2020_07_27_15_32_03

.-lk
C A L H O U N
B H E L L A
SECHREST
July 14, 2020
Ms. Lyn Hardison
Environmental Assistance Coordinator
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality
Via e-mail to: [e-mail]
Re: Proposed Wake Stone quarry
Dear Ms. Hardison:
This firm represents The Umstead Coalition with regard to the proposed Wake Stone
quarry adjacent to Umstead State Park.
Liz Adams has been in contact with you and appreciates the time you spent with her. She
tells me that you have a meeting with DEMLR to discuss the application of SEPA to the project.
My client has asked me to write to you with support for requiring the preparation of environmental
documents.
We welcome, of course, environmental documents being required under any authority.
But, in particular, I wanted to share with you my analysis of two different avenues.
The first is found. in DEQ's rules for conformity with the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act, Subchapter 01C of Chapter 15A. DEQ is to prepare an environmental assessment "for
those activities described in Section .0300 of this Subchapter, and for those activities above the
thresholds set in DENR's [sic] minimum criteria described in Section .0400 of this Subchapter."
15A NCAC 01C .0206(a). That rule goes on to require that "closely connected activities" be
reviewed together. That includes "activities that cannot or will not proceed unless other activities
occur either previously or simultaneously" and "activities that are interdependent parts of a larger
plan of development ...." 15A NCAC 01C .0206(c).
As you know, Section .0300 sets out the activities for which environmental documents will
be required. Subsection .0304 requires that "any activity which is outside the minimum criteria
set out in Section .0400" is required to have environmental documentation. But, in addition,
Subsections .0305 and .0306 set out special categories of activities that shall require
environmental documentation. Section .0306 is the most clearly applicable: it provides that "arl
environmental document is required when the Secretary determines that ... the proposed activity
may have a potential for significant adverse effects on ... parklands ... or ... areas of local,
state or federally recognized scenic, recreational, archeological, ecological, scientific research or
historical value, including secondary impacts ...."
JAMES L CONNER 11
PARTNER
919313 4571 W,,,)
919827 8806,1 4
O4819 Emperor SwLeNwd Suite 400
DurhanNwth Caro iro 27703
O,comervc ttorneyscom
Qcbsettorneys.com

Lyn Hardison
July 14, 2020
page 2
The proposed Wake Stone quarry would be directly adjacent to Umstead State Park.
Among the first actions that will be taken is the clearcutting of 59 acres of mature hardwood and
pine forest. The quarry, with heavy excavating equipment, blasting, and a constant flow of heavy
dump trucks comes next. Not only is the proposed quarry directly adjacent to Umstead State
Park, it would actually interrupt the East Coast Greenway, a 3,000 mile route from Maine to Key
West, which now passes through the lands on which the quarry would be built. Even if allowances
are made for the Greenway to continue through the property in some way, RDU plans to build an
18 mile, eight -foot -tall barbed wire fence that could prevent access to Umstead State Park from
the Greenway or at minimum severely disrupt the users' experience and safety, and jeopardize
the Park's designation in the National Register of Historic Places (see attached).
This is not a full, detailed description of the quarry plans, but even this perfunctory
description makes clear that "the proposed activity may have a potential for significant adverse
effects on ... parklands ... or ... areas of local, state or federally recognized scenic, recreational,
archeological, ecological, scientific research or historical value, including secondary impacts ...
." 15A NCAC O1C .0306(1). Per the terms of the Rule, an environmental document is required.
In addition, Subsection .0306(3) requires preparation of environmental documents when
the "proposed activity has secondary impacts, or is part of cumulative impacts, not generally
covered in the approval process for the state action, and that may result in a potential risk to
human health or the environment." Among the secondary and cumulative impacts of this project
are deforestation, construction of 18 miles of fencing, construction of a bridge across Crabtree
Creek, and the quarry. None of these except the quarry is being considered in the mining permit
process, to the best of my knowledge.
Subsection .0305 requires preparation of environmental documents when the proposed
activity involves damage to or ground disturbances of sites listed on the National Register. I have
attached the letter of concern in this regard written by the State Historic Preservation Officer,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.
I understand that you are already considering Section .0400 regarding minimum criteria.
Subsection .0408 addresses construction activities. This quarry and related activities easily
exceed any of the minimums established therein.
Finally, the general rules implementing SEPA also support requiring environmental
documents. 01 NCAC Chapter 25. Activities that are required to prepare environmental
documents under 01 NCAC 25 .0401 et al. must involve (1) an expenditure of public monies or
use of public land, (2) an action by a state agency subject to this Chapter, and (3) a potential
environmental effect upon either natural resources, public health and safety, natural beauty, or
historical or cultural elements of the state's common inheritance.
As described briefly above, this project meets criterion (3) in spades. As to criterion (2),
"activity" is defined to include permitting, which DEQ is in the process of doing. Finally, as to
criterion (1) both public monies are being spent and public lands are being used. The land in

