20050688 Ver 2_401 Application_20061117

^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates,lnc,

November 17, 2006
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
401 Certification Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
Mail Service Center 1650
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650

Re: Martin Marietta Materials East Alamance Quarry
Alamance County, North Carolina
Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification
Dear Ms. Karoly:
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068
C.ho~.d ~JCr- ~1C9t) 58.
Cc ~(
~ 30- yo~i~
On behalf of Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. (MMM) we are requesting the NC
Division of Water Quality issuance of an Individual Water Quality Certification
for the proposed impacts to wetlands and streams associated with the expansion
of the East Alamance Quarry in Alamance County, NC.
Total impacts for the expansion activities would be 0.44 acres of riparian
wetland, 1,230 LF of intermittent unimportant stream (approximately 4,920
square feet), 887 LF intermittent important stream, and 98 LF of perennial
important stream.
The attached USACE 404/401 permit application and supporting documentation
are provided for your review and processing. In addition, a memorandum
("Stormwater Impact Analysis and Minimization Evaluation") is attached as
supplemental information regarding stormwater design for the proposed activity.
Please feel free to contact me at 919-677-2121 if you have any questions, or if
additional information is necessary.
Very truly yours,
KIMLE -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
had Evenhouse, PWS
Q~c~~oe~~
NOV 1 7 2006
WETLANDg AND STORM4YATER BRANCH
Attachments: 404/401 application (7 copies), application fee ($475)
Memo: Stormwater Impact Analysis & Minimization
Evaluation (7 copies)
Cc: Steve Whitt, Martin Marietta Materials
^
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]

~~
~!/
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
November 13, 2006
egu a ory ie ice
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27615
~~~
~~~~ ~~
-~. ~~
"< ~~
~~~'
~~`
Mr. Monte Matthews
Raleigh R 1 t F' Id Off
Re: Martin Marietta Materials East Alamance Quarry
Alamance County, North Carolina
Section 404 Individual Permit Application and Supporting
Documentation
Dear NIr. Matthews:
On behalf of Martin Mazietta Materials, Inc. (MMM) we are requesting the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers issuance of an Individual Permit authorizing impacts to
~ wetlands and streams associated with the expansion of the East Alamance Quarry
in Alamance County, NC..
Total impacts for the expansion activities would be 0.44 acres of ripazian
wetland, 1,230 LF of intermittent unimportant stream (approximately 4,920
square feet), 887 LF intermittent important stream, and 98 LF of perennial
important stream.
The attached permit application and supporting documentation are provided for
your review and processing. Please feel free to contact me at 919-677-2121 if
you have any questions, or if additional information is necessary.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY- RN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Chad Even ouse, PWS
Attachment: 404 permit application and supporting documentation
Cc: Steve Whitt, Martin Marietta Materials
Cyndi Kazoly, NC Division of Water Quality
.-/
^
r>:~ sus sn 2aaa
FAX [phone]
^
P.O. Boz 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068

Y ''~`~, t ~'', Srd~e
w
w wo 'Qod ch
~ State ~ a ~~ss
- W Rona l~sQ 3
m ~I
ca. Y
'N rya d ~'
,~ .
~~ _ ~ a
a ` ~o
~,,
State R°aa 1~3 ~ '~
~a
~ O
!w~ m- ._.___ _ _ .._.
.. ~
.,. w ,~'o
m ~~ _
''>
a
..,~
~`
`~~ :
~ - i _ ~
// °~` ~ r
_ ~ ~~. ~_
State Road 17 ~ = -`
~ •-NVeodbrooke Dr ,- °~_-_ __.. ~_ _'~52 ,,
_. _ - - "
~ ood _ ~ -~ r
"~` / ~ :: 1
' ~ '- ~ ~
y ~ O 1119 Unnamed Drive ', t
----,.
aP~ m !
~ oad
~~~ 1 e~ -. m Od~~ `>~~ ;
a`eF,o a `~ S°~i~`~~
d~ rn Bt~sw~ll' Rr~`.--
.pod ~"~=-J,~mes Trf b,. s~~p ~: ~ \` ; ,
°~~ ~ e ~ Violet t ;' ~~~~~~.Ra
~ ~ tree -f'y
°-~' 9 ~ QaSil y ~ ``•~~ d
~ ;l o/t
'~
~ Center Rd
~"`~~~ State Road 1745
d~~~Je ~;' Highview ~, }
9gd~~~ad`e Douglas St ~' 6
11 o
,~ 2
oad g
~ w~ tied
r 4~tia,
Y
~U ~
~` '
State Ro N " ' a : r ~' m
ad 173 ~ ~.--
i ~,
°' ~s~ ,
4
f
A Circle Dr ine '-i N
~a ~ ~ ~l ~
m West `^~ ' °' '', m ~ o
(}~ ~ghw~~ 7 ~ ~ ~ o o-
~ Nag N ~ ~
t t ~ NG N~in _...; I N

r f V
! f ~
ff `"'y5~",',a
fJ' s~' r.~,"~
~ ~ ~ "` r ~ ~ ~'f
U ~
t ~. ~ s ~ ~
~ } '~
~ ~~ ;
~ ~,
O ~
i

APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL N0. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 325) Expires December 31, 2004
The Public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, although the majority of applications should require
5 hours or less. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of Information
Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003), Washington, DC 20503. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having
jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT ~ ~ D C
) .-. D ~ 8
._.
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 404, 33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1413, Section 103. Principal Purpose: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a
permit. Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local government agencies.
Submission of requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit
be issued.
One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this
application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed
activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
(ITEMS I THR U 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION N0. 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETED
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANT'S NAME 8. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Chad Evenhouse, PWS
6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS
P.O. Box 30013 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013 3001 Weston Parkway
ATTN: Steve Whitt Cary, NC 27513
7. APPLICANT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence a. Residence
b. Business 919-783-4630 b. Business 919-677-2121
11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize *Aeent Authorization is included with the attached documentation* to act in my behalf as my ag~~f~(~("p~~i~ssing of this
~
~
~
a lication and to furnish, u on re uest, su lemental information in su ort of this ermit a lication.
'
'
pp p q PP pp p pp
RECEIVED
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see instructions)
East Alamance Quarry Expansion
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (ijapplicable) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (f applicable)
Boyd's Creek and Unnamed Tributary to Boyd's Creek 1666 Rt. 49 North
Haw River, NC 27258
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Alamance NC
COUNTY STATE
]6. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN (see instructions)
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
From I-40/85 take exit 150 North (Jimmie Kerr Dr.). This merges into Trollingwood Rd., continue North. Cross over US 70 and continue
North as the road changes to N. Wilkens Rd. Turn right onto NC 49 (North). Travel approximately 2 miles. The entrance to the Martin
Marietta Materials East Alamance Quarry facility is on the left.

ENG FORM 4345, Jul 97 EDITION OF FEB 94 IS OBSELETE (Proponent: CECW-OR)
18. Nature of Activity (Description of project, include all features)
Expansion of mining operation within the limit of the existing state mining permit to extract aggregate product. Excavation of overburden will
be accomplished by traditional methods using large earth-moving equipment following clearing and grubbing of surface vegetation. See
attached documentation for further explanation.
19. Project Purpose (Describe the reason or purpose of the project, see instructions)
To continue mining operations at the East Alamance Quarry through expansion of the mine to adjacent areas west of the existing mine within
the property. The area for expansion is included in the current NCDENR mining permit and also have appropriate zoning designations for
mining. See attached documentation for further explanation.
I USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED I
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
Discharges to jurisdictional waters shall be the result of excavation of overburden and side casting, as well as areas of fill for construction of the
perimeter berm. See attached documentation for further explanation.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards
The discharge material will be material generated from the overburden removal process. The overburden will be utilized for construction of
the perimeter berm and excess material will be stored on-site in designated uplands areas. The remainder of the impacts will occur from side
cast and/or fall back associated with the excavation. See attached documentation for further explanation.
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see instructions)
The surface area of wetlands to be filled is 0.44 acres for construction of the perimeter berm. 90 linear feet of perennial stream channel will be
filled with 581inear feet of 84-in corrugated metal pipe, 20 linear feet of riprap for outlet protection, and 201inear feet of riprap for inlet
protection. 1,230 linear feet (0.112 acres) of intermittent unimportant stream will be excavated for the pit expansion. 887 linear feet of
intermittent/important stream will be excavated for the mine expansion. See attached documentation for further explanation.
23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes No X IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (if more than can be entered here,
please attach a supplemental list).
Parcel ID: 8886957439; 8886941508 Parcel ID: 8886942054 Parcel ID: 8886922939
Dale and Lucinda Proffit Charles and Pamela Clemmons Garland T. Loy
1930 Macone Rd. 746 Henner Rd. 275 Stagecoach Rd.
Burlington, NC 27215 Burlington, NC 27217 Yanceyville, NC 27379
Parcel ID: 8886021669 Parcel ID: 8896037000 Parcel ID: 8896123979; 8896220944
Charles and Deborah Jones Mahin Malekian Linda Justice
300 Isley Rd. 613 Branchview Dr. 338 Isley Rd.
Haw River, NC 27258 Durham, NC 27713 Haw River, NC 27258
Parcel ID: 88962364619 Parcel ID: 8896234787 Parcel ID: 8896069495; 8886969817
Town of Green Level Green Level Mobile Home Park, Inc. William J. Fonville
PO Box 729 822 B.E. Hanover Rd. 1648 South Fonville Rd.
Haw River, NC 27258 Graham, NC 27253 Burlington, NC 27217
Parcel ID: 8896238871
Javier Toungate
2651 W. Simpson Rd.
Burlington, NC 27217

25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NCDENR Mining Permit 1-08 12/22/2004
NCDENR Air Permit 6132 9/5/2002
NCDENR NPPDES NCG020029 2/7/2005
NCDENR UST Operator Cert. 2006037380 4/1/2006
NCDENR 401 Water Quality Cert. OS-0688 4/18/2005 6/3/2005
USACE 404 Nationwide 39 200521057 4/18/2005 5/30/2005 (statutory)
*Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits
26. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this
application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the
duly authorized agent of the applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
/l /~z~
DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly
authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or
fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.

INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICA TION AND SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS'
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, 404(B)(1) ANALYSIS, FINDING
OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI), AND STATEMENT OF
FINDINGS
Martin Marietta Materials
East Alamance Quarry,
Alamance County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Materials
2710 Wycliff Road
Raleigh, NC 27607

Martin Marietta Materials ~
~ IA~~
Pl`~"~~:R E"~IT
RECEIVED
November 2006
©Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2006
~~ ~ O
o ~~~
N®~ 1 ~ ,~~06
~~N~~~~.

__ _ _
• Executive Summary
•
- This document constitutes supporting documentation for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
- preparation of the Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, Statement of
Findings, and review and compliance determination according to the 404(b)(1) guidelines for
~ the proposed Martin Marietta Materials quarry expansion project in Alamance County, North
- Carolina.
~ This permit action is proposed under authority delegated to the Wilmington District Engineer
~ by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers by Title 33, Code of Federal
~ Regulations, Part 325.8, pursuant to:
~ Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
~ X Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
~ Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act.
- Section 4(e) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953.

~ Applicant: Martin Marietta Materials

- Date of Application: November 13, 2006
~ Action ID:

- Location: The project site is located south of Sandy Cross Road (SR 1752) and west of NC
- State Highway 49, approximately 4 miles north of U.S. Interstate 40/85, exit 150 in Alamance
°
°
County, North Carolina. (36.13006
N, 79.37084
W). The project site contains stream channels
~ and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of a first order tributary that flows into Boyd's
~ Creek at the southern boundary of the property. Boyd's Creek is a tributary to the Haw River,
- which flows into the Cape Fear River, a navigable waterway and a tributary to the Atlantic
Ocean.

~ Existing Site Conditions: The entire East Alamance Quarry property is 610 acres in size and
- the proposed mine expansion tract (project site) is approximately 73 acres in size. The project
- site is primarily made up of forested land adjacent to the active mine pit, perimeter berm and
overburden stockpile areas. A power line crosses east-west through the expansion tract and
~ there are areas of cleared agricultural fields and pasture within the permitted expansion tract.
- Land located adjacent to the proposed mine expansion is primarily agricultural with few
- residences along NC 49 and Sandy Cross Road. The project site contains four stream channels,
with a total length of 5,3261inear feet, and two wetland areas with a total of 0.70 acres.

~ Applicant's Stated Purpose: The purpose of the project is to expand the existing mine in order
to continue operations and meet the local demand of aggregate material.
-

~ Project Description: The proposed activity would involve the expansion of existing mine pit.
This would include the creation of a perimeter berm around the expanded pit and the stockpiled

~ ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~
tl A
i
I
~ nc.
an
ssoc
ates,

• overburden south of the power line. A stream crossing over Boyd's Creek is also proposed to

~ provide access the southern portion of the pit. Total impacts for the expansion activities would
be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland, and 2,117 linear feet of intermittent stream channel

~ ,
(including 887 linear feet of intermittent channel with indicators of important aquatic function),
- and 98 linear feet of perennial stream. To mitigate for the proposed impacts, the applicant
~ proposes to restore 1,083 linear feet of stream channel and 0.50 acres of riparian wetland via
payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NC EEP).
~ Other Required Authorizations: Other required authorizations that will be obtained prior to
S construction of the proposed work including an individua1401 water quality certification from
• the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), sediment and erosion control permit
~ from the North Carolina Division of Land Resources, mine safety permits, etc.
~ Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): Based upon the location of the project and the minimal impacts
~ predicted, we believe the proposed project will not adversely impact EFH or associated
- fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
~ Cultural Resources: Following consultation with the latest published version of the National
• Register of Historic Places, we are not aware of any registered properties, or properties listed
~ as being eligible for inclusion therein that are located within the project area or will be affected
by the proposed work.

Endangered Species: Based upon consultation with the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage
- Database, no threatened or endangered species are known to be located in the immediate area
of the proposed project. Therefore, we believe that the proposed project will have no effect on
~ federally listed endangered or threatened species or their formally designated critical habitat,
~ pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
i
•
•
•
~~ Q
~'~O
o ~ ~ ti~~6
~~`~o ~,NO ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

Contents
1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project Description, Changes to Project .......................... 1
1.1 Location ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Existing Site Conditions .................................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2.2 Topography .......................................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands ........................................................................................ .. 2
1.2.4 Soils .................................................................................................................... ..4
1.2.5 Vegetation .......................................................................................................... .. 4
1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat ............................................................................ .. 4
1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites .............................................................. .. 4
1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain ......................................................................................... .. 5
1.3 Project Description ......................................................................................................... .. 5
1.4 Changes to Project ......................................................................................................... .. 6
2.0 Project Purpose ....................................................................................................................... .. 6
3.0 Scope of Analysis :.................................................................................................................. .. 7
4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations Obtained or Required and Pending ............. .. 7
4.1 State water quality certification (401) ............................................................................ .. 7
4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency Determination ................................... .. 7
4.3 Other authorizations ....................................................................................................... .. 7
5.0 Complete Application and Public Notice ............................................................................... .. 8
6.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10] :.............................................................. .. 8
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other sites) :................................... .. 8
6.1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative .................................................................. .. 8
6.1.3 Off-Site Alternatives .......................................................................................... .. 8
6.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.) ............................................................... .. 9
6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................ 11
7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines :................................................................................. 11
7.1 Factual determinations ................................................................................................... 11
7.1.1 Physical substrate ............................................................................................... 11
7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity ........................................................ 11
7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity ......................................................................... 11
7.1.4 Contaminant availability .................................................................................... 12
7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects .................................................................................. 12
7.1.6 Proposed disposal site ........................................................................................ 12
7.1.7 Cumulative effects ............................................................................................. 12
7.1.8 Secondary effects ............................................................................................... 13
7.2 Compensatory Mitigation .............................................................................................. 14
8.0 Public Interest Factors ............................................................................................................. 14
8.1 Conservation .................................................................................................................. 14
8.2 Economics ...................................................................................................................... 14
8.3 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 15
8.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p)) ....................................................... 15
8.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b)) ............................................................................................ 15
8.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e)) .......................................................... 15
iii ^~^ KimleyHorn
~ and Associates, Inc.

•
•
•
8.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c)) ..................................... 16
8
8 ................................
Flood hazards
.
8.9 .................................................................................................................
Floodplain values (33CFR320
4(1)) 16

8
10 .
...............................................................................
Land use 16
.
8
11 .........................................................................................................................
Navigation (33CFR320
4(
)) 16
.
8.12 .
0
.........................................................................................
Shore erosion and accretion 16

8.13 ...........................................................................................
Recreation 16

8
14 ......................................................................................................................
Water su
(33CFR320
4(
l 17
.
8
15 .
pp
y
m)) ....................................................................................
Water
ualit
(also 33CFR320
4
d 17
.
8.16 q
y
.
(
)) .............................................................................
Energy needs (33CFR320
4(n)) 17

8.17 .
.....................................................................................
Safety ......... 17

8.18 ....................................................................................................................
Food and fiber production 17

8
19 ..............................................................................................
Mineral needs 17
.
8
20 .................................................................................................................
Considerations of
ro
ert
hi 17
. p
p
y owners
p ........................................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph and Jurisdictional Features Map
Appendices
Appendix 1: Jurisdictional Areas Survey Plat, Signed by the USAGE (7/6/2006)
Appendix 2: USAGE Field Review Memorandum (12/1/2005)
Appendix 3: State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Response Letter (9/1/2006)
Appendix 4: NC Floodplain Mapping Program Map
Appendix 5: East Alamance Quarry Mine Plan 2004 Permit Modification (8/5/2004)
Appendix 6: Permit Drawings
Sheet 0: Title Sheet
Sheet 1: Wetland Impact Minimization Plan
Sheet 2: Boyd's Creek Pumping Plan
Sheet 3: Boyd's Creek Road Crossing Plan
Sheets 4, 5: Stormwater Details
Appendix 7: Agent Authorization
~~
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ antl Associates, Inc.

~
~ 1.0 Location, Existing Site Conditions, Project

• Description, Changes to Project
~ 1.1 Location
~ The project site is located south of Sandy Cross Road (SR 1752) and west of NC
~ State Highway 49, approximately 4 miles north of U.S. Interstate 40/85, exit 150 in
- Alamance County, North Carolina. (36.13006°N, 79.37084°W). The project site
. contains stream channels and adjacent wetlands that form the headwaters of a first
order tributary that flows into Boyd's Creek at the southern boundary of the property.
~ Boyd's Creek is a tributary to the Haw River, which flows into the Cape Fear River, a
- navigable waterway and a tributary to the Atlantic Ocean. Figure 1 (Vicinity Map)
- and Figure 2 (USGS Topographic Map) show the project location.
• 1.2 Existing Site Conditions
~ The Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) East Alamance Quarry property is 610 acres
~ in size. The proposed mine expansion tract (project site) is approximately 73 acres in
- size. The area proposed for construction of the perimeter berm and expanded pit

~ within the expansion tract is approximately 34 acres. The area proposed for
expansion is included in the approved NC Division of Land Resources Mine Plan for
~ the quarry. Figure 3 shows the perimeter for the expansion tract and the limits of the
- mine pit.
n
u
~ The project site is primarily made up of forested land adjacent to the active mine pit,
- perimeter berm and overburden stockpile areas. A power line crosses east-west
. through the expansion tract and there are areas of cleared agricultural fields and
pasture within the permitted expansion tract.
~ 1.2.1 Land Use
~ Land located adjacent to the proposed mine expansion is primarily agricultural
- with few residences along NC 49 and Sandy Cross Road. There maybe
future development within the local community, but this is likely to occur
~ south of the project area along the US 70 and Interstate 40/85 corridors south
~ of the project location. It is anticipated that the quarry expansion will help
. meet the growing demand for materials as development in the area expands;
- however, it is not anticipated mine expansion will change land uses adjacent
to the site. The current pit is approximately 50 acres in area and
~ approximately 130 feet deep. The current permitted discharge location is
~ north of the pit into an UT to Boyd's Creek.

