved road with no thru Approx Lot SgFt
traffic and within 1 112 miles of 140 access. This is one of two parcels for
sate on this road. This parcel has 6.53 acres cleared and is currently
farmed; the remaining acres are treed. Listing agent related to Seller.
Road Frontage 676
Cleared Acres 6.50
Wooded Acres 7,00
Price per Acre 3,129.00
Directions Location
Intersection of 140 and Hwy 96, take Hwy 96 112 miles to Hwy 50, T1R on Hwy
50 no 1 mile TIR on Holly Grove
School Information
El 1: Johnston - Meadow El 2:
Mi 1: Johnston -Meadow Mi 2:
Hi 1: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
1 General Information
Year Built New Construction: Est Fn Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Property Leased: No Month to Month: Lease Expires:
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: $43,810.00 Tax Rate 0.78000
Zoning: Inside City: N
Financial Comments Oil/Gas Rights Severed?
Page 1 of 1
www.whittcoproperties.com
JGWRealtor @_aol.com
LAND
DOM:34 LP: $43,810
CDOM:34 SP :$40,000
Financial Concessions None
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 11/612014
ESUClosing Date 11!1/2014
Measurements- Lot
Lot Dim: 678x608x281x462x106...
Total HOA Dues:
Lot Information
Perk Test No
Perk Test Date
WaterlSewer Fee
# of Beds Yielded
Deed Restrictions None known
Restrictive Covenants No
Features
Restrictions No Restrictions
Vegetation Cleared, Hardwoods
http : /f triangle. paragonrels. comJpublink ldefault.aspx ?GUID= def72910- 3156- 4d9e -94d l - 7059192f8e6f &Report =Yes 5/28/2015

View Listings
I School Information
El 1: Johnston - Benson El 2:
Mi 1: Johnston - Benson Mi 2:
Hi 1: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
1 General Information
Year Built: New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Properly Leased: Month to Month: Lease Expires:
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: $57,760.00 Tax Rate 0.00000
Zoning: Inside City: N
Financial Comments 07 /G2s Rights Severed?
Page 1 of 1
www.whittcoproperties.com
JCWRealtor @aol.com
LAND
® DOM:191 LP: $79,900
CE101 2 SP:$54,000
Financial Concessions
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 8/2312014
Est/Closing Date 1011/2014
Measurements- Lot
Lot Dim: See Remarks
Toted HOA Dues:
Lot Information
Perk Test No
Perk Test Date
Water /Sewer Fee
# of Beds Yielded
Features
Road Description Public Maintenance, Street Vegetation Brush, Cleared
http:// triangle .paragonrels.cornlpublinkl default. aspx? GUID= f7$ c8dae- Oc5e- 479a- aOc4- 8I30642d89aa &ReporrYes 5/28/2015
Triangle MILS, Inc.
Agent Detail
Print
Julia Whittington
Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 979 - 820 -24911
PrIPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties
Whittco Properties - OFC: 919 - 207 -1700
JGWReattcria?aaertie
www.whittcoorooerties.com
MLS #:1938316 Status :CLOSED
1380 Morgan Road UUnit*
1 Lot#: 000
Views
Area: 3251K
TMLS Buyer Full
Benson NC 27504 (City Limits Cif):
Subd: Not in a Subdivision
1 Nghbd:
Listings
Possession. AtTime=losing
1380 Morgan Road
Q,
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1938316 Price: $54,000
Remarks
Country Living at Its finest! This beautiful nearly 9 acre track has the
Lot Size: 8.90
peace & quiet of the country with the convenience of diners and shops
Approx Lot SgFt
just a few miles away! Perfect for horses, gardens, and your dream home!
Land includes older cottage for renovation, if desired. Septic/Well on site.
Three lots: 7a on lot with cottage, nearly 2a across road. MOTIVATED
seller will divide.
Road Frontage
Cleared Acres
Wooded Acres
Price per Acre
Directions
Location
From 195 South, take Exit 79. Turn LEFT at the end of the ramp, go apx. 1/2
mile and turn LEFT onto Morgan Road. Follow Morgan Rd for 2 miles and
Deed Restrictions None
you have reached the property.
Restrictive Covenants No
I School Information
El 1: Johnston - Benson El 2:
Mi 1: Johnston - Benson Mi 2:
Hi 1: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
1 General Information
Year Built: New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Properly Leased: Month to Month: Lease Expires:
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: $57,760.00 Tax Rate 0.00000
Zoning: Inside City: N
Financial Comments 07 /G2s Rights Severed?
Page 1 of 1
www.whittcoproperties.com
JCWRealtor @aol.com
LAND
® DOM:191 LP: $79,900
CE101 2 SP:$54,000
Financial Concessions
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 8/2312014
Est/Closing Date 1011/2014
Measurements- Lot
Lot Dim: See Remarks
Toted HOA Dues:
Lot Information
Perk Test No
Perk Test Date
Water /Sewer Fee
# of Beds Yielded
Features
Road Description Public Maintenance, Street Vegetation Brush, Cleared
http:// triangle .paragonrels.cornlpublinkl default. aspx? GUID= f7$ c8dae- Oc5e- 479a- aOc4- 8I30642d89aa &ReporrYes 5/28/2015

View Listings
Agent Detail
Julia Whittington
PrfPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties
JGWRealtar0aol,com
www.whiftcoDror)erties.com
Views
TMLS Buyer Full
Listings
Zacks Mill Road
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1995984
5839 Elevation Road
Benson, INC 27504
MLS: 1921001
Triangle MLS, Inc.
Piint
Julia Whittington - PrfPh:91"20 -2491
Whittco Properties - 4FC: 919- 207 -1700
MLS #:1995984 Status:CLOSED
fir• — - �_ ���� Zacks Milt Road Unit* / Lot#.0
Area: 325/1-
Benson NC 27504 (City Limits Ot):
Subd: Not in a Subdivision / Nghbd:
— ! Possession: At Time Of Closing
Price: $25,000
Remarks
Build your dream home! Almost 6 acres heavily wooded lot, very private Lot Size: 5.72
Price: $320,000 and secluded. Needs septic. Approx Lot SgFt
Road Frontage
Cleared Acres
Wooded Acres
Price per Acre
Directions Location
Hwy 50 South, left at Jacks Restaurant onto Zacks Mill Rd, property about 1
mile down on left Neighbor is address for GPS is: 196 Zacks Mill. Close to Deed Restrictions none
exit 319 off of 140. Restrictive Covenants No
I School Information
El 1: Johnston - McGees Crossroa... El 2:
MI 1: Johnston - McGees Crossroa... Mi 2
Hi 1: Johnston - W Johnston Hi 2:
1 General Information
Year Bult New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Property Leased: No Month to Month: Lease Expires:
Public Data, Taxes, Financing i
Tax value: $42,600.00 Tax Rate 0.05300
Zoning: Inside City. N
Financial Comments Ol/Gas Rights Severed?
Features
Restrictions No Restrictions
Page I of I
www.whittcoproperties.com
[e-mail]
LAND
0 DOM:16 LP: $25,000
CDOM:16 SP:$25,000
Financial Concessions 0
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 4/29/2015
Est/Closing Date 5/20/2015
Measurements- Lot
Lot Dim:
Total H ©A Dues:
Lot Information
Perk Test No
Perk Test Rate
Water /Sewer Fee
# of Beds Yielded
Vegetation Heavy Wood
http // triangle.paragonrels.camlpuhlinkl default. aspx ?GUID= c5dOcO7c- 689a- 4a7c- 9d19- fl2ffd976319 &Report =Yes 5/28/2015