rft,
Lyn Hardison
July 14, 2020
page 3
question is owned by four local governments —the cities of Durham and Raleigh, and the counties
of Wake and Durham.' The acreage of public lands far exceeds the ten (10) acre threshold
imposed by Session Law 2015-90 and the proposed use "would result in substantial, permanent
changes in the natural cover or topography" of the lands. As mentioned, at least 59 acres would
be logged, and a quarry pit would be dug. It would be hard to think of a clearer set of changes
to the natural cover and topography. Session Law 2015-90 specifically includes the grant of a
lease authorizing private use of public land, which is exactly what has happened here: Wake
Stone has purchased a mineral lease on the land.
We appreciate your review of this letter and other materials to support requiring
preparation of environmental documents prior to any permitting of the proposed Wake Stone
facility. We ask that you advocate that environmental documents be required.
One last point. If environmental documents are required, all permit consideration must
pause, so that the information contained in the EA and/or EIS can be considered by DEQ before
permit decisions are made. 15A NCAC 01C .0107.
Sincerely yours,
James L. Conner II
cc: Michael Regan, Secretary, Department of Environmental Quality
Sheila Holman, Assistant Secretary for the Environment, NC DEQ
Dan Sams, NC DEQ Hearing Officer for Permit Modification Application 92-10
Brian Wrenn, Director, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, N.C. Department
of Environmental Quality
John Fullwood, Director, NC Division of Parks and Recreation
Reid Wilson, Chief Deputy Secretary, NC Department Natural and Cultural Resources
Dr. Jean Spooner, Chair, The Umstead Coalition
NC Senator Wiley Nickel
' Frankly, in my effort to get this to you in time for it to be useful, I have not had time to research the question of
whether local government ownership of the land is sufficient, or whether it must be State ownership. Certainly, in
the common usage of the words, this is public land.

Exhibit 1

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Banos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy secretary Kevin Cherry
May 7, 2020
Brian Wrenn, Acting Director
NCDEQ/Division of Energy, Mineral & Land Resources
Via email: Brian.wrennancdenr.gov
Re: Expand Wake Stone Triangle Quarry, Odd Fellows Tract adjacent to Umstead Park, Raleigh, Wake
County, GS 20-0841
Thank you for providing the April 8, 2020, mining permit modification application for the above -referenced
expansion project. We have reviewed the application and offer the following comments.
As noted in the application, Wake Stone Corporation is aware of the public concern raised by its proposed
expansion immediately adjacent to William B. Umstead State Park, which was listed in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) in 1995 as the Crabtree Creek Recreational Demonstration Area. We, too, are
concerned by the proposal as we believe it may adversely affect the characteristics that made and continue to
make the park eligible for National Register listing.
The Crabtree Creek Recreational Demonstration Area is an important example of a Depression -era public
works project, the purpose of which was to convert exhausted farmland into an outdoor recreational park.
Significant for its architecture, landscape architecture, and conservation management techniques, the 5,337-acre
park was one of two Recreational Demonstration Areas established in North Carolina by the federal
government in the 1930s.
The genesis of the park occurred in 1934 when the Resettlement Administration began assembling tracts of
farmland for reclamation and reforestation. Following the land acquisition, the Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) and the Works Progress Administration took the lead on next steps. Under the supervision of architects,
landscape architects, foresters, and engineers, young CCC recruits labored to build rustic -style group camps,
bridges, roads, trails and picnic areas. They also planted forests, dammed creeks to create lakes, and instituted
land management practices to reverse the land erosion caused by years of poor agricultural practices. The result
of this effort is North Carolina's premier collection of New Deal rustic architecture and landscape architecture.
The majority of the park's natural landscape features, which include streams, drainage areas, ridges, and forest,
remain essentially unchanged. With over thirty miles of bridle/bicycle trails and hiking paths, the park is one of
the most visited in North Carolina and offers a nature -based retreat in one of the fastest developing counties in
the state.
Given its historical significance as a recreational area centered on restoration of the landscape through
landscape design and land -management as well as a rustic retreat from increasing urbanization, we believe that
the following concerns need to be more thoroughly addressed.
Location: 109 Fast Jones Street, Rakish NC 27601 Maiang Address: 4617 Mail Scvice (:enter, Ratcigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Pox: [phone]/807-6599