^ ~ ^ KimleyHorn
~ and Associates, Inc,

1.2.2 Topography
Topographically, the proposed site is located at the upper end of the UT to
Boyd's Creek (Stream A) watershed that is approximately bounded to the
north by Sandy Cross Road (See Figure 2). Approximately 49 acres drain to
the property boundary onto the project area just down slope from an
agricultural and irrigation pond. The remainder of the Stream A watershed is
within the project boundary. Boyd's Creek is oriented north-south through the
existing mine area west of the expansion tract. West of Stream A is a
ridgeline separating the Stream A watershed from the Stream B watershed
draining to the southeast portion of the site. Along this ridgeline are an old
farm road and the overburden storage area. The Stream B watershed includes
first-order intermittent streams (Streams C and D). There are small headwater
riparian wetlands associated with Stream A and Stream C within the
expansion tract. Wetland A is a headwater wetland area caused by the
upslope pond on the adjacent property. The outflow, spillway, and seepage
from the pond, along with the constructed fence line along the property
boundary has caused diffused flow that eventually concentrates into asingle-
thread stream channel once on the site. Wetland B is associated with the
headwater area of Stream C and was likely caused from the construction and
disturbance associated with the construction of the power line. Figure 3
shows these areas on an aerial photograph. A signed jurisdictional
determination survey plat is attached as Appendix A.
1.2.3 Streams and Wetlands
Figure 3 shows the delineated jurisdictional areas evaluated byKimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. (KHA) staff and reviewed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USAGE) within the expansion tract boundary. Stream A
originates from Wetland 1, near the northern boundary of the subject property
and flows southeast to Boyd's Creek located along the southeastern boundary
of the subject property. Stream A is culverted in two locations for distances
of 437 and 104 feet. The total length of Stream A within the subject property
is approximately 2,9461inear feet not including culverted sections. Stream B
is located in the southwestern corner of the subject property. Stream B enters
the eastern boundary of the subject property south of the transmission line,
flows southeast and exits the southern boundary of the subject property near
the southwestern corner. The total length of Stream B within the subject
property is approximately 1,7461inear feet. Stream C originates from
Wetland 2, within the subject property, immediately south of the transmission
line. Stream C flows southwest and exits the subject property, eventually
flowing into Stream B prior to Stream B entering the subject property. The
total length of Stream C within the subject property is approximately 457
linear feet. Stream D originates south of the transmission line, in the western
portion of the subject property. Stream D flows southwest into Stream B, near
the western boundary of the subject property. The total length of Stream D
within the subject property is approximately 6941inear feet.
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ antl Associates, Inc.

~ Streams A, C, and D are intermittent streams. Stream B and Boyd's Creek are
- perennial streams. The hydrology of Boyd's Creek and Stream B originate
from surface and groundwater flow from much larger watersheds beyond the
~ property limits. Streams C and D originate as headwater streams within the
~ property and Stream A originates on the adjacent farm property at the pond
- just off-site from the boundary. Streams A, C, and D are relatively small,

~ measuring approximately 3 to 4 feet in width in most places. They are
relatively stable with bedrock grade control and exhibit characteristics
~ consistent with good quality streams located in the region, including well-
defined bed and bank characteristics, meanders, undercut banks, reduced soils,
• etc.

- Stream A is approximately 3,000 linear feet in length through the expansion
- tract, with 2,1171inear feet located north of the power line within the future
pit area. Of the portion of intermittent stream within the future pit area, 887
~ linear feet is considered "Important", supporting aquatic function. The upper
~ portion of Stream A, where much of the stream impact will occur, was
. determined to be "Unimportant" as it was lacking in aquatic function (habitat

~ and hydrology). This section of stream has comparatively less habitat, and
more importantly, lacks the flow necessary to support more than minimal
~ aquatic life. The site was reviewed by the USAGE on August 24, 2005 and
- again on December 1, 2005 to evaluate site hydrology under different climatic
- conditions. The determinations were confirmed also by NC Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) staff (Daryll Lamb) during an on-site field review on
~ February 9, 2006. Appendix 1 contains a survey of the jurisdictional areas
~ and determinations, and Appendix 2 contains a memorandum documenting
• the December 1, 2005 field review meeting, as well as site figures and data
forms.

- Boyd's Creek is located adjacent to the active mine area and is a larger

~ perennial stream system. The stream is relatively stable with bedrock control
and has a wooded riparian buffer through the Martin Marietta Property. There
~ are two existing road crossings for Boyd's Creek within the property used for
- mining operations.

~ Wetland A (0.44 acres) functions as a headwater riparian wetland as it is
- located in the upper portion of a watershed up slope from an intermittent
• stream system. Since Wetland A is also just down slope from the adjacent
impoundment, it also functions similarly to a hillside seep wetland dominated
~ by groundwater discharge. Both wetland types are common wetlands of the
~ North Carolina piedmont, and have few unique or exceptional qualities. The
- primary function of Wetland A is terrestrial habitat. Treatment of nutrients

~ 3 ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~
tl A
• an
ssociates, Inc.

- and sediment, as well as flood storage, is more likely provided by the upslope

~ impoundment. Stream A, down slope from Wetland A, is lacking in sufficient
hydrology and aquatic habitat, so it is also likely that Wetland A supports no
~ significant aquatic habitat. Wetland B (0.26 acres) is also a headwater
~ riparian wetland dominated by surface water hydrology. This area however,
- is limited in function due to the disturbance of the power line, and in fact may
have been created from disturbance and compaction of soils associated with
~ the construction within the transmission line easement. No groundwater
~ monitoring has been performed to measure wetland hydrology.

~

~ 1.2.4 Soils

~ Most of the soils within the expansion tract and future pit area are classified
by the USDA Soil Survey of Alamance County (1960) as Helena Sandy
~ Loam, or Helena Coarse Sandy Loam. This includes the pasture/agricultural
- areas, forested areas, and the riparian headwaters.

~ 1.2.5 Vegetation
~ The wetland areas on the site are forested, with the exception of the upper
~ portion of the Wetland B, which is within the power line easement and is
~ dominated by successional shrubs and herbaceous wetland vegetation. The
• wetlands receive hydrologic inputs primarily from surface water inputs as

~ headwater areas upslope from the streams. Wetland A also receives a
considerable amount of seepage from the off-site upslope pond. The
~ vegetation in the wetland portions of the project area ranges from facultative
- to obligate, suggesting that the soils on the site are regularly saturated
• throughout the year, but that they may dry out in the summer months or
during periods of drought.

~ 1.2.6 Protected Species and Habitat
~ Following a review of pertinent sources, it was determined that the site does
- not support species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or
threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. According to the
~ North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), there are no federally listed
~ threatened or endangered species in Alamance County. In addition, NHP does
- not have any mapped occurrences within one mile of the project site.
~ 1.2.7 Historical and/or Archaeological Sites
~ No sites within the vicinity of the project are registered or listed as being
~ eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Appendix 3
r
~ ~ Kimle -Horn
4 ^ ~ ^ and Associates, Inc.

~ provides a letter from The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO).

w 1.2.8 Regulated Floodplain
~ Boyd's Creek is a regulated floodway and floodplain within the East
~ Alamance Quarry property. All other streams within the expansion site are
- not located within the 100-year floodplain of the Boyd's Creek. Appendix 4

~ includes a map of the 100-year floodplain and floodway through the project
site.

~ 1.3 Project Description
~ The project as approved by the current Mine Plan shows the entire expansion tract as
~ future expansion area. This includes the area proposed for the berm, pit expansion,

~ and areas south of the power line to Boyd's Creek. The proposed activity is to
expand the pit eastward from existing limits within the expansion area north of the
~ power line easement. This would include the creation of a perimeter berm around the
- expanded pit and the stockpiled overburden south of the power line. No additional
- disturbance is proposed to the southeastern portion of the site at this time.

- In addition to the expansion of the pit, a stream crossing over Boyd's Creek south of
• the existing haul road crossing would be necessary in order to access the southern
portion of the pit and maintenance of water quality ponds in the expanded area of the
mine.

~ Site preparation would begin with the mechanized clearing of vegetation from the site
~ and installation of erosion control devices around the construction site. Wetland A
! (0.44 acres) would be filled for the creation of the perimeter berm, and Stream A,
~ from it's origin at Wetland A to the power line (2,117 LF) would be removed through

~ excavation of overburden material. 887 linear feet of Stream A has been identified as
"
"
Important
, with the remainder (1,230 LF) is considered "Unimportant" and lacking
sufficient aquatic function. There is an upslope impoundment offsite. This pond is
• currently used for irrigation and as a water source for the local fire department. The

~ watershed area is relatively small (~50 acres) so the impoundment and use of water
offsite from the project area has likely reduced the quality and function of the
~ downstream wetland and intermittent stream. There is likely minimal nutrient
• treatment and flood storage since much of the hydrology is contained within the pond,
• and downstream hydrology is mostly provided through seepage under the
impoundment. The reduction in hydrology to the downstream wetland and stream
~ also has affected aquatic habitat and hydrologic functions within the intermittent
~ channel.

S s ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~
~ and Associates, Inc.

•
•
A culvert and fill would be placed in Boyd's Creek (98 LF total comprised on 20 LF
of inlet protection riprap, 58 LF of CMP, and 20 LF of outlet protection riprap)
between the expanded pit area and plant downstream of the existing crossing. The
culvert would be designed and constructed to meet USACE requirements to maintain
flow, and would accommodate flood flows via floodplain culverts as necessary to
ensure that the crossing would not cause instability of the stream channel up and
downstream of the crossing.
Total impacts for the expansion activities would be 0.44 acres of riparian wetland,
1,230 LF of intermittent unimportant stream (approximately 4,920 square feet), 887
LF intermittent important stream, and 98 LF of perennial important stream.
MMM proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands and stream channels associated
with the project by providing payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) sufficient for the restoration of 0.50 acre of riparian
wetlands and 1,083 linear feet of stream channel (887 LF for 1:1 ratio of intermittent
important stream impact, 196 LF for 2:1 ratio for 98 LF of perennial stream impact)
within the Upper Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030002).
1.4 Changes to Project
Any changes to the project that occur during the permit review process will be noted
here.
2.0 Project Purpose
The basic project purpose for the proposed activity is to expand the existing mine in order to
continue operations and maintain supply for local demand of aggregate in Alamance County,
North Carolina. The East Alamance Quarry currently supplies five counties (Alamance,
Caswell, Guilford, Orange, and Person), including the Burlington, Mebane, Gibsonville, and
Leon College. The quarry typically produces 700,000 tons of aggregate per year. The quarry
currently employs 25 people, and expansion of the mine will provide for an additiona140 to
60 years of production. Construction within water of the U.S. is proposed to allow the
expansion of upland development activities. Based on the configuration of the mine in
relation to the property boundaries and Boyd's Creek, expansion westward is the only
practical alternative for the quarry to continue operations. This includes unavoidable impacts
to water of the U.S.
Off-site alternatives include development of a new mine, which is not practical from a timing
perspective due to acquisition of properties, zoning, etc, and would likely generate
comparable impacts based on the nature of the activity. On-site alternatives are limited by
physical constraints of the site (power line easement, property boundaries) or would require
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ antl Associates, Inc.

. greater impacts to water of the U.S. (i.e. Boyd's Creek). Therefore, these alternatives are not
- practicable and would not meet the project purpose and need.

- In order to gain access to the desired product the mine must expand laterally. This expansion
- also allows the existing pit to be excavated deeper, further increasing the potential output of

~ the mine. In order to achieve this goal, expansion into adjacent land is by far the most
i
pract
cal and economic solution. The presence of jurisdictional streams and wetlands on the
~ expansion tract is incidental, and not a requirement for the presence of the aggregate. It is
• technically possible to expand the tract without direct impacts to the jurisdictional areas on

~ the site, however to do so would significantly limit the volume of material produced by the
mine and the economic return of the project. Accordingly, we consider the proposed project
~ not to be water dependent, and less damaging practicable alternatives, which involve no fill
• in streams or wetlands, are therefore presumed to be available. It is also presumed that those
• alternatives have less adverse impact to the aquatic ecosystem. A review of the alternate
plans, including those that reduce or avoid impacts to waters of the U.S., is included in
~ Section 6 of this document.
~
3.0 Scope of Analysis:
- The proposed work will primarily benefit Martin Marietta Materials (MMM) and will be

~ wholly funded by MMM. Other than the requirement to obtain a Section 404 permit, no
other federal involvement in the proposed work is anticipated. There are no practicable
~ alternatives to the proposed plans that would further avoid or minimize impacts to waters of
- the U.S., and the project would not meet the applicant's purpose and need but for the
• proposed impacts. Additionally, the expansion tract is bisected by astream/wetland system

~ subject to Section 404 permit requirements, and impacts to this system are essential for the
d
evelopment of the project as a whole. Accordingly, we propose that the scope of analysis
~ extend to the limits of the project (i.e., the 73-acre expansion tract per the Mine Plan).
~
~ 4.0 Other Federal, State, and Local Authorizations

• Obtained or Required and Pending
~ 4.1 State water quality certification (401)
~ The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) 401 certification is submitted
~ concurrent to this 404 permit application.
~
~ 4.2 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Consistency
Determination
~ A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) consistency
~ determination/permit is not required.

~ 4.3 Other authorizations
- None required.

~ ~ ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~
~ and Associates, Inc.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.0 Complete Application and Public Notice
Application review and public notice are pending.
6.0 Alternatives [33 CFR 320.4(b)(4), 40 CFR 230.10]:
Based on the factors considered below, there are no practicable alternatives that would allow
MMM to avoid impacts to waters of the U.S. associated with expansion of the East
Alamance Quarry.
6.1 Avoidance (No action, uplands, and availability of other
sites):
6.1.1 No Action/Upland-Only Alternative
MMM has considered the no action (i.e. no permit required) alternative and
determined that it would not meet the project purpose and need. If the
expansion of the project were to be limited to upland areas east of Stream A,
the quarry would not be able to economically support operations and would
cease to operate. This would limit the amount of reserves available and
significantly reduce the life of the mining operations, as it would significantly
limit the depth of the mine as well as the area for the pit. In addition,
development of a second pit without impacts to waters of the U.S. is not
feasible as the pit expansion considers the depth of the future pit as well as the
area for expansion, so that the upland area available for a second pit could not
be deep enough to be viable. Expanding the existing pit laterally also allows
the mine to continue to spiral to a deeper depth, meaning that the permit is
necessary not only for the expansion area, but also for the continued operation
of the existing pit. Furthermore, crossing jurisdictional areas would also still
be necessary to logistically operate the plant. Therefore, not expanding the
pit or limiting the pit would cause MMM to lose the economic benefit that
would result from operation of the facility, and the local community would
lose the tax revenues and the supply of the aggregate material. Finally, per the
approved Mine Plan, MMM intends to construct a perimeter berm along the
property boundary of the proposed pit to control access and safety, limit noise,
and provide an aesthetic barrier to adjacent properties. This berm, if
constructed in uplands only, would not be contiguous, and thus, would not
function as intended. The no action alternative would result in the
preservation of approximately 0.70 acre of wetlands and 8,0371inear feet of
stream channel (length approximate based on GIS mapping of Boyd's Creek
accounting for 2,194 LF). While this would be the least damaging alternative,
it is not practicable, and does not support the project purpose and need.
6.1.3 Off-Site Alternatives
The project purpose is specifically for the expansion of an existing facility and
not for the construction of a new mine. The criteria that required for
developing a new mine are substantial. The site must be of adequate size to
^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ antl Associates, Inc.

allow for the mine infrastructure. The useful mining area of the site is limited
by a number of factors. Typically, a 300 to 500-acre tract is required to
support operations typical of the East Alamance Quarry. There are specific
requirements set for mining safety that govern the size of haul roads, the shape
of the mining pit, and blasting and excavation procedures. The site must also
support a berm as an acoustic barrier, fences, and forested buffers for visual
and aesthetic reasons. Additionally, the site must support outbuilding
constriction, overburden stockpiling, aggregate processing, equipment
storage, transportation corridors, and water control features. All of these
factors affect the useable acreage left for the actual pit. On top of these
considerations, the site must have the necessary geology, such that the desired
aggregate is present and accessible.
The local demand for aggregate must also be present, particularly given the
extremely high costs of trucking mining product any distance. In general, the
East Alamance Quarry provides product to the local market within a 30-mile
radius. This also requires that the site have reasonable access to major
transportation corridors, proper zoning, and availability of a reliable water
supply. Finally, development of a new mine is likely to result in local
opposition, in addition to concerns regarding environmental justice. When all
of these factors are considered, the costs of developing a new site are
prohibitively expensive compared to the alternative and expanding an existing
facility.
- It is also important to recognize that the development of alternative sites (if

~ they were available) would likely result in impacts equal to or greater than the
proposed expansion alternative. Topography throughout eastern Alamance
~ County is fairly incised, resulting innumerous streams and wetlands. Any
. facility of equivalent size would likely have a mix of jurisdictional areas
- similar to that of the proposed site. As state above, any alternative site would

~ likely be large with an extensive impact area. While it is possible that there
are sites available that meet the stated criteria, it is extremely unlikely that
~ those sites would present a less damaging alternative.

~
~ 6.2 Minimization (modified project designs, etc.)

~ The very nature of a mine requires an extensive surface disturbance, making it
difficult to work around streams and wetlands. The effect of avoiding small surface
~ streams and wetlands located in the middle of a mine site is amplified because the
~ slope of pit wall that would be required. In essence, the cone of effect underneath a
i small wetland or stream may represent a vast quality of material. As a result, it is
difficult to design a mining project to minimize impacts in the same manner as
~ commercial or residential developments where road and building footprints can be
~ rearranged, and retaining walls can be used to prevent fill from extending into

~ 9 ^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~
~ and Associates, Inc.

wetland areas. As explained below, MMM has tried to locate the mine expansion in
such a way that it minimizes impacts to streams and wetlands as much as possible
while still maximizing the aggregate yield of the site.
MMM has decided to not pursue any physical impact to streams in the
southern portion of the expansion tract below the power line easement
although this area is approved for future mine expansion per the Mine Plan
(5,920 LF of avoided stream channel including the approximate length of
Boyd's Creek accounting for 2,194 LF). There will be activities within this
area to stockpile overburden per the Mine Plan, however, this activity will
take place in uplands only.
MMM has worked to minimize secondary impacts to the avoided streams
where considerable portions of the watershed will be altered or removed
through excavation. This minimization effort includes rerouting of
stormwater, pumping, and management of discharge locations to provide
supplemental hydrology to these areas to support aquatic functions. These
minimization measures apply to the remaining segment of Stream A south of
the power line, and Wetland B/Stream C discussed below. See Appendix 6
for permit drawings of the minimization measures.
o MMM proposes to redirect a portion of storm flow from Boyd's Creek
to the head of the remaining portion of Stream A to maintain
intermittent flow and hydrologic functions in the remaining portion of
the stream channel. It is anticipated that once mining activities cease
and the pit recharges, Stream A will be a natural outlet for storm flows
from the pit/lake area, and that the intermittent hydrologic functions
will remain. Therefore, MMM will maintain a pump mechanism or
floodplain channel diversion to capture periodic storm flows from
Boyd's Creek and re-direct them to Stream A. Once the pit expansion
is completed in the area of the remaining segment of Stream A, a
secondary discharge location maybe added in that location to maintain
discharge to Stream A while mining activities continue.
o The proposed minimization measure for the Wetland B/Stream C
headwater area is to capture the re-directed flow from the off-site pond
upslope from Stream A. The existing outlet of the pond will remain,
to support the down slope wetlands off-site of the MMM property and
project area, however, the spillway will be modified to limit
stormwater flow into the expanded pit area. This modified spillway
will capture and re-direct stormwater flow through apipe/ditch system
to a settling basin and level spreader system up slope from the head of
Wetland B/Stream C. This diffuse flow will offset the removal of the
drainage area caused by the pit expansion in order to maintain the
hydrologic function of the wetland/stream system. The diffuse flow
level spreader mechanism will be incorporated to limit head cutting
through the wetland. Wetland B (0.26 acre) will be avoided by the pit
expansion and berm construction.
i o ~ ~ ^ KimleyHorn
~ and Associates, Inc.

~ 6.3 Conclusions of Alternatives Analysis
~ This report provided information regarding the limitations that are specific to the
. proposed type of activity, the topography of the site, safety requirements, aesthetic

~ features, and required infrastructure. Based on this information, it was determined
that there are no reasonable off-site alternatives that meet the project purpose. This
~ report also provides information regarding the efforts made by the applicant to
• minimize impacts to streams and wetlands, and to attempt to locate unavoidable
• impacts in areas that support the least aquatic function. After reviewing alternatives
and the efforts made to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, we
~ believe that the proposed plan represents the least damaging practicable alternative.
~

• 7.0 Evaluation of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines:
~ 7.1 Factual determinations
•
~ 7.1.1 Physical substrate
., Approximately 2,2071inear feet of stream channel (90 LF of perennial, 887
. LF important intermittent, and 1,230 LF unimportant intermittent) would be
filled, excavated, or piped. Additionally, 0.44 acre of wetland would be filled
~ or excavated. Construction should proceed at a steady rate over the life of the
~ permit. Although turbidity rates in the stream below the worksite may
• temporarily increase during construction activities, sedimentation and erosion

~ control measures required by the state should prevent the displacement of
sediment downstream. Per the approved Mine Plan, once excavation of the
~ mine pit begins, stormwater runoff would be captured and pumped to streams
- at a controlled rate, minimizing the risk for downstream bank erosion.
• Accordingly, stream substrate below the project site is not likely to be
appreciably affected.