View Listinu
Agent Detail
Julia Whittington
PrfPh: 919 -520 -2491
Whitteo Properties
JGWRea1tor0aol.com
www,whittcooroDerties. com
Views
TMLS Buyer Full -i
Listings
NC 50 Highway
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1994551 Price: $129,500
Print
Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 919 - 820 -2491
Whitteo Properties - OFC: 919- 207.1700
Triangle MLS, Inc.
MLS #:1994551 Status: PENDING
INC 50 Highway Unit#: / Lot#: 0
Area: 325/L
Benson NC 27504 (City Limits Of):
Subd: Not in a Subdivision / Nghbd.
Possession: At Time Of Closing
Special Conditions Auction
Page 1 of 1
www.whittcoproperties.com
JG WReaftor [e-mail]
LAND
DOM:40 LP: $129,500
CDOMA0 SP:
Financial Concessions
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 412012015
Est/Closing Date 6/9/2015
Remarks
Measurements- Lot
Pricing is for MLS purposes only, property to be sold at auction on
Lot Size: 54.00
Lot Dim:
Tuesday, April 14th at Spm. 48 hour broker pre - registration required. This
Approx Lot SgFt:
Total HOA Dues:
54+ acre tract is approximately 3 miles North of Benson and in a great
location for investing! There is a large field that Is ready to plant this
Lot Information
Spring.
Road Frontage
Perk Test No
Cleared Acres
Perk Test Date
Wooded Acres
Water /Sewer Fee
Price per Acre
# of Beds Yielded
Directions
Location
From Angier take 'Hwy 21ON right on Hwy 50 towards Benson.
Deed Restrictions na
Restrictive Covenants
No
I School Information
El 1: Johnston - Benson El 2:
Mi 1: Johnston -Benson Mi 2:
Hi 1: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
1 General Information
Year Built New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Property Leased: No Month to Month: Lease Expires:
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: 51 U6,850.00 Tax Rats 0.87000
Zoning: RA Inside City: N
Sales Options Other OII/Gas Rights Severed?
Financial Comments
Features - J
Restrictions Other Vegetation Brush
http: // triangle. paragonrels. comlpublink ldefault.aspx ?GUII)= c82f7e23- 3894 -49fl - 9fD3- 5619f2953f58 &Repor--Yes 5/28/21015

View Listings
Agent Detail
Julia Whittington
PrtPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties
JGWRealtor(o aol.corn
www.whittcoDronerties.com
Views
TMLS Buyer FWI , Iwl-
Listings
1175 N Johnson Street
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1990769 Price: $169,900
_ Print
Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 919 -620 -2491
Whinco Properties -OFC: 919 -207 -1700
Triangle MILS, Inc_
MLS #:1990769 Status:PENDING
1175 N Johnson Street Unit#: 1 Lot# :0
Area: 3251C
Benson NC 27504 {City Limits ©t}:
Subd: Not in a Subdivision I Nghbd:
Possession: AtTimeof'Closing
Remarks
IDEAL COMMERCIAL LOCATION. PRICE WELL BELOW TAX VALUE
I Directions
HWY 301 NORTH. RIGHT ON WEST MAIN ST.LEFT ON N.JOHNSON ST.
PROPERTY ON THE LEFT
School Information
El 1: Johnston - Benson EI 2:
ME 1: Johnston -Benson Mi 2:
Hi 1: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
General Information
Year Built New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Property Leased: No Month to Month: Lease Expires:
I Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: $220,400.00 Tax Rate 1.31000
Zoning: 12 Inside City: Y
Financial Comments OiGGas Rights Severed?
Buildings No Buildings
Lot Size: 20.47
Approx Lot SgFt
Road Frontage
Cleared Acres
Wooded Acres
Price per Acre
JLocation
Page 1 of 1
www.whittcoproperties.com
[e-mail]
LAND
© DOM:41 LP: $169,900
CDOM:41 SP:
Financial Concessions
Contingent Addendum
Contract Hate 3126/2015
EsMiosing Date 9/26/2015
Measurements- Lot
Lot Dim:
Total HOA Dues:
Lot Information
Perk Test No
Perk Test Date
Water /Sewer Fee
# of Beds Yielded
Deed Restrictions NONE
Restrictive Covenants No
Lot Description Partially Cleared
Features
Restrictions Subt. Zoning
Vegetation Cleared, Heavy Wood
http;// triangle. paragonrels. con/publinkldefault.aspx ?GUID =5 d48 9962 -3 b3 5 - 4dab -a63 b -c3 802983118 e &Report-- Yes;bc si- ac -Oa... 5/28/2015

