20140727 Ver 1_More Info Received_20151112

­--u � q b I - d----1
Environmental Consultants,
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27615 • Phone: [phone]
sandec.com
To: US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Attn: David L. Shaeffer
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
From: Bob Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental Consultants, P.A.
November 10, 2015
S &EC Project # 11282
N.C. Division of Water Resources
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Karen Higgins / Jennifer Burdette
Archdale Building — 91h Floor
512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, NC 27604 D
Re: HANSON CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION
INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION — ADDITIONAL INFORMA'
SAW- 2014 -01246
DWR # 14 -0727
Dear Mr. Shaeffer & Mrs. Burdette:
NOV 1 2 2015
R WATER RESOI;hC[g
On behalf of the owner, Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LLC (hereafter "Hanson'), please find
below and attached additional information in response to your letters and other written comments
received on the Individual Permit application currently under review. This information is in
additional to discussions which took place in our meeting with you on October 29, 2015. We
believe this additional information is adequate for you to complete your reviews and permit
decisions. Please contact me at (9 19) 846 -5900 if you have any questions.
SAW- 2014 -01246 Letter (draft received on October 26.2015)
1. Project Purpose:
In considering the overall project purpose, we have determined that this project purpose
is too narrowly defined and precludes the analysis ofpotentially practicable alternatives
at other locations or alternatives at the existing mine. The basic purpose of this project is
to mine construction grade aggregate. Accordingly, this activity is not considered water
dependent. We have also determined that the overall purpose of this project is to mine
construction grade aggregate in order to supply the surrounding market need on a long-
term basis, in a systematic and cost - effective manner. (Pages 1 / Paragraph 5)
Hanson agrees to the "basic purpose" as "to mine construction grade aggregate ".
Hanson agrees the project is not "water dependent'.
Hanson agrees to the "overall purpose" as "to mine construction grade aggregate in order to
supply surrounding market need on a long term basis, in a systematic and cost - effective manner ".

Hanson Crabtree Quart' Expansion (SAW- 2014 -01246 / DWR # 14 -0727)
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information — November 10, 2015 - Page 2 of 8
2. Alternatives Analysis - Offsite Alternative:
Please explain what efforts have been undertaken by Hanson Aggregates to locate and
extract similar deposits within this market area. It may be helpful to create a map that
shows the extent of the market area, the location of the Crabtree quarry, and the location
of other similar quarries within or in close proximity to the market area. The market area
map can be used with geologic, cadastral, land use, zoning, and other types of maps to
support your claims that there are no known sites to open a new quarry in this market. It
would also help support your argument that closing the Crabtree quarry would put
Hanson Aggregates at a competitive disadvantage in this market because of
transportation costs. (Page 2 / Paragraph 3)
Hanson has revised the "Alternative Analysis" (attached).
This revised analysis includes a "Market Area Map" (attached). This map was presented to you
in draft form at our October 29, 2015 meeting. This map depicts the area that Hanson Aggregates
is able to competitively supply aggregates to the Triangle market. Due to the proximity of
neighboring quarries with comparable goods, the market boundary for Crabtree Quarry is defined
primarily by logistical competitive pressure. The cost per ton per mile to transport aggregates
from the quarry to the project site effectively regulates the area in which Crabtree Quarry can be
competitive. As such, in areas like the Triangle where there are multiple quarries in the
immediate vicinity, market areas are relatively small as seen on the attached map.
In response to the request for alternative new quarry sites within Crabtree Quarry's existing
market, Hanson solicited the expert analysis of a local real estate professional to identify three
alternative quarry locations. Their analysis, titled "Alternative Quarry Location Analysis"
(attached), focuses availability of land, appropriate zoning, access to transportation corridors, and
potential cost. The realtor was unsuccessful in finding any realistic options within Crabtree
Quarry's existing market and resultantly the outlined alternatives are well outside of the
established market boundary. Therefore, supplying the Crabtree Quarry market from one of the
outlined alternative sites would put Hanson at a significant competitive disadvantage.
As such, Hanson has determined that there are no practicable "offsite" alternatives within the
market area.
3. Alternatives Analysis — Mining South of Crabtree Creek:
In regards to mining south of Crabtree Creek, we understand that Hanson Aggregates
entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Raleigh which precludes Hanson
Aggregates from expanding the Crabtree mine south of Crabtree Creek. This information
should be included as an onsite alternative. Please explain in detail in the alternative
analysis why this onsite alternative is not practicable in light of the overall project
purpose. You should also explain why it is not practicable to expand the existing pit to
the south through the equipment yard, processing plant, and primary crusher to further
avoid impacts to waters of the United States. (Page 2 / Paragraph 4)
As stated above, Hanson has revised the "Alternative Analysis" (attached).
This revised analysis includes an additional alternative titled "Alternative 6 (South of Creek Mine
Plan) ", which provides information as to why mining south of Crabtree Creek is not a practicable
alternative.

•1
Hanson Crabtree Quarry Expansion (SAW- 2014 -01246 / DWR # 14 -0727)
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information — November 10, 2015 - Page 3 of 8
The alternative to expand the existing pit towards the south through the existing equipment yard,
processing plant, and primary crusher, while still remaining north of Crabtree Creek, is not a
practicable alternative due to the severe financial and operational burdens associated with this
direction of expansion. The existing facilities located here are critical to the ongoing operations of
the quarry, and as such these facilities would need to be relocated to the north in areas necessary
for pit or operation expansion. This option is not economically viable, as the cost to relocate
these facilities would far outweigh the value of reserves recovered. In addition, this option would
impose innumerable challenges to the everyday operational logistics of the business. The
available area is restricted by the tight bend in Crabtree Creek, and the tributary stream and
property line to the west, and would as such yield a very small amount of reserves. This
alternative would also result in the pit expansion closer to Crabtree Creek and the removal of
existing and future available (post -quarry closure and transfer to the City) riparian areas directly
adjacent to the creek. This area is also directly across the creek from the rhododendron
conservation area, increasing the potential for indirect impacts to this conservation area. Also,
this area exists on property owned by the N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) currently
leased by Hanson, requiring the lease to be renewed and renegotiated for this alternative.
Additionally, both expanding the existing pit southward and conducting mining operations to the
south of Crabtree Creek fall outside of the agreed upon "excavation pit" boundary and are
explicitly prohibited by the Settlement Agreement with the City of Raleigh. This would require a
modification of this agreement, which is highly unlikely to occur given the desires stated by the
City in the agreement, and as such, permitting these alternatives with the City would be an
enormous legal challenge. This could jeopardize other beneficial agreements with the City such
as the greenway easements and sanitary sewer access.
Given these reasons, and the basic fact that there are insufficient reserves in these areas to offset
the extraction costs, any pit expansion or development alternatives south of the existing pit or
Crabtree Creek are not practical.
4. Future Stockpile Yard Location:
With regards to the maps included with the alternatives analysis, the future stockpile area
is shown to the northeast of the existing pit. However, the current equipment yard is
identified as a future stockpile yard in the drawings attached to the settlement agreement.
Please explain this discrepancy. (Page 2 /Paragraph (5)
The discrepancy between the drawings in the Alternatives Analysis and the drawings in the
Settlement Agreement is due to each set of drawings showing different points in time of the
quarry's site progression. The Settlement Agreement drawings depict the ultimate potential site
layout, whereas the Alternatives Analysis drawings show the site layout in the immediate future.
To explain further, the Settlement Agreement states that Hanson may relocate its access point to
the quarry as depicted in Exhibit 1. At this time, the interim stockpile area is located in the area of
the proposed access point until such time that the relocation of the access point is deemed
necessary.
5. Final Compensatory Stream Mitigation
• Finally, I have evaluated the conceptual compensatory mitigation plan included in your
application. The proposed compensatory mitigation ratios appear to be similar to what is
normally required for such impacts and is acceptable for our evaluation of your
application. After reviewing the conceptual stream relocation plan, we have determined
that the proposed stream relocation corridor is too narrow and does not contain