~ 7.1.2 Water circulation, fluctuation, and salinity
• The proposed project should have no appreciable effect on current,
• circulation, or drainage pattern. The watershed for the stream proposed to be
impacted is largely contained on the site. The wetland impact is not
~ substantial, and should not result in a measurable decrease in floodwater
~ retention. Where in-stream flows would be affected by the mine, measures
~ would be put in place to divert water around the impact area. These measures
will only be required for intermittent streams that have no baseflow during the
~ dry season. With the exception of a road crossing, no impacts would occur to
~ perennial streams.
~ 7.1.3 Suspended particulate/turbidity
- Downstream turbidities would increase temporarily during construction of the
~ site; however, this would be ashort-term impact. The majority of increases in
~ turbidity would likely to result from clearing and construction of upland areas.
~ u ^ ~ ^ KimleyHorn
~ ~ antl Associates, Inc.

i
• Any impacts would be minimized by the implementation of appropriate

~ erosion control measures as required by the approved Mine Plan. Once the
expansion of the mine begins, off site storm flows would be carried around the
~ pit. Much of the onsite runoff would collect in the bottom of the mine, where
- it is pumped to containment areas for use in dust abatement. Accordingly, the
- effects of turbidity resulting from the proposed undertaking are expected to be
minor.
~ 7.1.4 Contaminant availability
. The proposed project would not introduce contaminants or increase the
- likelihood of contamination. Only suitable earthen material, mostly
originating on site, which should be free of toxic pollutants or contaminants,
~ would be used for construction of the permitted fills.
~

• 7.1.5 Aquatic ecosystem effects
- The placement of fill associated with the project would result in a total loss of
the impacted aquatic ecosystem and its functions. The wetland area would be
~ filled and would no longer provide nutrient filtration or sediment removal, and
~ habitat present within the wetland area would be lost. The aquatic system
• immediately downstream of the project site is limited to a stream system. The
short-term effects expected downstream would primarily be limited to
~ temporary discharges of sediment during construction. These impacts would
~ be minimized by proper installation of sediment and erosion control devices,
- which are required by state and local ordinances.
~ 7.1.6 Proposed disposal site
~ No disposal sites are required by the proposed plans.

~ 7.1.7 Cumulative effects
• For the purposes of assessing cumulative effects that the proposed action may

~ have to the aquatic environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the effects within
the project boundaries and downstream of the project as it could effect the
~ watershed. The direct impact of the undertaking includes the loss of 2,207
- linear feet of stream channel, including 977 linear feet of stream determined to
- have important aquatic function, as well as 0.44 acres of wetland. The impacts
to these resources would result in a complete loss of function, including water
~ quality functions (nutrient sequestration, sediment filtration, etc.), habitat for
~ aquatic and terrestrial species, and hydrology (flood water attenuation,
- groundwater recharge, etc.). The project is located in a relatively undeveloped
part of the county. Other impacts to the aquatic environment located in the
~ region are mainly a result of agricultural production, low and moderate
~ density residential development, and road corridor construction. The
- anticipated effects of the proposed project would be minimal relative to other
• types of projects in the region, and taken alone, do not present a significant or
imminent threat to the stability and integrity of the aquatic ecosystem within
~ the watershed. The type of wetland and stream system located that would be

~
1 z
.
~ Kimley-Horn
^ ~ ^ and Associates, Inc.

• impacted is not particularly unique or high quality resource. Furthermore, by

~ implementing proposed best management practices, such as the retention of
stormwater and the implementation of sediment and erosion control measures,
~ the effects of the project can be somewhat reduced. The loss of stream and
~ wetland function would also be replaced by the proposed mitigation. Based
~ on all of the available information, the project would not contribute more than
minimally to the cumulative impact on aquatic resources in the region.

~ 7.1.8 Secondary effects
~ The secondary effects of the project would be limited to the aquatic resource
- effects directly resulting from placement of fill into waters of the U.S., other
than the fill itself. With respect to the fill required for road construction, there
~ should be few, if any measurable secondary effects. This is primarily because
~ the roads themselves would not encourage additional development, as they are
- designed only to provide access to the adjoining land for quarry operations.
The roadways may result in some additional stormwater and pollutant load in
~ the stream channels; however, this possibility would be minimized by the
~ proper maintenance of sediment and erosion control measures.

~ Fill and excavation conducted during construction of the berms and pit would
~ result in some temporary loss of sediment downstream, however the project
~ would not result in substantial increases in impervious surface. Stormwater
- flowing into the pit would either be stored on site or pumped directly to
stream channels in a controlled manner per the approved Mine Plan.

~ Many of the secondary effects that are traditionally attributable to residential
and commercial development do not apply in this case. Because of the nature
~ of the activity, the proposed undertaking would not result in additional
~ demand for residential development in the region. The aggregate produced by
~ the quarry is necessary for the construction industry; however, a decrease in

~ the available supply from a single quarry would not slow development in the
region. The site is also not expected to generate the same amount or type of
~ wastewater associated with a development of its size.

~ Considering the discussion above, potential secondary effects resulting from
~ the proposed project are unlikely to have more than a minimal impact to
- aquatic resources. Additionally, those effects that do occur are likely to be
- minimized by measures required of the applicant, including the
implementation of sediment and erosion control plans, and control of
stormwater leaving the site.

-
13

^ ~ ^ KimleyHorn
~ and Associates, Inc.

_ __

~ 7.2 Compensatory Mitigation
~ As discussed in section 1.3, most of the proposed impacts are to intermittent
- unimportant stream and low-quality wetland due to the altered hydrologic functions
- of Wetland A and Stream A from the off-site pond. Since discharge from the pond
has been reduced, the aquatic functions downstream within the project area have also
~ been reduced.

~ Therefore, MMM has proposed to mitigate unavoidable impacts by providing
~ payment into the NCEEP to provide for the restoration of 1,083 linear feet of stream
~ channel (based on 1:1 mitigation ratio for 887 LF of intermittent/important stream
~ impact, and 2:1 ratio for 98 LF of perennial stream impact), and 0.50 acre of riparian

~ wetlands (based on a mitigation ratio of 1:1 for the 0.44 acre of impact rounded to the
nearest 0.25 acre).

~

~ Based on the current Schedule of Fees for the NCEEP, a total payment of
$266,107.50 will be made to NCEEP for compensatory mitigation.

Payment into the NCWRP is an acceptable form of mitigation as established by the
~ Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina Department of
~ Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
• Wilmington District, dated November 4, 1998.

~ 8.0 Public Interest Factors

• 8.1 Conservation
~ The proposed development does not include the permanent conservation of any
~ stream or wetland areas on site; however, the Mine Plan calls for the avoidance of
impact to the riparian buffer of Boyd's Creek other than haul road crossings. Based

~ on the Mine Plan, the creek is a buffered stream corridor separating the active pit
from the plant and stockpile areas. In addition, the expansion tract includes the
~ property south of the power line which contains 3,7261inear feet of stream (Streams
- A, B, C, and D). MMM has agreed to limit the pit expansion north of the power line
• and only disturb upland areas south of the power line. Lastly, the mitigation payment
in the NCEEP would also be used to restore and preserve stream corridors and
~ wetland areas elsewhere in the Cape Fear River Basin.
~

• 8.2 Economics
~ The applicant would be the primary beneficiary of expansion of the mine and

~ continued sale of aggregate product. However, the expansion project would help
meet regional current and future demand for aggregate. It would also continue to
~ provide an overall benefit to the local economy, and would result in continued local,

14

^ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

- state, and federal tax revenues. The development would also continue to support
- permanent employment for the quarry staff. The anticipated cumulative and
secondary effects resulting from the proposed development have been considered in
~ this document and it is not expected that the project would lead to additional growth-
induced impacts.
~ 8.3 Aesthetics
~ The project would be an expansion of the existing site development and land use for
~ long-term operations. Therefore, the project would not generate additional noise and
~ light relative to the residential and agricultural uses that are currently located in the
- vicinity. In addition, the site is already zoned for the site expansion, so the project

~ would not cause disharmony in the aesthetics of the community or planned future
growth of the region.

~ 8.4 General environmental concerns (33CFR320.4(p))
• The overall impact to the environment as a result of the construction would be
• minimal. As an expansion of an existing operation, minimal increases in sediment,
construction noise, traffic levels, etc., would be expected during construction of the
~ project. Impacts to wetlands, streams, and fish and wildlife would primarily result
~ from the loss of existing aquatic and terrestrial habitat and by changes to the
- watershed, though these effects would be offset by functions provided by the

~ stormwater facilities and by the mitigation offered by the applicant. In addition, these
measures will be offset in the long term ultimately by the lake and natural areas
~ provided through reclamation once the operations cease. The proposed plan also
• avoids impacts to the majority of the streams and riparian zones located on the site.
• Consideration was also given to the environmental justice of the proposed project.
Stormwater generated by the increases in impervious surfaces would be retained on-
~ site, preventing potential negative impacts to persons living or owning land with the
- floodplain downstream of the project. Additionally, the surrounding region is not
- occupied any particular minority or ethnic group, so the proposed activity would not
lead to environmental justice concerns.

~ 8.5 Wetlands (33CFR320.4(b))
~ There is a total of 0.70 acres of delineated and verified wetlands on the project site.
- The project would result in the loss of 0.44 acres of headwater wetland that currently

~ provides limited functions due to the upstream impoundment, which is used for
irrigation. The applicant would mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands by
~ payment into the NCEEP program.
~ 8.6 Historic and cultural resources (33CFR320.4(e))
- There are no known or suspected historic or cultural resources located within the
~ permit area, and no impact to any of these resources would result from the project.
~ The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation
~ Office (SHPO) was contacted and verified that no registered properties, or properties
- listed as being eligible for inclusion therein are located within the project area or
~ 1 s ~ Kimley-Horn
- ^ ~ ^ and Associates, Inc.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
would be affected by the proposed work. See Appendix 3 for correspondence from
the SHPO.
8.7 Fish and wildlife values (33CFR320.4(c))
The project would not be expected to result in more than minimal permanent adverse
effects to fish or wildlife values. During construction, it is likely that many aquatic
and terrestrial animals would be lost, along with their habitat. The type of habitat on
the site includes forested wetland and upland areas, limited in-stream and riparian
habitat, and agricultural fields. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database for protected species shows that there are no mapped occurrences
of listed species of concern within one mile of the project site. In addition, there are
no federally listed threatened or endangered species for Alamance County.
8.8 Flood hazards
The project would not be expected to have an impact on the overall hazard of
flooding downstream of the project site. The mine expansion would not result in
increases to impervious surface within the watershed, and the existing stormwater
management program would remain in place.
8.9 Floodplain values (33CFR320.4(I))
Pursuant to Executive Order 11988, consideration has been given to the effect of the
proposed project toward reducing the risk of flood loss, minimizing the impact of
floods on human safety, health and welfare, and restoring and preserving the natural
and beneficial values served by floodplains. Portions of the site along Boyd;s Creek
are located within the regulated 100-year floodplain. A small portion of the
floodplain would be filled to allow for development of the site for the haul road
crossing. The crossing on Boyd's Creek will require fill in the regulated floodplain
and will be appropriately permitted and coordinated with the Alamance County
floodplain manager and/or FEMA. It is anticipated that the culvert will be designed
and constructed to not restrict the 100-year storm event and thus a no rise certification
is anticipated and will be obtained prior to construction. See Appendix 4 for a map of
the FEMA-designated floodplain.
8.10 Land use
As proposed, the mine expansion would result in the conversion of forested and
agricultural land to a mine. While this is a major shift in land use, the project would
remain consistent with the zoning requirements for the site.
8.11 Navigation (33CFR320.4(0))
The project is located on anon-navigable waterway. Accordingly, consideration of
the project's effect on navigation is not applicable.
8.12 Shore erosion and accretion
The project does not contain open waters; therefore, the project's effect on shore
erosion and accretion is not applicable.
t 6 ~ ~ ^ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.

_ _ __

• 8.13 Recreation
~ The project is intended to expand the existing operations within the property.
• Therefore, the project is not expected to effect regional recreational opportunities.
~ 8.14 Water supply (33CFR320.4(m))
~ The development will draw from local water supply sources, but it is not expected to
~ add demand to the local water supply system. Water and sewer services have already
~ been provided to the site, so no additional impact from construction of these utilities
- is anticipated. Since the project is an expansion to an existing operation, there should
be no appreciable effect to ground water recharge within the region.

~ 8.15 Water quality (also 33CFR320.4(d))
~ No major impacts to water quality are expected. Minor temporary increases in
- turbidity may occur during construction, however, due to the nature of the activity

~ (expanding the pit) it is not anticipated that the activity will discharge sediment or
pollutants. It is anticipated that the site's stormwater treatment facility should offset
~ long-term impacts by removing sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants from treated
- stormwater, and by attenuating peak flows downstream. The North Carolina Division
- of Water Quality is required to review the proposed plans and provide a state 401
Water Quality Certification prior to construction of the project.

~ 8.16 Energy needs (33CFR320.4(n))
~ Since the proposed project is an expansion of an existing operation, it is not
• anticipated that there will be additional requirements to the local electrical grid.
~ 8.17 Safety
~ Since the proposed project is an expansion of an existing operation, it is not
~ anticipated that there will be additional traffic requirements or safety concerns.
- During construction of the project, all applicable safety standards would be observed.
~ 8.18 Food and fiber production
~ The project site is primarily forested. Relative to the amount of forested land in the
~ region, the effect of this conversion will be negligible.
~ 8.19 Mineral needs
- As stated in the project purpose, the project is intended to continue operations to
~ supply aggregate to the local market.
~ 8.20 Considerations of property ownership
- Since the proposed project is an expansion of an existing operation, it is not
- anticipated that the adjacent landowners will be affected as a result of the proximity
of their property to the project. The use of the land would be consistent with the
~ designated zoning, and the owner's right to reasonable, private use of their land.

i~
•

^!^ Kimley-Horn
! and Associates, Inc.

i
~ ~ R~ ...
-: rr OYp'S ~ ~
J n o
~ ~
5
1 C-
~ n
0 sr ~r.
tl ~ ':
t

a
°` a~~ S Ai 2 ~ ~
L `~
~ ~

rd
~ W
87 ~

t 'm
54
~~ o` ~
O ~!
~~~a ~ ~

+
-
~ 4o i- B

*.
oll- 5 i

~
. ~ 't a
~ -
~ 8
.bi
'"
°J~ ~'~~~` ~
"

r"-- \
,oad We o
n n
st 3 ~ ~`0 S6
F
~ ~ -
.ac

~ v

y tl -

~ e
~
~ ~ ~
r~~ }
~' ~, a~''~d~ , _
~~
lea , ~v -_, ~
} ! , a 2389
'+ ~ ~`feaf~i , ~ yJ ~, ~ - ~
5
°'
..
c
r~ I 4
pS mf
- e
f ~
Ivey Rd
_
}
A 2248

2280 rn E ' w,P

S
~ _
ai
-
R ~c ( 7? ,
~• ~ °°r EE'Y~~
~ ~~R`re`Y ~ ~' 3~ ~ fem.
_
O '3,000
_
~ o~,i
eekW I Cio~~~~'~ r
'N'JirrrMinoriR'rj a - .lrJ
SS pr
e
~ ~/ A
•n ~
v_ a _
+
_ °
'
s gor g
~
~
feet o'r
R .'
_
is S~
W
`' o °a
2289 p'
OK i l•
~ I ~°
O' 2291 ~' ~

Title Vicinity Map
Project East Alamance Quarry

M..w, w.i.,,. wa.~.i. ^^ Alamance County, North Carolina
~yr Date Project Number Figure
11/13/2006 011185024 I
T:ApnA01118024 F.. Alan~ueA404 PermitA409 _hgures.doc Prepared by Chad 6venhouse [~~~ ~n~

' a r~~ r~.
t ~
~
(
l
.y .: r
i~
7 i 1
J ~ ,.
`,n t ~~
-
*1 ,
\
"
`
_ t s ~
~t. ~ -f..l ~ a - ~-.~•',4y i :11 ~~
ti _ il.
•,~ rf •,=i
• _
~ ~ }
~
I ~
. t
-~ - ~ ~
(f~~ f
~, ~ y. fig` .,lit .[*. ..
. 4 ~ 6M ~ 19 ~~s ~ f 1 .x
~.` ~K.7g-, slim 1 ~ Y +.. +D~' ~ . `f ` f F', t~
I
~
( ~
f t". 4 1 "3~y- ~ 3
1
.. - ~ y~rj ~ ~ ~
I I
' Y4
'
(,~,,.q
~
~
_
. tsj. ~
.,'i Yi
I
,.-
s
Si J :J ~, .
~ ~ r
r i ~~., Mfr
f ~e ~ A
tF "
F .
,,..v ~~~'y ~, ~ ~ ~~ 1
! ~ `. I SAS ~ ~ • w' ~, - ~ r € ~ `~ ;,ir--t _ ~ ~ ~~
~ ,
~.,

TF
fr
F ~
~'

~ ~
g~,
,~
t ~
i '1 .. ~
ti _ ro, .. , °r. f~_, ` - ~ ~ Project Area ~ ;• ,° . ~ six ,.

.
I ~ 1 , 1 ,.
-•

.% . _.. `
t 1~ ~~~,
• f
~
3
v
.4 ~~. r.
:. _.. - ~ y~1
1
"
~
Y S
-~+~,~
~
w _
-
" +4

5 :~h1 x Ffi `t. j '~i E f ~. S. "}4 I.. , ~,- ~ }~
k _
Y #L 1'.. 1 /'fir ~f •~ - ~ 1 _ - !~ I r I. ~JH ,. .`i' * ~~r x~.~ _ + r . 1

.
.
ggq
,,,,,,
f f
e

•
,
~~~ ,, ]~ f
1
1 F -- t ~: rti J i{ Y
~ .~
~ ~ .'r t.. 4~ Y '.`

'ti ,.~ l I • ~ ~P I I, a , ..•

.~. f -.
'~~ -
_ ' ~ I M f N ~ _ . .,~ ~ ' v
'k
i
"
~y,,
r- ,
I
i
+
~ '
# • r ~`~~ '~ ~ { f r # J~3 f f' if ~ ~' .I~ _j I r ~
I
L. ~
ti.. ,. ,: ;~ ,: r 1F~.~ ~~: ~ ~ . t,
~. rd ~ y f .~ 1 1 '~ ~ ,
r4 ~ r: ~-~~ ~ ~ ~; ~ 'R
_ , ~ .~~ ~
~. '~ ;fit: w _ I F ,
C
,
_
,
~
r`~I
v
•
I
r~
t
~
t
h
: fi; . t`~ ~ "'
y~
F:
`1
i ~
,41 _ :S+'1~
.
..'~ -
- _ ,_ti
-
~
' ; ~, ._ 111 ~ 6, .~;~,

,.
ooo ~ - f
' o ~
ooo l
ooo z
•
i
.
.
.
:a x
. ~
~ ~ 4 ~` Y~f, 4:~
~'
'`
--
k
:_1a
- ~ Ilk., .
w
Feet ~ r -_ ~ - ~' . '~ . a ~r,~,,
- -
..
, ,
:,
•
-
~
._ ~
f !
a
;
1 '.~~~r.. _.._ ''~ ~~}'• - • +.I.' -j..
..+
e.. , .dam/' ~• ,~. ~ .-...-.~. •
Title USGS Quad Map
Project East Alamance Quarry

M•glin MarWlta M•twiel• ~^ Alamance County, North Carolina
w w
`~°
Date
Project Number
Figure
11/13/2006 011185024 2
T:\pn\Ol 1185024 E. Alamance\404 Pemut\404_figuces.doc Prepared by Chad Evenhouse [ r~ ~' '~~ "'"~~Ntl1
ra ~ ice. ~.