Tree clearing of 59.3 acres of trees and removal using Reedy Creek Road.
• Please address the noise and dust this activity will create as well as the safety issues raised for
hikers using the road as a major access point to Umstead Park.
Construction of fifteen foot (15') tall vegetative berms set fifty feet (50') behind the permit limit
boundary.
• We understand these berms are supposed to provide a visual and noise buffer for the park as
well as to discourage public access. However, it will take some time to build the berms and
decades for them to be vegetated sufficiently to serve this purpose. In the meanwhile, the bare
or nearly bare berms will be visual landscape elements that are incompatible with the very
reason for creation of the park as a forested recreation area.
• The applicant anticipates that these berms will also mitigate the increased noise of the quarry
closer to the park. Please substantiate this claim. R r_ (A n Pig • 5 2 5 , , o'>
• It is stated that, if necessary, a security fence eight feet (8), topped with three strands of
bobbed -wire, will be installed along the perimeter by either Wake Stone or the RDU Airport
Authority. We believe that a fence is completely out of keeping with the landscape of the park
and its recreational character and significance as set forth in the National Register listing. Please
offer other options. I S ?- I i 1-
EST
3u.=FAV�
How •) �T
✓aG. J
VI A4 i[.l tcT 1406-ty or 01*RA4MTrew
Lighting of the quarry is not thoroughly addressed. L-y M AI-V1!4V^&4a A.1'.,w&A1%
• Please provide documentation that there will be no increase of night lighting that can adversely
affect the night-time experience of the park as a rustic retreat. U V 2 ti 1Z R nu-1 -i- IY°'T
PA o V iFAI
In addition to the above comments that relate to potential adverse effects upon the National Register -listed
historic property, we offer the following on the potential archaeological resources.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the boundaries of the mine expansion project area;
however, this area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of
archaeological resources. Previously recorded archaeological sites within a half mile of the project area
suggest that landforms associated with Crabtree Creek and its tributaries have a high probability for
containing pre -colonial American Indian archaeological sites associated with quarrying gravels from stream
deposits. In addition, the 1914 Wake County soil survey map shows one structure in the mine expansion
area, and archaeological remains associated with this structure may be present in the parcel.
We believe that a comprehensive archaeological survey conducted by an experienced archaeologist is required
before further consideration of issuance of the necessary state permits for the quarry's operation. The purpose SH o vy
of this survey will be to identify and evaluate the significance of archaeological sites that may be damaged or Q?L
destroyed by the proposed project. RR ca .
Please note that our office now requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation. A list
of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carohna'is available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists
listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
One paper and one digital copy of all archaeological reports addressing work in the project area, as well as
one digital copy of the North Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of
State Archaeology through this office for review and comment as soon as they are available and in advance

of any construction or ground disturbance activities. Office of State Archaeology report guidelines are
available at https://files.nc.gov/dncr-arch/OSA Guidelines Dec20l7.pdf.
An adverse effect to the National Register -listed property arising from the activities proposed under the
requested permit could trigger referral to the North Carolina Historical Commission for further review under
NC 121-12(a).
In short, industrial mining is generally not conducive to the support and promotion of or compatible with the
very elements that led William B. Umstead State Park to being listed on the National Register of Historic
Places: land restoration through landscape design and outdoor recreation. For this reason, expansion of quarry
activity is of great concern to the State Historic Preservation Office and Office of State Archaeology. In
addition, there is a high degree of probability that the potential impact area contains undiscovered prehistoric
American Indian archaeological resources that the proposed activities could threaten. For these reasons, we
need and request additional information from the applicant concerning how it plans to address these issues
before our offices can then provide final comments upon the permit request.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments
made under Executive Order XVI and NC GS 121-12(a), please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, Environmental
Review Coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or environmental.revic%(-kncdcr.gov. In all future communication
concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely yours,
Ramona M. Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Reid Wilson, Chief Deputy Secretary [e-mail]
Kevin Cherry, Deputy Secretary kevin.cherrX&ncdcr.gov
Dwayne Patterson, State Parks dwayne.patterson(a nenarks.gov

