20210624_Inspection_comment

From: Stephanie Thurman
To: Parr.Adam;Lentz,Zachary;Turnev,Kimberly
Subject: [External]Re:Snow Camp Quarry
Date: Monday,June 28,2021 8:24:25 AM
Attachments: Orignial Mining Site Plan Enlarged.ong
Final Mining Site Plan Enlarged.png
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Dear Mr. Parr:
I'm writing on behalf of my longtime neighbor, Steve Mills,who is out of town today but
asked me to share with you the email below that he and another neighbor(Norman Jackson)
sent to the Alamance county Board of Commissioners on April 14 2021 pointing out problems
with the quarry construction. During your inspection of the quarry site on 5/28/21, you noted
that no damage from the incorrectly installed basins was observed when in fact if you look
slightly beyond the quarry boundaries you will find that there was damage to adjacent surface
waters as described below. Specifically a clogged overflow drain pipe, excessive amounts of
sediment and extremely mud-filled pond that was not like this prior to the quarry construction.
During your re-inspection of the site today, please take note of these issues. Thank you.
Dear Commissioners,
Our names are Stephen Mills and Norman Jackson and we live at 144 Clark Rd
and 262 Clark Rd. We am writing out of concern for the ongoing construction
by Boggs Paving at the mining site on Clark Road, adjacent to our properties.
Our understanding is that under the 2011 HIDO, mining operations constitute a
Class IV industry and as such are required to maintain a 125' Operations Area
setback "measured from the edge of the designation area of operations to the
property line". The final site plans posted on the NCDEQ website confirms that
the 125'vegetative operations setback buffer has been removed along my
property line and now shows the limits of disturbance right up to our property
lines. As we speak, Boggs Paving trucks and equipment are clearing this
setback of all vegetation which according to the HIDO is required "to
minimize/mitigate the visual impacts of the land use on adjacent properties as
well as to maximize the buffering of noise and particulate matter." It appears
they are using the tree buffer that is on our land instead of using one on theirs.
I am including enlargements of the original site plans showing our property
lines and a 125' Operations Setback where it also states (retain natural
vegetation for screening). If you view the same area on the final plans you can
clearly see where this setback is no longer indicated. Skimmer basin#16, 22,
10, 15 and 14 are included in that setback/buffer area with limits of disturbance
indicated right up to our property lines. The attached photo shows no
observance of a 125' setback with the disturbance all the way to the property
line and a skimmer basin under construction in that 125' Operations Setback.
We are requesting that you enforce the HIDO regulations, require this 125'
setback along our property lines and require that the skimmer basins be moved
to the area of operationis behind the setback area. We believe that the

operations setback is intended to protect adjacent property owner's rights and I
request that you stand up to protect our rights.
Sincerely,
Stephen Mills
Norman Jackson
**A skimmer basin is used to retain runoff waters and trap sediment from
disturbed acres to protect properties and waters below the installation from
damage by excessive sedimentation and debris. Studies show that at best these
basins will only be 50 to 70% effective during large storm events or periods of
minimal vegetation cover at a construction site. The State permit shows that
these 5 basins right along your property lines will collect runoff from 19
distubed acres. In order to comply with the HIDO, these operations should
be moved back behind the 125' Operations Setback.

Wilt '
t
J �d r! a
no ;le
,a 3
fff
/ ' ':

fly; P14
If
111
lll�l
i
lei//,I/. �

a11 l(A
555