- T:\pn\Ol 1185024 E. Alamance\404 Pemut\404_figures.doc Prepared by Chad F,venhouse ~~~~ K"'M~p11
~. ~.

g 'Sg
< /~
5 R. 1?51
A SANDY CROSS RD
0
EAST
LFURIIC[
aIARRY ~
~/ 2
SEL NOrE t
UICIIJITY N
Nor to wuE
_ _
O~ ~ ~_ P~ p~
3
" Z
T A
9
9
C ° c n
~ >;
a
~ 2y°oS° ~~
n v n 7~
a = a
A
:~° a~
~
- . i n R
n
u
~ n _ A
c na
3 ~ ~ D
°
',:~;'"°
3 1 u J R y
o
'o : o ..
I
~
~~
~
• n " 9' i
a

n .. u
9
o
c 3~ 4' o o B
- y
n o
u a ; a
^, C
~ E p a~ n X
u m e
] ~ °
r
C ~ > o
y C O
o • u F• n ~-
c -
a ~.
0°05. - 3 e
m
$ -
_ n ; ~.
8 -
1111,L1111111p`F, '/'
. ~ AMA ~ i
py~d 9 ~. 9~,.
:aro ~ o,;5ys
: Cq W[Nj1 q:n~
,~4i~o wD~~~,op;
w4
111A`'A
~I iF N_
O~ 1 ~ ~ AI
~~ I
OIO CAAa i1 TAD
a oo~i v, oj(
~~I ~ O~
InCm S: ela.
ZI OAZC pinl
O~~ Zmy~ 7; I I
N\\\\ [-I•I Cr lJI~
Ai~ OZj .. War
m A N
~ yO0 ml`~
A~ xxT AI
I Ayi I
I _O ~I
I m I
I ~~Z of
~ vyA ZI
OmA mV
A
m Am
~~
I a' ~ sm
1~ a< m0
°~ =tt:
m ~ oS~~ Or
IIA = 1 D
Z
~ ~ N !^O
i
lAx PA+ E-1F-B
xc D+m comps
N eF6076.09
f 1B9DODi59
ur.• k.11BB9k1
Lvlc• -)p.J711sosB
IAX PPI s-16-1)
~'/wa
A 06'aB'E MARTN MARI[11A PN07CRtt un~
I
I tAk PN 5-te-SJ NB
73071
r C%FAN9d+,RpCt Ba1NDPRY
~.~ aB'E
-'
LJ ~~
ga=.D6r( LF WETIANp "A"~ ~
19750 SO.fr. e1
L7~ ' ~
~ L,D 0111 aC.
L
9
L11
\
[Ie LIt
LZD [f1 e1r .-
AreAa
Fp=ROF ~ ,~~~~
~~ RY
B
~
uB Lsil L~J:~
~.._ _
R~~~gE
APP
Pi
~ ~~
7 ~~
~~ ~ O
B
j

,
_-~~~
J (l19
~6~ \l50 1d
~
~ ~ \' e14r
~1 i.o l~f •~s LS]
9. 9G LS
Y 1•
1
1
`` 4ARnN YARI[71A YAIERIAI$
us ALwArIR aIARRY
SCE PV1 BY ALLKD A$SDDAf[S. i.A,
rAA PRJ y-te-9A
~``'<,,
a
\~ `'S
'' ~ r+Y \\ °'r
/ I t95 5~ 2 eY2~ ~``
L \ gF~ a
} td'
IQ H L57 A LBO / * `___-
0 _ ~~ !
~I a 6''F ~~[''\~~~ LSB l59 LFI 9t w?
~~W LF ° ,~,
w Im 7 4Rg. L6 ~ L66
g EUNR[ Rr ARCA n,~ LA
} IX ~ 7~ $r LBBO 4 B
o l p a °_,e4q~ ,,~ a 48
i R 4
.~ao ,~ A1~ LuFL,'Leo ~BECIN IUIFORIAWT
Q LE 1 L Lip L01 1F6' EAN RPE
7J
9~. lee
I-EIP I ~~~5 ~LB7 ~ L90
~b.T JnC,ied" La1 l97 '~ BF1Px
470 ex.
L19~ B~ .
L WETLAFJU ,~e„ ~ s. L„ +
L79 n3B6 SD.FI. A99
~~. L ' ~ 0.161 aC. ~ L9e
lJl
- -- - u1 L9 Lee
_ kILBA-______ APPROX. BOUIJOARY
ttEC.® 1 ~- lt0D L99
rOMR ~ 1 OF FUTURE P7'
_ ~_ LAs ]s ® ~ 9D' olrL vD R _-__ :La+c NN nm Los
9000' vF Rjw wMERi+g -~______ loA 1
)p ~ 0.9.178, Pf.. 511 ® aJll)ARI'0r RjA ~ _ t01 7
L1 ~ lJ~ ~ -~ P.B. 3.=G. I0J ELCL _~_~~__.~__ U
j ~ L f)pLk ~ i0w'iR ® __________~~
~ ~ L1I ~- _
C ~ a ~[Ny0 h S)P.fY
N
'V~J S E
t~ GRID
c
C aN
~, suRAn
N eesnal
~~ [ lewssoo
cA a BOro's orciw ,. ~'
Ai PRDPDRD gp~A;G/~. f~.
4 ~~97 ] ,P•'~ lc ~r4
E lep)a)935 4 n 4
\ y, y 4
til
(
(
GL•t
~OJ~~4 i
F~~o G'~N ~/ J~
P OF ~ / eoro's aiff~ /
~ J~ ..
~~ saro's fRE[1L rror =
~ . ~sLIRVEYED. APmm ==~' uARnu 4ARIFnA 4AtEnw.s
NA ~ LOCAlIOH ~~ ~O FASr ALAYAfIR Q11P.RY
1d e ( ~ ~ sEE rt.r er uuD AssoaAl[s, P.A
~' O~A~ f
4
uo7 E4o a slmvEd ~ ~
PZ X12/t•~` 1U fipC~y
9
~~~~R -'~ -~
m.4mt+ m~E
~~~
~
~~2
~ 2
%
` y.^ ~~~~
/
a
' y
}
C
~a ~
\i
~
~F
~+ y8~ ~ ~•

i~]F
,~i
2J~
y'
,;
tt,tr`i .
t2J .~.0 4.'
\AA°~ 1F 0 ~,~D
~/xJ S~N;,A~dQ~s pSyd'
S
~,~,RP{~,~~
P""
e'
-~
./
~Yi
Pip
Eby
~F16'
\~
X60
\\ )\B9
\ C`7
+~,8 F! l~Fq~ o\\
s,y n~, '"'s~ B' `,:
gYk Elfw S(MI aArs
wits-mss FKO R7y ~o
a,~ ~
~>,
~IBI
~Aa Ar erR uE calo mc9+D.
a BCNI r[R x aF19n.P1
F IBBaBRn 1e
w 5 G ~~
~a= i; 1
g ~w
a/ sB6'S<'16'v N96'6a'46'E
1~
'
,
'L2°/% 21' 320A2
2~~
, 261.
5) ' 4ARM 4AfiEi1A 9ROPEAtt lMf
L~
P A'E'
12
ry 191718 ~'4~ N Ay0 D~REEM
.cif /
Im
ryN~
' ^~
2
11''2
.N 4'it'3g1 g0
e
`'3
D.BB' SHEET 1 OF 2
~~
3e•L
Ni a° aA,

SURVEY OF:
U
S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
~, p~'"'A5
Pt dl9 RRrPxs 1rIAr nns cm. m r4rs vLAr ACOraArELr pEPICis
wArEF 1'C~ AS ~ iCAVINpIB~Y`M 1nLaDf4RS m ~ TM5 0.~ '>, .
. WITHIN THE PERMITTED MINE EXPANSION AREA
,
A ~~EpS+
~P"°~ <a iNLS[nEIERIM1AtroN a SEtna+ 1o1L,~uwm~Gl v+vw •~ ~ o R~LCUAnor+c
AT EAST ALAMANCE QUARRY
tt
f
R~
4> IFDN FDR A PEFIW NDr rD EXRID ~~ YEAR9 ItiOU dIB DAr[.

4AR~ 1M2 OE1EAwNAnON wA5 NAOE UnIRNC ME 1981 L'aN9 a
LNLYNRR9 wCMNO$ OCLNKAMW MANUAL
N0R5:
I. uwl a .lmisa[na+u DCD:RU9IPna+ PLAT OF $URVEY FUR:
i1ElD P.C'nCW, EXFAL+9MN! mACi BWI,NARY NAME' '
ARLA BY EDmaNnr
~1„A~:
7
DC
•d MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS
INC.
[
.
.
.
J. rnID >R er uuEO rssoc sLm'+EY a n2E ,
P.O. BOX 30013
[ASr rlARU1R WARRY DAZED De/76/01. n41E'
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27622
1. cRRA LOCaIIO I=t'I eY Rtx DP9 wem]. nrD.
PIF[ Loc:na+s Ao.Y
R
r
u
l n~ RFa
~4EU,5
,
TOWIJSHI
P; FAUCETTE COUNTY; ALAMANCE NORTH CAROLINA
wls
m u[E
a
s
u
Do[s
a cs o.k rlo Is NDl RnENOEO Pm n:cnRallc WHITT LAND SURVEYING, P.C.
6. BDmS cREL. mos9r+D Loc.nal Inau 839 wATSDU avEnUE TAX PA RCEL: 5-15-58 100 0 20D
cPS nELO wRYEr ou uar x zoos. REMw'RP
a BOY03 a+EEA Nor CPALUAIED.
WRNSTDI!-SALEM, NC 17103
(336) 722-teas

PATE:

JUNIE 16, 20D6 SCALE: 1"=200'

WETLAND "A"
}
STREAhJ "A" FROh4 BEGIr'Jran~JG DF
IMPORTANT POINT
TO FUTUP,E PIT BOUrJDAP,Y
L102
WETLAfJD "8"
STREAM "A" FROM WETLAND "A"
TO BEGIPJNIPJG OF IMPORTANT
n
17,97
4i 17
STREAM "A" SOUTH OF FUTURE PIi
LINE TABLE
LINE LENGTH BEARING

L1B5 28.46 SOP28'OB'E
L186 35.68 S25'OS'IB'E
L18i 30.94 S26'30'16'E
L 188 46.78 520'01'21'[
L189 35.98 SIB'21'46'v
L190 64.50 S37'a2'I1'E
LI91 33.31 S18'30'47'E
L192 44.09 S02'S194'E
L143 34.67 S29'36'S0'E
L194 17.97 S4B'36'01'E
L195 61.70 S74'p1'13'E
L146 23.15 S53'36'03'v
L197 28.35 SI2'25'S3'v
L798 2029 S34.04'43'V
L199 38.71 g2a'S9'03'W
L200 32.6a Sa4'22'4B'v
L2pi 45.09 N89'33'00•v
L202 12.70 S6B'24'S3'v
L203 5.09 N83.46'20'v
L204 13.23 S54.OB'2a'v
L205 S.i3 S24.44'OB'v
L206 12.87 S31'33'S0'E
L207 27.35 S39'D9'11'V
L2DB 24.67 S79'31'22'v'
L209 44.71 SI4'47'46'E
L210 17.21 529'19'20'V
L211 29A8 554.33'30'[
L212 7,38 S32'36'22'E
L213 14.p1 S22'28'37'E
L214 23.32 S19'11'IB'E
L215 1L41 SOS'Ol'04'v
L216 35.50 N59'2B'S3'v
L217 52.91 N89'30'24'v
L21B 37.45 N58'ST02'v
L219 3].64 S54.42'24'v
L220 46.i5 S1TSi'20'v
L221 68.06 S25.4T19'v
L222 38.79 504.18'4 TC
L223 26.99 S43'S6'4a'E
L22a 25.85 S37.44'23'E
L225 16.69 S22'27'Si'E
STREAM "B"
LINE TABLE
LU4E LENGTH BEARING
LI41 35.05 N~POa'21'W
LI42 52.72 Ne4'I1'26'v
LI43 48.19 1439'49'48'v
Li44 53.39 N22'49.14'v
L145 29.37 N)'o'21'S1'W
L146 50.06 N2B'S2'31'v
L147 30.72 N60'OB'19'E
L148 19.20 N81'22'00'E
L149 9.49 S02'D7'48'E
LISD 21.27 S29.22'D4'E
L151 IDdS SO)'S446'v
L152 21,17 S7T35'23'v
L153 26.64 S59.03'13'E
U54 - 11.36 SIO'02'S4'E
L155 43.13 1438.44'25'E
L156 35.47 Nt8.59'10'v
L151 45.44 N26'IS'S8'u
L158 13.35 N89'02'D9'v
L759 39.37 N30'12'14'E
L 160 15A9 N33'49'44'[
L761 79.94 N62'45'D)'E
LI62 25.67 ~ N23Y3'IB'V
L763 5043 H22'29'S0'E
LI64 2219 S69'24'a0'E
L 165 14.52 1482'25'29'E
L166 35.91 N14.38'38'E
L167 4430 N69'43'OB'v
LJ68 10052 N43'23'S0'v
L769 88.67 iJ7D'DS'S3'v
L1)0 91.21 N71.0T2Tv
L771 18 a2 N6T15'Ol'v
LI i2 43.98 N65'39'D4'v
L173 51.93 N32'41'04'v
L174 21.42 N67'35'11'V
L 175 49.06 N44'S6'38'V
L176 77.15 N25'48'4Tv
L177 33.11 N50'2B'll'v
L17B 46.39 N30'22'20'E
L179 43.45 N2D'21'al'E
LIED 56.73 N12'14'21'E
U81 33.56 S78'48'S6'E
L 182 40.10 S74.24'40'C
L183 12.31 NB2'D3'30E
LIB4 1621 NBT04.10'E
STREAM "C"
LINE TABLE
L1NIE LENGTH BEARING
L109 19.93 S73'23'DO'v
L 110 68.55 S38'S7'36'w
Llll 86.92 S3T34'45'u
L 112 )4.74 S59'S6'49'v
L113 88.75 S32'29'15'u
L 114 B7.B3 S35'33'1Tv
L115 30.05 S83133'49'v
STREAM "D"
LI1JE TABLE
L1FIE LENGTH BEARING
L116 24.54 1467'36'S1'E
Ln7 45.87 N62.41'25'E
L 118 16.20 S83'18'04'E
L 119 24.00 N4m11'0TE
L120 28.51 N86'15'28'E
L721 48.11 N51'08'04'C
L122 28,29 S6B'OD'p8'E
L123 22.78 N56'S8'32'C
LI2a 22.33 NI3'0T43'v
L125 23.70 N6B'28'41'E
LI26 49.35 N66'12'S6'E
L127 2124 N64.5T36'C
LI28 14.86 NII'1B'40'E
LR9 a131 N75'32'42'C
L130 3720 N20'44'S7'E
L13( 30.12 N60'43'S9'E
L732 22.73 N71'274D'E
L133 a0.49 N62'aB'46'C
L134 3523 N49'S4'13'E
LI35 11.58 N02'S0'15'C
L136 9.33 NU'46'34'E
LI37 25.47 N66'S1'24'C
L 138 40.52 1450'S021'E
LI39 18.07 S79'43'39'E
U40 12.05 S30'30'09'E
MI$ CFRnFIE$ MAI M'$ COPT b M5 REAI ACantAR7T DE %CR
ME BWNpART [x ME ,Nn'.SDI[na+ Or $ECr1b+ AOI b ME CILAR
wAhP. ACi AS pE1CRUn+EO BY MC URDCRSCNED b+ MI$ p,tE.
UNE($s MERE i$ A f1f,Nq Ni ME LAN CN aJA PUBl5ES0 REQ1V
naS pCr[runATa+ 7P sECrip+ AM dIMSpCnav M,Y BC RFLCD
wou AOR A vEn~an r+Dr to E>:aED DYL rE,RS'Pa+ Mis wrt.
Mls D[aRUx,Ana+ ws u,a unumx n4 me7 ca+vs a
CndllE[R5 MLMANOS DCIn+GnDN w
NaeE.
nnc ~ ~ ,u
DatE
a.rD.
WHAT LAND SURVEI1NG, P.C.
e39 warsoN avENUE
wtr+670N-54LEM. rIC 271 p}
(776) 722-t 4a4
IMPACTED AP.EA OF BOYD'S CREEP
LINE TABLE
LIIJE LENGTH BEARING
L228 ILIS S27.14'22'V
L229 26.45 S21.29'1B'v
L230 9.14 S45'24'28'v
L237 12.15 S50'S3'04'v
L232 19.51 S30'26'S2'V
L233 28.79 S1T44'35'v
L234 22.67 S43'35'l6'v
_ L235 15.49 567.06'32'V
L236 25.93 S34.14Y9'v
L237 20.35 S56'16'25'v
L238 5.81 S46'36'l1'V
L239 12.45 S39'16'45'v
L240 24.39 S4I'34'26'V
L2U 884 S21'01'25'v
L242 10.40 S42'S4'SB'V
/ -~
INSET ~
/ r=too'
6O1'D'S CP•EEK SURVEY OE \
POTEIJTIAL STREAM CROSSING
C/L Of BOYD'S CREEK a'~
AT PROPOSED CROSSING
IJ 865711.21 ,ry`
E 1893550.15 y
n' ~ 0 11
v~ y 04` ~~~
Av OP~~ /
d'~ ~ ~'F
ti ~~G~
y/ /
.\
SHEET 2 OF 2
SURVEY OF:
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
WITHIN THE PERMITTED MINE EXPANSION AREA
AT EAST ALAMANCE QUARRY
PLAT OF SURVEY FOR:
~ MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, INC.
~ P.O. BOX 30013
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27622
TOWNSHIP: FAUCETTE COUNTY: ALAFaANCE NOP,TH CAROLINA
TAX PARCEL: 5-t6-SB 700 0 200
DATE: JUNE 16, 2006 SCALE: t"=200'

~ ~ Kimley-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc,
December 7, 2005
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, USACE
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Martin Marietta Materials -East Alamance Quarry
Request for Jurisdictional Determination
Dear Mr. Tugwell:
Attached for your review and approval are the following documents for a formal
Jurisdictional Determination request for the East Alamance Quarry expansion
tract in Alamance County:
~ Memorandum of the on-site meeting on December 1, 2005, which
includes the following attachments:
o On-site Handout including:
^ Figure 1: Site Location Map
^ Figure 2: USGS Quad Map
• Figure 3: Site Overview Map
^ Corps' Wetland Data Forms
^ NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
o Figure 4: Approximate Areas and Lengths of Jurisdictional
Areas Map
o Agent Authorization Letter
We anticipate that the survey plat of jurisdictional areas, sealed by a licensed
surveyor, will be prepared in the next few months. The survey plat will show the
areas delineated and approved in the field on December 1, 2005, and as shown in
the attached GIS figures for your review and approval.
Please feel free to contact me at 919-677-2121 should you have any questions or
need additional information.
i
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
--,~ ifs- ~ - ,~ f~ t.-.--.V._.f _ ___.
Chad Evenhouse, PWS
Cc: Steve Whitt, MMM
TEL [phone]
FAX [phone]
~~ ~ ~
^
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636-3068

•
•
•
^ ~ ~ Kimle~r-Horn
~ and Associates, Inc.
M e m o u n d rt m
Date: December 1, 2005
Project: Martin Marietta Materials: East Alamance Quarry
Alamance County, North Carolina
Subject: Jurisdictional Determination (JD) field review with US Army
Corps of Engineers of the expansion area adjacent to the mine
and to discuss future permitting of the tract.
Attendees: Todd Tugwell, US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Chad Evenhouse, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA)
Tommy Cousins, KHA
Purpose of Meeting
KHA staff had an on-site meeting with Corps staff, Todd Tugwell, on December
1, 2005 at the East Alamance Quarry. The purpose of the meeting was to
evaluate the site in comparison to the conditions observed during the onsite field
review held in August 2005 and to discuss permitting issues for expansion of the
mine per the approved Mine Plan.
During the August meeting, the area for pit expansion was reviewed to determine
jurisdictional streams and wetlands. However, the site was evaluated during
deficit rainfall conditions and the Corps wanted to re-evaluate the site during the.
non-growing season to observe more typical hydrological conditions. According
to Tony Jenkins, Plant Manger for the quarry, the site had received more than 2
inches of rainfall in the week prior to the December 1, 2005 meeting.
A handout (attached) was provided to the Corps at the meeting. The handout
included:
• Site Figures
o Figure 1: Site Location Map
o Figure 2: USGS Quad Map
o Figure 3: Site Overview Map - A GIS figure showing the
approximate limits of pit expansion and the GPS-surveyed

East Alamance Quarry
US Arrny Corps of Engineers Field Review
- December 1, 2005

- delineation of streams and wetlands within the expansion tract
- per the approved (NC Division of Land Resources) Mine Plan,
'
• Corps
Wetland Data Forms for wetland and upland areas (data locations
shown on the Figure 3),
. • NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Classification Forms
- (data locations shown on the Figure 3).
The handout documents are attached for reference.
~ In addition to confirmation of the delineation of the expansion tract, the onsite
review included discussion of permitting approach (alternatives and mitigation
- issues).
Delineation of Jurisdictional Areas
- The Corps approved the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands and streams
- (perenniaUintermittent and important/unimportant) performed by KHA for the
expansion tract as shown in Figure 3. The following discussion references
features labeled in Figures 3 and 4.
-

~ Wetlands A and B, shown in Figure 3, are jurisdictional and approved as
delineated by KHA.