RECEIVED
A C gi"O
LAND QUALITY SECTION
MATTOX LAW FIRM
Isabel Worthy Mattox
Telephone [phone] [e-mail]
Matthew f. Carpenter
[e-mail]
July 17, 2020
VIA U.S. Mail and E-mail
Mr. Brian Wrenn
Director Division of Energy, Minerals, and Land Resources
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re: Wake Stone Mining Permit No. 92-10 riled April 8, 2020 (the "Permit Application")
Dear Mr. Wrenn:
As attorney for the Umstead Coalition in its opposition to Wake Stone's Permit Application, I
write to summarize evidence presented to the Department of Energy, Mineral and Land
Resources ("DEMLR") at the June 23 and July 7 public hearings, and to instruct DEMLR
regarding its duty to evaluate that evidence.
DEMLR has heard overwhelming evidence that Wake Stone's proposed expansion of the
triangle quarry will cause significant unavoidable harm to Umstead State Park and the
environment at large. Accordingly, the Permit Application should be denied.
The purpose of the Mining Act is to allow for mining of valuable minerals from lands throughout
the State, while minimizing the adverse impacts on the surrounding environment, protecting the
general welfare, health, and safety of the citizens from undesirable land and water conditions,
and protecting the scenic value of all such lands. N.C.G.S. §§74-47 and 74-48 (2003). Under
the Mining Act, DEMLR must:
(a) use its judgment to determine if, and to what extent, there is an "adverse effect";
(b) exercise its judgment to define what measures, if any, are necessary to mitigate
adequately any possible adverse effects of the mining operation on the
environment; and
127 W. Hargett Street, Suite 500, Raleigh, NC 27601 1 Post Office Box 946, Raleigh, NC 27602 1 Fax [phone]

(c) expressly condition issuance of a permit on the permit applicant completing such
measures; N.C.G.S. §74-5 1 (d),(e), and (f)
(d) If DEMLR determines proposed conditions are insufficient to mitigate the
identified "significantly adverse effect," then DEMLR must deny the permit to
achieve the purposes of the Mining Act.
DEMLR has received over 1,600 oral and written comments from neighbors, engineers
politicians, and concerned citizens urging it to deny the Permit Application. Speakers included
experts in geology, noise, air quality, water quality, and stormwater engineering. At the June 23
meeting alone, over 500 individuals attended. A representative list of speakers who spoke at the
June 23 and July 7 meetings is attached as Exhibit A. The overwhelming evidence addresses
each and every one of the denial criteria listed in N.C.G.S. §74-51.
The most obvious reason for denial of the Permit Application is the unavoidable damage the
quarry expansion will inflict on Umstead State Park. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has
held that "where a mining operation adversely affects the purposes of a publicly owned park,
forest, or recreation area to a significant degree, such operation violates the Mining Act." Clark
Stone Co., Inc. v. NC DENR, 594 SE 2d 832 (2004).
The fact that N.C.G.S. §74-51(d) uses the word "may" does not relieve DEMLR from its duty to
protect against the harm the statute is meant to prevent. "The general rule is that the word `may'
will be construed as `shall,' or as imposing an imperative duty whenever it is employed in a
statute to delegate a power, the exercise of which is important for the protection of public or
private interests." Puckett v. Sellars, 235 N.C. 264, 268 (1952). Just because the exercise of
judgment by DEMLR is necessary to make the determination whether a mine will have a
"significantly adverse effect" on the purposes of a publicly owned park does not mean there is no
duty to act. The very purpose of the Mining Act is to protect against the harms listed in this
section.
By giving DEMLR the power to deny a mining permit where it finds the existence of the seven
"adverse effects" listed in N.C.G.S. §74-51(d), the North Carolina General Assembly (the
"General Assembly") has made it clear that protection against those "adverse effects" is an
integral part of the statute.
Additionally, DEMLR must consider the nature and purpose of Umstead State Park - created and
protected by the General Assembly through the State Parks Act. N.C.G.S. § 113-44.7 (later
recodified as N.C.G.S. §143B-135.40). In the State Parks Act, the General Assembly declared
that "the state of North Carolina offers unique archaeologic, geologic, biological, scenic, and
recreational resources" and that these resources "are part of the heritage of the people of this
State." The State Park Act goes on to state "the heritage of a people should be preserved and
managed by the people for their use and for the use of their visitors and descendants. N.C.G.S.
§ 143B-135.42.