View Listings
Agent Detail
Julia Whittington
PrfPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties
JGWRealtor a aot.com
www.whiftcoaroDerties.com
Views
TMLS Buyer Full
Listings
6276 N NC 50 Highway
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1993848 Price: $162,000
Print
Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties - OFC: 919 -207 -1700
Triangle MILS, Inc.
AILS# :1993848 Status:CLOSED
6276 N NC 50 Highway UniiW: I Lot#:0
Area: 3251K
Benson NC 27504 (City Limits Of)
Subd: Not in a Subdivision 1 Nghbd:
Possession: At Time Of Closing
Remarks 1
Prime Location with All Kinds of Possibilities. This tract contains cleared Lot Size: 44.00
and wooded acreage with Road Frontage. Great access to 1-40 without the Approx Lot SgFt
city taxes! County water is available.
Directions
From Raleigh -140 East to Exit 319 (Hwy210). Take a Right onto Hwy 210.
Then Take a Left onto Hwy 50. Go ap,pr. 4 miles. Property will be on your
Left. From Benson - Take Hwy 50 N out of town. Go approximately S miles.
Property will be on your Lek
I School Information
El 1: Johnston - Four Oaks El 2: Johnston - Benson
Mi 1: Johnston -Four Oaks Mi 2: Johnston -Benson
HI t: Johnston -S Johnston Hi 2:
I General Information
Year Built New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership-
Prim Res:
Property Leased: Yes Month to Month: Lease Expires: 1213112015
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
flax Value: $121,960.00 Tax Rate 0.88000
Zoning: Inside City: N
Financial Comments New Needed and Oil/Gas Rights Severed?
Prequalificatlon with Offers No
I
Farm Use Crop
Road Frontage
Cleared Acres 9.50
Wooded Acres 34.50
Price per Acre 4.000.00
Location
Page 1 of l
www.whiftcoproperties.com
JGWRealtor @aol.com
LAND
C) DOM:40 LP: $175,999
CDOM:40 SP :$162,000
Financial Concessions None
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 411412015
Est/Closing Date 5/15/2015
Measurements- Lot
Lot Dim:
Total HOA Dues:
Lot Information
Perk Test No
Perk Test Date
Water /Sewer Fee
# of Beds Yielded
Deed Restrictions None Known
Restrictive Covenants No
Lot Description Partially Cleared
I
Features
Restrictions No Restrictions
Vegetation Croplands, Hardwoods
http:// triangle. paragonrels. coml pubhnkldefault .aspx?GUID= 754db6c2- 2779- 4c5e -9d 1 d-6584cO7l 8710 &ReporrYes 5/28/2015

View Listings
Agent Detail
Julia Whittington
PrfPW 919 -82p -2491
VVnittco Properties
JGWRealtorCa�aol.cem
www,whittcoorooerties. com
Views
TM LS Buyer Full
Listings
5839 Elevation Road
Benson, NC 27504
MLS: 1921001 Price: $320,000
Print
Julia Whittington - PrfPh: 919 -820 -2491
Whittco Properties - OFC: 919- 207 -1700
I we
-ft
Triangle MILS, Inc.
MLS #:1921001 Status: PENDING
5839 Elevation Road Unit#: ! Lot#:1
Area: 325/L
Benson NC 27504 (City Limits M:
Subd: Not in a Subdivision f Nghbd:
Possession. At Time Of Closing
Page 1 of 1
www.whittGoproperties.com
[e-mail]
LAND
0 DOM:505 LP: $320,000
CDOM :505 SP:
Financial Concessions
Contingent Addendum
Contract Date 417/2015
Est/Closing Date 4130/2016
Remarks i
Measurements- Lot
Nice country estate less than 112 mile from Hwy 50 near McGees XRds.
Lot Size: 67.27
Lot Dim: irregular
Beautiful pond, very quiet & serene. Easy access to 1401210 interchange.
Approx Lot SgFt
Total HOA Dues:
Live in the countrylcommute to the city to work. Bring the horses, swans
and geese & family! This could be your "Little piece of Heaven" or divided
I
Lot Information
up into mini - farms. A beautiful, must see slice of Johnston Countyl
Road Frontage
perk Test No
Cleared Acres 21.00
Perk Test Date
Wooded Acres 40.00
Water /Sewer Fee
Price per Acre 4.776.00
# of Beds Yielded
Directions
Location Rural
1440 E from Raleigh, Exit 319 @ Nc210W toward Angier, Lefton Hwy 50, Left
on Elevation Rd., Farm on Right
Deed Restrictions none
Restrictive Covenants No
Lot Description Partially Cleared,
Pasture, Secluded
School Information
El 1: Johnston - Benson El 2:
Mi 1: Johnston -Benson Mi 2:
Hi 1: Johnston - S Johnston Hi 2:
1 General Information
Year Built New Construction: Est Fin Date:
Builder Name: Ownership:
Prim Res:
Property Leased: Yes Month to Month: Lease Expires: 1 2131 12 01 3
Public Data, Taxes, Financing
Tax Value: $271,120.00 Tax Rate 0.78000
Zoning: RAG Inside City: N
Sales Options Farm Credit Oil/Gas Rights Severed?
Financial Comments
Features I
Buildings No Buildings Miscellaneous Horses OK Vegetation Brush, Croplands, Pasture
http:// triangle. paragonrels .comlpublinkldefault.aspx ?GUID= 771682fd -5el l- 4aala- blbl- 8507b396877b &Report =Yes 5/28/2015

APPENDIX O: Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring Plan
21
Benson Quarry Expansion

Benson Quarry
Groundwater and Surface Water
Monitoring Plan
Johnston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
/A Martin
Marietta
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
June 2015

Benson Quarry
Groundwater and Surface Water
Monitoring Plan
Johnston County, North Carolina
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 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 submitting an 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 preferred alternative for this project will include diversion of hydrology in the Stony Fork wetland
system on the property. This diversion will occur upstream of the proposed direct wetland impacts.
The portion of this wetland system between the diversion channel and the direct impact area (Figure 1)
may be subject to indirect impacts as a result of this hydrologic alteration. Potential indirect impacts
may include changes to natural hydrology which may affect the quality of the wetlands in this area
through changes in the number, frequency, duration, and level of flooding events, changes in
groundwater levels and shallow groundwater recharge, or other changes in hydroperiod. The degree
and magnitude of these potential indirect impacts can not be reliably quantified nor can the impacts be
determined to be benign, adverse, or beneficial based solely on information available at this time.
The purpose of this document is to provide a plan for monitoring hydrology levels in this area to
determine if changes in wetland quality occur as a result of changes to groundwater and surface water
levels within the current jurisdictional wetland system.
2.0 Existing Conditions
The Stony Fork wetland system on the Benson Quarry property has been characterized as a
Bottomland Hardwood Forest per the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method ( NCWAM). An
NCWAM evaluation was performed in July 2014 and the majority of the system, including the area
that may be subject to indirect impacts, was determined to be High Quality. One small portion of the
system within the proposed direct impact area was determined to be Medium Quality.
The Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina depicts three soil mapping units throughout the
wetland system within the study area: Altavista fine sandy loam, 0 -2% slopes, occasionally flooded
(AaA); Bibb sandy loam, frequently flooded (Bb); and Gilead sandy loam, 8 -15% slopes (GeD). AaA
is a moderately well drained soil on low ridges on stream terraces, and is classified as a Class B hydric
soil. Bb consists of very deep, poorly drained soils on flood plains along streams, and is classified as a
Class A hydric soil. GeD is a moderately well drained soil on side slopes and uplands.
1