- Stream A (Unnamed Tributary to Boyd's Creek) was re-evaluated to compare
current hydrological conditions to those observed in August. It was noted during
both visits that Stream A is impounded just upstream of the property boundary
- and the adjacent property owner uses the pond for irrigation for a sod farm. The
stream was determined to be intermittent unimportant from its initiation point
downslope of Wetland A to the point defined in the field by the Corps and KHA
• during the onsite field review in August, and reconfirmed in December. The
- location of this point was GPS-surveyed by KHA and is shown in Figure 4. The
lower portion of Stream A, from the important/unimportant transition to the
confluence with Boyd's Creek, was determined to be intermittent important
- jurisdictional stream.
Stream B (Unnamed Tributary to Boyd's Creek) and Boyd's Creek are perennial
- streams. Both streams are high-quality buffered streams within the expansion
• tract.
Stream C and Stream D are intermittent important first-order streams. Stream C
• originates in a disturbed area of the power line which has stabilized as a
headwater wetland (Wetland B).

- Figure 4 shows the GIS analysis of the GPS survey (sub-meter accuracy) of
approximate lengths/areas of these jurisdictional features. The approximate
lengths/areas are:

__

• East Alamance Quarry
US Army Corps of Errgineers Field Review
Decerrrber 1, 2005

• Wetland A - 0.49 acres
- • Wetland B - 0.27 acres
• Stream A (Unimportant/Intermittent) - 1,3591inear feet (LF), or 0.09
acres assuming a 3-ft channel width
• Stream A (Important/Intermittent)
- 0 965 LF from beginning of importance to mine expansion limit
0 829 LF from mine expansion limit to confluence with Boyd's
Creek near the expansion tract boundary
• Stream B - 1,819 LF
- • Stream C - 499 LF
• Stream D - 694 LF
• Boyd's Creek - 2,194 LF within the expansion tract limits as shown in
- Figure 3. The portion of Boyd's Creek upstream and downstream from
- the confluence with Stream A was GPS surveyed by KHA. The
'
remaining portion of Boyd
s Creek within the expansion tract is shown
as NCDWQ GIS stream data layer.
Permitting Approach Discussion
The proposed mine expansion limit is shown in Figures 3 and 4 as an
- approximation of the actual mine limits within the expansion tract. In addition,
there are areas of development for the construction of a perimeter berm, security
fence and/or a perimeter maintenance road. Overburden storage is planned in the
- southern portion of the tract in upland areas. At this time, it is unlikely that the
- pit will be expanded south of the power line which bisects the tract.
The direct impact of the important intermittent stream (lower portion of Stream
. A) would exceed the Corps' Nationwide Permit threshold for linear feet of
stream impact (3001inear feet), and would require a Sec. 404/401 Individual
Permit to develop the site as shown in the current approved Mine Plan.

• Based on the field review and GIS analysis of areas/lengths, the total direct
stream impact would be 0.09 acres of unimportant intermittent stream (upper
portion of Stream A - 1,359 LF of a 3-ft wide channel), and 965 LF of important
- intermittent stream (lower portion of Stream A within the mine expansion limits).
Jurisdictional areas within the expansion tract which may need to be directly
- impacted (i. e. the portion of the expansion tract North of the power line) include
- Wetland A (0.49 acres). More information from MMM regarding the need and
design requirements for the perimeter berm and maintenance/safety road is
necessary to determine whether there is no practical alternative to impacting this
- jurisdictional wetland area.
Based on the Corps' review, the impact to the unimportant intermittent section of
. Stream A would be permitted on an area basis. The segment considered as
- important intermittent would be permitted on a linear footage basis. Although the
lower portion of Stream A was determined to be jurisdictionally important, the

•
3

•
East Alamance Quarry
US Arrny Corps of Engineers Field Review
• December 1, 2005

- quality of the stream was considered to be low due to low biological function.

~ Therefore, the Corps determined that a mitigation ratio of 1:1 would be requu-ed
in order to permit the direct impacts to the stream (assuming justification of need
- and no practical alternative).
Stream A south of the mine expansion limits, but within the expansion tract, is
not proposed for direct impact. However, the Corps commented that the removal
- of the upstream watershed would likely be considered a secondary impact to the
lower portion of Stream A (approximately 829 LF). KHA commented that
although the mine activities are long in duration, they are not permanent and
- eventually the mine will become a lake. The remaining drainage area and
- supplemental discharge from the mine (if necessary) provided during mining
activities, may mitigate any potential secondary impacts. It was concluded that
further evaluation of the potential secondary impacts to the downstream reach
- will need to be included in any permit application.
A potential on-site mitigation alternative maybe to relocate Stream A to the
• western boundary of the expansion tract and to connect the relocated channel to
- Stream C near the boundary. Stream C was evaluated with the Corps as well to
discuss the potential use for mitigation. KHA had determined that the stream
was somewhat unstable, providing restoration potential, and would also need to
- be expanded to handle the additional capacity. The Corps recommended that the
channel not be used for mitigation because of the stream's existing buffer and
stability in the upper portion. The Corps stated the benefit of restoration would
- not out-weigh the impact to the existing channel; therefore, modification to the
- channel would likely be considered an impact rather than mitigation.
Although impacts are not anticipated at this time, the Corps agreed that streams
~ B, C, and D may be considered as preservation mitigation opportunities since
they are within the approved expansion tract. The Corps noted the high quality
of Stream B (i. e. stable banks, existing riparian buffers, bedrock grade control,
- and riffle/pool bed features), and stated that it would be a suitable preservation
candidate.
• Conclusions and Action Items
- The meeting resolved the determination of jurisdictional areas and the Corps'
determination of important/unimportant intermittent stream calls for the
expansion tract. MMM may now proceed with a survey of these jurisdictional
- areas within the expansion tract. For the streams south of the power line (those
not proposed for direct impact), the GPS survey performed by KHA is sufficient
for planning/permitting purposes. For the areas within the expansion tract to be
- directly impacted, a wetlands and stream delineation survey plat, tied to the
• property boundary and signed by a licensed Land Surveyor, will be required.
KHA is to provide an Agent Authorization letter signed by MMM for the project
- (attached).

4

EastAlarnance Quarry
US Ar•nry Corps of Engineers Field Review
December 1, 2005
KHA provided the necessary documentation for the Corps' to prepare a tear sheet
for the JD and the Corps stated they would provide this upon receipt of the agent
authorization letter.
KHA and the Corps agreed that apre-application meeting with MMM, the Corps,
and the NCDWQ would be beneficial prior to submitting a 404/401 Individual
Permit application. This meeting would be beneficial to discuss MMM's issues
for development of the tract, as well as to discuss secondary impacts, avoidance
and minimization alternatives, and mitigation.
Signed °~' ~' ~ '~ ~ ~,
~,.~
Attachments
• On-site Handout including:
o Figure 1: Site Location Map
o Figure 2: USGS Quad Map
o Figure 3: Site Overview Map
o Corps' Wetland Data Forms
o NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
• Figure 4: Approximate Areas and Lengths of Jurisdictional Areas Map
• Agent Authorization Letter
T:/PN/011185024/Memorandum corps mtg EAlamance 12-1-OS.doc
5

•
•
•
i
_ ~ t !
t ;.:. {
_ y~
., G
s - ,,.
~~'' roc ~ ' ,~ ~ ~ ,r~,'~ Y •`~ + r. I `
1 ~ Y r %' ~y ,
o +: ~ °,R»' ...t
~ °6 ~'r 119 a i ~
_ ~"r '"' ~~G2 b,
~ + N ~
.
- .
,
_

`
° °~ r'
, ayn
-

` , f
.z
m~ ~~a M -+ r ~,
v ~,,,
,
,
j
~
~~ T
`` r Ly ` L' ~ ,,
t ~ i
v°1 5
~
a0/ey~Rd
~ ~ay~ 3, Pa ~ f . ~
`•, ~ .~ , ~
•~~~v
,` 2
ti ~ ~
Y
1
1
~
' t t t / ~ moo, ~~
~ r a
r
~ ,~
.
2036
- - 1. r D L ~... Y~
'
° tit t r
t 1 a ) _ ~ ,
~
ri'St ~ k r.i ~ W ,-I
1 ~le~
< ~. o ,
e
'
' ~ ['~.-1. ~"I ~1 1,2.(~ .' .1 3
y
. Cr'°SS
h,
1. ~I....
S`fji~..~~ f. ~m y~ Cr ~`'' ~ l`
) 4
e.
L
• a
,
_ _
?A
~
, 1 `
1663 ~'. ~,. - `m. ~ ~ ;t~.. tX- ~ ~+
` d.
+ `} i Trl ~ - m~
s /'
~ -
~
5
ei o ~
l
a ~, as=Rd (

y , ~ ty 4t ~ `~ J~B r' .. ?e.F r'
,<- a
.;
~ ~ c~ac: ~ c l 1729 ` ~ , tau hn ~n-e.•~ e' , {,- \~ ! ,:
Q
a
~
~ ~ one-t~~.~
~ 1 ~
- ~ ~. '
rfh ~ f ~ ~°~•~ L 7r . yd ~
~~~~ r• -
y~4m
.
~ `\ -vs~
`' .,
~r
'
. ~
.. D
~
,
'
_
..
W
st
~
' . ~
`
~
,.
~
'
~ ~
s
' 4
I`'
r r f
t S
.-+, i
62 ~I t ~ ~ - {i -'~
S£7 ~
` ~~m
t
> ~
' 1
Y
-~
..- (b7 `>
c' a
- r j,:.91 r _
Y
J

~
~ ..
;~
a
d v x
7
~?
.
~
,+
..
. ~i1 ~
',. 1 y _ ,~ $k Rx ~„MNi.
`SrrP,ti!alnr;~" ~ te
.5
_
.
C ~ ~ ~a '
lir055-
~ i~ Sandy
;; -l.'o
l'{ F - yt~, -2 f ?'ci~,
,~r
_
`
;
=
•
~
. ~
_
v '•, _. ,
r
~*
~ ~,
,
Ole ~
raQ _ .';. 1. _.._ _ `;
Pr ct Area ;
r
.,~, t
°` .."«."` Gw `', r'_1M
n f: ~ ,~r .day - Aandi=Ln
1
~
'"
_ yw i ~ -1-... n
. t my - "
j
~

's< _.. Fo er t
~
`Y '
~

~ °n R~, r~~'~r]]~.~~~ . d
sC ~ ... y • Y SO%r4 ~ r
. ^, -ai_.
ib ~ -, Rry ~'4t?11°•'f` 1
n~

t d'._
t•
S~
`~~ ~
cp d ~ ~
O Ya l
` ~.'~ zi ~
2 f
- 1
~;^ ~~,, I BasiFNolt:R
'~,-'= s ~ a '`~ r - ~
- - ~'`
1
_
m
~~ ,
~'~ t _
&
N
~ o
'
~
~
5
~ ~ Y' t ~
~ mxt~
~ ; -I
sleY-tkO
~' ,. ~ ..t ¢ ,5 P<a
t _. ~ Vie- 9 o ane* o9ers ~ ~•'
•~
.
\e
t h t Welkin r
\
~.;~ h K1- n
'1 :, m as°e~ ~~
iy~{~lr-'
o
87
V nigh Fed ~ i n Y
~ ,
~ ~,Gr,.tw~ ~ 2 r7
Y .~ ~
H de a -o in Sit- 9't r I= -
ai 3
m ~• ~ p` H`1 t .. 2
~
J
y ` I ~ aY
~~ .
N 4"' ~S~ v `' ., ;l` '4 0 „_ti tlr- 4 I ~''- ~
~.
~ ~S`~~ .."1 r m ~, .
~ ~• n x 519 '^9. 3`~.~ "r ~~}/~(7 .

~- 100 ,
a ~. ° .
owe ,,
- I ~
~
~~r . ,., ~,
~ x. ~
_
,
+
m. v _ Fes ;
-
•
~a,©
,
:.. ~
j
_
K v
'
t~A

N
+

¢-a w E S
Z
,
~
_y
..
.o r
o n t ~ ar (~,
ad ye- F r . ~ •12c f~.r ~ .1~+~
~r/6 ~$ a~ } ~ ~ -
2389
~a~
~`
~ ti~ ~~
•~
~.-.ca ~
;~ y
h
~,
s; ,+ a 2248 , f , x , •„b,t
~
S
v e
. Y
°o a \ i ~' 2280 (`n ~,' ~ .
~'
~
°cey R ~, ~
..~
' 0 4 ,
t ,
Yc
_ a N~Jim.Mt
l
p
t ~~'
~
,000 8,000
l ~ w
nar F,t~d --
,,
16 000 a
t . - __ -
~ , a - ess or
~n `~~. i. " '~ q a Burg
e b
,
. ~'-

Feet ~
4
J ` t~~ y per- d ;
~
`~} ~.y
`~ sy0 sd°i 2289 / /°'s ~ ~G°oK~`
°~ ~`~
~'~'
,~•,~O
~ . ?o,
-
2291

Title Site Location Map
Project East Alamance Quarry
Martin rurtetG MsteriMa ^^
~yr Date Project Number Figure
7/26/05 011185024 1
T:\pn\01 I 185024\Figure s\figures.doc
Prepared by Tommy Cousins
~~~ .wrramr,irc

•
•

1
~-
• .. - ~
-
t 4

~- -t, 1
' '
'r
~
I
9 I
fi
~
;1
`
'
.
~
f
.
' _ y ._!. '.. K • .. ~
` . l r. ,}. ..~V . - - ` 1 I,. it ~'

~
' '
I•~
,,, i 1 I
1'h.. ~~~ 4trti c4 I,~ c
' ,
-
~
f r~
}~ r
- ~ ` ~ I
, ~, `~
~
f '•' ~
, 1, ,~
~
Y
- t
_
t _
-Y
.. ",f
i 5 ~ .:~
'
a '• {iMt
-
i
i,
.1
:

+-~ , -, r - I I y ~ 1 ,

M~~t .f!
`- -, , ~ ~ I

,
~ d~ • 5
rf~l
I~
~ 1,
I
Y
S ~a;
i i ; ,~,.,£
Project Area ~ ~
~
, ~ 'r . ,, ~
~
~
4
.,
~
~ ,
~
~
`
... 1 SAT ~
'
S~ }~. `!~ d 4. h NN,' Y..~ r.~- .~ t ~ I~.
.i~ ~`• I . 1`,~ , 1~
~ _
~
- ~'
f
I
.,

t~
1~ ~ ~ ' ._
~
J
~
~
11 ~ 1 ~1 t ~'• .
e
~ •''~ ~ gT°' '~.
;1
1' f~ ^ .> ~ ~ I( j I` r
I 'kadel
~~~•
I
~
.
'
~I
~
''J ;. is ~ r f
`I~ Y , ~ '` "~ -
R
~ •
~, t`~i:t,,. ~
' '
•
f '
-
a
% ~
l'
/
C
~,,: I ~ r • y ~ ^ ~ ,
7 I
? ..
•, / y~
` .:
~ .~~~ ...
r~
• ~4YY I~
~S•~ ~~
_a~
r
~ 11
,. J
I
A
,~
s ~
,y,3~.
f
f `
•~: j •,. ~{R7!9.I.I YP~i~.
rr f ~ ~r
f IY,. "~ `yt I ~ 1 .
~¢
~ h
4 `~ "~ !`` *P
~
~
.
.
.
.
I I {„ ~ J _..
• ryl 1

~. k ,~ 2- r
' ~
r ~y
~~~ 1
t
.

-.
r
-
,~'~.~\1..1
• t 9 ~' ~ q T `~
1~1 r. I~r f „~ t. /i ;Q ~ ri~9 ' f -~~f'' ~.-

~
'
•~ f
i
~
f
T ~~
`
R

•I > 1
4,000 ~ ~ ~ ~1`
~I
~~
4•
',
.~ ~
0 1,000 2,000
__~
• x
1~
} ~
= ' }
{

~
_
Rk
;, _
•-_ I I 1
~`, ., , s ~
r' Ilk. , ~ ~ ~- ,
t ~ ~~
F
~
ee
Y
_~_ ~ Rr
. _, ,' ,
I'
.} 1 ~' ~
'

. L
.. . } ,. .i
~ ,rte
~'~> -
..., _ ~: '
. : • 'x ` ~' -,~'.
.i~"•~- ..:._,._ ',. ~kti. `" t r'; J ' ; ! -> ~ 117 ~f~-- __ ~- ~ _ -: ~^" s
1 v,
Title USGS Quad Map

Nrtin N•rieth E1N•riN• ^^ Project East Alamance Quarry
~y~ Date Project Number Figure
7/26/05 011185024 2
T:\pn\011185024\Figure s~gures. doc
Prepared by Tommy Cousins
G~I1 .,a""'"'"'w.~« o-c

T:\pn\011185024\Figures\figures.doc Prepared by Tommy Cousins [~~ ,„ ~~

=DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
- 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
- Project/Site: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Tract Date: 5/26/2005
ApplicantlOwner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. County: Alamance
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
- Investigator: Cousins, Tyler McEwen) State: NC
• Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
--

Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: 1

- Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Wetland
~ Vegetation
- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Carex crinita H FACW
2 9.
. Alnus serrulata S FACW 10.
- 3. Liquidambar styrnciflua T/S FAC+ 11.
4. Acer rubrum T/S FAC
- 12.
5. Toxicodendron radicans V FAC 13.
. 6. Rosa multiflara V UPL 14.
. 7. Fraxintss pennsylvanica T!S FACW 15.
8. Onoclea sensibilis H FACW 16.
-
'ercent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 88
Remarks: t
The vegetation community is young bottomland hardwood forest and has formed as a headwater wetland to the
small intermittent stream. The vegetation is at least 50% FACW. The data point was taken -10 feet inside the
wetland boundary.
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
- X No Recorded Data Available
. FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 16 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil 8 (in)
- WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches .
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
~ 'hydrology to the wetland is controlled by the upstream pond/impoundment. The drainage area is small, so most of
the hydrology supporting the wetland is likely groundwater seepage beneath the dam and into the site through
subsurface flow until subsurface and surface flow concentrates at the head of the stream into a single thread
channel. Surface flow onto the site into the wetland is dispersed by the disturbed area of the fence line
contributino to diffused flow into the wetland

•
~ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
w
Project/Site: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Tract Date: 5/26/2005

• Applicant/Owner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. County: Alamance

Investigator: Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
State:
NC
Cousins, Tyler McEwen)

• Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: For/Succ
. Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential P roblem Area? No Plot ID: ~ Upland

~ Vegetation

- Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Prunus serotina T/S FACU g.
- 2. Rubus argutus V FAC 10.