Hanson Crabtree Quarry 'Expansion (SAW- 2014 -01246 / DWR # 14 -0727)
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information — November 10, 2015 - Page 4 of 8
appropriate vegetative buffers. Accordingly, the proposed stream relocation is not an
acceptable form of onsite permittee responsible mitigation and should be removed from
the compensatory mitigation plan. However, if the permit is issued, it is our expectation
that the applicant would utilize natural channel design when relocating this channel to
minimize adverse impacts associated with the project. Please revise your mitigation plan
accordingly and submit the final mitigation plan. A final mitigation plan is required
before we can make a decision on the individual permit application. (Page 3 /Paragraph 1)
In our meeting with you on October 29, 2015, we discussed the concern that the stream relocation
corridor "is too narrow and does not contain appropriate vegetative buffers ".
Per our discussion, the quarry was determined by DWR to have a "vested right" (i.e.,
grandfathered) and exempted from the Neuse Buffer Rule. As such, the quarry could be mined
up to the bank of the existing streams on property. However, the relocated stream will have
vegetated buffers along it. Also, none of the quarry facilities will drain to the relocated stream.
The immediate riparian area along the right bank of the relocated stream will extend upward at a
1:4 slope, varying in height from as little as 2 feet to as high as 46 feet vertical. An
approximately 30 foot wide vegetated constructed bench will exist at the top of this slope, to
include; a safety barrier (small vegetated berm or boulders), a 12 to 15 foot wide, vegetated
maintained vehicle access maintenance corridor, and the remaining to be left as natural
vegetation. Beyond this bench, a cut slope to be seeded and allowed to naturally vegetate will
extend to the limits to either the landscaped /vegetated northern boundary berm or property line
combined 100 foot wide buffer (50 foot unexcavated buffer and 50 foot undisturbed buffer). This
total riparian area along the right bank of the relocated stream will be anywhere from +/- 150 feet
to several hundred feet wide.
The riparian area along the left bank of the relocated stream will be +/- 22 feet wide including an
natural vegetated area immediately along the relocated stream and a 12 to 15 foot wide, vegetated
maintained vehicle access maintenance corridor, and safety barrier (vegetated berm or boulders).
The area beyond this will extend down to the pit.
As discussed in our meeting, the compensatory mitigation plan as proposed first calculates the
total permanently impacted stream length and applies a 2:1 mitigation ratio to this. It then takes
this total mitigation and subtracts from it the length of the relocated stream (950 feet) at a 1:1
ration. This effectively applies a 1:1 ratio to 950 feet of the permanently impacted stream and a
2:1 ratio for the remainder.
Of the total length of the proposed permanently impacted Stream "I", approximately 960 feet of
it was previously impacted associated with a stream relocation, channelization and stabilization
project which occurred in 1988. The stream was relocated and channelized into a trapezoidal
configuration, with an access /construction road constructed along the right bank, and spoil pile
berm along the left bank, and was riprap lined the entire length. The stream exhibits vertical
eroding banks along portions of it and is cut off from its floodplain along the entire length.
During our meeting you requested that S &EC evaluate this section of previously impacted stream
using the current version of the N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM). This evaluation was
completed on November 5, 2015 and is attached for your review. This section of previously
impacted stream rated as "LOW ".
Given this information, S &EC feels that the compensatory mitigation plan as proposed in the
application, essentially including a 1:1 mitigation ratio for this section of previously impacted
stream, along with the proposal to relocate the stream using natural channel design (rather than

Hanson Crabtree Quarry Expansion (SAW- 2014 -01246 / DWR # 14 -0727)
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information —November 10, 2015 - Page 5 of 8
pipe or straight -line ditch the stream around the proposed expansion area), is sufficient
compensatory mitigation for the requested impacts.
DWR # 14 -0727 Request for Additional Information, October 27, 2015
1. Relocated Stream Tie -in's
• Please provide a schematic of the stream relocation showing how the turn at Station
0 +00 and the tie -in at station 9 +53.99 will be accomplished. [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(3)j
Provided in the attached S &EC response dated November 6, 2015, and discussed in the October
29, 2015 meeting.
2. Stormwater Runoff to Relocated Stream
• Please explain how the relocated stream will be protected from stormwater runoff from
the adjacent bench road. [15A NCAC 02H.0506(b)(3) & (5)j
Provided in the attached S &EC response dated November 6, 2015, and discussed in the October
29, 2015 meeting.
3. LEDPA
Title 15A NCAC 02H.0506 requires that a proposed activity has no practical alternative
by demonstrating that, considering the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or
density of the proposed activity and all alternative design, the basic project purpose
cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid a result in less
adverse impact to wetlands. Because the preferred alternative does not involve the least
amount of stream and wetland impacts, the Division cannot review this alternative until
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) determines that this alternative is the least
environmentally damaging practical alternative ( LEDPA). Please provide
correspondence from the USACE indicating which alternative is selected as the LEDPA.
We believe that sufficient information has been provided in the application and this additional
information for DWR to make this determination, but will notify the DWR of the USACE
decision on the LEDPA as soon as it is made.
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) Letter, September 28, 2015
1. Maintain Buffers
All existing vegetated riparian are proposed to be maintained in their current state along Crabtree
Creek, Richlands Creek, Turkey Creek, and unnamed tributaries south of Crabtree Creek and
north and northwest of the proposed expansion area and northern boundary berm, as well as
Stream 1 below the proposed relocation and pit expansion area. Plans were revised to avoid
Stream 7 and its vegetated riparian areas. Plans were revised, as requested previously by WRC,
to relocate Stream 1 in an open channel using natural channel design techniques in lieu of the
pipping previously proposed in the Mining Permit. This stream relocation will include vegetated
riparian areas as described in the plans and above.

r
Hanson Crabtree Quarry Expansion (SAW- 2014 -01246 / DWR # 14 -0727)
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information — November 10, 2015 - Page 6 of 8
2. Native Vegetation & Stream Substrate
Per the "Conceptual Stream Relocation Plan' provided in the application, Hanson has proposed to
use native vegetation and incorporate the use of both woody debris and transplanted stream bed
material from the impacted stream segment in the relocated stream.
3. Sediment & Erosion Control
All land clearing and excavation activities will utilize the appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices as per the approved NPDES permit (NCG020052).
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), September 14, 2015
NMFS simply confirmed that the project would not occur in the vicinity of EFH areas. No
additional information is required.
Email —Kevin D. Cox, September 22, 2015
S &EC believes that all of the concerns raised by Mr. Cox as the reasons for his opposition to the
expansion have been previously addressed in the application or the additional information
provided here. Many of these concerns do not involve impacts to Waters of the US or water
quality.
The relocation of the stream is not anticipated to adversely affect Richlands Creek as it does not
flow into it, nor Crabtree Creek given the natural channel design elements incorporated into the
stream relocation plan and the fact that no stormwater runoff from quarry operations will enter
the relocated stream.
We are not anticipating any impact to drinking water supplies as the majority of the surrounding
properties are connected to City water (which comes predominately from the Falls Lake (Meuse
River) upstream of the confluence with Crabtree Creek). Also, there are no wells located within
the relocated stream watershed downstream to Crabtree Creek.
As per the Settlement Agreement provided in the application, both a permanent and temporary
greenway easement has been provided to the City to ensure the Crabtree Creek West Trail will
not only not be adversely affected, but will help to ensure that the connection across the property
is provided. Once the property is transferred to the City additional trails around the pit and
relocated stream could be easily constructed, if the City so chooses to do so, given the proposed
maintenance corridors.
The quarry has been in existence well before the majority of the properties were ever developed.
The property will be transferred to the City and will most likely be used as park land or
open/green space in some manner, which is arguably much less of an "eyesore" than some of the
adjacent development.
Conditions required within the Settlement Agreement have been established to mitigate for any
associated existing or future "noise pollution' concerns.

