Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20231229_Stratte-M Martin Martin P.Stratte Marietta Assistant General Counsel December 29, 2023 VIA EMAIL Adam Parr, PE State Mining Engineer Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 512 Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27699 adam.parr@deg.nc.gov ncminingprogram@ncdenr.gov Re: Fuquay Quarry—Martin Marietta's Application to Modify Mining Permit No.92-12 Dear Mr. Parr: Martin Marietta appreciates DEQ's review of our pending Application to Modify Mining Permit No. 92-12 for the Fuquay Quarry located in Wake County, North Carolina. We submit this letter in response to the comments made during the public hearing on December 19, 2023. Please place a copy of this correspondence in DEQ's administrative file for the above referenced matter. Martin Marietta has proudly operated the Fuquay Quarry for 30+ years. The facility has coexisted with the surrounding area literally for decades and has supplied construction aggregates used to build highways, roads, homes, schools, and infrastructure projects throughout the region. The area has exploded in growth and much of the aggregate used to build all of those new homes, schools, stores, and roads came from the Fuquay Quarry. The modified permit will simply enable Martin Marietta to continue its existing mining and reclamation activities on additional land that has already been added to its Special Use Permit administered by Wake County. Martin Marietta is an industry leader in environmental compliance, safety, and operational excellence and looks forward to its continued supply of the construction aggregates necessary to build the solid foundations on which our community thrives. Martin Marietta believes that DEQ's presentation slide shared during the public hearing, titled "Generalized Agency Comments," provides a helpful summary of why the application must be approved. In short, all responsible state and federal agencies have commented, or been invited to comment, on the application in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. No concerns were identified. We note Corporate Headquarters 4123 Parklake Avenue,Raleigh,NC 27612 t.(919)783-4682 f.(919)783-4535 e. martin.stratte@martinmarietta.com www.martinmarietta.com Adam Parr, PE State Mining Engineer Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality December 29, 2023 Page 2 that some of the agencies recognized that Martin Marietta has operated the existing facility in compliance with its permits and applicable laws and regulations for 30+years. As explained by DEQ at the hearing,the permit must be issued unless there is evidence of a basis for denial in accordance with the criteria in section 74-51(d)(1)-(7). No such evidence was presented at the hearing. First, as discussed in the Mining Act of 1971 and summarized in the handout provided by DEQ at the hearing, comments regarding (i) matters relating to use of a public road; (ii) truck traffic; (iii) noise; and (iv) property values are not considered by DEQ in connection with its review of a mine permit application. Thus, we will not address comments made at the hearing on those matters. This includes comments regarding the use of Fletcher Tutor and Tutor Stephens Roads(both of which are public roads)and matters related thereto. Martin Marietta recognizes, however, that those topics are of interest to the adjacent landowners and will continue to work with them in connection with the same. Second, most of the comments made during the public hearing relate to technical and scientific matters involving issues such as hydrology, water quality, and air quality. But no technical or scientific evidence, or qualified testimony based on technical and scientific evidence, was provided. Thus, the comments regarding these matters do not constitute evidence that is relevant to DEQ's evaluation under section 74- 51(d)(1)-(7). As stated in the DEQ handout, "A Mining Permit or modification to an existing permit shall be granted if none of these denial criteria [at section 74-51(d)(1)-(7)] are triggered or are mitigated by permit condition requirements." Martin Marietta has complied with the requirements imposed upon applicants pursuant to the Mining Act of 1971 and has responded to DEQ's request for supplemental information. Accordingly, the burden to present relevant, competent evidence has shifted to those opposed to the application, and no such evidence was provided at the hearing. The following case excerpt summarizes why the public comments about technical and scientific matters are inadequate and, therefore, not relevant to DEQ's evaluation: Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. It does not include '[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, [or] evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous."'"Complaints,fears,and suspicions about a project's potential environmental impact likewise do not constitute substantial evidence." "Members of the public may provide opinion evidence where special expertise is not required. However, "[i]nterpretation of technical or scientific information requires an expert evaluation. Testimony by members of the public on such issues does not qualify as substantial evidence. "[I]n the absence of a specific factual foundation in the record, dire predictions Adam Parr, PE State Mining Engineer Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality December 29, 2023 Page 3 by nonexperts regarding the consequences of a project do not constitute substantial evidence.' Most of the comments made during the public meeting fit this description. They are not evidence and DEQ should not give them any weight. This is particularly true of comments about blasting. All of the comments were anecdotal; no one provided any evidence of a violation of any permit or law. Further,the evidence shows that all blasts have complied with the existing Mining Permit and all applicable laws and regulations. As it does at all of its locations, however, Martin Marietta will continue to evaluate its blasting at the Fuquay Quarry, not just to ensure it is permit complaint, but also to ensure it is the best we can do. Some neighbors have expressed an interest in receiving a courtesy notice via text message prior to blasting, and Martin Marietta anticipates implementing such a program if there is sufficient interest in it. The record evidence demonstrates that Martin Marietta's operations proposed in the application will comply with applicable laws and regulations. The application should therefore be granted. Sincerely, Martin P. Stratte Assistant General Counsel cc: William E.Toby Vinson,Jr., Interim Director of Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources Buzz Crosby, Regional VP,Atlantic Coast Region, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Brian North, VP, Environmental and Land Services, East Division, Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. 'Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino, 1 Cal.App. 5th 677,690-691 (2016) (internal citations omitted).