• 3. Lonicerajnponicn V FAC- 11.
4. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 12.
- 5. Toxicodendron rndicans V FAC 13.
• 6. Cnryn glnbra T/S FAC 14.
~• 15.
8• 16.
?ercent of Dominant Specie s that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (exclu ding FACU): 83
• Remarks:

Hydrology:
- RECORDED DATA: PRIMARY INDICATORS:
. Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Inundated
Aerial Photographs Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Other Water Marks
. X No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
• FIELD OBSERVATIONS: SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Depth to Surface Water: (in)
D
th t
F
W Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
ep
o
ree
ater in Pit: >24 (in) Water Stained Leaves
• Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 (in) Local Soil Survey Data

WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS Fac-Neutral Test
: Other
.Vo wetland hydrology indicators were observed. The data point location is slightly upslope from the adjacent
. wetland area with the boundary somewhat define d along the toe-of-slope.

r-,
u

~ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual

- Project/Site: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Tract Date: 5/26/2005
- Applicant/Owner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. County: Alamance
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator:
Cousins
Tyler McEwen) State: NC
- ,
- Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: 2

Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland

~ Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus alba T/S FACU 9.
- 2. Quercus phellos S FACW- 10.
3. Lonicera japonica V FAC- 11.
4. Acer rubrum T/S FAC 12.
- 5. Fagus grandijolia T/S FACU 13.
- 6. Corpus S FACU 14.
7. Vitis V FAC 15.
• 8. Smilax V FACW+ 16.
Percent of Dominant Spec ies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 63
- Remarks:

e vegetation community is forested near a field edge adjacent to the power line in a depre
slope from the head of an intermittent stream (Stream D).
,Hydrology:
- RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
- Other
X No Recorded Data Available

FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: >24 (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 (in)
• Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
:CONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
-INo hydrology indicators were observed. The site was evaluated under normal conditions with sufficient prior
- rainfall,
~ _ -

= DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
- Project/Site: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Tract Date: 5/26/2005

Applicant/Owner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. County:
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Tyler McEwen) State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species
1. Rebus nrgutus
2. Toxicodendron radicnns
3. Lonicernjnponicn
4. Acer rubrum
Alamance
NC
Forested
3
Upland
Stratum Indicator
Stratum Indicator
V FAC
V FAC
V FAC-
TS FAC
Dominant Plant Species
9.
10.
11.
12.
- 5. Fngus grnndijolin T/S FACU 13.
- 6. Pines tnedn S FAC 14.
7. Juniperus virginiann S FACU- 15

8. Liquidnmbnrstyrncijlun
T/S
FAC+ .
16.

Percent of Dominant Spec ies that ar e OBL, FACW, or FAC (e xcluding FACU): 75
- Remarks:

~~
Hydrology:
- RECORDED DATA: PRIMARY INDICATORS:
- Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Inundated
Aerial Photographs Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Other Water Marks
- X No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
- FIELD OBSERVATIONS: SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Depth to Surface Water: (in) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 (in) Water Stained Leaves
- Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 (in) Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS: Other
No hydrology indicators were observed. The site was evaluated under normal conditions with sufficient prior
. rainfall.
The vegetation community is forested and is located in a depression/swale -100 upslope from the head of an
intermittent stream (Stream D). 75 percent of dominant species are FAC, the other 25 percent are FACU.
No Plot ID:

County:
State:
Community ID
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area?
~
Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum
• 1. Juncus effusus H
. 2. Ludwigia alternifolia H
3. Rubus argtetus V
4. Salix nigra T/S
- 5. Liquidambar sryraciflua T/S
6. Toxicodendron radicans V
- 7.
8.
No Plot ID
Indicator Dominant Plant Species
FACW+ 9.
OBL 10.
FAC 11.
OBL 12.
FAC+ 13.
FAC 14.
15.
16.
• Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 100
- Remarks:
DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Tract Date: 5/26/2005
Applicant/Owner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Tyler McEwen)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes
Alamance
NC
Successional/Power Line
4
Wetland
Stratum Indicator
The area is located near the head of a stream channel in the area of a power line crossing. It is likely that the
wetland was established from disturbance from installation of the power line easement. Vegetation is more of a
field edge community and emergent wetland since it is maintained in the utility easement. Dominant species are
all FAC, FACW, or OBL.
Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available
- FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in)
Depth to Saturated Soil: 4 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
(Water table observations during the evaluation showed Corps' criteria was met at that time with saturation in the
upper surface and water table within the upper 12 inches. The site appeared to have had normal conditions with
sufficient rainfall prior to the site visit.

DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Tract Date: 5/26/2005
Applicant/Owner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes
. Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No
Community ID:
TransectlD:
NC
Successional/Power Line
4
Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland
= Vegetation
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
• 1. Rubus argutus V FAC 9.
- 2. Asclepias spp. H 10.
3. Cercis canadensis S FACU 11.
• 4. Pira~s taeda T/S FAC 12.
- 5. Liriodendron tulipifera T/S FACU 13.
6. Quercus albs T/S FACU 14.
- 7. Prunus serotinn T/S FACU 15.
- 8. Various Grasses 16.
• Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FACU): 33
- Remarks:
The area is located near the wetland data point Wetland 1 in the area of a power line easement. This area
vegetation community is altered and disturbed from installation and management of the power line easement.
- Vegetation is more of a field edge community.
Hydrology:
• RECORDED DATA:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
= X No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:
Depth to Surface Water: (in)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 (in)
• Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 (in)
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS:
- The data point is slightly upslope

County: Alamance
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (Tommy
Investigator: Cousins, Tyler McEwen) State:
PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other
Wetland 1. No hydrology indicators were obs

~
- DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
ProjectlSite: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Tract Date: 5/26/2005

Applicant/Owner: Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. County: Alamance

Investigator: Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.

C
i
T
l
M
E (Tommy
State:
NC
ous
ns,
y
er
c
wen)
Do Normal Circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: Forested
-
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation?) No Transect ID: 5

- Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: Upland
~ Vegetation
. Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
- 1. RuGus argutus V FAC g,
2. Liquidambar styracijlua T FAC 10.
3. Betula T FACU 11.
- 4. Pimes taetln T FAC 12.
- 5. Lonicera japonica S FAC 13.
6. Rhus copallinum T/S FACU 14.
- ~• 15.
- 8• 16.
- Percent of Dominant Spec ies that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (exclu ding FACU): 33
Remarks:

- Hydrology:
RECORDED DATA: PRIMARY INDICATORS:
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Inundated
- Aerial Photographs Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Other Water Marks
X No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
FIEtD OBSERVATIONS: SECONDARY INDICATORS:
Depth to Surface Water: >24 (in) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
- Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 (in) Water Stained Leaves
. Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 (in) Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
- WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS: Other
The data point is in a slight topographic depression or drainage swale, however no hydrology indicators were
observed. The site was observed under normal conditions with suffici ent rainfall prior to the site visit.

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
~jecc Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear County Alamance Evaluator Kim~cy-nnm.ndnssociu~es,,°~
(Tommy Cousins, Tylcr McEwmO
Pp Nearest goyd's Creek Latitude Signature
per Stream
to 5/18/2005 UU D Burlington, NE Longitude Location ALM 1
eva uator ant mu owner agree t utt t to eature is a mananat e ttc ,ten ttse o t ns ortn is not necessary. f so, t ut t to est pro esstona
Qentent o(the evaluator, the feature is a man-matte hitch and not a modified nnlvrnl ctrenm-lhic rnt;no ~„~to,,, ~t,,,,,t,t .,,,~ t,o „~~a *
Primar Field Indicators
1. Geomor holo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? 0 2 3 1'
2) [s The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain? 0 Q 2 3 1
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 0
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 l 2 3 ! 3 . _'
5 Is There An Active Or Relic Flood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 2':,
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 0
7) Are Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 1 2 3 2 -,
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 3 ~
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 ?
(' NOTE: I Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuosi Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or In Field Present? yes 3 No Q 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS : ~131I; k f
II. H drolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3 2
PRlMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: r~{ ~~ a 1-1
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 - 3 "
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
3) Is Peri h ton Present? 0 1 2 3 0 ''''
4) Are Biva yes Present? 0 1 2 3 0
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~r~~rti~l ~~
Seconda Field Indicators: -
L Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 ''- 0 '-' --
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 - 0'; °
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 IS 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY IND/CATOR POINTS: :-j;;i f!~~~~~4''
II. Hv[Irolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 Is This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 0. 0 > 0.5 -
2) Is Sediment On Plants Or Debris) Present? 0 OS 1.5 1:~1,'a,-`
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0'
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) 0 Q 1 1.5 0.5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ?
0
0.5
1
LS
0'
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? yes 1. No 0 M 1 t5 '
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYlNDICATORPOINTS:
... '`
,;t~. ,~~~~.~'i
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
I) Are Fish Present? QO 0.5 1 1.5 ' 0 !:::+-'
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 0.5 1.5 'r 1
3) Are A uatic Turtles Present? 0 0.5 I 1.5 0 `;:.
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0. 1 1.5 ,- 0.5 >'
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 0.5 1 1. ` 1!5'
7) Is Filamentous Al ae Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 `' 1':i:'"-
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly
FACU/UPL
2 1 0.75 0.5 0 110 ;' ;,
(* NOTE: If Totnl Absenie OfAp Plants In Streambed As Noted Above Sktp This Step UNLESS SAV Present'J.
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATORPOlNTS: ; ~,~~:.',t
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Secondarv~ rea er an r qua o om s e reams eas
Intermittent 29 5

NL'llW(Z stream Classification norm
Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear County Alamance Evaluator Kindcy-Horn mV Associates. Inc
(Tommy Consns, Tyler McHwe~i i
'rj Nearest goyd's Creek Latinlde Signature
r Stream
5/18/2005 USGS Burlington, NE Longitude Location ALM 2
UAD
ever uator an an owner agree t ter! t e eature is a man-nut e ttc , l en use o t us orm is not necessary. f so, t to ! e est pro esstona
en[ o(!he evaluator'. dte feahu•e lc n Hoot-ntnde ditch and nn/ n nvtdifiod ,rnnn•nl cr,•an.n-rtiic ,•..nno e„ero.., ob.,,,J.l .,,,~ Ao .,~„a *
Primar Field Indicators
[. Geomor holo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? 0 2 3 l
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain? Q 1 2 3 `0
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 0,
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3 2
5 Is There An Active (Or Relic Flood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 2
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 0
7) Arc Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 I 2 3 I'-
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 3
9) [s A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 3
("NOTE: I Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then. Score=0*J
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or [n Field Present? yes 3 No QO 0 '
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS : ~;;{,;t~,2~,==
II. H drolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3 2'
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~~`i~isf-2f`+`,"~°i
[II. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3 ;
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 '! 3 .'
3) Is Peri h ton Present? 0 1 2 3 0: '~'
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 ~ -0
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: n~~~a,_6r;
Secondar Field Indicators:
L Geomor holo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 '
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 1.5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: -r~{yi., ,~~
II. Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 Is This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 ',
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 0. 1 1.5 0.5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 O .r ;'
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated Iq#9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) 0 0.5 1 0 1;5. ~ .:
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ? 0
~
1
1.5
0.5
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes I . No 0 1.5 "'
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
HI. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? QO 0.5 1 15 0' ! '
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 0.5 1.5 1
3) Are A uatic Turtles Present? 0 0.5 I 1.5 0 .
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 1'-. '
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 0. 1 1.5 0.5
7) Is Filamentous Al ere Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 '` .0' r' r
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly
FACU/UPL
2 l 0.75 0,5 0 {: ~ ,, -.
(' NOTE: If Total Absence OjAIJ Plants In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAVPresenN).
SECONDARY BIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: °`l~' .~ ~'~-'sif"~
TOTAL POINTS ~Pritnary +Secortdary~ rea er an r qua o oln s e reams eas
Intermittent 28 5

NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
ect Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear County Alamance Evaluator ICmJcy-Flom and Associates. Inc
(Tommy Cousins, Tyler Mc6wm)
Prj Nearest '
goyd
s Creek Latitude Signature
,er Stream
5/1 S/2005 US AD Burlington, NE Longitude Location ALM 3

evn uator anc rut owner agree l tat t to eature is a man-tart e uc t, t en use o t tis ornt is not necessary. so, t m t e est pro esstona
ement of the evrtluator. the fenhu~e i.c a man-made ditch and not a modified natru•nl cn•vn» ,-this rntino c» clam cl,nvld nnl ho ucod
Primar Field Indicators
I. Geomor holo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? 0 2 3 I
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain? 0 © 2 3 1
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 3 2.
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3 2 ::=
5 [s There An Active (Or Relic Plood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 1
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 > 0
7) Are Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 1 2 3 U
8) Is There A Bankfidl Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 2
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 3 .:
(`NOTE: I Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuost Then Score=0*) `
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or In Field Present? yes 3 No 0 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATORPO/NTS: ~- ~~=r-
IL Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3 -' 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~,, i~21r~..:j~;
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present [n Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3 '
3) Is Peri h on Present? 0 1 2 3 - 0
4) Are Btvalves Present? 0 1 2 3 ! 0
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: ~l;j?! 6~I'~II
Secondar Field Indicators:
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 1 - -
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 1 1.5 ''- 0.5` '
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 1.5 ' 1 ='
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYLNDICATORPOINTS: -~5 =
[I. H drolo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 1s This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1 0.5 0 '-` T;5 -
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 _ii ::' '. 0: ' .
3) Are Wrack Lines Present'? 0 1 1.5 0.5 : '
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (`NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) 0 0.5 01 1.5 11... '
5) Is There Water 1n Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ?
0
0.5
QI
1.5
1'
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? yes 1.5 No 0 °' =` 0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY IND/CATOR POINTS: ,~ ~;~T4~~, ".~;~~
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? ~ 0.5 1 1.5 -0
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 0.5 1.5 1
3) Are A uatic Turtles Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 " 0
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 0.5 I 1.5 °0 .'
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 '- -1'.
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 0. 1 1.5 0.5
7) Is Filamentous Al ae Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 "'0.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly
FACU/UPL
2 [ 0.75 0.5 0 ; ? Q, i!' ;'
(' NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS S4V Present').
SECONDARYBIOLOGYlNDICATOR POINTS: .!~.+{~(-~~t..!~
TOTAL PO/NTS (Primary +Secondary) rea er an r qua o om s e reams eas
Intermittent 29 5

NCllW(~ Stream Classification Form
ect Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear Counry Alamance Evaluator ~'°''`~~"°`" ""d "'~°"""''"`
(Toimny C°usins, Tyler McEarn)
Prj Nearest '
BOyd
S Creek Latitude Signature
,,er Stream
5/18/2005 U Burlington, NE Longitude Location ALM 4
U D
r evn uator• rtnr an owner agree t:rtt t eJeattu•e is a man-nett e t tte z, t en use o tits ornr is not necessary. so, t to t ie estpro esstona
ement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a ntodiFed nattrrnl sh•eam-this ratin svstern should not be used
Primar Field Indicators
L Geomor holo v Absent Weak 1vloderate Stron Score
1) Is There A Riftle-Pool Se uence? 0 1 2 3 2
2) is The USDA Texture [n Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain? 0 Q 2 3 1
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 l 3 2
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3
5 Is There An Active (Or Relic Flood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 2
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 0
7) Are Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 1 2 3 0 "
8) Is There A Bankfidl Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 3'
(*NOTE: I Bed & Bank Caused ByDitchin And WITHOUT Sinuosi Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2n Order Or Grea[er Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or In Field Present? yes 3 No QO 0 "
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS : >t={-1 ~+~ r
II. H drolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3 0
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~rl.r~Qf,~.~~:?
III. Biolo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present [n Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3 '<
3) Is Peri h on Present? 0 1 2 3 '' A
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 0
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: ~[~=~ 6r` `?~~i
Secondar Field Indicators:
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 - 0~
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 1 1.5 ~ 0.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 1.5 1 -'
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDIC.9TOR POINTS: =4.?71;5t'tf~'
II. H drolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 Is This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 '
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 1 1.5 0.5'
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) O 0.5 1 I.5 0
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ?
0
0.5
1
1.5
~ 0
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes 1.5 No 0 0 -
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: -4};1( ~(
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? QO 0.5 1 1.5 0
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
3) Are A vatic Turtles Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0'"
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 _ " 0 .
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 ` 0
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
7) Is Filamentous AI ae Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 s ' 1;,""
8) Are Welland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly
FACU/UPL
2 I 0.75 0.5 0 Q;:, ""
(* NOTE: If Total Absence OfAU Plants In Streambed As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: I;l_:,~"-`,11'-;;p~_
TOTAL POINTS (Prirnary +Secatdary~ rea er an r qua o oin s e reams eas
Intermittent 26

INl llWl1 stream L1asslhcatlon norm
cct Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear County Alamance Evaluator
Prj Nearest
.,cr Stream Boyd's Creek Latitude Signahtre
5/20/2005 USGS Burlington, NE Longitude Location
UAD
eva uator ant am owner agree 1 tat t to ealure is a num-ma e uc , t ten use of t tis orm a not necessary. so, t in t e
entent o/ the evaluator, the eature is a mttn-nuide ditcf: artd not a modified natural stream-this ratin svstem should not be used
Kimlcy-Hom and Associams, Inc
I TOmnry Cousins. Tyler McEwcnl
ALM 5
Primar Field Indicators
1. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? 0 1 2 3 1'
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain?

0

1

02

3

2'
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 0
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 l 3 2
5) Is There An Active Or Relic Flood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 0
6) Is The Channei Braided? 0 1 2 3 0
7) Are Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 1 2 3 0
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 Z 3 L.
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I 2 3 3
(*NOTE: I Bed & Bank Caased By Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2n Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or In Field Present? yes 3 No QO 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS : ~'- =gF ~ '~°
II. Hvdrolo .Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) [s There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3 0
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ,ps p~~~°?'I
III. Bioln Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 0 1
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 1
3) Is Peri h on Present? 0 ] 2 3 0
4) Are Bivalves Present'? 0 1 2 3 0'
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: "?!f':T2;~f`j
Secondar Field Indicators:
I. Geomor holo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 - 1
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 I !c=
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 1.5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1tI L;!' ~~~}
II. H drolo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
I Is 'T'his Year's Or Last's Leatlit[er Present In Streambed? 1.5 0.5 0 1 '-
2)1s Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Presen[? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 "
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 - 0
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) O 0.5 1 1.5 0~ ."
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ? O 0.5 I I.5 0

..,
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes 1.5 No -0
'
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY IND/CATOR POINTS: `_ '" "
III. Biolo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? QO 0.5 1 1.5 Q
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0'
3) Are A uatic Turtles Present? 0 0.5 I 1.5 " ,0
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 '
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 ' '' 0 -
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
7) Is Filamentous Al ae Present? 0 0.5 1 I.5 ' - 0''-
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly
FACU/UPL
2 1 0.75 0.5 0 Q "
(* NOTE: If Total Absence OjAIt Ptants !n Streambed As Noted Above Slnp This Step UNLESS S4 YPresent*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: t{~+Q~~=~~°t
TOTAL POINTS (Pri,nary +Secondarvl rea er an r qua o oin s e reams eas
Intermittent 15

1Nl;llWtZ Stream ~'lassltlcatlon norm
ect Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear County Alamance Evaluator Kimlcy-Ham end Associmce, Inc
(Tommy Cousins, Tyla McEwcm)
Prj Nearest '
goyd
s Creek Latitude SignaAtre
per Stream
5/20/2005 USGS Mebane Longitude Location ALM 6
l1AD
eva tuttor an atu owner agree t tat t to eature is a man-ma a itc ,ten use o t is orm is not necessary. so, i ut t to esl pro esstona
entent ofthe evcthtalor. the feature it a nutnartade ditch and not a modified naturnl ctrvam-thic rui„o c„ctom chmdd not lio ucoll *
Prima Field Indicators
I. Geomor hold Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
I) Is There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? 0 1 2 3 ~ 0
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain? 0 I 02 3 2
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 2 3 1
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 I 3 2
5 Is There An Active Or Relic) Flood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 2
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 0
7) Are Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 1 2 3 0
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 0
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 2
(*NOTE: I Bed & Bank Caused B Ditchin And W[THOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or In Field Present? Yes 3 No t~ 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS : -I~':~9,` f_LI:`(
II. Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3 2
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~~'I?f ,fit..` ;'`~d
1[I. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 2
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3'
3) Is Peri h ton Present? 0 1 2 3 0
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 0
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ;:_~~~1_5-;;
Secondar Field Indicators:
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 '
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5 7 0 '
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 1.5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: ~~ "'I°, ;;~~~~
II. Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
l Is This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1 0.5 0 % ' 1:5 <-
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 0. ] 1.5 0'.5'
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
~
0.5
1
1.5
0
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ?
0
0.5
Q
1.5
1
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes 1. No 0 1:5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: }4`5{-1~,~[;
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Arc Fish Present? ~ 0.5 1 1.5 0
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 0.5 1.5 1
3) Are A ua[ic Turtles Present? 0 0. 1 1.5 = 0.5
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 0. 1 1.5 0.5
5) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0. 1 1.5 " 0:5
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 0.5 1 L 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Al ae Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 ` .O r
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? sa.v Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly
FACU/UPL
2 l 0.75 0.5 0 O
(" NOTE: If Totat Absence OfAt/Plants In Streambed As Noted Above Slap This Step UNLESS SAV Present*}.
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: a +'~i'!~, !!,;
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Secondary~ rea er an r qua o oin s e reams eas 25.5
Intermittent

iv~,liw~ ~>:ream ~lassutcanon rorm
ect Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear County Alamance Evaluator
Prj Nearest goyd's Creek Latitude Signature
,er Stream
5/26/2005 U AD Mebane Longitude Location
eva uator an an owner agree t tat t e eature es a man-ma a ttc t, t en use o t is orm is not necessary. so, t in t E
ement of the evaluator, the ~eahtre is a tnnn-made ditch and not a moth ted natural stream-this ratin system should not be used
Kimley-t{om and Associates, Inc
(Tommy Cousins, Tyler M11cEwenj
ALM 7
Primar Field Indicators -
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
1) [s There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? 0 1 2 3 I
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain? 0 © 2 3 `1
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 1 2 3 0
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 0 I 2 3 1
5) Is There An Active Or Relic Flood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 2
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 0
7) Are Recent Alluvia] De osits Present? 0 1 2 3 0 '"
8) [s There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 0
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 2
(*NOTE: I Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Scare=0*)
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or In Field Present? Yes 3 No QO 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: '~' ! 7;i~T;
II. Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 I 2 3 0
PRIMARY HYDROLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: a~' 'i'=0 '
III. Biolo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 0
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 2
3) Is Peri h ton Present? 0 1 2 3 0
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 0
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: '~:i°r2G-=ail
Secondar Field Indicators:
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 1 1.5 0.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 0. 1 1.5 0.5 -
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 0.5 1.5 1 `'-
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR. POINTS: ;~=~kF42~i's-F;
II. Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 Is This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 0. 0 0:5 -'
2) [s Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 ' -
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 1''::;
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*) O 0.5 I I.5 0 ,
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ?
~
0.5
1
I.5
0
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? yes 1. No 0 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ; ~`~3' , := °.
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? QO 0.5 1 1.5 0
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 > 0"
3) Are A uatic Turtles Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 ' 0'
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
5 Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 0'
7) Is Filamentous Al ae Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 - 0 ':'
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? snv Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mos[ly FAC Mosfiy
FACU/UPL
2 1 0.75 0. 0 0.5' `
(+ NOTE: If Total Absence OfAlt Ptants In Stretimbed As Noted Above Skep This Step UNLESS SAV PresenN).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: a} } ap'.5 r qtr:
TOTAL POINTS (Pritnary +Secondary) rea er an r qua o om s e reams eas
Intermittent 14.5