3.0 Monitoring Guidelines
Martin will install a sufficient number of monitoring gauges within the portion of the wetland system
where indirect impacts may occur to document the hydrologic response to the construction of the
diversion channel. Martin proposed to install two (2) monitoring gauges on the upstream side of the
direct impacts area. This will allow for characterization of hydrologic variations as a result of
elevation changes and soil series differences within these areas. Figure 1 depicts the approximate
proposed locations for the installation of the monitoring gauges.
Martin will also install two (2) monitoring gauges within the portion of the wetland system upstream
of the diversion channel in order to provide reference condition hydrologic data. Hydrology in this
area is expected to remain unaffected by the construction of the preferred alternative. A rainfall gauge
will also be installed on the site to collect precipitation data for the site. Figure 1 depicts the
approximate proposed locations for the installation of the reference gauges.
Since it is currently known that jurisdictional hydrology is met in these areas, monitoring gauges to be
used in all locations will be 20 inches deep. Monitoring gauges and the rain gauge proposed for use
are manufactured by Remote Data Systems. These are automatic gauges that will be programmed to
collect data at the same time daily.
NCWAM evaluations will also be performed in both of the areas identified as having the potential for
indirect impacts to occur. These evaluations will be conducted once yearly during the growing season.
4.0 Reporting
Gauges will be programmed such that hydrologic data at each monitoring gauge station will be
collected daily, with manual downloading of the gauge data undertaken monthly. A monitoring report
will be prepared at the end of each year for regulatory agency review. This annual monitoring report
will provide groundwater and surface water level data presented in summary tables and graphs,
including data for the reference gauges. Each annual monitoring report will also include the results of
the NCWAM evaluation.
5.0 Monitoring Duration and Regulatory Determination
Monitoring will occur for a period of three years. After three years, the regulatory agencies will
review the hydrologic data and conduct site visits to determine the degree that the proposed alternative
has affected the monitored portions of the wetland system. At that time, the regulatory agencies may
request that Martin continue the monitoring effort for one or more years, expand or decrease the
number of gauges or site evaluated by the monitoring effort, or cease the monitoring effort entirely. If
it is determined that no additional monitoring is needed, Martin requests that the agencies make a
determination as the extent of the indirect impacts on the Stony Fork wetlands. If indirect impacts
have been documented as having occurred that are detrimental to the quality of those wetlands, Martin
will propose to mitigate for those impacts at a 1:1 ratio by payment to a private mitigation bank. If
credits are not available from a private mitigation bank, Martin will make payment to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services
In -lieu Fee Program, in accord with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 - 214.11 and 143- 214.20.
2

GeB
ucB
:aeE
I
1.
f
:-
�\ f l h
AsA A
1'� l
h
AaA
-
91i
4
,r woE
W
RnF
-'N0 6
I = ® Approximate Monitoring Well Locations
C NRCS Soil Boundary
GeB ,
Le
0 350 700
Feet
r. fill`
Martin
SourceArnage Features by Martin Marietta
. _
1 /icr Ieftr �
and provided
Materials.
Disclaimer: The
only and was not
informalion depicted on this figure is for informational purposes
prepared for, and is not suitable for legal or engineering purposes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Approximate Monitoring Well Locations
Project: ER12191.02
SERVICES, INC.
Date: May 2015
4901 Trademark Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Raleigh,
Benson Quarry
(919)212 -1760
Drwn /Chkd: KT /RT
(919)212 -1707 FAX
Johnston County, North Carolina
wnnv.environmentalservicesinc . com
Figure: 1
Path: P:\G -Gra\ Projects\ 2012\ 191 \GIS\Fig1_monitodng_approx.mxd
Date: 5/12/20151:09:09 PM

APPENDIX P: Present Value Costs Memorandum (with consultant
economist resume)
22
Benson Quarry Expansion

Memorandum
To: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
From: Andrew Brod, consulting economist
Date: July 17, 2015
Re: Assessment of alternatives for Benson Quarry 404 Permit Application Addendum
In this memorandum, I report a limited economic assessment of the present value costs of
alternatives for the expansion of Martin Marietta Materials' Benson Quarry in support of
Martin Marietta's 404 Permit Application Addendum.
The alternatives are described in the following table:
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6*
3.1.7a
3.1.7b
Table A:
No Action
2,200,000
Locate a New Quarry
NA
Remove Waste Pile
8,983,616
Relocate Primary
6,237,600
North Diversion
39,573,504
South Diversion
39,573,504
New Plant
40,083,360
New Pit
24,733,440
*Applicant Preferred
2.75
NA
11.23
7.80
49.47
49.47
50.10
30.92
The number of years of reserves is based on an assumption of 800,000 tons produced per
year.
The alternatives differ in terms of their "incremental"' raw2 cost profiles, including the
timing of costs. For example, Alternative 3.1.5 has up -front mitigation costs of nearly
$2.4 million, while Alternative 3.1.7a involves up -front costs of more than $17 million,
including $15 million for a new processing plant, as shown in Addendum Appendix K.
The cost of removing aggregates is common to all alternatives, so the "incremental" cost
of producing aggregates is the cost of removing overburden plus the up -front expenses.
' I am using the term "incremental" cost to describe the costs associated with each
Alternative in excess of per -ton production costs, which I understand are common to all
Alternatives, as stated in Addendum Appendix K footnote (i).
2 I am using the term "raw" costs to refer to the costs presented in Addendum Appendix
K in the rows above the Present Value ( "PV ") cost rows. I calculated the present -value
costs as described in this memorandum.
1

This "incremental" cost varies among the alternatives, ranging from 51 cents to $1.39 per
ton achieved.
The raw costs for all alternatives except Alternative 3.1.2 are summarized in Table B.
Table B: Raw Costs of Alternatives
3.1.3
$2,059,472
3.1.4
3.1.5
$2,371,024
3.1.6
$3,571,024
3.1.7a
$2,059,472
3.1.7b
$2,059,472
*Construction of new primary
$822,488
$7,000,000* $211,273
$381,913
$339,476
$15,000,0004 $323,056
$483,042
#Construction of new plant
A standard approach to compare costs among project alternatives is to calculate their
present values. I undertook these calculations, as well as calculations of the present -
value cost per ton achieved. In order to do so, I discounted future costs according to an
appropriate cost of capital. For this comparison, I used a discount rate of 7.5 %. This
discount rate was used based on my professional judgment as to a reasonable
approximation of a general equity cost of capital for companies in the aggregate
quarrying sector. However, it is important to note that while altering the discount rate
within a reasonable range changes the present -value figures for each alternative, it does
not affect the relative rankings of each alternative. Table C below provides the present -
value "incremental" costs for each alternative as total costs and cost per ton achieved.
Table C: COMDarinLY Alternatives
As with the "incremental" raw costs, these "incremental" present -value costs understate
the total costs due to the exclusion of production costs, which are common to all
alternatives. This presents no problems, however, when the alternatives are compared to
one another.
W
7 of
t.
Incremental
Cost per
Alternative
Total Cost
Ton
3.1.1
$2,348,080
$1.07
3.1.3
$8,155,581
$0.91
3.1.4
$8,213,441
$1.32
3.1.5
$7,320,801
$0.18
3.1.6
$7,970,799
$0.20
3.1.7a
$21,251,903
$0.53
3.1.7b
$7,811,441
$0.32
As with the "incremental" raw costs, these "incremental" present -value costs understate
the total costs due to the exclusion of production costs, which are common to all
alternatives. This presents no problems, however, when the alternatives are compared to
one another.
W