Hanson Crabtree Quarry Expansion (SAW - 2014 -01246 / DWR # 14 -0727)
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information — November 10, 2015 - Page 7 of 8
Commercial traffic in and out of the quarry has occurred for many years prior to the surrounding
developments. Conditions included in the Settlement Agreement have been established to
mitigate for any associated traffic concerns.
The concerns that Mr. Cox stated in his letter that affected him personally are regulated under the
Mining Permit and otherwise addressed in the Settlement Agreement, and are not associated with
impacts to Waters of the-US or water quality. It should also be noted that, per readily available
property records, Mr. Cox purchased his home across Duraleigh Road from the quarry on
December 22, 2011 and that his home was built in 2005. The quarry had been in operation for
decades prior this. His letter was the only one received from the residents of his neighborhood or
any other homes along Duraleigh Road (all of whom were notified of this expansion).
The potential impacts to residents on Delta Lake Drive were taken into consideration and
conditions incorporated within the Settlement Agreement to mitigate any potential impacts. It
should be noted that the owners and property owner associations for properties adjacent to the
proposed expansion including those within the Delta Lake Drive community were notified of this
expansion and no comment letter were received from them during the public notice period.
The availability of aggregate from other quarries was addressed within the "alternatives analysis ".
Hanson believes that all residents within the identified market area benefit from the readily
accessible, economical aggregates provided by this quarry, and disagrees with the comments
made by Mr. Cox.
Email — A. Davis (Concerned Citizen), September 23, 2015
We appreciate Mr. Davis limiting his comments to issues related to impacts to Waters of the US
and water quality. S &EC believes that all of the concerns raised by Mr. Davis have been
previously addressed in the application or the additional information provided here.
The proposed alternative does not have the greatest impact to streams or wetlands. The plan as
approved within the Settlement Agreement has greater impacts, as does the new Alternative 6 —
Mining South of Crabtree Creek which was requested by the Corps to be evaluated.
Mitigation is proposed for all stream impacts to offset the lost functions of these streams. Natural
channel design elements have been incorporated into the stream relocation plan.
We are not anticipating increased sedimentation as a result of this project. Also, approximately
960 feet of the relocated stream had already been relocated, channelized and armored as a
trapezoidal channel back in 1988. The proposed stream relocation plan, using natural design
elements proposes a more stable cross - section designed off of a non - channelized, naturally stable
section of channel. All stormwater from the quarry is treated in the NPDES stormwater system
and no stormwater runoff from the facilities enters the relocated stream. Again, mitigation is
proposed to offset any lost stream functions.
The public notice was sent to both the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). Comments and recommendations received from the WRC have
been incorporated into the proposed design. The proposed design only expands quarry operations
to the north of the existing pit and away from Crabtree Creek. It does not expand the quarry
south to Crabtree Creek nor across Crabtree Creek (which would require conveyors and other
facilities to move the aggregate to the north). As such, impacts to Crabtree Creek have been
avoided.

Hanson Crabtree Quarry Expansion (SAW- 2014 -01246 / DWR # 14 -0727)
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information — November 10, 2015 - Page 8 of 8
We believe this additional information provides the necessary information you need to complete
your review of the application. Please don't hesitate to let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
AM& igitally signed by Bob Zarzecki
Bob Z q prt Bob Zarzecki, o rzecki sa dec Wetlands
epartment ,email= bzarzecki @sandec.com, c =US
2015.11.1016:35:30 - 05'00'
Bob Zarzecki
Wetlands Department Manager
Attachments: Alternatives Analysis (Revised)
Market Area Map
Alternative Quarry Location Analysis
NC SAM Evaluation
S &EC Additional Information in Response to DWR Letter
SAW- 2014 -01246 Letter (draft received 10/29/15)
DWR # 14 -0727 Letter 10/27 -15
WRC Letter 9/28/15
NMFS Letter 9/14/15
Kevin D. Cox Email 9/22/15
A Davis Email 9/23/15
— .J. - • - - -- - – I . _ . - I .. - -t-

HANSON CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION November 2015
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information S &EC, PA Project No. 11282
ALTERNATIVES
ANALYSIS
(revised Nov. 2015)

Lehigh Hanson
HEIDELBERGCEMENTGroup
Alternatives Analysis
In 2014 the City of Raleigh and Hanson Aggregates entered a settlement agreement regulating
mine life and land usage at Crabtree Quarry. The agreement allows for the existing pit to be
expanded northward pending the completion of a visual barrier berm on the northern property
edge. The agreement prevents Hanson from expanding to the south of Crabtree Creek or to the
east side of Duraleigh Road. The quarry is at a point of needing to begin this expansion to have
adequate reserves for the remaining site life. The site life is limited by the settlement agreement
with a firm mining cessation date of February 4`h, 2052. Given current and forecasted market
demands, a conservatively estimated 23.9 million tons of reserves will be needed to reach this
cessation date. Outlined below are potential alternatives and their merits.
Alternative 1 (Off -Site Alternative)
The Crabtree Quarry market could be supplied with stone from an alternate Hanson location.
This option would avoid all stream and wetland impacts; however, this option is impractical
from a business perspective. The nearest Hanson site is the Raleigh Quarry, approximately
nineteen miles away. Supplying the Crabtree market from this location would put Hanson at a
significant competitive disadvantage by adding additional distance and cost to all haul rates.
Alternative 2 (On -Site Avoidance - Existing Pit)
Crabtree Quarry could also choose to remain within their existing pit footprint. This option
would avoid all stream and wetland impacts, but mine life would be limited significantly. The
existing pit contains approximately 1.8 million tons of reserves, enough for roughly three more
years of mine life. This option would force the quarry to close in 2019, thirty -three years before
the mandated cessation date.
Alternative 3 (Minimization Plan — Eastern Pit Mine Plan (Not Proposed))
The Eastern Pit Mine Plan option allows Crabtree quarry to expand its mining footprint while
minimizing the amount of streams and wetlands impacted. The option involves developing the
pit only to the east of Stream 1 and constructing the northern boundary berm. The settlement
agreement outlines that the pit cannot be developed northward without the construction of the
berm. The berm is also needed for permanent overburden storage. Therefore, this option would
require the streams and wetlands underneath the northern boundary berm to be impacted, but the

streams and wetlands outside of the berm would remain unaffected. The pit footprint associated
with this plan would yield approximately 17.9 million tons of reserves or about twenty -seven
years of mine life. Utilizing this option, the quarry would run out of reserves nine years before
the mandated cessation date, and as such is not an acceptable option.
Alternative 4 (Minimization Plan — Proposed Mine Plan)
The plan proposed by Hanson and outlined throughout the Individual Permit. This plan, at an
estimated 24.8 million tons of reserves, yields enough reserves to reach the mandated closure
date with a less than four percent market variance buffer. Additionally, this plan minimizes the
amount of streams impacted (as compared to the Entire Area Mine Plan) by avoiding Stream 7
and by relocating Stream 1 using natural channel design practices as per the attached stream
relocation plan. The option would provide access to the necessary reserves required to maintain
mine life up to the cessation date.
Alternative 5 (Entire Area Mine Plan)
The settlement agreement outlines the maximum area that the pit footprint can occupy and this
plan utilizes the full area. This plan yields 26.3 million tons and incorporates a significantly
greater amount of stream piping. The pipe length of this plan is over double the length of pipe in
Alternatives 3 and 4. Additionally, Stream 7 would be impacted and Stream 1 is piped rather
than relocated to an open channel. Hanson determined that they were able to avoid these impacts
and still provide the necessary reserves up to the cessation date, under Alternative 4
(Minimization Plan — Proposed Mine Plan), and as such has decided not to pursue mining the
entire area allowed under the "settlement agreement.
Alternative 6 (South of Creek Mine Plan)
The South Pit Mine Plan outlines the option to develop a new pit south of Crabtree Creek. This
plan yields approximately 6.7 million tons or about ten years of mine life. Wetland and stream
impacts would be decreased but not avoided with this alternative as there multiple wetlands and
streams that would require mitigation inside the proposed south "pit boundary. Recreational
resources would be negatively impacted due the necessity to mine through the temporary
greenway easement and a portion of the future permanent greenway easement. Financially, the
infrastructure needed to make this option viable (creek- spanning conveyor, relocated primary
crusher station, and new sediment basins) would be prohibitively expensive. Additionally, a
significant modification to the settlement agreement would be required as the current agreement
explicitly prohibits mining to the south of Crabtree Creek:

0
�M Y
M ♦ ®s
m�
o -
z -c
w . pIn y
c °
>m - O
xx
x
-I
� T 4
JJ __
• Q% r
W° ` !• tar
A ` y
1
w
n Z
*.
0
LEHIOH HANSON
I I ALTERNATIVE 1 SOUTHEAST
CRABTREE QUARRY Lehigh Hanson
F OFF -SITE ALTERNATIVE
ICA WAKE COUNTY, NC

o
.0.0"

1
�i % %LI

HANSON CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION November 2015
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information S &EC, PA Project No. 11282
Market Area Map

