10-89_2_Redacted

l � - $9

DAVIS C. HERRING, JR.
NEW MINING PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF HEARING
To receive public comment related to Davis C. Herring's request for a mining
permit for a sand mining operation located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick
County.
DATE, TIME, AND PLACE
Thursday, November 15, 2012
7:00 PM
David R. Sandifer County Administrative Building
Commissioners Meeting Room
Brunswick County Government Center
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF
Ms, Janet Boyer, State Mining Specialist, Land Quality Section, Division of
Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Ms. Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist, Land Quality Section,
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Mr. Dan Sams, Wilmington Regional Engineer, Land Quality Section, Division of
Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Mr. Trent James, Environmental Specialist,-Land Quality Section, Division of
Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Dr. Kenneth B. Taylor, State Geologist, NC Geological Survey, Division of
Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
OPENING
Dr. Taylor called the hearing to order at 7:05 PM, welcomed everyone in attendance,
introduced the staff, explained the purpose of the hearing, outlined the hearing agenda
and stated the guidelines to follow for submitting comments at the hearing. Dr. Taylor
stated that the proceedings would remain open for a period of ten days following the
hearing for additional comments.
Dr. Taylor then explained the action for which the mining permit application is required:
"The applicant proposes to operate a sand mine located off Villanova Loop Road
Brunswick County. The applicant has submitted an erosion and sedimentation

control plan for the mine site intended to protect surrounding areas and
watercourses. A reclamation plan has also been submitted to the Department for
review concerning restoration of this area to a useful land use once mining has
terminated."
Ms. Wehner presented an overview on the mining permit procedures pursuant to the
Mining Act of 1971 and explained how it relates to the subject permit application.
Dr. Taylor's and Ms. Wehner's actual comments are attached as Public Hearing Format
and Land Quality Section Public Hearing Presentation.
47 people attended the meeting
40 people signed in for the meeting
10 checked - Wish to speak
ORAL COMMENTS
Speakers
Sonia Smith — Ms. Smith is concerned about violations of federal standards of air quality
and dust pollution, noise pollution, truck traffic, impacts to roads, and zoning issues.
See Written Comments #1 Sonia Smith.
Phil Sloat — Mr. Stoat is concerned about the scope of the proposed operation, issuance
of a permit without appropriate safeguards, impact on air quality, and the adverse
effects on potable ground water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine or marine
fisheries. See Written Comments #2 Phil Stoat.
Geraldine Whitne — Ms. Whitney's concerns are environmental issues, negative impact
on air quality, and threats to water and air supplies. She notes that the application lacks
specifics with regard to operation, sediment and erosion control, dewatering activities,
and air quality from dust. See Written Comments #3 Geraldine Whitney.
Chris Halladay — Mr. Halladay, a retired geologist, submitted comments in September.
His concerns are the lack of information provided and no ground water information or
impacts. Ground water flow and impacts to nearby wetlands, sequencing of operation
and discharge of mine water details have not been provided.
Tom Kuhn — Mr. Kuhn requested that the 10-day comment period be extended. He had
questions about what areas were included in the application, intent and scope of the
mining activities, depth, static water, use of heavy machinery, airborne particulates,
noise, odors, contamination of the aquifer, inspections and duration. See Written
Comments #6 Tom Kuhn.
Maryann Horgan - Ms. Morgan concerns include effect on wetlands, ground water flow,
unique habitat and plant and animal species. See Written Comments #6 Maryann
Morgan.

1
GreggHorgan — Mr. Morgan is concerned about placement of overburden, the existing
berm placement, flooding, stagnant water in the existing ditch, and existing berm
vegetation. See Written Comments #7 Greg Horgan.
Bobby Sands — Mr. Sands supplied written comments in support of Mr. Herring's-use of
his property. See Written Comments #8 Bobby Sands.
Richard Erikson — Mr. Erickson is concerned about safety of operation, workers and
children. He wants to insure 74-67 and 74-51 (d) 1 through 7, are covered by
application. He also submitted written comments that include zoning issues, residential
development, lack of scaled map sent with notice, size of the buffer, ingress and egress
to the site, property value and use of equipment. See Written Comments #9 Richard
Erikson.
Eric Summerville — Mr. Summerville is concerned that no information submitted on
ground water movement, effect on wetlands, and flooding. See Written Comments
#10 Eric A. Summerville.
Bill Bines— Mr. Bines wanted a presentation on the project. He cited the lack of
information and undefined scope of project.
Roger Whitney— Mr. Whitney concerns are environmental issues, quality of life, and
property values. He wanted the Department to consider effects on air quality, water
quality, biodiversity and endangered species and quality of life. See Written Comment
#12 Roger Whitney.
Floyd Williams — Mr. Williams, Mr. Herring's consultant and representative, offered to
stay and answer any questions anyone has regarding the application and
acknowledged a request for information would be forthcoming.
Greg Horgan asked if another public hearing would be held when additional information
was submitted.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
There were no written comments were received by the Hearing Officer to be included as
a part of the official record of this public hearing,.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Dr. Taylor thanked everyone for attending and for their comments and presentations.
stated that the Department would review the items presented at the hearing as they
to G.S. 74-51 of the Mining Act of 1971. Dr. Taylor reiterated that the proceedings will