As Table C shows, Alternative 3.1.7a, which involves building a new processing plant, is
by far and away the most expensive alternative in terms of present -value "incremental"
total cost. The 53 -cent present -value "incremental" cost per ton achieved of Alternative
3.1.7a is 163% more than the 20 cents of the applicant - preferred Alternative 3.1.6.
There is a difference of 33 cents per ton between Alternatives 3.1.6 and 3.1.7a. To put
that in context, the USGS Annual Minerals Commodities Summary for Crushed Stone
(Addendum Appendix Q), reports an average price of crushed stone of $10.15 per metric
ton for 2014 (the most recent year for which annual data are available).3 That translates
to $9.21 per short ton. The difference of 33 cents per ton is approximately 3.6% of the
USGS price figure.
3 Annual Minerals Commodities Summary for Crushed Stone, U.S. Geological Survey
(January 2015). httn://minerals.us2s.2ov/ minerals /_pubs /commodity /stone_crushed/mcs-
2015- stonc.Ddf .
3

ANDREW C. BROD
Senior Research Fellow, Bryan School of Business and Economics
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC 27402 -6170
Telephone: [phone], Fax: [phone]
E -mail: AndrewBrod @uncg.edu Web: http: / /cber.uncg.edu
EDUCATION
1992: Ph.D. in Economics, University of Minnesota.
1985: M.A. in Economics, University of Minnesota.
1981: A.B. in Economics and Mathematics, University of Illinois.
Phi Beta Kappa, Cum Laude, and Distinction in Economics.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
2010 — present: Senior Research Fellow, Bryan School of Business and Economics, University of North
Carolina at Greensboro.
1999 -2010: Director, Center for Business and Economic Research, Bryan School of Business and
Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
1989 -99: Instructor and Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro.
1988 -89: Research Associate, University of Minnesota.
1986 -88: Research Associate, Center for Health Policy Research, American Medical Association,
Chicago, Illinois.
1981 -85: Teaching Associate and Research Assistant, University of Minnesota.
RECENT APPLIED RESEARCH STUDIES
"Cityfi: Citywide Public Wi -Fi," with Roch Smith, Jr., for the City of Greensboro's Strong Cities, Strong
Communities Challenge, June 2015.
"Assessing the North Carolina Film Tax Credit," for Winston -Salem Business, Inc., May 2015.
"North Carolina Urban/Suburban Poverty," for the City of Greensboro, September 2014.
"The Economic Impact of the Fuquay - Varina Cultural Arts Center," for the FV Arts Foundation,
September 2014.
"Macroeconomic Assessment of North Carolina's Triad Region," for Kisco Senior Living, August 2013.
"The Economic Impact of Improvements to Highway 17," subcontract to Atkins Global, for the Highway
17 Association, February 2013.
"The History of Norfolk State University," subcontract to Jack Faucett Associates, for the Economic
Impact of Norfolk State University, Norfolk State University, December 2012.
"Analysis of Hendersonville, TN, Apartment Market," for Carroll Companies, May 2012.

Resume —Dr. Andrew Brod
"The Economic Impact of the Whitaker Park Development," for Winston -Salem Business, Inc., June
2011.
"The Economic Impact of RAFI -USA's Tobacco Communities Reinvestment Fund," for the Rural
Advancement Foundation International -USA, May 2011.
"A GIS Chartbook: RAFI -USA's Tobacco Communities Reinvestment Fund," with Bradley Bereitschaft,
for the Rural Advancement Foundation International -USA, May 2011.
"Demographic and Economic Projections: North Carolina in 2040," subcontract to PBS &J, for the North
Carolina Statewide Transportation Plan, North Carolina Department of Transportation, March 2011.
"The Economic Impact of the Proposed National Banjo Center," for Piedmont Folk Legacies, June 2010.
"The Economic Impact of UNCG's Proposed School of Pharmacy," for The University of North Carolina
at Greensboro, April 2010.
"State Wine Regulations," for The North Carolina Wine and Grape Council, April 2010.
"The Economic Impact of the Natural Science Center of Greensboro," for the Natural Science Center of
Greensboro, February 2009.
"An Economic Analysis of Case Management in Guilford County," with Christopher Ruhm, for the
Moses Cone Wesley Long Community Health Foundation, November 2008.
"Economic and Demographic Projections: North Carolina in 2020 and 2030," subcontract to North
Carolina State University's Institute for Transportation Research and Education, for the NC Logistics
Plan, North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, April 2008.
"Guilford County's Retail `Exports'," for the Greensboro Merchants Association, April 2008.
"The Economic Impact of Guilford County Schools and the 2008 Bond Referendum," for Guilford
County Schools, April 2008.
"The Triad Transport/Logistics Inventory and Cluster Mapping Project," with Keith Debbage, for the
Greensboro Economic Development Alliance, October 2007.
"The Economic Impact of the North Carolina Arts Council," for the North Carolina Arts Council, June
2007.
"The Economic Impact of the Proposed Vitacost Facility," for Vitacost.com, April 2007.
"The Triad Bioscience Index," with Donald Jud, for the North Carolina Biotechnology Center and the
three Triad Chambers of Commerce, January 2007 and July 2006.
"The Economic Impact of the Proposed Youth - Detention Center in Guilford County," for the North
Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, July 2006.
"The Economic Impact of High Point Regional Health System," for High Point Regional Health System,
April 2006.
"The Economic Impact of UNCG," for The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, April 2006
(earlier edition September 2002).
"Biotechnology in the Triad: Assessment, Inventory, and Index," with Keith Debbage and Donald Jud,
for the North Carolina Biotechnology Center and the three Triad Chambers of Commerce, October 2005.
"Targeting Growth Industries in Guilford County," for the Guilford County Department of Community
Development, May 2005.
"The Economic Impact of the Moses Cone Health System," for Moses Cone Health System, March 2005.
2