.-.
Thus, the General Assembly, through the Mining Act and the State Parks Act has clearly
made it DEMLR's duty to protect the purposes of Umstead State Park, in particular from
significant adverse effects of mining operations.
The Clark Stone case should serve as a lesson for how mining permit applications should be
evaluated when the operation is located close to a protected park. In Clark Stone, a mining
company was seeking to obtain a mining permit for property located in close proximity to the
Appalachian Trail. At the initial mining permit hearing, DEMLR (formerly DENR) granted the
mining permit. Later, after discovering new evidence that the mining operation would
significantly affect the beauty and scenic value of the Appalachian Trail, DEMLR revoked the
mining permit. The ruling was appealed and the trial court overturned DEMLRs revocation and
granted Clark Stone the mining permit.
The case was appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals which overturned the granting of
the mining permit reprimanded the trial court for granting a mining permit when there were
significant adverse effects on the purposes of the Appalachian Trail. Here, in contrast to Clark
Stone, DEMLR has heard and received overwhelming evidence prior to issuing the mining
permit, that the planned quarry expansion will have significantly adverse effects on the
environment and on Umstead State Park.
A decision to grant the permit despite this evidence would be in contradiction with Clark Stone,
the State Parks Act, and the Mining Act. Accordingly, we ask DEMLR to follow North Carolina
law, legal precedent, and the abundance of evidence and deny the Mining Permit Application.
Sincerely,
Iv att J. C nter
cc: Dan Sams, [e-mail]
Sheila Holman, [e-mail]
John Fullwood, [e-mail]
Brian Strong, [e-mail]
Reid Wilson, [e-mail]
Bill Lane, [e-mail]
Dr. Jean Spooner, [e-mail]
Bill Doucette, [e-mail]

/00*1
Exhibit A
1. Basic requirements of the Mining Act and rules promulgated thereunder will be
violated by the proposed operation.
See above discussion regarding purposes of the Mining Act.
2. The operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable drinking water supplies,
wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries.
• Ron Sutherland (Ph.D. Environmental Science; Chief Scientist at the Wildlands
Network) offered a written evidence and testified that the proposed quarry expansion
will result in the direct loss of wildlife habitat on the Odd Fellows tract including
complete loss or destruction of several streams on the Odd Fellows tract which provide
vital habitats for fish, crayfish, and other aquatic animals. He explained that by itself,
Umstead State Park is not large enough to maintain viable populations of many species of
wildlife such as bobcats, wild turkeys, and eastern kingsnakes. If Umstead becomes fully
isolated as a result of the quarry expansion, these species will become locally extinct,
diminishing the ecosystem of the park and undermining the park's conservation purposes.
• Regina Ali (M.S. Environmental Toxicology and Business Administration; B.S.
Biology and Biochemistry) testified that, based on her knowledge, the planned operation
will have detrimental impacts on surrounding wildlife and human health near Crabtree
Creek and Raleigh generally; as a result of toxic PCBs that will be released from the
mining operation.
• Irene Rusnak (Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine; B.S. Zoology and Wildlife
Conservation) testified that the environmental impact of Wake Stone's plans should be
analyzed as a whole, rather than attempting to separate the numerous environmental
impacts with imaginary lines. Taken together, the impacts are clearly so severe that DEQ
should require Corps of Engineers to do an individual 401-404 Certification Analysis
before it considers approving the mining permit.
• Kristin Stone (Certificate in Conservation Biology from Columbia; Senior Fellow of
the Environmental Leadership Program) explained that based on her research, after
the quarry is expanded, the Crabtree Creek corridor between the old and new mines will
be so narrow that wildlife will no longer be able to migrate in and out of Umstead State
Park.
• Holly Amato (B.S. Animal Science) testified that the proposed plan will cause "habitat
fragmentation," — a degenerative process that results in ecosystem decay and can lead to
species extinction. She explained this process more severely affects migratory animals
like bobcats. Water pollution from sedimentary runoff will have highly foreseeable
negative impacts on the fish and plant life in Crabtree Creek.