N(_,'llWCl Stream C:lassitication norm
ect Name East Alamance Quarry River Basin Cape Fear County Alamance Evaluator Kimlry-Hom and Associates, Inc
(Tommy Cousins, Tyler McEwe~q
Prj Nearest '
goyd
s Creek Latitude Signahtre
er Stream
5/26/2005 Q Mebane Longitude Location ALM 8
UAD
eva uator tut ant owner rtgree t «t t e feature is a man-n:at e itc , t tert use o t is orm is not necessary. ~ so, t to t to est pro esstona
ement o(lhe evaluator the feature i.c a man-made ditch and not a mndiped natural ctrenrn-thic retina ci~clanr chnu/rt nn/ ho racor/
Primar Field Indicators
I. Geomor halo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron Score
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Se uence? 0 1 2 3 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed Different From Surrounding
Terrain? 0 1
©
3
2
3) Are Natural Levees Present? 0 I 2 3 0
4)1s The Channel Sinuous? 0 1 2 3 2 ''
5 Is There An Active (Or Relic Flood lain Present? 0 1 2 3 Z '
6) Is The Channel Braided? 0 1 2 3 " 0
7) Are Recent Alluvial De osits Present? 0 2 3 I
8) Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3 ' l
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3 3_
('NOTE: I Bed & BankCaused ByDitehin And WITHOUT Slnuosi Then Score=0*
10) Is A 2" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated On Topo Map
And/Or [n Field Present? yes 3 No QO 0
PRIM/ARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS : "'.+_x-11'
II. Hvdrolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3 - 0
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: iT1If `0.``"ril`ff
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fibrous Roots Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 2
2) Are Rooted Plants Present In Streambed? 3 2 1 0 3
3) [s Peri h on Present? 0 1 Z 3 0'
4) Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 =' 0'
PRIMARYBIOLOGYlNDICATORPOINTS: ~-t5~ rc;_
Seconda Field Indicators:
I. Geomor halo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Head Cut Present In Channel? 0 0.5 1 1.5
2) Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 O.S 1.5 - 1
3) Does Topography Indicate A Natural Drainage Way? 0 O.S 1 <' 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: :r,°~`#('~~ra
I[. H drolo v Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1 Is This Year's Or Last's Leaflitter Present In Streambed? 1.5 O.S 0 T'
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 0. 1 LS ~i{i-~Ob5
3) Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 0.5 1 1.5 !' 1
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 EIrs. Since Last Known Rain? (*NOTE:
If Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skip This Step And #S Below*) O O.S 1 1.5 0
S) Is There Water In Channel During Dry Conditions Or In Growing
Season ?
Q
O.S
1
1.5
0,
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Yes 1. No 0 's1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~ 4f='~;,.
'~« ,::.
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? QO 0.5 1 1.5 0
2) Are Am hibians Present? 0 O.S 1 1.S ': 0
3) Are A uatic Turtles Present? 0 O.S 1 1.S 0
4) Are Cra fish Present? 0 O.S 1 1.S 0:
S) Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 0.5 1 1.S <-0
6) Are Iron Oxidizin Bacteria/Fun us Present? 0 O.S 1 1.S 0
7) Is Filamentous Al ae Present? 0 O.S 1 1.S 0 --
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? snv Mostty OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mosey
FACU/UPL
2 I 0.75 0.5 0 Q,
(' NOTE: If Total Absence OjAlf Plants In Streambed As Noted Above Sk1p This Step UNLESS SAV Present+). - " ' `
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: `°,.~I~p~~' r
TOTAL POINTS (Primary +Secondary~ rea er an r qua o oln s e reams eas
Intermittent 26

I
~'"=
<.
p
n, y `+ , :
.~ ~ ~ :,,
:E r
',t Q
astAlamance ua
~ ,.~,,'.
'f: rY
,.
"y
,.TM,~ $
i_
~~~~ ~ ~_ ,';' ` "~'" ' ~"~K ~. ~~ Expansion Study Area
>-;,- )
~.t~ t t _ Proposed Mine Expansion Limits
~; _ " e ° i`1 ~ i''~,^ F~ ~ ` ~' 'r ~ Wetlands
1 ~i ~~,, •' r ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ - ° Boyd's Creek (Source:NCDWQ)
i" a ~.,
1 ' ~ '~ . Culvert
~~ ~ ' s ~a, ~`~` Stream (GPS Surveyed)
0 250 500
~- ~ ~ 2005 black and white aerial from Martin Marietta Materials ~ Stream Importantance Call
Feet 1998 color infrared aerial from NCDOT
^~' ".A3
Title Approximate Areas and Lengths of Jurisdictional Features Map (Based USAGE Field Review 12-1-2005)
Project East Alamance Quatry
Ma.r;~ M.,~~~ .,.~er~~ M
v~ Date Project Number Figure
7/26/05 011185024 4
. T:\pn\011185024\Figures\figuas.doc Prepared by Tommy Cousins [~~, „ei~oms,irc.

•
•
•
•
•

~{It~9L~Y-H~i~~
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Name: Steve Whitt
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
Address: PO Box 30013
Raleigh, NC 27622-0013
Phone: [phone]
Project Name/Description: East Alamance Quarry
Alamance County, NC
Date: December 1, 2005
The Department of the Arny
U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: Todd Tugwell
Field Office: Raleigh
Re: Wetland Related Consulting and Pernlitting
To Whom It May Concern:
I, the current property owner, hereby designate and authorize Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. to act in my/our behalf as my/our agent solel for the purpose of
processing of Section 404 pernlits and Section 401 Water Quality Certifications
applications and to furnish upon request supplemental information in support of
applications, etc. from this day forward until successful completion of the permitting
process or revocation by the owner.
Authorized this the 1st day of December, 2005. ~~ '
Steve Whitt ~~
Print Property Owner's Name Property Owner's Signature
CC: Cindy Karoly,
N.C. Wetlands Unit
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1621

•
w
w
w
•
•
•
w
~~~q
~a. ~~~
~~Jy
r~'^'a n ~r
QuN.r
n-s~ ~ R
"~ °/ ~ P
SEP ~ ~70~6
KIMLCCEA~'Y'-HpO~ZI~
CIN 4'R.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
September 1, 2006
Chad Everhouse
Kimley-Horn and Associates
PO Box 33068
Raleigh, NC 27636
Re: East Alamance Quarry Expansion Site, West of Highway 49/South of SR 1752, Burlington, Alamance
County, ER 06-2094
Dear Mr. Everhouse:
Thank you for your letter of July 28, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the proposed undertaking and are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the undertaking as proposed.
The above comments axe made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations fox Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you fox your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763, ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Peter Sandbeck b~, rnPnl
Location Mailing Addrcas Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mal Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

Map Output
Page 1 of 1
East Alamance Quarry
r -~ t.n a~~ ~ ice,, ~ ~
~+ .. ~ ~ - d. ~,
a 4 .~ ~ .¢ ~
s. ~ ~: ~ ~~ ~ ,_,~ ~s
,~ ,. ~ ~ . w- ",.
Q
M~
F y .k+ 'eve a ~-~~ I ~~ ~flj\V EU i1 ~ ~~ ~t~
~', ~ ,eft ~~~ '. ~~., AEFt~'d ~~' ~ ~`~
{x }
~~ =g ,3
x ~r '%'f1T
~
r ,.
r
~
~"
~
~ ~. ~~ J
' r.
..`
~ ' _
,• `
[
J
{aei'19 (Nib ~
:. k ::
~ {
`
1 6.'1
~'~
LJ Ll~~
t
LlIII~
1. SIVF~
'
t4
~~-..~_
Legend
.~ :'~~LI -S'~ ~"' 1!i},~ ~rKi YJ I'1~ ~. ~ '.,U1-t J'JJ'IiLE'.: •;;
r ._ rf~11:1 a~l:re 147{' -+rxl •~clc::{ u~Y-:'; u' :b: 1 ?r..rxii'~r'r»

• ~•

~' 1711 .:.YJ'J :.L,4Y.Y." _'Y_•..

ylk~'1 4.9 'SklCiS
orris

{4Yt'Y.;
FEEIA5 OOOPERA111G ~ 1~HWG4~PA RiNER
On-Line Mapping Application Provided by the
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program
Disclaimer: This is nor a legally binding (FIF.rufj Flood
Insurance Ra[e fP4p and should not be used as such.
7`!~~
.CSC ~7 ~ XJCi y ElilC%I 7{;
iJ7 ~ ~ clcti5l rP A=~'.U;
. 'Ey:9x'
http:// 149.168.101.8/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=locator&ClientVer... 10/25/2006

401/404 PERMIT APPLICATION
DRAWINGS
DESIGNED FOR:
MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS
FOR
EAST ALAMANCE QUARRY
CONTACTS
QS,af/. MANTIN MARIETTA 1AATERIALS
IJ00 WYCLIfi ROAD, SUITE 10a
RAIEICH, NC 2]60]
PHONE: 919-78>-9501
fA%: 919-7B]-95]]
ATTN: RAY 1HAICHER
Qrylt, pA)MpA, NIIALEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
POST OFFICE BO% 33068
fl ALEIGH, NC 3]fi36
PHONE: [phone]
FA%: (919) 6J7-3050
ATTN.: JI A BELL. P.E.
BIIiVEYOR• WHITT LAND SURVE WNC. P.C.
839 WAi50N AVENUE
1NNSTON-SALEM, NC 1)526
PHONE: (736) ]I2-1111
AT1N.: i. DAVID WHITI
,~.
S. Jj
s ]97]
m $.R. 1752
A SANDY CROSS RD
IJ
EAST o
AIAAIANCE
OUARRY 3
S
V
2
PRPECT
T~
PRELIMINARY.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY.
INDEX TO SHEETS
SHEET DESCRIPTION
NO.
0 TITLE SHEET
WETIAND INPACT NINIIAIUTgN PIMI
2 BOYD'S CREER PUMPING PIAN
} BOYD'S CREER ROAD CROSSING PLAN
a-5 STORIAWATER DETAILS
I REVISIONS I
wcnvmn~aP
nrrs
PREPARED M THE IJFFlCE OF:
~
~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
P.O. BOX 33068 - RALEICCa"I, NORTH CAROLINA 27636-3068
PHONES [phone] FAX' [phone]
L 9P~vmmt, tP9elnr m ancepta Pn ev9ne
anmua Nr araeex I:
mly lar a Ncc ~c Pu Pope m
e..a '...pngr aMlrv m
:.I~a- a.,,,-teller,
M •ilAwl IlcpYt] to K r
e~,ti:~:,::,~e.
.,O9A ~:
DATE: JOB NUMBER:
NOVEMBER 1, 2006 011185024

•••••••••••••••••••~••••••~s••••••••••••••••
rr
NuTE~ r r ^ ~ ~ f J f ~ MATCHLINE LEFT
L = 606 75 S ~ ~ I ~ \r.
1. LOCATIONS AND AREA OF FARM POND NA$ ~, ~ ~ _. ~~ ~ _ r- IRM E \' ~'f _'~\; ` \
BEEN APPRD%1MATED. USING GPS ~ ~, ~, ~ _ Jti /,.., - l~ ` ?~
_ -, INV. IN 601.69 \
INFORMATION ~ --- _: _..- , .. __ ~ - ~ INV OUT ~ \
\`
2. ELEVATIONS VITHIN PONDHAVE BEEN 60149 i I ~-Jr~ ``_r 1 1 \
~( .
-.-- ,-- ~, -E%ISTING.FARM PANG... _. ,~ ~ .... ~ J, 1,
ESTIMATED USMG PRELIMINARY SURVEY ~, I ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..1~~ ~, -
r .- .-~APPROXIMAIE6Y .400-ACRES.-- - -, ~ --- r I ,I ~ 1 L }~ ~(G,
INFORMATION. •..." . ,-. ,_. I" I...
. I-' ~' ~' ..~ --(SEE DETAIL 9HEEi 5) - ~ 1, j
3. SIZE AND~LOCATIOIJ OF DRY POND ~' ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' J `J ~ ~ `~ -' ~~ - {\ '
i
SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS ADDITIONAL ~, \ -~ ~~~~ '~~~ J ~l ~ ` -- ~ Y'1
r. ~ ~ ,/ 1 PROPOSED CLEARING li
_ J,. •
HYDRAULIC INFORMABON IS ACQUIRED. ~, \C ~ ~ ~ ~. ` ',~ /\/ .. LIMNS, TYP. ~` J' .-~~~
~,
:, -
=~~_
JH -JUNG\]ON BOX - _,. - ~ r r ~' '-' ~' ~' ~" '~i'~' ~~,,.~~"%~ `. \ 71 LF 24 CMP. J I :(-!~- . ~~r
,
FES - FlAREO ENO SECTION -" - ~ ~ '-' ~' ~' ~ ~-' '~' ,v~~ / '" ~. ~~ {1) ~ 0.70R' SLOPE ~ Ija
RI -.CMP RISER PIPE ~'~~ ~' '-' ~' ~~~ y~~ '. ~~ ~-?~--
'. ~- ., /" EXISTIRC~EMERGENCY SPILLWAY.. ~. ; \ ~' ... J~-----G~~/ ;' ~~ '~~
.- ..., RI-8 ~ ~~ 'APPROX. 30~ BOTTOM WIDTH ~ \ ~~~ ~ - ~\
' -36• CMP; RISER ~ ~ _ F ~ _, APPROX. iNY. ELEVATION = 616.50 ~~ ~ - ~ \ (
RIM ELEVATION = 615.42 :.~ ~ / ~ ~ \ \~~67H-___~.~ ~ \
~~ EXISTING TREELINE \
INV. OU7 = 610.59 / EXISTING POND bUTLET ' HW 4 r
1_,
"-~., : .' / - --APPROK 4•'. PVC ISER '• - {-\"
'~., ;' / J`t APPROK ORIFICE~4EVATION = 615.00 `. , ' ~ INV. OUT.=,. 599.59
~~ ~ 1 ~ •,APPRO%. INV: OU7 +.604.00 PROPERTY ~•~ ~ '
'~ 430 LF 24" CMP EXISTING ADAM ~ ~ ,'r--~" , , -~ -~
......O.1.OOR SLOPE STRk7CTURE ~ , ~ ~ .'.• /~ \\ .. BWNDARY ~. ~-_- ~\ ~.
~. __ ~ ~ / ," ti~ ,.~j~~f y-V~v~, RIP RAP
" I ~.\J I ~ s '~/ ' v _k i ~DISSIPATOR PAD ~ APPROXIMATE 1
_ ~ .-__ ,- ATION O ,
I PIT
,, `.. ~ {F.. i~~ ~~1 Y~~ -_ / ___ \ ~ 1 ~EXPANSION.~ 11
_ 1 ~
~' -. ~ 11 ~ I\~ ^r- ~~'L ~ STEP POOL TRUC R S I 11 .
_..~- ..-... \~~ /._ ~ -~ ' EXISTING WETLAND BOTTOM MAD1H 5 FT. ..I /~~ 1
~: - ,\ J _~ ~~3 I ~~'. BOTTOM MIN. LENGTH ~ 15 FT. /
~ /
` _. ~~ _
RIIA 0.. - 614;90 S _____ ~10a~-_ ..~ r-l{1 ~ ~I~\ I ~ i~ ~. MA% DROP ~6 IN. \\ ~ / ,~ / `\1 //
INV. IN = 606.29 ..~-_ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ I - • , RO%IMATELV = ~ 1 /
19 ;
INV. W T = 606.09 - t , ~ I ~ ~ , ~\ TOTAL P OLS A / ~ ' / /
,
~ xt SIDE SLOPEPP
,
'~ '~
. ~- ~ ~ LF
.. ".. `.. 1 a,~ \\ ~'"--~_ ~ / O 2.418 A~1PE
~\ '.. '.. - / ,4 \ -.. ~ i -_. __ \ LEVEL SPREADER __.-~
~~\
S 2
FE
\~ : i <., \\ . T \~ \ ... TMVELB LONG ELEV
h ~ _
, '~'\ \ \\ UN lE A 581.00
, `
,' ~ ...1 ` \ ~ ~- T P D ~ ~. CSL=E'DETAII tlN~SHEET 5)-
PROPOSED CLEARING ~ ~ > - ~ EXISTING TREELINE '`
, ..' \ } \ ~ ~ RIP RAP DISSIPA OR A 5 ' - ~ I ~ -
LIMITS, TYP. ,' ~ , ~ ., \ ., ., ., \~ ALONG 3: 1 SLOPE ~ \ .
." '' - ~
__
' ~ y ~ 300'lF 24• CMP ~' ~ o\ \ _ --~ __ ~~ ~, \ `•
~; ~~ O 0.708 SLOPE APPROXIMATE ~. ~ ', \ ` ~ I \ _-_~ ~~
LOCATION OF PIT \ -_„~ 1 -- DRY POND \
e ~ "' E%PANSION ~I7 `. ~~__-- 'T \\ ~`- ~ _ (SEE DETAILS SHEET 6) ' t~,_ , / \^ _
- - V\V ~ .
,
/ ~ i~ ~ \ ~~ 2, ~ y \ `~' \ '\Z. EMERGENCY SPILLWA ~ ~ ) 'RIP .RAP
JB 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ I \ ~ .. 63 LF 18' CMP (~ ; ~ \ gSSIPATOR PAD-
RIM EL 618 0 / "; ~ ~6'P~ " I \\ .( / \C \\ ~'~ '. 25' BOTTOM WIDTH 7 ~ -- O 4.76 R SLOPE , - ~ \\
INV IN = 603 9p \ Z .,.J~\ \ y ..~..~ l•. J,-~,._ - ~ :.JiJ f 1 "~ ~ .. -,
INV. OUT - 6D 79 /~ ' \ ( \ \ 1 - ' ~, ~,s../`~J .\ ~ __~__
. ~
i / I \ ~ ~ ,. ~ \ '- PRIMARY SPILLWAY \ ,.. _~~ / /
, I / _. ' ,. \\\ ~ O 1, \\ '.. CREST ELEV.ER 588.00' ~ 'v'v yr,cao., ~?"1, Y.. ~, r ,L ;\ ' EXISTI C/UTILI ~EASEME T
~ 1 \ 7' \ (SEE DETAIL ON SHEET 4)` ~ ~`~' /r Ji^ L _ p M
-. I.,, t \ \ •'. ~ , CONSTRUCT)ON f v"\' V I - v ~ /
i
\\ ~ \\ ,'~ \ y ; \ ENTRANCE ~ / _ ~y r. EXiSTINf./WETLAND ~~~;.,%•`'•
\ I % ~ /
' ~30d LF 24" CMP I '. ~ \\1 l-j 11 ~f ; ~1` `11 ~ /ice// J / ~ I EXISTI /STREAM 1 y~~~
N~
; I O 0.5.(1R SLOPE 155 ~ - 1"' i.~ ., \ ~ 1 _~/
/
I ,
' 1 \\ i ~ 4 /_.f ~Ir ~ J a i \~ NOTE: SIZE AND LOCATION OF DRY
' \ „-.-r 'j -~ ` ~• "- \ ~ ,„ POND SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS cxAPRlc scnLe PRELIMINARY.
S L..,/-f' ,. , ( / \ ADDITIONAL HYDRAULIC NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
1 ~~ =-v :JJ r I I ~ ~ \ INFORMATION IS ACQUIRED. •1 ~ ~ I^ FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY.
MATCHLINE RIGHT ' `" • "°
Kimley-Horn aaT, MAMAITERARISTTA -- `~w""
EAST ALAMANCE QUARRY
^-^ and Associates, InC. n"~ WETLAND IMPACT ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
nn
, .:: ~ .:- ,,.. ....,a.,r ~. ,,.,.•.. ,. P.O. BO%3B0!! - RALBCiI/ NOMH CJJ1OlNA DIBO-0OOB ~o...u n.. s.r.. r ..u
-•"-^'-'° PHW16 (WY)H77-2o0o PAw roO)en-zmD MINIMIZATION PLAN D,nasDZ4 ~