Resume —Dr. Andrew Brod
RECENT NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE ARTICLES
"Was There Really a Tax -Cut Payoff in North Carolina ?," Triad Business Journal, June 12, 2015.
"Greensboro's Taxes Are Not Sole Reason for its Struggles," Triad Business Journal, April 24, 2015.
"Sales -Tax Redistribution Bill is Extreme, Misses the Mark," Triad Business Journal, April 3, 2015.
"Winter Weather's Cost Can Have a Snowball Effect," Triad Business Journal, March 6, 2015.
"Disability Insurance Program Should be Fixed, Not Reduced," Triad Business Journal, January 30,
2015.
"Predictions? Nope, Just Questions for the New Year," Triad Business Journal, January 2, 2015.
"Will Falling Oil Prices Change Future of Fracking in NC ?," Triad Business Journal, December 5, 2014.
"Could Free Wi -Fi Transform Greensboro ?," Triad Business Journal, October 31, 2014.
"Trickle -Up Economics ?," Triad Business Journal, September 26, 2014.
"Cut in Unemployment Benefits Having Unintended Consequence," Triad Business Journal, August 29,
2014.
"Can the Great Recession's Damage Ever Be Repaired ?," Triad Business Journal, July 25, 2014.
"U.S. Employment Back to Zero But a Long Way From Normal," Triad Business Journal, July 4, 2014.
"Debunking Bad Arguments Against Raising Minimum Wage," Triad Business Journal, June 6, 2014.
"Cutting Unemployment Benefits Has Reverse Effect," Triad Business Journal, April 25, 2014.
"Nonexpansion of Medicaid: Still a Bad Idea for the State," Triad Business Journal, March 28, 2014.
"Convergence on the Minimum Wage," Triad Business Journal, March 7, 2014.
"Questioning the `Carolina Comeback'," Triad Business Journal, January 31, 2014.
"In What Way Did Cutting Benefits Work ?," Triad Business Journal, January 3, 2014.
"Moving Target: NC's Unemployment Rate," Triad Business Journal, November 22, 2013.
"The Folly of Not Expanding Medicaid," Triad Business Journal, October 25, 2013.
"Tales from the Latest Recovery," Triad Business Journal, October 4, 2013.
"$ IM of `Free Money' Unlikely to Transform Us," Triad Business Journal, September 6, 2013.
"When Restructuring Misses the Mark," Triad Business Journal, August 2, 2013.
"Recalling the Morehead Legacy," Triad Business Journal, June 28, 2013.
"Understanding Economic Data," Triad Business Journal, May 31, 2013.
"Deductive Reasoning on Taxes," Triad Business Journal, April 26, 2013.
"Not What It's `Fracked' Up To Be," Triad Business Journal, April 5, 2013.
"Are We Shooting Ourselves in the Foot ?," Triad Business Journal, February 22, 2013.
"The Taxing Question of Our Times," Triad Business Journal, February 1, 2013.
"A Legally Sanctioned Numbers Racket," Triad Business Journal, January 4, 2013.
"No- Brainers and the Fiscal Cliff," Triad Business Journal, November 30, 2012.
"Watch the Trends, Not the Blips," Triad Business Journal, October 26, 2012.

Resume —Dr. Andrew Brod
"The Economy Favors Obama? Really ?," Triad Business Journal, October 5, 2012.
"Death and Taxes are Inevitable, Even Online," Triad Business Journal, August 31, 2012.
"A Manufacturing Revival in N.C. ?," Triad Business Journal, July 27, 2012.
"A Matter of Degrees in the Triaxd," Triad Business Journal, July 6, 2012.
"Understanding the Value of Data," Triad Business Journal, May 25, 2012.
"Protect Marriage. But How ?," Triad Business Journal, April 27, 2012.
"Good News About High Gas Prices," Triad Business Journal, March 30, 2012.
"It's Not Greek to Economists," Triad Business Journal, February 24, 2012.
"What's Holding Back the Triaxd?," Triad Business Journal, January 27, 2012.
"Where Did All the Capital Go ?," Triad Business Journal, January 6, 2012.
"Holiday Retail Cheer? Humbug," Triad Business Journal, December 2, 2011.
"Duke's Rate Request Reveals `Fallacy'," Triad Business Journal, October 28, 2011.
"Hysteria? Actually, It's Hysteresis," Triad Business Journal, September 30, 2011.
"Welcome to the Second Depression," Triad Business Journal, August 26, 2011.
"Playing the Incentives Game," Triad Business Journal, July 29, 2011.
RECENT PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
"Economics and Social Justice," League of Women Voters of Guilford County, 6/9/15.
"NC Politics: Health, Education, and the Environment," Temple Emanuel, 3/22/15.
"U.S./North Carolina Economic Update ": UNCG Accounting Symposium, 12/5/14; Bernard Robinson &
Co., 10/27/14; NewBridge Bank, 7/21/14; Apartment Association of North Carolina, 5/21/14; North
Carolina City /County Management Association, 2/6/14; UNCG Accounting Symposium, 12/6/13;
Leadership Greensboro, 4/9/13; UNCG, 1/23/13; Greensboro Society of Financial Professionals, 1/15/13;
UNCG Accounting Symposium, 11/30/12; Human Resources Management Association of Greensboro,
11/1/12; Alamance County Chamber of Commerce, 10/16/12; Morton Wealth Management, 9/18/12;
Leadership Greensboro, 4/10/12; First Point Collections annual sales meeting, 3/2/12.
"The North Carolina State Budget," Nat Greene Kiwanis, 11/20/14.
"The Economics of Medicaid Expansion," Beth David Synagogue, 11/16/14; Greensboro Interfaith
Leaders Roundtable, 8/21/14; Greensboro Faith Leaders Council, 11/21/13; Greensboro Interfaith Leaders
Roundtable, 10/9/13.
"North Carolina Poverty Backgrounder," Greensboro Poverty Summit, 9/10/14.
"Background on the Affordable Care Act," Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, 8/12/14.
"Economic Trends to Watch ": Community Foundation of Greater Greensboro, 5/20/14; WhiteStone
Masonic and Eastern Star Home, 8/13/13.
"The Changing Economics of the Minimum Wage," Progress North Carolina, 5/1/14.
"Economics and the Environment," League of Women Voters of Guilford County, 4/15/14.
"The Greensboro Economy," Experience Greensboro, Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, 4/9/14.
rd