/4012N /0901)
• Lise Liske (B.S. [Minor] Natural Science) testified that allowing the planned mining
operation, construction, and modifications of buffers will have severe negative impact on
mammals living in and around Umstead State park.
• Stef Mendell (Former Raleigh City Council Member) testified that no engineering
study was done in support of Wake Stone's proposed reclamation plan and that the
Permit Application cannot be granted without a specific and practical reclamation plan
developed by professionals.
• Kathleen Rusnak Weaver, P.E. (Civil Engineer) testified that based on her review of
Wake Stone's reports filed under its NPDES Stormwater Permit NCG02, there appear to
be major issues with the water quality sampling conducted by Wake Stone for the
existing quarry. Required data is missing, reporting inconsistencies are apparent, and
some reported values are well above the "benchmarks" required to be met under Wake
Stone's stormwater permit. Sampling experience with the existing quarry shows the
proposed expansion will result in substantial sediment deposits downstream of the quarry.
• The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has noted that the Atlantic Pitgoe Mussel,
a species found in Crabtree Creek, is in the process of being listed as a threatened species.
3. The operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
groundwater quality that have been promulgated by the Department.
• William Doucette (Ph.D. Soil Science, Water Resources; 30-year Licensed Geologist)
submitted written evidence and testified that the proposed quarry expansion will violate
groundwater quality standards, negatively affect the flow of Crabtree Creek, extinguish
groundwater supplies to the neighboring property owners, and destroy stream buffers.
• Jean Spooner (Ph.D. Soil Science; Chair of the Umstead Coalition; Professor
Emerita at N.C. State University) testified that the GMA consultant hydrogeological
evaluation study and Permit Application as a whole, fail to address (as required under
Section 1.0) both (1) "the potential impacts on the groundwater system associated with
dewatering of the new open -pit mine," and (2) "potential interaction between the
proposed mine and surface water flow of Crabtree Creek." The evidence presented in the
GMA report suggests that Crabtree Creek will be a "losing" stream with two deep pits on
both sides of Crabtree Creek. Dr. Spooner indicated that the insufficient stream buffers
and the decrease in the 7Q 10 base flow rates in the stream would be a concern for the
North Cary Water Reclamation Plan discharge permit.
• Liz Adams (M.S.P.H. Environmental Science; Research Associate at the UNC
Institute for the Environment in the fields of air quality) testified that she has
monitored levels of PM 2.5 (Particulate Matter) at Umstead Park and has on multiple
occasions measured PM 2.5 levels greater than 200 micrograms per cubic meter, an
amount the EPA has designated as "Code Red." Ms. Adams further explained that the

/4 1
EPA has determined that levels between 201 and 300 micrograms per cubic meter are
extremely unhealthy and can cause or exasperate existing respiratory health issues.
• Barbara Braatz (M.S. in Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences M.I.T.; B.A.
Geology; Climate Change Policy Expert) testified that, among other things, the
inevitable atmospheric impacts resulting from more mining at this location will harm the
wildlife that travels through and lives in Umstead Park and the surrounding area.
• Laura Wood (Certified NC Environmental Educator) testified that because the
proposed Crabtree Creek buffers in the Permit Application are smaller with proposed
deforestation as compared to the current buffers at Wake Stone's existing quarry, a new
environmental study is required.
• Chad Chandler (President of South Wake Conservationists - Local Chapter of NC
Wildlife Federation) testified that, as a tributary of the Neuse River Basin and subject to
high water volume, the stability of Crabtree Creek will be compromised by quarries on
each side.
• Mary Brice (NC Registered Professional Civil Engineer with Experience in
Sediment and Erosion Control, 404-401, and Riparian Buffer Environmental
Permitting) testified that, based on her experience, and according to the North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission's Recommendation, should not be measured from the
middle of the stream and instead should be at least 100ft. from the top edge of the bank.
4. The operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to public health
and safety or to neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital, commercial or
industrial building, public road or other property, excluding matters related to use of a
public road.
• Michael Taylor (Ph. D. Pharmacology and Toxicology; Board Certified Inhalation
Toxicologist) testified that the proposed quarry expansion will cause an inevitable
increase in toxic exposure to PM 2.5 and crystalline silica which is known to cause
cancer and other respiratory toxicity.
• Leah Ranney (Ph. D.; M.A., Associate Research Faculty Member of Family
Medicine at UNC Chapel Hill) testified that based on the magnitude of Wake Stone's
operation, the expansion of this mine will cause severe adverse health effects in the
surrounding area.
• Bill Padgett (Graduate Studies in Physical Chemistry and Advanced Degrees in
Electrical Computer Engineering and Education) testified that quarry dust (PM 2.5)
exposure can cause severe health issues.

