Final Memo

June 13, 2013
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tracy Davis, Director
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
THROUGH: Mell Nevils, Chief
Land Quality Section
THROUGH: Janet Boyer, State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
FROM: Ashley Rodgers, Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
RE: Mining Permit Application Review
T. Farnell Shingleton
Proposed Shingleton Farms Mine
Pender County
Recommendations: The staff of the Land Quality Section (LQS) has completed its review of
the above referenced application and recommends that it be approved with certain conditions
as provided for under G.S. 74-51 . A draft permit document is attached for your review and
consideration.
Review Procedure: The staff of the Land Quality Section reviewed the permit application
which was submitted on January 3, 2011 and all supplemental information filed subsequent to
the initial application. Furthermore, the N. C. Department of Cultural Resources-Division of
Archives and History, the Division of Water Quality, the Division of Air Quality, DENR, the
Division of Water Resources, the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the Division
of Soil and Water Conservation, the Division of Parks and Recreation, the Division of Marine
Fisheries, the NC Geological Survey and the US Fish and Wildlife Service were also afforded
the opportunity to comment on the proposal.
In addition to the governmental agency input noted above, a public hearing was held on the
proposal on November 1 , 2012 at the Topsail High School Media Center in Hampstead. A
summary of the public comments was made by Dr. Kenneth Taylor, Hearing Officer. A copy of
the summary was provided to you earlier under separate cover and a copy is on file with the
Land Quality Section.

Tracy Davis
June 13, 2013
Page 2
Findings: All of the information obtained to date was reviewed with respect to G.S. 74-51 (1-
7):
(1) "That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will be
violated by the proposed operation;"
There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed operation will violate the Act
as there are approximately 540 sand and gravel mines presently under permit in
the State that comply with the requirements of the Act.
(2) "That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater
supplies, wildlife or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;"
A detailed erosion and sediment control plan adequately addresses stormwater
runoff from disturbed areas - see Operating Condition No. 4.
The Division of Water Resources was requested to review the mining permit
application and concluded that the proposed operation should not have an
unduly adverse affect on ground water supplies (see memo dated January 13,
2011). In an email dated October 30, 2012 from the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) to the Land Quality Section, NCWRC noted that they had
reviewed the proposed mine operation and did not believe that it would have
significantly adverse impacts to wildlife resources.
Neither the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) nor the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries had any comment on the proposed project.
(3) "That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
groundwater quality that have been promulgated by the Department;"
Operating Conditions Nos. 1 and 2 of the draft permit require, respectively, that
the operation comply with state water and air quality regulations.
The Division of Water Resources was requested to review the mining permit
application and concluded that the proposed operation should not have an
unduly adverse affect on ground water supplies.
The NC Division of Water Quality also reviewed the proposed mine application
and requested a wetlands delineation, which was provided by the applicant. In
addition, they note that an NPDES permit will be required. The operator has
agreed to obtain the NPDES permit prior to the initiation of any mine activities
onsite. No dewatering is proposed for the site, and thus an O&M plan no longer
appears to be necessary. DWQ noted no objection to the issuance of a mine
permit.

Tracy Davis
June 13, 2013
Page 3
(4) "That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to
public health and safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church,
hospital, commercial or industrial building, public road or other public property,
excluding matters relating to use of a public road;"
Appropriate buffers are provided for in the site plans and referenced to in the
draft permit. The side slopes to the lake excavation shall be graded to a 3
horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter to the water line and 3 horizontal to 1 vertical or
flatter below the water line, as indicated on the excavation area cross section.
Furthermore, Operating Condition No. 9 of the draft permit requires that a 50 foot
undisturbed buffer (except for the approved sediment trap) remain between any
excavation area and mine permit boundary.
Numerous concerns were voiced during the public hearing regarding the safety
of the haul/access road proposed for use during mine operations (please refer to
the public hearing summary submitted by Dr. Taylor). One issue raised was the
maintenance of the roads. As noted on the mine maps and reflected on the bond
calculation worksheet, the haul/access road is included within the permitted area
and will be required to be bonded. Another issue raised was with the safety to
pedestrians and school children due to the possibility of excessive speeds, etc.
by trucks leaving the mine site. However, these concerns cannot be addressed
through the mine permit process as speed limits, etc. are not within our control.
These issues are better addressed through local zoning. Finally, dust and noise
concerns were also raised at the hearing and in other correspondence with
neighbors. Operating Condition No. 2B of the draft permit requires that "During
mining operations, water trucks or other means that may be necessary shall be
utilized to prevent dust from leaving the permitted area." Noise, like speed and
other traffic concerns, is not covered under the Mining Act and are better
addressed through local zoning.
(5) "That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a
publicly owned park, forest or recreation area;"
According to the Division of Parks and Recreation, the proposed mine activity is
located within 5 miles of Hampstead Kiwanis Park. Dee Turner with Pender
County Parks & Recreation was contacted on February 2, 2011 and did not
foresee any adverse impacts to the park from the proposed mine operation.
(6) "That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial
possibility that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in
stream beds or lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution;"
An adequate sediment and erosion control plan has been developed for this site
and should provide adequate protection to the surrounding environment. In
addition, per Operating Condition 4B of the draft permit, all drainage from the

Tracy Davis
June 13, 2013
Page 4
affected areas around the mine excavations shall be diverted internal to said
excavations or into the approved sediment trap.
(7) That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or
parent has not been in substantial compliance with this Article, rules adopted
under this Article, or other laws or rules of this State for the protection of the
environment or has not corrected all violations that the applicant or any parent,
subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or parent may have committed under
this Article or rules adopted under this Article and that resulted in:
a. Revocation of a permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of a bond or other security,
C. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64,
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64.
Mr. Shingleton has previously had a civil penalty assessed for mining without a
permit (August 12, 1998). This violation was corrected when Mr. Shingleton
obtained a mine permit (October 9, 1998) and paid the civil penalty in full (March
26, 2002).
Conclusions: There is no evidence to indicate that the proposed operation will violate any part
of G.S. 74-51 (1-7) as outlined and reviewed above.
Attachments
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, PE