%'raoiree wuarry lvlarKe[ map
s� t,RA.WLLE .youngsVife
F R A N K L I N'
& "
Now light
s
Wake Stone Corporation KnWAdale Qu...
Werxmn
"h
i
Martin mbrletta mtertats Gamer Qu...
J O H N S T p N
o ini s 10 is
cmvOws O ww m me-me wftmw q cw w~ wlaw a "vows M" ft"ftee ft"OWWW Rftweet 9
Crrr++n "m rM *memo" aw O no m*/Ma a A rMo. T10 DM b rrr of C4040 Yrw.rw Opmesm bom cm," W 8,0FOROw. n O Mw wJrwy we 0~ in " of out O Our*" OM+a fw
Cwrb NwrEO wN 1 ?V0 ON 1000 w t.eowwrr. of OWM0 a 2" %W w.. MWO Anwftf. we AN #Wft ..wNe. %ft Aer wd lift Ann wvw Aeurdw an wArrM W yw. AM. We * 2M W AWW 000FRO c tyre. Af
�nr
09110114,91110111

HANSON CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION November 2015
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information S &EC, PA Project No. 11282
Alternative Quarry
Location Analysis

Alternative Quarry Location Analysis Map
s ' ^` GRANVILLE !/
*Gorman Wile I Youn � r `•••..._� � o g
F R A K I N
New Light
utfi m 0#
<d '
Wake Forest
D R A M Y�
Bunn
..p Rolesville w �;
�- N O R T H O L I N A
"- 1 4Morrisville ` New Hope j N A S H
i u
CHATHAM ° Cary / o nightdale r---�
3 Wendeh\,. Middlesex
leigh
/ J Apex
•* ,: Gf�her r
! r.j
Holly
Springs Clayton
J O H N S T O N
0 mi 5 10 15
Copyright ® and (P) 1988 -2009 Microsoft Corporation and /or Its suppliers. All rights reserved. http : //www.mlcrosoft.conVmappolnt/
Certain mapping and direction date ® 2009 NAVTEQ. All rights reserved. The Data for areas of Canada includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities, including: O Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, ® QusenS Printer for
Ontario. NAVTEQ and NAVTEQ ON BOARD are trademarks of NAVTEQ. ® 2009 Tole Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. Tele Atlas and Tole Atlas North America are trademaeKs of Tele Atlas, Inc. ® 2009 by Applied Geographic Systems. All
rights reserved.

Alternative Location 1 Page 1

a
,a
J �
Lw-
Turnipseea rtU 1
A' , _ ii�rr
•

Name
PIN REID
Acres Flood Plain Open Acs Wooded Zoning
Improvement
Type
Year Built Stories Tax Value
1 A Ivan Goodson, III & Clarice D. Goodson
1762775640 193190
0.86
n/a
0.86
n/a
R -30
2,414SF
dwelling
1979
2
$216,322
2 A Ivan Goodson, III
1762872937 59787
1.1
n/a
1.1
n/a
R30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$52,000
3 KIDD, LLC
1762878495 25587
93.54
16
54.04
23.5
R -30
917SF
dwelling
1950
1
$1,673,735
4 Marion Goodson & Mildred Goodson
1762669420 25631
26
2
14
10
R -30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$520,000
5 Talmage Brown Trustee
1762754655 8993
89.46
6.35
7.4
75.71
R -30
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,693,950
6 Ann B. Puryear
1762955448 70707
43.21
5.12
5.87
32.22
R -30
3720SF
barn
1986
1
5216,322
7 James E. Puryear & Cynthia M. Puryear
1762951255 211461
2.48
n/a
2.48
n/a
R -30
2,355SF
dwelling
1995
1.5
$264,812
8 Ann B. Puryear
1762848833 187392
1
n/a
1
n/a
R -30
1,176SF
dweling
1935
1
$94,824
9 Ann B. Puryear
1762849682 187393
1.75
n/a
1.75
n/a
R -30
2,196SF
dwelling
1997
1.5
$255,077
10 James Wilkerson & Rebecca Wilkerson
1762942438 187394
1
n/a
1
n/a
R -30
1,704
dwelling
1991
1.5
S174,903
260.4
29.47
89.5
141.43
$5,161,945
w.
Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Parcel 3
Alternative Location 1 Page 3

sk
low
r
Ak
Wes
Polt 1
',:�. •:ice f�.. __ ,� .:,
'',ti
API

Parcel 10
This is a rural eastern section of Wake County at the intersection of Turinpseed Road and Major Slade Road.
Positive qualities
• All of the properties are zoned similar.
• All are contiguous to one another.
• All have access to a state maintained public right of way
Negative qualities
• A minimum of 10 parcels would be required to create the area for consideration.
• 11.31% of the total area is within a designated flood area. This will require consideration from the
Corps of Engineers as well as the State Environmental Protection -Water Quality Control Division.
• The geology of the area may not be suitable for quarry operations relative to the production of mineral.
• There are established residents to contend with relative to acquisitions for the overall site as well as
residents /neighborhood boundaries that abut the perimeter of the designated area.
• The assessed values are greater than Five Million Dollars. If this is any representation of moderate
value for the market, the acquisition costs have a substantial basis from which to recover.
• When dealing with occupied residents within the area of acquisition, the costs are anticipated to increase
due to the relocation of the parties within each structure.
• The neighboring residential parcels not acquired would be expected to mount a legal challenge to the
permit for the establishment of a new quarry based on the proximity of the quarry to their dwellings and
any perceived damages this might cause to the market value of their homes.
• A quarry investor would be required to prove that no diminution in value would occur to present area
residents prior to the issuance of a permit.
• With the roads being secondary roads, the State of North Carolina might require that the area network of
avenues of ingress and egress be redesigned or elevated in strength and width to accommodate the
anticipated travelers to and from the quarry. This would add further costs to the investment group
attempting to obtain a permit.
The minimum negatives far out -weigh the positives and the anticipated returns are not great enough to support
the re- establishment of a quarry due to the potential costs to the investors and the imbalance this would bring to
well established residents.
Alternative Location 1 Page 5

pop
(n
ca
E
84
Rees l-n Y-6 M NMC J)f
S& Due -ff
etc 64,
Wedgewood,
971
2" a Zabulon
9
% Yoram
A7
Itll
—poartson Pond Rd c"L ir-
Siemens
Peach
Lizard I-L-k
co
Subject Location 961
Df
Ln Todd
7 Rock % Dean Rd I*e Rd
Cobblestone-
or
Chamblee Rd
ff
W Academy S1
-,
',\ %-
-wende"
Wendell Cook St — 00
Park E 4th St
4 -A. W 3rd Sf 231 V- I'd Morphus Bridge Ear ,born
MeadowbroDk.
C� 0 n 1933-779 Y , 0 �"W A'11,1.�_
Alternative Location 2 Page 1

Alternative Location 2 Page 2

Name
1 Herbert Woodard & Annie Woodard
2 Ammons Acres, Inc
3 Stephen & Kimberly Ammons
4 William Ammons, Jr.
5 Frederick & Sherry Ammons
6 Ammons Acres, Inc
PITT RECD
Acres Flood Plair Open Acs Wooded Zoning
imp S-C
Type
Year Built Stories
Tax Value
1785828935 53791
23.75
4.7
16-23
2-82
R -40
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$404,500
1785816604 1778
197.3
36.56
69.1
91.64
R-40
no record
ban
no rcd
n rcd
$3,400,200
1785824160 168474
1
n/a
i
n/a
R -40
2586 S=
dwelling
1988
2
$238,973
1795003875 173571
1
n/a
1
n/a
R -40
20125¢
dwelling
1992
1
$249,586
1795008848173569
1
n/a
1
n/a
R40
47455=
dwelling
2008
1
$424,212
1784896058 1786
249
83.14
41
124.86
R -40
n/a
n/a
n!a
n/a
$3,069,460
473.1 '
124.4
129.33
219.32
$7,786,931
Parcel I
Parcel 2
Alternative Location 2 Page 3