Resume —Dr. Andrew Brod
"Brief Economic Update ": Gate City Kiwanis Club, 1/28/14; Greensboro Landlords Association,
8/13/13; Edward R. Murrow Kiwanis, 4/16/13; Greensboro Lions' Club, 1/9/12; Shepherd's Center,
1/12/12.
"Promoting and Communicating Research," UNCG Child and Family Research Network, 10/30/13.
"Understanding Economic Data ": Edward R. Murrow Kiwanis Club, 7/9/13; Greensboro Lions Club,
5/20/13.
"The Economics of Immigration ": Well- Spring, 10/1/13; Beth David Synagogue, 5/14/13.
"The 2012 Election and the Economy ": Institute for Supply Management, Triad chapter, 1/15/13; Gate
City Kiwanis Club, 11/26/12; Greensboro Chamber of Commerce, 11/8/12; Greensboro Kiwanis Club,
11/8/12; Greensboro Soroptimist Club, 10/9/12.
"Global Economic Update ": North Carolina Association of CPAs, 9/20/13; McGladrey LLP, 12/12/12,
10/25/12, 10/18/12; St. Francis Episcopal Church, 5/20/12.
"Triad Economic Update /The Triad Business Index ": Dixon Hughes Goodman, 10/17/12; Randolph
County Economic Development Corporation, 2/23/12; Greensboro Society of Financial Service
Professionals, 1/17/12.
"Sustainable Entrepreneurship," UNCG, 9/18/12.
"Manufacturing Outlook and the 2012 Election ": McGladrey LLP, 8/30/12, 8/29/12.
"Introduction to Economic - Impact Analysis ": Greensboro Performing Arts Steering Committee, 4/17/12.
"Structural Changes in the Triad Economy ": APICS, Association for Operations Management, Triad
chapter, 4/10/12.
"The European Monetary Crisis ": Greensboro Kiwanis Club, 2/2/12.
ACADEMIC PUBLICATIONS
"Trends in Cooperative Research Activity: Has the National Cooperative Research Act Been Successful ?"
(with A. Link), in Innovation Policy in the Knowledge -Based Economy (edited by M. Feldman and A.
Link), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.
"Advantageous Semi - Collusion," with Ram Shivakumar, Journal of Industrial Economics, June 1999.
"Migraine Preventive Medications: A Reappraisal," with James Adelman, Randal Von Seggern, Lisa
Mannix, and Alan Rapoport (2nd author), Cephalalgia, November 1998.
"Domestic versus International R &D Spillovers," with Ram Shivakumar, Economics Letters, October
1997.
"R &D Cooperation and the Joint Exploitation of Cooperative R &D," with Ram Shivakumar, Canadian
Journal of Economics, August 1997.
"Economics as One of the Humanities: A Comment," Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal,
Winter 1995.
"Can Green Trade be Free Trade ?," Global Perspectives, Summer 1994.

Resume —Dr. Andrew Brod
RECENT PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
2006 — present: Campaign Co -Chair and member of Board of Trustees, Greensboro Jewish Federation.
2000 -12: President, Vice President for Education, and member of Board of Trustees, Temple Emanuel,
Greensboro, N.C.
2010 -11: Member, Campaign Planning Committee, Community Theatre of Greensboro.
2006 -2010: Faculty advisor, Hillel of The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
2003 -2005, 2006 -2010: Vice President and member of the Board of Directors, Association for
University Business and Economic Research.
1999 -2005: Member, Board of Directors, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina.
2001 -02: Member, Action Greensboro task force on Attracting and Retaining Young Professionals.
2000 -02: Member, Technical Advisory Team, City of Greensboro Comprehensive Plan, Greensboro,
N.C.
1999 -2000: Chair, Living -Wage Study Committee, created by City Council, City of Greensboro, N.C.
1999: Member, Citizen's Advisory Board, Department of Storm Water Services, City of Greensboro,
N.C.
RECENT PRIVATE LITIGATION CONSULTING
2015: Jared Leibold v. Michael Hernandez
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Willcox McFadyen Fields & Sutherland
2014: Robert Curlee v. John Sensenbrenner, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Ward Black Law
2014: Estate of Christopher Fulp v. Thomas Tilley
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Barron & Barry
2014: Anthony Leggett v. Mac Papers, Inc., et al
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Daggett Shuler Law
2014: Robert Latina v. Christopher Olcutt, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Comerford & Britt
2014: Cynthia Didio v. SAS Institute
Damages consultant for plaintiff's counsel, Hoof Hughes Law
2014: Estate of Shamikia McDaniel v. USA
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Ward Black Law
2014: Sean David Murphy v. USA
Damages expert for petitioner's counsel, Ward Black Law
2013 -14: Michael Edward Keith v. Jeffrey Sasser
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Maginnis Law
2013 -14: French Broad Place v. Asheville Savings Bank
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Shuford Cagle & McClellan
2013: Julie Henderson v. USA
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Beaver Holt Sternlicht & Courie
G7

Resume —Dr. Andrew Brod
2013: Steven Edwards v. Kendra Stallworth
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Law Offices of James Scott Farrin
2013: Robert Leffer v. Navistar International Corporation, et al.
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Loftin & Loftin
2013: Krystal Fullwood v. Roy Landreth, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Ward Black Law
2013: Estate of Sherri Hailey v. Dr. Rebekah Mango, DDS, et al.
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Teague Rotenstreich Stanaland Fox & Holt
2013: Matter of Ashley Steen
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Beaver Holt Sternlicht & Courie
2012 -13: David Bateman v. American Airlines
Damages expert for plaintiffs counsel, Ward Black Law
2012 -13: Matter of Ricky Dickinson
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Teague Rotenstreich Stanaland Fox & Holt
2012: Estate of Hyun Woo Jung v. D.R. Horton, Inc.
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Law Offices of James Scott Farrin
2012: Shelley Campbell v. Godwin Elevator Company, Inc.
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Pinto Coates Kyre & Brown
2012: Eric Nelson v. Elite Building and Real Estate Services, Inc.
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Bolster Rogers & McKeown
2012: Paula Dennard v. Outback Steakhouse, LLC
Damages expert for plaintiffs counsel, Pierce Law Offices
2012: Estate of Charles Ulery, Jr. v. Maymead Materials and Kenneth Carroll, Jr.
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Bell Davis & Pitt
2012: Estate of Matthew Achterman v. Christopher May, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Maginnis Law Firm
2012: Matter of Julie Van Doren
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Hyland & Padilla
2012: Matter of Ronnie Evan
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Hunt Law Firm
2012: Terry Hardy v. Mid - Atlantic Transportation Services
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Daggett Shuler Koontz Nauman & Bell
2012: Matter of Barbara Caldwell
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Egerton & Associates
2012: Heritage Operating LP v. North Carolina Propane Exchange
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Pinto Coates Kyre & Brown
2012: Matter of Katrina Williams
Damages expert for plaintiffs counsel, Law Offices of Saprina Brown Taylor
2012: Sandra Saunders v. Margaret Sax, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff s counsel, Hunt Law Firm
VA