ka
• Mary Theresa Scott (M.S. Health Care Consulting; Member of Building Biology
Institute) testified that, based on her research and experience, the proposed quarry
expansion will have negative effects on indoor air and water quality in the area
surrounding the mine.
• Rob Drew (North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer) testified that he has been
studying existing quarry's seismic impact and air pollution. The results corroborate other
speakers' claims about air quality and that blasts can be felt by neighboring properties.
• Bob Schmitz (M.D.) testified that in his opinion allowing a mining operation so close to
a public park is extremely unsafe and detrimental to the physical safety of park users.
• Tamara and Randal Dunn (Residents of 2232 Old Reedy Creek Road — Less than
300 ft. from Proposed Quarry) testified that they regularly experience vibrations and
shaking at their home as a result of Wake Stone's existing triangle quarry. Expanding
this blasting, and moving it to the surface, within 200 feet from their home constitutes a
direct and substantial physical hazard to their health and safety. (note: blasting experts
speaking on behalf of Wake Stone acknowledged that homes within 500 ft. of blasting
may experience negative effects from blasting).
• Betsy Beals (Owner of 2300 and 2335 Old Reedy Creek Road) testified that she has
lived on Reedy Creek Rd. since 1966 and the proposed quarry expansion poses serious
dangers to her home. Ms. Beal stated further that she is concerned about the impact the
proposed quarry expansion will have on her drinking water supplied by a well on her
property.
5. The operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a publicly
owned park, forest, or recreation area.
• Noral Stewart (Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Textiles; FASA; FASTMA;
INCE; Senior Principal Consultant with Stewart Acoustical Consultants) filed
written evidence and testified that, based on his professional expertise, the proposed
quarry expansion will have significant adverse noise impacts on Umstead State Park. Mr.
Stewart further testified that based on his significant experience evaluating mining permit
applications and noise mitigation plans, Wake Stone's noise control measures (or lack
thereof) outlined in the Permit are inadequate and fail to contemplate the use of modern
noise control and noise measuring devices. Mr. Stewart testified further that the
proposed 15 ft. berms in the Permit Application are insufficient and will have little sound
reducing benefit and that truck traffic noise could propagate down the creek and into
Umstead State Park. Crabtree Creek presents a challenge as it creates a gap in any berm
protection plan. Sound from trucks crossing the bridge and possibly other sound could
propagate down the channel created by the creek valley reflecting from the water in the
creek. The mining permit application is devoid of an adequate noise mitigation plan.

140*�
• Wiley Nickel (North Carolina State Senator, District 16 Representative [which
covers the Umstead State Park and Oddfellows Tract]) testified that the
decisionmakers thus far have ignored and silenced the voice of the people on this matter.
He stated that the proposed quarry poses obvious and directly adverse effects upon
Umstead State Park and the surrounding wildlife and wetlands. He further testified that
the proposed expansion will cause health dangers to local residents and business owners
due to blasting and pollution and that approval of the permit would set a destructive
precedent in NC as the first private rock quarry on public land.
• David Bertram (Licensed Professional Engineer) testified that as an engineer, it is an
absurd proposition to place a quarry directly beside a public park and expect that it will
not have detrimental environmental and pollution impacts.
• David Cox (Current Raleigh City Council Member [District B]) testified that based
on his understanding the Permit Application should not be issued because there is
pending litigation about RDU AA's authority to engage in the Lease without approval of
the owning municipalities.
• Mark Stohlman (Former Mayor of Morrisville) testified that, based on his experience,
the proposed quarry expansion will have significant adverse effects on nearby greenway
trails that the Town of Cary and Town of Morrisville have invested tens of millions of
dollars in, including the Black Creek, Hatcher Creek, and Crabtree Creek trails.
• Lorraine King (Ph.D.; RAC) testified that a mining operation located so close to a
public park poses significant health risks and runs contrary to Umstead State park's goal
of providing a venue for healthy recreational activities.
• Mark Springfield (J.D.) testified that based on his legal experience, DEMLR's decision
should focus on the language of subsection (d)(5). Unlike other denial criteria which
may require expert testimony, impacts on the park may be perceived and testified to by
all individuals with personal experience at the park. He further stated that scarring,
drilling, and exploding the land that abuts Umstead, and flows directly into the creek that
flows through Umstead is significantly adverse to the purpose of keeping the Umstead
are pristine and free of developmental encroachment.
• Blake Burgher (J.D.) testified that under NC law "park lands are to be used by the
people of this state and their visitors in order to promote understanding of and pride in the
natural heritage of this state." NCGS 113-44.8. Mining directly beside a state park is
antithetical to promoting the natural heritage of the neighboring state park. Approving
this permit would be like putting a quarry in Central Park.
• Caroline Lalla (Umstead Coalition Board Member and Member of Sierra Club
Capital Group Executive Committee) testified that the enhanced security fence planned
for installation along the Old Reedy Creek Rd. Greenway, its lack of sufficient property