This is a rural, eastern section of Wake County at the intersection of Peach Grove Lane and NC 97This is east
of Mashburn Road and NC 97.
Positive qualities
All of the properties are zoned similar.
All are contiguous to one another.
All have access to a state maintained public right of way
Negative qualities
• A minimum of 6 parcels would be required to create this area for consideration.
• 26.29% of the total area is within a designated flood area or is under water. This will require
consideration from the Corps of Engineers as well as the State Environmental Protection -Water Quality
Control Division.
• The geology of the area may not be suitable for quarry operations relative to the production of mineral.
• There are established residents to contend with relative to acquisitions for the overall site as well as
residents /neighborhood boundaries that abut the perimeter of the designated area.
• The assessed values are greater than $7.7 million dollars. If this is any representation of moderate value
for the market, the acquisition costs have a substantial basis from which to recover.
• In this specific situation, the owners of the majority of the residential dwellings that would be under
consideration are also the landowners of the greater whole. They are a family of successful developers.
They might prove difficult to deal with due to their concepts of the future value of the property; thus,
increasing costs.
• When dealing with occupied residents within the area of acquisition, the costs are anticipated to increase
due to the relocation of the parties within each structure.
• The neighboring residential parcels not acquired would be expected to mount a legal challenge to the
permit for the establishment of a new quarry based on the proximity of the quarry to their dwellings and
any perceived damages this might cause to the market value of their homes.
• A quarry investor would be required to prove that no diminution in value would occur to present area
residents prior to the issuance of a permit. This is an added cost.
• With the roads being secondary roads, the State of North Carolina might require that the area network of
avenues of ingress and egress be redesigned or elevated in strength and width to accommodate the
anticipated travelers to and from the quarry. This would add further costs to the investment group
attempting to obtain a permit.
The minimum negatives far out -weigh the positives and the anticipated returns are not great enough to support
the re- establishment of a quarry due to the potential costs to the investors and the imbalance this would bring to
well established residents.
Alternative Location 2 Page 5

j
.......
° -' - Pilot -Riley Rd e
Pilot
iararm � y
Clyde P =arce Rd n
a m
¢ "Hopkins Poww o Ra a Ba -
C fit johns Church Rd
I K
EI
Carlyle Rd
�r ya�v C \ f0 00k /g
Subject Location �F - f} e�&I Or
Gory Rd
Debnam_Rd H
a� m
o u Ga�,� ing Rd
Ysocial
Plains
Old
91 S
Dv C - -
&_
_
�7G Wood r .6a Off,
;ZiWtlon E y
ti �y
Ap
Lizard Lick
f $
Alternative Location 3 Page 1

Name PIN REID Acres Flood Plain Open Acs Wooded Zoning improvement Type Year Built Stories Tax Value
1 Wall Family Trust 1797613206 73773 200 26.48 26.07 147AS R-40W n/a n/a 1979 n/a $2,292,850
2 Wall Family Trust 1796499087 206404 11.5 1.06 9.73 0.71 R -40W n/a n/a n/a n/a $161,90D
211.5 27.54 35.8 148.16 $2,454,750
Alternative Location 3 Page 2

Parcel 1
Parcel 2
Alternative Location 3 Page 3

This is a rural, eastern section of Wake County east of the intersection of Zebulon Road and Ferrell Road.
Positive qualities
• All of the property is zoned similar.
• All are contiguous to one another.
• All have access to a state maintained public right of way
• A minimum of 2 parcels would be required to create this area for consideration.
• Both properties are of one owner and are vacant lands
Negative qualities
• 13.029% of the total area is within a designated flood area or is under water. This will require
consideration from the Corps of Engineers as well as the State Environmental Protection -Water Quality
Control Division.
• The geology of the area may not be suitable for quarry operations relative to the production of mineral.
• The assessed values are greater than $2.4 million dollars. If this is any representation of moderate value
for the market, the acquisition costs have a substantial basis from which to recover.
• While there are only two properties of consideration, the surrounding landowners are part of families
that have owned land in the vicinity for many years. It is likely that they would mount a considerable
legal effort to stop any permitting.
• In addition to the long term family land ownership in the immediate vicinity, there are acres adjacent to
the subjects that are owned by a development company constructing Weaver Pond. The land for
development abuts the subject. The development company will most likely join the surrounding land
owners in mounting a legal challenge to the permitting of the site.
• Along with the long term family owned land and the existing development of Weaver Pond, there is the
existing subdivision of Ferrel Meadows. Like Weaver Pond, it is a developing subdivision. They too
will most likely work to prohibit permitting.
• A quarry investor would be required to prove that no diminution in value would occur to present area
residents prior to the issuance of a permit. This is an added cost.
• With the roads being secondary roads, the State of North Carolina might require that the area network of
avenues of ingress and egress be redesigned or elevated in strength and width to accommodate the
anticipated travelers to and from the quarry. This would add further costs to the investment group
attempting to obtain a permit.
The minimum negatives far out -weigh the positives and the anticipated returns are not great enough to support
the re- establishment of a quarry due to the potential costs to the investors and the imbalance this would bring to
well established residents.
Alternative Location 3 Page 4

HANSON CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION November 2015
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information S &EC, PA Project No. 11282
NC SAM
Forms

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Hanson Crabtree
Stream Category Pb2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y /N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y /N)
Additional stream information /supplementary measurements included (Y /N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation November 5, 2015
Assessor Name /Organization B. Zarzecki / S &EC
NO
YES
YES
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2) Stream /Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thenmoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In- stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In- stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In- stream Habitat NA
(3) Flow Restriction NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In- stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

ies user manual version z.i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5- minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes /Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT I SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Hanson Crabtree 2. Date of evaluation: November 5, 2015
3. Applicant/owner name: Hanson 4. Assessor name /organization: B. Zarzecki / S &EC
5. County: Wake 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Neuse on USGS 7.5- minute quad: Crabtree Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.8491 N, - 078.7165 W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): Stream 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 960
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 r- Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 13 Is assessment reach a swarnp stream % r, Yes rrNo
14. Feature type: F," Perennial flow ,Intermittent flow ,1idalMaishStream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: [';Mountains (M) [.;Piedmont (P) [ ; Inner Coastal Plain (1) rOuter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for [ ,a ����� E.;b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi`) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi`) [ ;Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) [ ;Size 4 (Z 5 mi)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ro Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
I- Section 10 water r- Classified Trout Waters r- Water Supply Watershed ( r, I r, I I rIII r IV [-,V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r- Primary Nursery Area r- High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
(- Publicly owned property r- NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r✓ Nutrient Sensitive Waters
F- Anadromous fish r- 303(d) List r- CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and /or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species: None
r+ Designated Critical Habitat (list species): None
19. Are additional stream information /supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? .,Yes ,No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
[: A Water throughout assessment reach.
[ ; B No flow, water in pools only.
[ ;C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction -assessment reach metric
r",A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
re,A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
[;B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
[: A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down - cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
[;B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability -assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down - cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10% of channel unstable
[;B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
;C > 25% of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
;A [ ;A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B [ ; B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down - cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
o,C [. C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplaintintertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplainlntertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain /intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man -made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reachlintertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r- B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

F C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r 1 Other: numerous uncontrolled stormwaler discharges (explain in "Notes /Sketch" section)
F- J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, Dt drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
[';A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
;B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
(: C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
;Yes [;No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In- stream Habitat Types —assessment reach metric
10a. [o Yes rNo Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in- stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses v E r F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
17 B Multiple sticks and /or leaf packs and /or emergent ° - r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation x o r 1 Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5% undercut banks and /or root mats and/or roots v M r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. (;Yes [. No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedfonn evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
17 A Riffle -run sedan (evaluate 11 c)
[� B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11 d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach —whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present buts 10 %, Common (C) _ > 1040 %, Abundant (A) _ > 40 -70 %, Predominant (P) _ > 70 %. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
(; [ ; ['; [•; [; Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. (;Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. F.Yes r, No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r, No Water rOther:
12b. FYes rNo Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "laxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
V r Beetles (including water pennies)
r P Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r" r Asian dam (Corbicula )
F R Crustacean (isopod/amphipod /crayfish /shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
17 r Dipterans (true flies)
r I+ Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
r P Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r f Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

r r WormsAeeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r;A r-.A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B [:, B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C [ ;C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man -made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
,A rA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water a 6 inches deep
[ ;B r, B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C [..0 Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
[;Y [ ;Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
[.; N N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F., A Streams and /or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom - release dam)
F D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
( A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
(— B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
I+ C Urban stream (z 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
i✓ E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on° condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
[;C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A
[%A
A
A
t 100 -feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
(;B
E';B
[;B
B
From 50 to < 100 -feet wide
[.;C
[ ;C
(:,C
[:,C
From 30 to < 50 -feet wide
[;D
[;D
[;D
[;D
From 10to<30 -feet wide
E
E
[ ;E
E
< 10 -feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure —streams ide area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left
bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ( "Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB
RB
RB
(: A
[.;A
Mature Forest
B
B
Non - mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C
[';C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
�D
D
Maintained shrubs
E
[ , E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors —streams Ids area metric (skip for Tidal Mars h Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30 -50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30 -50 feet
LB
RB
LB
RB
LB
RB
r'A
rA
rA
rA
r'A
rA
�'B
rB
r,13
rB
[.B
i,13
r, C
r, C
r, C
r, C
r;C
r, C
C;D
r, n
r,D
r, F)
[-;o
r.0
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no Ilveslock)/conuneroial horticultwe
Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ( "Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
;A A Medium to high stem density
B [';B Low stem density
[ ;C (;C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)

Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 -feet wide.
LB
RB
A
[ A
The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
8
['B
The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
[:C
rl�C
The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment
reach habitat.
LB
RB
A
[;;A
Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non -native invasive species absent or sparse.
[.38B
Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of spades diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after Gear- cutting or Gearing or
communities with non - native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
r-
�jC
[yC
Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non - native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non - characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r7.Yes [.;No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water r%Other. n/a as 10b = B /C; Aquatic Life was found;
25b Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
MA <46 IMB 46 to < 67 MC 67 to < 79 [7,D 79 to < 230 ME 230
Notes/Sketch:

��L7A L�KE DR
0
End of NCSAM Evaluation
35.8491 / - 078.7165
i�
DEEP�HOLLPW -DR
Start of NCSAM Evaluation
35.8511 / - 078.7144
WE-4
0
0
co ?c
o\�
M D
70
\ 70t d
lnO� I
t ti,
t�,e
Aso P 111
) o
NEW�P
All -D
VV UUV m
w R 350
Project Number: Map Title:
1 128 2 I 0 750 1,500
Project Manager: G�Ure 2- TOpOG�raphlC Map I I 1 I I I I
PKS Hanson Crabtree Quarry Feet
Scale: Wake County, NC
III 7501
Source: Wake County GIS Solt & Environmental Consultants, Y
Date:
G11 1/15 201 3 USGS Raleigh West quad

Hanson Crabtree - 1988 Aerial Photo
D 125 250 500 Feet
I I I I I I I
1 inch = 250 feet
Disclaimer
Maps makes every effort to produce and publish
the roost current and a¢urate information possible.
However, the maps are produced for information purposes,
VV are NOT surveys. No warranties, expressed or implied,
provided for the data therein, its use- its interpretation.

HANSON CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION November 2015
Individual Permit Application — Additional Information S &EC, PA Project No. 11282
Additional
Information in
Response to DWR
Letter

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
8412 1, *N (if .`ruse KoA, Suuc Ilia. IL- kh-W)i. M .7115 - Ili-me: (1)[9l 846- i'Alll • Vwrt: OM,,, 841 9417
me
..u"Jrc.cuni
November 6, 2015
S &EC Project No. 11282
RE: Request for Additional Information
NCDEQ- DWR Letter dated October 27, 2015
The following response is provided:
Item 1— Please provide a schematic of the stream relocation showing how the turn at Station 0 +00
and the tie -in at Station 9 +53.99 will be accomplished. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3)]
As described in the Conceptual Stream Relocation Plan dated July 2015 the relocated stream will serve
to convey stream discharges around the proposed pit expansion area in a functioning stream designed
using natural channel design methodologies. The stream reaches immediately upstream and
downstream of the proposed bypass will both be repaired and stabilized, using similar methodologies,
as part of the overall stream relocation project. As shown in the attached photos (Photos 1 and 2)
both stream segments were previously relocated, straightened and armored with riprap.
In their current condition the two transition reaches proposed for repair and stabilization are
trapezoidal in shape, lack discernable bed -form, and are over much of their length entrenched thereby
lacking access to an adjacent floodplain. The relocation plan calls for the reshaping of the channel
within these reaches to define riffle and pool cross - sections to dimensions similar to those proposed
for the relocated channel itself. See previously provided Figures 9 and 10. The plan intends for the
construction of an adjacent floodplain bench on one or both sides of the channel where possible based
on adjacent topography.
Directional change (turns) within the transitions will be supported utilizing a series of in- channel
structures (boulder and /or log) which will serve to protect the outside of the channel meander by
forcing flows (and energy) back toward the channel center. Channel banks within the transition reach
will also be similarly stabilized with coir matting and planted vegetation. See previously provided
details in Figures 13 through 16. Supplemental boulder toe and bank protection may be utilized if
deemed appropriate during final design.
Figures A and B (attached) typify the preliminary extent of grading and stabilization, as well as the
preliminary location of in- channel structures within the two transition reaches. The final alignment,
slope and resultant bed -form for each transition reach, as well as the number, location and and type of
in- channel structures utilized will be determined during final design.

Hanson Crabtree Quarry
Request for Additional Information
S &EC Project No. 11282
November 2015
Photo 1— Upstream Transition Reach

Hanson Crabtree Quarry
Request for Additional Information
S &EC Project No. 11282
November 2015
Photo 2 — Downstream Transition Reach

® N
N
O
N
CP
O
s
rn
5
O
R
M
n S
LEGEND
PROPOSED STREAM ALIGNMENT
BOULDER J -HOOK
CR055 -VANE WITH STEP
i
In
N OTE5:
I . ALL LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DIMEN51ON5 ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. 5TRUCTURE LOCATION, NUMBER, AND TYPE ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY
BE ADJU5TED BY ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.
i
3. LOG 5TRUCTURE5 MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR UP TO 50 PERCENT OF
IN- CHANNEL 5TRUCTURE5 WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
i
O +00.1
�cu• rrojecc No.:
CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION P %I Mq Z
cat1On: WAKE CO. NC Che nt. vlP', consa�Nsnrs, PA
HAN50N AGGRGATE5 50LJTHEA5T, LLC I : I 8412 Fells ofNeuse Rd., Suite 104 Italei North Carotin 27615
heet Title: et o.: B�
Phone: [phone] • Fm: (919) 8469467
UPSTREAM TRAN5ITION REACH FIGURE w -Saod6Cxorn
A

N N
o _
N
N
_O
5
O
El
3
� e
LEGEND
D �/ PROPOSED STREAM ALIGNMENT
D
o
BOULDER J —HOOK
z
9 +5:
1
i
NOTE5:
�• / I . ALL LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
2. STRUCTURE LOCATION, NUMBER, AND TYPE ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY
BE ADJUSTED BY ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF CON5TR1_JCTION.
' 3. LOG STRUCTURES MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR UP TO 50 PERCENT OF
IN- CHANNEL STRUCTURES WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.
1 / �
i PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
roject: ro� a o.:
CRABTREE QUARRY EXPANSION IoI282.D2
J 9r.:
- ocation: Client: PK�J , Cons�bmb, PA
WAKE CO. NC
HANSON AGGREGATES SOUTHEAST, LLC 1:10
Sheet Title: o : 8412 Fells of Neuse RA., Suite 104 Raleigh, North Caroline 27613
Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
DOWNSTREAM TRANSITION REACH FIGURE �.sandKxorn
13