•s•••••••••••s~••••••s•s••~•••••••••••••••••
._
_.
.., _ ~ \ I ,, ~..
;.
.5S
~.
~ , ~. 0
.-
.~ 1 ~ ,
'. .. ~ --
\ ~ ~
\ '. / / ' i
/ / / /
i
i
/ L
i
1 / i / ~ i - . ~~----~j
-.._ / ~ i
[ ,._
i~ L
~~~~~ ~~~ ~ --~ ~ ~ ~ ~ // ~i~~~ ~ ~EXISTING TREEUNE~
< -~
.. ~~ ~ ~ ~
_ ~~~• ~~~
~' ~ ~~ / i // ~~ ~~
O~~ l
c!/~/
~\ ~ / ~ /
.. ,
I
_.
\ E
~~ ~ ~~UNDERCROUND i ~~ _ ~,j i
PUMP INTAKEHOSE MATH
`` ~ `_ I''i ( SEDIMbNTI SCREOCATIOW'OF i
_ .__.~ ~~~ /~ ELECTRIC 1 .. ,vv ~ .F~ ~
EN O
-_~ y ..
CO-21 ~~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ LINE FORS PUMP\ ~ \
S~
RIM EL 559:00...... OPERA710N \ ~ \ 1
iNV, IN = 556.31 UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC \ .\~~ f, t\l / I
INV. OUT 556.11 .., LINE TO BE PROVIDED FROM \~` ~ ~ ~ 1 ' ~ 9 - / '~,
~ ._. ~. -~ ~ ~~ /1
~~~_ APPROXIMATE LOCATION - ~ ~ V '\I I
'\FES-20 ~~~~ OF PUMP HOUSE. ,,/ ~~ "'~/ \ \ ' 1
INV. ~ 556.00 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 \\ ~ I APPROXIMATE LOCATIONI
~ 1 :• I OF 225 GPM PUMP? I
a 1 \1 I \' I
V ~ ~.
L~ ~ / ~
---L ---
\
\
\
\
\
\
1
1
1
I
1
\ .,
-111F 4'~IP ~. _ ....... ......~
O 1:OOR SLOPE 127.LF 4" DIP
' \ ~~ O 4.328 SLOPE
\ ,
\ `.
\
RIP RAP bISSIPATOR PAO -,
1
\ 1 CO-22
`UNNAMED TRIBIIITARY RIM EL. 564.90
INV. IN =`562.00
1 INV. OUT = 561.80
1
1
~_~. 1
~/ , f~ '~ X11 \~-~~y ,-.~~ ~ _
\
1
\
1
__~'~' 1 1 1 1 I
1 ~
1 \ } ~11 PROPOSED CLEARING \~ ~ ,
1 ~ 1 ~. \<:_\ 'LIMITS, TYP. ~
177 LF 4' DIP I\ 1 ~ \\ ~ \` ~\
O -12.437. 540PE\ \\ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \~
\\1 .. ~ 11 11 ... .1 \\
C~ 11 11 \\\
56J.0 EXISTING UTILITY ~ASEMENT 1 I ' \ ` \\
X I 1 I
I I \\
1 1 .I
1 ~ I 1 ~\ \
_ I 1 1
'/ I ~ ~ ,~ 1
'"°'"`°'" "` °'"a °' ~""" MARTIN MARIETTA
~ Kimley-Horn MATERIALS
^_^ and Associates, InC. ""° BOYD'S CREEK
NOTES
1. LOCATIONS OF PUMP HOUSE AND PUMP ARE
APPROXIMATE. AFIELD DETERMINATION
VILL BE MADE HV THE PROJECT
ENGINEER TO DETERMINE THE BEST
LOCATIONS FOR THE PUMPING OPERATION.
2. PUMP VILL BE SET TO TURN OFF AND ON
V1TH THE CHANGE IN VATER SVRFACE
ELEVATION [N BOYO'S LREEK. THE
ON/OFF CRITERIA ViLI BE DETERMINED
IN THE FIELD.
3. A 225 GPM PUMP VILL BE REQUIRED FOR
PROVIDING A BASE FLOV OF 0.51 CFS
TO THE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
co -CLEAN OUT
FES -FLARED END SECTION
PRUPUSED ON/OFF
MECHANISM
NURMAL POOL
DEPTH -_--
WSE
^FF
GRAPHIC SCALE
imp min
PRELIMINARY.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY.
EAST ALAMANCE QUARRY
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLMA

~••~•••~i••••••••••••••~•••~•••••~••••••••••
_ _ ~ ~ 1 4 X11 ~ i I ~ / I 1 ~ / , ~ // =
~~11 lily vL ~ / / r t ~ 1 v~ / ~~
I ~- __ \11 .,ICI \\ li !' "( ./ I I LI~. i~ . ,'
~.~, 1j1 I lI I 1~ II t 1 ! ~ j 1 _~ ~/
1 /~// 11 l-I III \/ I '1' -1. ~l/ ~~ ~ /
iii/ /err / / I ~ I. 1 ':''~~~ ~ ~ _ i
' ~~ ~_ //III //// / / / ~ \ .~. \~I., /J ., ~~ // ,
I / I / 1 // / 11'
.. I I.i I I. / / / . PR SED ~ p
_ I
I I .III GROA~"L ~ I.
- / / / [ ~ III 1 / // _ ' ... _.. ~ _ ~ I .- /
;',~' ,///, ~ I LI 1 ~/' / ~~ ~ 560
//,,/ ;, // ,. '~, ~ , 1 T ~',
/ ~ - '-'
// /~J/ '`/ / ~ ~S71NC'[.RAVEL ~ I I ', / / ~ I
//~// /~/ice ~AO. ~• I, I- ~~ / / -'~~l
' ~ / /
./
//,/,/ ; ,, , , , ,---... / 1 ~ .
,,,,, , <, ,; , ~, t /, ~ ~ , /
/
/,,,, , / / ,, ~ D /
r/ill Ill / l/..~ /'~~- / ~l" ='~ /
,.
/
/'~ /
j /
/
`'// /
/ /
/ /C ._/
/ 1
/ /
/ ' '
/
~ ~ :.'
.' // ~ ~I-
/
// ` /
/ /
' / T 1 //
/ j~ /~~/
/, jl ~ /
/ /
/~~ ) ! 1~ /
{ /
~ '1: /
~i~ ~ M1 i
/
/
Shp
~
/~~ ~~ ~~ ~ fir/ ~ _. ,/ / / / / ~ / ~
y/ \) ~ (
~ ~ ~ ~ /~ '"
/
/ / /r /
/ /
/ // //
"' ' " / / /
- (
!/ ,"~
/ ~
/ ~' ` POT
=NTIAI LOCATIW OF ROOD PLAIN WLVERT
PERDINO HYDRAWC RENEW BV FEMA
/
/ / / ~ / / /
l l -
/ /
/ / / /
~ i

-
~ :, / ~
: ~ J I
: DUAL SD LF 64' CMP
fiURRIED TO 1 FOOT DEPTH
/ /
/ / /
/
:....
/
/ .. ..
/ / . .'
'' ,
/
__ 1:
/ /INV
IN :55288'
/
/ /
/
/
/ /
.,.- _ .
..
_.. /
/ i / .
~ ~ "
_ _ / ~ -
~ ,
/ INV. WT .55238'
~ (SEE DET/Ul ON SHEET 5)

' /
/
/ /
llr / /
~ i r l'
A ,
a
~
/
/~
/ /I /. / j
/ r / ~ / 20 ~~t7D /[FAYEI
~ " R~SO f~OS51NC _
' /' - ~
~ I /
' ~_ - / RIP RAP ALONG IMPACTED
UPSTREAM BANKS
~ / / ~ E%I5TI1~
TF2@E71NE ~
/ / /
~ APPgO%IMATE LOCATION OF
_
/ / ~ .
~
/ ~
~ ~
"- ~ / L
"~7 / ELEVATION CWTWR 366.00
,:
,

/ ~ ~ / / ~
~/ .
~ ~ r
~

/
- /
/
~
` ,
•
'
RIP RAP ALWC
~
~
`
T
`
.
/
~ / / /
// \
j /' /,~-
~ /DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
~ . / / '~ / ROAD CROSSING PTO ~`--'
/ '' PROPOSED CLEARING
LIMITS, TYP.
/ // /.
~~ ~ ~
~. % /~ ;;` '~ PROVDE 3TABRIZATION
'
/ // /
" / ~
/ % /~"~,~/
~~ / '.RIP RAP ALONC IMPACTED
~// // "~ ~
~ /
,
~
,
/ / // ~/.,: I BDWNSTREAM BANKS
/
/
.

// /

~
/
~'
/ i.,
/
~ , /
l ~
/
/ / ~ ~/
r'^'"
~/

~ / //
/
/
/
~ /
I// T J/ ~i'~
~~ J
APPRO%IMATE LOCATIW OF BEDROCK
APPRG%IMATE ELEVATION . SSJ.30
~
% /
/
/ j. / ~
// ! /%,
/ / l I
J' /
~ // `
/ (TO PROVIDE STABIUZATIgN FOR
WLVERT W1LET)
, 1
NOTESi
1. ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDED TO COMPLETE
ROAD CROSSING BEFORE FINAL
CONSTRUCTION DRAVINGS.
2. LIMITS OF ROAD CROSSING HAVE BEEN
APPRG%INATEO USING CROSS SECTION
SURVEY,
3. SEE DETAILS ON SHEET 3 FOR CROSS-
SECTIDN A-A.
1. ROAD CROSSING IS LOCATED IN THE
100-YEAR FLOOOVRY AND IS SUBJECT TD
CHANGE BASED ON HYDRAULIC REVIEV
BY fEHA

GRAPWC SCALE
Grp mlrt
PRELIMINARY.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
FOR PERMfTTING PURPOSES ONLY.
"~"1D1XA`~`P wen r. MARTIN MARIETTA - "`0."r
~ Kimley-Horn MATERIALS EAST ALAMANCE QUARRY
- a _ ^ and Associates Inc. °1E ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLWA
' ._"'°..."..'~". ~ ......,,.,_ k "" ""^'°" " "' P.o. IiDI(asaee :RALIBaLI NDRrN cAROLIa vs3e-aoeH 1 BOYD'S CREEK ! " ~-b ~, o ~ , ..o,
PHONE (YIY)NIn 2000 PAw Dnolen-~3o ROAD CROSSING PLAN ~° D+Nesoz. 9

•~~•~•••~••••i••~i~~•i••••••••••••••••••••••~
`soe ~~~~~..
~'eior~ a `~
~.~
admlcv
urowaa
oamw
°t"°a aavnae sea
my ar evw: asa ___, _ _
m/iaa-re sms~ ¢ivta~: sea
3-M 51peI aEV•11W. eeaA e
-I1
v. [ILY•aa OMCRY M fKxT OF
sca e•ma m euaa •. lrwse r a
at•e•xoe eaorr eorla o nselww
rza wum anon era -
a scans 9. nveaow
. saaoo
Isu 9cvn rxw s~¢)
-MUnal pCNq dma M' an •ad J
f eaM NegT v rr v1e rsc
•µ11n-i{ei~e~ar eollae 69YI~i1lMkle~63e
DRY POND CONGEP7 CROSS-SECTION A-A
r0/1a= rMir a a~mr p~EV~nOie seem -
oemmlw oa..r
a[vnors. sea
_~
-

~ rr ar won e•nm w,n wldrarv
xea, ncc m a em9rn ns 9iucrtn er
~i
°'
i'~.
~
v+va•u

wean rxc
^ vnoMOC
a•~ oar
. • \\
wnss nrwa dewva •re9 enauu m
ea
-
w
. w - se..w
wv. wr em.oo
~
~a~ w
pec 9[*•a ra x[R mw l
~~ uorycrto smvcnw~u u •a
\\
aorzawrx o~arene a.arc - •xx
w.n+lnanan 9evez dro+9 n• or wsar
r • r~iaea'e ~T n vn~ av urrrnc,< s®na eeuw
i~ ona ea s~
xaro
•rm- na emla euv~ ~s A o• rse caner
1 soma w1e .•ldnwr
sr•i vec m ee enam u w¢e1[9 ar
"
°`
cmcnra ~u°'°ro ~w"Q

ORY P e
µ
wmn
OND CONCEPT PROFlL F Marvl~reee m a~s-i Ar I~ixe vsE•un
~ pRElpgdApY.
~T ~~ J~T~O~J
ae~
s
M' nevi ' >.na ro
FOR PERAAtTT4~0 PUAPOSE9 ONLY.
"~"T MARTIN MARIETTA °"°''E"
Kimle
-Horn EAST ALAMANGE QUARRY
^ ^ y MATERIALS
ALAMANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLUJA
^- , •,_ .
---^• - -
a - and Associates) InC. nor:. STORMWATER ,
•
-
r . wr~w..v....nrw .c
~
~ a ro. eox ~9oee - rw.eo)t Nam, cARww ve9s~ooee
PF1aE (iN) E17-2000
6
T7-
5 DETAILS
s.m.c nu
• •r•
cr
un
M FAX (9
) 6
20
0 01119503/
4
>a :r wr oma
a. m ~ rO°"a+u
~M~ .won ron atv.. sum
e
nel~m ~~
i~.°P.ciO nmrw
i ew e~ vw"`3m~.ec.
vin i•
~e~
WR W IX21FlCE AND INTERNAL RISER DETNI
m~`.*...d`n eao en >d
R en~i. aaD xvn
ee ew.ea m rr Oyu ml
~: ~~ M nl
f
a nm •o..
~.a.. moom
u ~e °'
NON-RISIN ~ X uSION ~ MAC': M8 Y
2' SWAR SO .KIT P ~N
E~~ENCY~DRAIN

_ _
Cn n
xkA Y M.~mR mA
'x,T„, maar.us
• N~ A E~~R~"R'
100-YR STORM ELEVATION: 617.02
10-ttt STORM ELEVATION: 816.04
2-VR STORM ELEVATON: 615.55
APPROXIIAATE LOCATION a
PERMENANi POOL ~ 615.00
GRAVTl
GRADED Z:1 SLOPE -
CONSULT GEOIECNNKAI
ENGINEER i0R COMPACTION
PERCENT
TRASH RACK-
RI-B
36' CMP RISER
DEPTH
EXISANG POND
EXACT DIMENSIONS
UNKNOWN
ANTI-FLOTATION OEWCE.
BURY BOTTOM OF 36' CMP RISER AND FILL RISER
BOTTOM WITH CONCRETE BELOW POND BOTTOM.
INSURE THAT THE 36' CMP RISER IS BURIED 1
FOOT FOR EVERY 1 F00T QF POND DEPTH BELOW
ELEVATION 615.00. INSURE THAT CONCRETE
BOTTOM DOES NOT EXTEND OVER INVERT OF
WTIET BARREL
APPROXIMATE LOCAnON OF -
POTENnAI fL00D PLAM
CULVERT PENDING HYdiAWt
RENEW BY FEMA
BASE COURSE,
DEPTH
/ ~~ I-a ~Bm ROCK MATERIAL
84' CNP 04' CLAP
BECTIOIJ A-A
STREAM CROSSNU DEI'AL
NOTE:
1. BURY 20X OF %PE DIAMETER UP TO 48' %PE.
AND BURY 1' Di %PE FOR DIAMETERS ABOVE 49'.
2 %PES SHOIND BE SEPERATED RY A MINIMUM a 1/2 n1E PIPE dAMETER (15 FEET).
J. BURY WIVERT PIPES A MINIMUM Of 1/2 THE %PE dAMETER (1.4 IFFY).
cWTOUR eee.vP i u
I
I
A
J
GRADE
n-~
~
PRW
OIAN OSID
RFL
QADm 21 AWE '4
Cp1AlLT CEOTEOMMAI
DiONEDI f0N COIPACRCN
PCALTSIT .iR
piNg1 olauASl~ µx sTw[
caTlSmucnal
PLAN VIEW
IX GRADE
ROIMDED UP AT ~ 6' ttP.
ElF/. SB2.6D _ ~` _F
OP OF RISER
LEVATION: 815.42 Tw (,.
APPRO%IMATE TOP OF BERM 1a ~' ,_'`i
1R000H AT EL 501.00
PRONDE WATER TIGHT JOINT ELEVATON: 618.00
WITH HYDRAULIC CEMENT ////' {-18' TTP
-"f-( -'t'.--''T1~~T ~fIY =~r~r 6%6 WELDED
-~~1!=111-EXA~EOINF~StnNS IINKNOWN Z`~~~~_~I rT~ WIRE FABRIC
''._. ~ Ali--r.~ti_ SECf10N B-B'
r ,~
24" CMP OUTLET BARREL WITH WATERTIGHT
a SEAL. PIPE TO BE BEDDED AS dRECTED BY
CEOTECHNICAL ENpNEER.
OUTFALL TO JB-7
2d' CMP CONCRETE SEEPAGE COLLAR INV. IN >• 610.00
(SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET) INV. OUT = 606.29
sLDPE - l.oz
EXISTING FARM POND CONCEPT PROFILE
SCALE; 1 • - e'
NOTES:
1, USE CONCRETE MW. 2a-wY Sfi1ENCTM FOWL TO 3000 P51 roR
3. CONSTRUCT IEVEI SPREADER to AT ELEVATION 50].00.
J. WNSRRICf lEV0. SPREADER ON UNdSNRBED SOAS. RECEMNG
AREA afLON LEVEL SPREADER 51411 BE AT EXISTRNi GRADE ANO
UNd5NR0W BY EARTHWORK ON EOUTPMENT.
4. ARG UPNRL OF LEVEL SPREADER SHLLL BE SEEPED N70
STABAJZEO iMMEOWTELY FOLLOWING EVEL SPREADER LONSTRIILRON.
B. PIAtE WTVI GEOR7RAE FAaflIC UNDER ALL flIP RAP.
8. EIFVAnW OF SdL ON BDWI TO BE 5aZ.50.
9. LENGTH OE LEVEL SPIIEIDER TO BE 03 R. AS DEPICTED ON PLAN
NEW.
CONCRETE LEVEL SPREADER
N.TS.
PREL6LANARY.
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
FOR PERMR'fN0 PURPOSE3 ONLY.
°'I" °" `~""' MARTIN MARIETTA P"°"`T`
~ Kimley-Horn MATERIALS ~„" EAST AIAMANCE QUARRY
- _ ^_~ and Associates, inc. nnE STORMWATER a ~ ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
.,, rx ~. wa .....,...r '
wbY. x•.r~«r~.T. ae ~ i 4 .xi. w.ew.~ w.rwa ,. P.O. BOX LgOQa - RAl9O4 NOIT1 CMOINA 17Q0a-OOaa R •. . amn.a na u...... ...,r..
x,.,.rx.. w r,rww x. ,r r y".n i .".ex ...
v.,NK x~......., ..,..,,. K. ,,,, PHDPr rolal en-2ooD FAw (aw) a77-msD DETAILS sA~ _ cWE_ _ _ mnewz4 5