Resume —Dr. Andrew Brod
2012: Estate of Shelby Chisom v. Michael Craver, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Morrow Porter Vermitsky & Fowler
2012 -13: Idana DeCecco v. University of South Carolina, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Spilman Thomas & Battle
2012: HDM Furniture Industries v. Hamilton Park, Inc.
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard
2011 -13: Lonesource, Inc. v. United Stationers Supply Co.
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Smith Moore Leatherwood
2011 -12: Kenny Burchette v. Heartland Express, Inc. of Iowa, and Gary Enders
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Nexsen Pruet Adams Kleemeier
2011: Winfred Bowman v. Crane & Rigging Corporation, et al
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Schwaba Law Firm
2011: Matter of Matthew Barrett
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Connors Morgan & Sinozich
2011: Craig Hooper v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Co.
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard
2011: Matter of Paul Collins
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, B. Ervin Brown, 11
2011: Tekesha Flowers v. Melvin Green & Unnamed Insurance Company
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Hunt Law Firm
2011: Unsecured Creditors of Taylor- Ramsey Corporation v. George Ramsey, Jr.
Economics expert for defendant's counsel, Tuggle Duggins & Meschan
2011: Matter of David Burke
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Van Camp, Meacham & Newman
2011 -13: Efird Thomas v. Donna Causey
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Booth Harrington & Johns
2011: Estate of Jospin Milandu v. North Carolina A &T State University
Consulting economist for plaintiff's counsel, Booth Harrington & Johns
2011: PBK regional landfill permitting process
Economics expert for applicant's counsel, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard
2011: Gerald Seay v. Electro- Mechanical Corp.
Damages expert for plaintiff's counsel, Oxner, Thomas & Permar
2011: Estate of Paul McKoy v. Johnathan Watterson et al.
Damages expert for defendant's counsel, McCormick & Associates
E:3

APPENDIX Q: USGS Stone (Crushed) Annual Minerals Commodities
Summary (January 2015)
23
Benson Quarry Expansion

150
STONE (CRUSHED)
(Data in million metric tons unless otherwise noted )2
Domestic Production and Use: In 2014, 1.26 billion metric tons of Crushed stone valued at more than $12.8 billion
was produced by 1,550 companies operating 4,000 quarries, 91 underground mines, and 210 sales /distribution yards
in 50 States. Leading States were, in descending order of production, Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio, Florida,
Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia, which together accounted for more than one -half of the total
crushed stone output. Of the total domestic crushed stone produced in 2014, about 69% was limestone and dolomite;
14 %, granite; 7 %, traprock; 5 %, miscellaneous stone; 4 %, sandstone and quartzite; and the remaining 1% was
divided, in descending order of tonnage, among marble, volcanic cinder and scoria, slate, shell, and calcareous marl.
It is estimated that of the 1.31 billion tons of crushed stone consumed in the United States in 2014, 46% was reported
by use, 27% was reported for unspecified uses, and 27% of the total consumed was estimated for nonrespondents to
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) canvasses. Of the 600 million tons reported by use, 82% was used as
construction material, mostly for road construction and maintenance; 10 %, for cement manufacturing; 2% each, for
lime manufacturing and for agricultural uses; and 4 %, for special and miscellaneous uses and products. To provide a
more accurate estimate of the consumption patterns for crushed stone, the "unspecified uses — reported and
estimated," as defined in the USGS Minerals Yearbook, are not included in the above percentages.
The estimated output of crushed stone in the 48 conterminous States shipped for consumption in the first 9 months of
2014 was 955 million tons, an increase of 8% compared with that of the same period of 2013. Third quarter shipments
for consumption increased by 9% compared with those of the same period of 2013. Additional production information,
by quarter for each State, geographic division, and the United States, is reported in the USGS quarterly Mineral
Industry Surveys for Crushed Stone and Construction Sand and Gravel.
Salient Statistics— United States:
Production
Recycled material
Imports for consumption
Exports
Consumption, apparent
Price, average value, dollars per metric ton
Employment, quarry and mill, number
Net import reliance5 as a percentage of
apparent consumption
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014e
1,160
1,150
1,170
1,180
1,260
26
27
30
35
35
15
15
15
18
20
1
1
1
(3)
(3)
1,200
1,200
1,220
1,230
1,310
9.57
9.65
9.75
9.99
10.15
67,600
67,000
66,200
65,900
66,000
Recvclinq: Road surfaces made of asphalt and crushed stone and, to a lesser extent, portland cement concrete
surface layers and structures were recycled on a limited but increasing basis in most States. Asphalt road surfaces
and concrete were recycled in all 50 States. The amount of material reported to be recycled increased slightly in 2014
compared with that of the previous year.
Import Sources (2010- 2013): Mexico, 67 %; The Bahamas, 19 %; Canada, 9 %; Honduras, 4 %; and other, 1 %.
Tariff: Item
Crushed stone
Number Normal Trade Relations
12 -31 -14
2517.10.00 Free.
Depletion Allowance: (Domestic) 14% for some special uses; 5 %, if used as ballast, concrete aggregate, riprap,
road material, and similar purposes.
Government Stockpile: None.
Prepared by Jason Christopher Willett [(703) 648 -6473, jwillett @usgs.gov]

151
STONE (CRUSHED)
Events, Trends, and Issues: Crushed stone production was about 1.26 billion tons in 2014, an increase of 7%
compared with that of 2013. Apparent consumption also increased to about 1.31 billion tons. Demand for crushed
stone was higher in 2014 because of increased demand every quarter since the second quarter of 2013, which offset
the slowdown in activity that some of the principal construction markets had experienced during the previous years.
With this significantly stronger construction activity across the country in 2014, recovery in the private sector and
residential construction experiencing a level of growth not seen since late 2005, consumption of construction
aggregates is likely to continue to increase. It is expected that the increased consumption in 2014 from that in 2013
will reach or exceed the historical annual average of the past 50 years, which was a 2% to 4% increase per year.
The underlying factors that would support a rise in prices of crushed stone are expected to be present in 2014,
especially in and near metropolitan areas.
World Mine Production and Reserves:
Mine
2013
United States 1,180
Other countries' NA
World total NA
production
2014e
1,260
NA
NA
Reservers
Adequate except where special
types are needed or where
local shortages exist.
World Resources: Stone resources of the world are very large. Supply of high - purity limestone and dolomite suitable
for specialty uses is limited in many geographic areas. The largest resources of high - purity limestone and dolomite in
the United States are in the central and eastern parts of the country.
Substitutes: Crushed stone substitutes for roadbuilding include sand and gravel, and iron and steel slag. Substitutes
for crushed stone used as construction aggregates include sand and gravel, iron and steel slag, sintered or expanded
clay or shale, and perlite or vermiculite.
'Estimated. NA Not available.
'See also Stone (Dimension).
2See ADDendix A for conversion to short tons.
3Less than % unit.
°Including office staff. Source: Mine Safety and Health Administration.
5Defined as imports — exports.
6See Appendix C for resource /reserve definitions and information concerning data sources.
'Consistent production information is not available for other countries owing to a wide variety of ways in which countries report their crushed stone
production. Some countries do not report production for this mineral commodity. Production information for some countries is available in the
country chapters of the USGS Minerals Yearbook.
U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2015