October XX, 2015
Regulatory Division /1200A
Action ID: SAW- 2014 -01246
Mr. Jack Garvey
Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LLC
2101 Gateway Centre Blvd., Suite 100
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
Dear Mr. Garvey:
Please reference your Individual Permit application for Department of the Army
authorization to discharge fill material into 2,523 linear feet of stream and 0.04 acre of wetlands,
associated with the expansion of the Hanson Aggregates Crabtree Quarry. The Crabtree Quarry
project site is located at 5100 Duraleigh Road in Raleigh, in Wake County, North Carolina.
Your proposal was advertised by public notice on August 28, 2015. Comments in response
to the notice were received from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resource (NCDCR), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and two adjoining property
owners. The comments received are enclosed for your information. Please provide written
responses to the comments submitted by the adjoining property owners and the NCWRC.
In addition to conducting a public interest review which balances the reasonably expected
benefits against the reasonably foreseeable detriments, all Clean Water Act Section 404 permits
must meet guidelines for the specification of disposal sites for dredged or fill material under
CWA Section 404(b)(1). These comments are being submitted pursuant to the Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230).
With respect to the project purpose, its analysis is a critical first step in the Corps
permitting process. The Corps is responsible in all cases for independently defining the project
purposes from both the applicant's and the public's perspective. Initially, the Corps evaluates a
project's "basic purpose" to assess whether the project is water dependant. Once the Corps has
determined the water dependency of the project, it no longer considers the basic project purpose,
but analyses practicable alternatives in light of the "overall project purpose ". The overall project
purpose must be specific enough to define the applicant's need, but not so restrictive as to
preclude an analysis all reasonable alternatives.
- The project purpose stated in your application is "to expand the existing pit to allow for
mining operations to continue through either February 4, 2052, or the removal of 30 million tons
of aggregate (whichever comes first) ". In considering the overall project purpose, we have

determined that this project purpose is too narrowly defined and precludes the analysis of
potentially practicable alternatives at other locations or alternatives at the existing mine. The
basic purpose of this project is to mine construction grade aggregate. Accordingly, this activity is
not considered water dependent. We have also determined that the overall purpose of this project
is to mine construction grade aggregate in order to supply the surrounding market need on a
long -term basis, in a systematic and cost - effective manner.
In addition, with regards to the alternatives analysis, an alternative is considered
practicable if it is available and capable of being done after a thorough evaluation of costs,
existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purpose. In those circumstances
where the activity associated with a proposed discharge for a special aquatic site does not require
access, or proximity to, or siting within the special aquatic site in question to fulfill its basic
purpose (i.e., is not "water dependent "), practicable alternatives that do not involve special
aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise. Furthermore,
where a discharge is proposed for a special aquatic site, all practicable alternatives to the
proposed discharge which do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are presumed to
have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise.
In regards to an offsite alternative, you state in your application that there are "no known
available sites in the market to open a new quarry ". You describe the market area for the
Crabtree Quarry as the "Wake County and Triangle" area. Please explain what efforts have been
undertaken by Hanson Aggregates to locate and extract similar deposits within this market area.
It may be helpful to create a map that shows the extent of the market area, the location of the
Crabtree quarry, and the location of other similar quarries within or in close proximity to the
market area. The market area map can be used with geologic, cadastral, land use, zoning, and
other types of maps to support your claims that there are no known sites to open a new quarry in
this market. It would also help support your argument that closing the Crabtree quarry would put
Hanson Aggregates at a competitive disadvantage in this market because of transportation costs.
In regards to mining south of Crabtree Creek, we understand that Hanson Aggregates
entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Raleigh which precludes Hanson
Aggregates from expanding the Crabtree mine south of Crabtree Creek. This information should
be included as an onsite alternative. Please explain in detail in the alternative analysis why this
onsite alternative is not practicable in light of the overall project purpose. You should also
explain why it is not practicable to expand the existing pit to the south through the equipment
yard, processing plant, and primary crusher to further avoid impacts to waters of the United
States.
With regards to the maps included with the alternatives analysis, the future stockpile area
is shown to the northeast of the existing pit. However, the current equipment yard is identified as
a future stockpile yard in the drawings attached to the settlement agreement. Please explain this
discrepancy.
Finally, I have evaluated the conceptual compensatory mitigation plan included in your
application. The proposed compensatory mitigation ratios appear to be similar to what is
2

normally required for such impacts and is acceptable for our evaluation of your application.
After reviewing the conceptual stream relocation plan, we have determined that the proposed
stream relocation corridor is too narrow and does not contain appropriate vegetative buffers.
Accordingly, the proposed stream relocation is not an acceptable form of onsite permittee
responsible mitigation and should be removed from the compensatory mitigation plan. However,
if the permit is issued, it is our expectation that the applicant would utilize natural channel design
when relocating this channel to minimize adverse impacts associated with the project. Please
revise your mitigation plan accordingly and submit the final mitigation plan. A final mitigation
plan is required before we can make a decision on the individual permit application.
The information requested above is essential to the expeditious processing of your application;
please forwarded this information to us within 30 days of your receipt of this letter. If you do not submit
this information with 30 -days your application will be administratively canceled. Cancellation of your
application does not preclude you from reopening the application at a later time, provided you submit
the items listed above.
If you have any questions regarding these matters, please contact me at (919) 554 -4884
extension 31 or David [e-mail].
Enclosures
Copies Furnished:
Bob Zarzecki
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Sincerely,Filename: 2014 -01246 Initial Response.docx
CESAW- RG -R/DS
CESAW- RG- R/FILE
MAIL
David L. Shaeffer
Regulatory Specialist
Raleigh Field Office
3

Ms. Jennifer Burdette ,-�`
—401 /Buffer Coordinator
401 &Buffer Permitting�Unit,
NCDENR-- Division ofWater Resources
1617 Mail Service Center'
Raleigh; NorthCarolina'27699:._,

North Carolina De,partnlent of Environmental Quality
Pat "Fory
Govemot
October 27, 2015
Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LLC
Attn., Mr, Jack Garvey
2101 Gateway Centre Blvd., 'Ste 100
Morrisville, NC 27,560
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Hanson Crabtree Quarry Expansion
Dear Mr Garvey:
Donald R wan der Vaart
Secretary
DWR # 14 -0727
Wake County
On August 27, 2015, the Division of Water Resources (Division) ,received your application dated
August 7, 2015, requesting an Individual Water Quality Certification from the .Division for the
subject project The Division has determined that your application is incomplete and cannot be
processed. The application is on -hold until all of the following information Is received:
1. Please provide a schematic of the stream relocation showing how the turn at Station
0 +00 and the tie -in at station 9+53.99 will be accomplished. 115A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3)j
2, Please explain how the relocated stream will be protected from stormwater runoff from
the adjacent bench road, (1SA NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3) & (5)j
3. Title 15A NCAC 02H .0$06 requires that proposed activity has no practical alternative by
demonstrating that, considering the potential for a reduction In size, configuration or
density of the proposed activity and all alternative - designs, the basic project purpose
cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or result In less
adverse impact to wetlands, Because the preferred alternative does not involve the least
amount of stream and wetland impacts, the Division cannot review this alternative until
the U,S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) determines that this alternative is the least
environmentally damaging practical alternative (LEDPA), Please provide correspondence
from the USACE Indicating which alternative is selected as the I.EDPA.
Pursuant to Title 15.4 NCAC 02H 0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. If all of the requested information is
4018 Wier Perrrmiling Unl➢
1417 Mail Service Center Raleigh, 400h Carobna 27699,16 m7
i9caboy, 512N Salsbury St Ra►ergh North Uo71iia 27644
13rWiip, 914919.707 -, Wr19 FA K .9-a4744n41 Qs1ow 5erwm 14n R4�JA f Ao
fn J110M81 I Elst wwWeReswrces org
rE$
$10 1.10Yp, '! Kr'J ,*Vow Y"- IFMrrmvI;4gr-aw

Hanson Aggregates southeast, ltC
PWRIt 14.0727
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 2
nbt received in Writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter, the Division Will be unable
'to approve the application and it will be returned, The return of this project will necessitate
reapplication to the Division for approval, Including a complete application'package and the
appropriate fee.
Please respond In writing withln 30 calendar days of .receipt of this letter by sending three copies
of all of the above requested )nformation to the 4011 & Buffer Permitting UnIt,163.7 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1617.
Please be aware that you have no authorization Lander the Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
for this activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North
Carolina General Statutes and.Administrative Code.
Please contact me at 919 - 807.6360 or Karen I [e-mail] or Jennifer Burdette at 919-
807 -6364 or lennifer.burdette @ncdenr.gov if you have any questions or concerns,
sincerely,
r
Karen Higgins, Supervi
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
.cc; 'Bob Zarzecki, Soil &.Environmental Consultants, Inc., 8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Ste
104,, Raleigh, NC 27615
USACF Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
OWR RRO 401 file
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit file