buffers, and negative impact on wildlife are more than sufficient grounds for denial of the
mining permit because this recreational corridor is the official connection to several local
greenways and parks.
• Drew Ball (Director of Environment North Carolina) objected to the approval of the
Permit Application on behalf of more that 10,000 members that love and regularly use
Umstead.
• Caroline Leonowens (Ph.D. Pharmaceutical Studies) testified that locating a quarry so
close to a public park is detrimental to the health of park visitors and antithetical to the
park's purpose of providing healthy outdoor space.
• Jeff Wald (M.D.) testified that he lives on Reedy Creek Road (2 miles from existing
quarry) and is highly concerned regarding the dramatically decreased size of undisturbed
buffer areas and surface mining associated with initial stages of the new mining pit will
increase the already very bad noise problem near his home and in Umstead Park.
• The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation noted that it has many concerns
regarding the proximity of the proposed operation to Umstead State Park. These concerns
include noise, sedimentation, water quality, dust and air quality, truck traffic, blasting,
loss of wildlife, and park expansion.
6. Previous experience with similar operation indicates a substantial Possibility that the
operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream beds or lakes,
landslides, or acid water pollution.
• Jean Spooner (Ph.D. Soil Science; Chair of the Umstead Coalition; Professor
Emerita at N.C. State University) testified that she has personally witnessed specific
harms to air quality and water quality caused by Wake Stone's existing Triangle Quarry
and how those harms will be magnified by the proposed expansion. Violations of the
undisturbed buffers have and are still occurring on the existing quarry. The proposed
unexcavated buffers on the Odd Fellows site offers little protection to the streams,
wetlands, and to William B. Umstead State Park.
• Kris Bass (Licensed Professional Engineer; Principal of Kris Bass Engineering, a
leading stormwater and environmental engineering firm) testified that, based on 20+
years in stream and river restoration experience, the proposed quarry expansion will
create significant additional stormwater and sediment runoff into Crabtree Creek and that
the stormwater control mechanisms proposed in the Permit Application are inadequate to
handle the additional runoff. This project will permanently alter the watersheds to at least
four streams, and the future pit perimeter directly overlaps two of them. The only portion
of the documentation that even mentions these streams is a grand total of 3 written pages
and makes unsubstantiated conclusions based on limited data and incorrectly applied

/44AN
methods. Every part of this application and the supporting data feels irresponsible,
unprofessional, and dismissive of our stream and buffer protection rules.
• Kenneth Shuster (North Carolina Licensed Professional Engineer) testified that
based on 38 years working with NC government, the dewatering of the buffer zone along
Crabtree Creek will have severely negative impacts to the creek itself and Umstead Park.
Wake Stone's hydrogeologic study submitted with the Mining Permit request "was
quickly put together with little samples of surface and ground waters. In addition, the
brief sampling that was conducted indicates a net reduction of flow in Crabtree Creek
may result due to the 2 deep pits on either side of Crabtree Creek. This would result in a
problem for the Town of Cary discharge limits from the Reclamation Plant. He
highlighted sever inconsistencies and concerns with their current NPDES Stormwater
Permit.
• Holly Neal (Former Employee of Umstead State Park Visitor's Office) testified that
based on her own personal knowledge, sediment runoff from Wake Stone's existing
Triangle Quarry already flows into Umstead Park, surrounding streams, and into Crabtree
Creek. She stated that "even with no rain, the streams flowing from the existing quarry
into Umstead State Park and then into Crabtree Creek runs very cloudy white. And,
when the discharge stream is solid white and enters Crabtree Creek, the white plume
remains in Crabtree Creek within Umstead State Park for over 1 mile following the
popular Company Mill Trail, all the way to the historic Company mill site on Crabtree
Creek.
• Mark Durrett (B.S. Software Engineering) that past experience shows detrimental
effects on surrounding creeks, citing the 1992 Notice of Mine Permit Deficiency Memo
where DLR described the blasting accident that occurred at the current Triangle Quarry,
causing a rockslide to almost completely covered 90% of Crabtree Creek.
• Maria Cervania (Public Health Professional and Candidate for Wake County
Commissioner) testified that allowing this permit will inhibit municipalities' ability to
complete biking trails as planned. 100-foot buffer was not properly measured from the
bank of the river. Instead it was measured from center, which increases likelihood of
another 1992 landslide.