0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Shaeffer
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
FROM: Gabriela Garrison �� G
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Habitat Conservation
DATE: September 28, 2015
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LLC for Expansion of Crabtree Quarry,
Wake County, North Carolina. Corps Action ID #: SAW- 2014 -01246
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject
document. Comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as
amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 -667e) and North
Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113 -131 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to expand the existing mine pit to allow either for the continuation of mining
operations through February 4, 2052 or the removal of 30 million tons of aggregate; the pit expansion
would increase the pit from 40 acres to 60 acres. The pit would expand northward, resulting in the
construction of the Northern Boundary Berm, a permanent overburden storage area. The anticipated
construction would impact 2,523 linear feet of headwater streams. Of the projected stream channel
impacts, 1,126 linear feet would be piped under the proposed Northern Boundary Berm, 1,190 linear
feet would be excavated for the proposed pit expansion and 207 linear feet would be temporarily
impacted as transition areas. There would also be 0.04 acre of wetland impacts. The applicant
proposes to relocate approximately 950 linear feet (of the 2,523 linear feet of proposed stream
impacts) around the pit using natural channel design techniques. Mitigation for the project includes
payment into the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Crabtree Creek and an unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek in the Neuse River basin flow through the
site; Richland Creek flows along the site boundary. There are records for the following rare, aquatic
species in Crabtree Creek: the federal species of concern and state - endangered, Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni); the state threatened, triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) and creeper (Strophitus
undulatus); the state - special concern, notched rainbow (Villosa constrieta); and the state - significantly
rare„ Carolina ladle crayfish (Cambarus davidi). In addition, the Significant Natural Heritage Areas —
Crabtree Creek/Ebenezer Church Road Slopes and Crabtree Creek Aquatic Habitat — are located
downstream of the site.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Page 2
September 28, 2015
Crabtree Quarry Expansion
Corps Action ID No.: SAW - 2014 -01246
Should the permit be issued, we offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources.
1. Maintain a minimum 100 -foot undisturbed native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a
minimum 50 -foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands that remain onsite. Maintaining
undisturbed, forested buffers along these areas will reduce impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife
resources, water quality, aquatic habitat both within and downstream of the project area. In addition,
these buffers will provide an adequate travel corridor for wildlife species. Whereas, a grassed buffer,
particularly fescue, is a vegetated buffer but will not provide the necessary and highly valuable
functions as discussed for forested buffers. Sediment and erosion control structures should be located
outside of these buffers.
2. Consider using seed mixtures (e.g. native warm season grasses) and native shrubs /trees that are
beneficial to wildlife in the relocated channel. An exact seeding mixture would need to take into
account soil types, moisture, pH and degree of slope of areas to be stabilized. Additionally, it would
be advisable to use the substrate from the impacted channels in the relocated channel. We refer the
applicant to Jason Allen, District Wildlife Biologist at (336) 524 -9801 for additional information and
ideas on reclamation for wildlife.
Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction.
The use of biodegradable and wildlife- friendly sediment and erosion control devices is strongly
recommended. Silt fencing, fiber rolls and /or other products should have loose -weave netting that is
made of natural fiber materials with movable joints between the vertical and horizontal twines. Silt
fencing that has been reinforced with plastic or metal mesh should be avoided as it impedes the
movement of terrestrial wildlife species. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have detrimental
effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs and
clogging of gills.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If I can be of further assistance,
please contact me at (910) 409 -7350 or abriela. arrisonAncwildlife.org.

Shaeffer, David L SAW
From: Robin Wiebler - NOAA Federal [robin.wiebler @noaa.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:43 AM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Hanson Aggregates Southeast LLC 2014 - 01246; No staffing Letter
Attachments: No- Staffing _No- EFH_Present_14Sep12015.docx
Administrative Assistant
Habitat Conservation Division Atlantic Branch
PHONE: [phone]
[e-mail]

OF
4
(Sent via Electronic Mail)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and AtinosphwicAdtninigation
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
swradm4oretoetce
2013MAmoSmih
St. td.a, Fkmaa Mr -M
-
September 14, 2015
Colonel Kevin P. Landers Sr., Commander
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 -1398
Dear Colonel Landers:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reviewed the projects described in the public
notice(s) listed below.
Based on the information in the public notice(s), the proposed project(s) would NOT occur in the
vicinity of essential fish habitat (EFH) designated by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council or
NMFS. Present staffing levels preclude further analysis of the proposed activities and no further action
is planned. This position is neither supportive of nor in opposition to authorization of the proposed
work.
NOTICE NO. APPLICANT
NOTICE DATE DUE DATE
2014 -01246 Hanson Aggregates Southeast, LLC August 28, 2015 September 28, 2015
Please note these comments do not satisfy your consultation responsibilities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If the activity "may effect" listed species or critical
habitat that are under the purview of NMFS, consultation should be initiated with our Protected
Resources Division at the letterhead address.
Sincerely,
Pace Wilber (for)
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division
� f

4
J
Shaeffer, David L SAW
From: Kevin Cox [kevindcox @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 201510:34 AM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SAW- 2014 -01246
Mr. Shaeffer,
I am writing to oppose the expansion of the Crabtree Quarry. I oppose the expansion for the
following reasons:
-the relocation of various un -named streams may adversely affect Crabtree /Richlands Creek and
the wildlife associated with it (although it has been stated this is not the case)
-it may affect drinking water sources as stated in the notice
-it may affect the expansion of the Crabtree Creek West Trail of the proposed greenway
expansion
-the quarry is an eyesore and reduces local property values
-noise pollution also affects the local community
- commercial traffic in and out of the quarry is loud, dirty, and dangerous (drops debris in
the road and is a collision hazard)
Current blasting has affected me personally in the following ways: cracked foundation /shakes
entire house, awakens sleeping children, scares visitors, and debris from the dump trucks has
damaged my personal vehicles, as well as cause problems with the safe entrance and exit of
Duraleigh Square property.
The future expansion, if approved, would have a more significant impact on the residents on
Delta Lake Drive and residents west of the quarry. The proposed berm will not reduce the
noise of blasting!
In conclusion, the best reason to deny Hanson Aggregates an extension is because we (Raleigh
residents) are able to obtain the same resources from other quarries. There are many quarries
outside of Wake county that can provide us with the same resources.
If this quarry were essential, meaning we need it to survive, I would support its expansion.
However, the quarry does not benefit the majority of residents in the area, and people are
our most precious resource. Please protect us!
Thank you for your efforts regarding this matter.
Kevin D. Cox
336.429.0835
1

r
Shaeffer, David L SAW
From: Ak Dee [luvnature2320 @yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 6:53 PM
To: Shaeffer, David L SAW
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Crabtree Quarry Expansion (SAW- 2014 - 01246)
Attachments: DWQ—Stream Mitigation Requirements & 401 WQC & Isolated Wetland Programs.pdf
Dear Mr. Shaeffer - I'm writing to express concern regarding stream impacts associated with
the proposed quarry expansion. My primary concerns regarding the proposed alternative are
outlined below. Please let me know if these questions will be addressed as part of this
Public Comment period, and if I will be notified whether these concerns have been addresses
with a written response.
Blockedhttp : / /www.saw.usace.army.mil / Missions/ RegulatoryPermitProgram /PublicNotices.aspx
-- This proposed alternative has the largest impacts to streams and wetlands of all the
proposed alternatives. The avoidance and minimization mentioned in the Public Notice seems
difficult to accept, particularly in context of the intent of the Clean Water Act to protect
our nations water quality.
-- This project will impact several headwater stream systems that drain directly to Crabtree
Creek. As you're probably aware of, headwater streams serve important physical, chemical, and
biological functions that have a significant impact on the ecological integrity of downstream
waters (see attached DWQ paper).
-- The impacted streams are rated as nutrient - sensitive waters by DWR (formerly DWQ) and are
governed by the Neuse River Nutrient Management Strategy. Page 2 of the attached DWQ document
states "that "...if the nutrient reduction functions of headwater streams were removed ... it
would be nearly impossible to successfully implement a nutrient reduction strategy in a
watershed" How will adverse impacts from increased sedimentation (which is correlated with
increased phosphorus levels due to binding) be mitigated for, particularly when a large
amount of stream will be piped and put into a trapezoidal channel, which increases erosive
flows along stream systems and the riparian buffers will be destroyed? Furthermore, less
natural infiltration of stormwater would seem to increase flooding downstream adjacent to the
flood -prone Crabtree Valley Mall. Was this taken into consideration?
-- According to Natural Heritage Program (NHP) mapping, the impacted streams are up- slope,
and drain directly to a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) and then to Crabtree Creek,
which is also designated as an aquatic SNHA.
Blockedhttps : / /ncnhde.natureserve.org /content /map. According to 2012 NHP GIS data, there are
two records of rare aquatic species in Crabtree Creek adjacent to the quarry near the
Duraleigh St bridge.
Thank You,
A Davis
Concerned Citizen
1