remain open for a period of ten days following the hearing which is November 25, 2012
filing of any addition comments or statements.
The hearing adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted by:
ti
Dr. Kenneth B. Taylor
Hearing Officer
Attachments: Public Hearing Notice
Public Hearing Format
Written Comments
Sign In Sheet
Cassette Tape of Hearing

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES - LAND QUALITY SECTION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources concerning Davis C. Herring, Jr.'s application for a mining
permit for a sand mining operation located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
AUTHORITY: N.C.G.S, 74-51 And N.C.A.C. Title 15, Chapter 5 Subchapter 5B, Section .0011
PLACE, TIME, DATE: David R. Sandifer County Administration Building
First Floor
30 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
7:00 P.M.
November 15, 2012
PURPOSE:
To receive comment related to the application for a mining permit for a sand mining operation
located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7) denial criteria listed
under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department considers in making its
decision to grant or deny a new mining permit application or a modification to an existing
mining permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department may deny such permit upon finding:
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will
be violated by the proposed operation;
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground
water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water
quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by the
Department;
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;

5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly-owned park, forest or recreation area;
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; or
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 result in:
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64, or
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64.
In the absence of any findings set out above, or if adverse effects are mitigated by the
applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a permit shall be granted.
COMMENT PROCEDURE:
All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be conducted in the
following manner:
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the hearing
officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act of
1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, Land
Quality Section.

3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other information
may be submitted in writing prior to or during the hearing or may be
presented orally at the hearing. Persons desiring to speak will indicate
their intent at the time of registration at the hearing. So that all persons
desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the
discretion of the hearing officer. Oral presentations must not exceed the
time limit established by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that
exceeds three (3) minutes must be accompanied by three (3) written
copies, which will be filed with the hearing officer at the beginning of the
oral presentation.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be allowed;
however, the hearing officer may ask questions for clarification.
5. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end of the
hearing and may be available for individual/group discussion after the
hearing is adjourned.
6. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days following
the hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
INFORMATION:
A copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file with the
Wilmington Regional and Raleigh Central Office, Land Quality Section, for the public's
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional information
concerning this hearing may be obtained by writing or calling:
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]

7/20/04
PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT
I. Call to Order:
Good evening and welcome. My name is Dr. Kenneth B. Taylor, PhD and
I am the hearing officer for this public hearing. My responsibility is to
provide a record of this hearing and written comments for the Director of
the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. I would like to
emphasize that absolutely no decisions will be made this evening on this
permit application. Please sign in at the back on the sign in sheets and
indicate whether or not you wish to speak, if you have not already done
so.
Please take a copy of the Mining Act of 1971 for reference during the
hearing.
Introduce DENR staff:
Janet Boyer, State Mining Specialist
Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist
Dan Sams, Regional Engineer, Wilmington Regional Office
Trent James, Wilmington Regional Office, Sediment Specialist
II. State the Purpose for Hearing:
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment related to the
mining permit application for the operation of a sand mine located off
Villanova Loop Road in the town of Oak Island in Brunswick County.
The hearing will be conducted in the following manner:
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the
hearing officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act
of 1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources,
Land Quality Section.
3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other
information may be submitted in writing prior to or during the
hearing or may be presented orally at the hearing. Persons
desiring to speak will indicate their intent at the time of registration
at the hearing. So that all persons desiring to speak may do so,
lengthy statements may be limited at the discretion of the hearing
officer. Oral presentations which exceed five (5) minutes must be

accompanied by three (3) written copies which will be filed with the
hearing officer at the time of registration.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be
allowed; however, the hearing officer may ask questions for
clarification.
5. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end
of the hearing and may be available for individual/group discussion
after the hearing is adjourned.
6. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days
(November 25, 2012) following the hearing for additional written
arguments or statements.
III. Explanation of the Action for which a Mining Permit is Required:
The applicant proposes to operate a sand mine located off Villanova Loop
Road in Brunswick County. The applicant has submitted an erosion and
sedimentation control plan for the mine site intended to protect
surrounding areas and watercourses. A reclamation plan has also been
submitted to the Department for review concerning restoration of this area
to a useful land use once mining has terminated. A copy of this
information may be viewed here at the front of this hearing room after the
hearing has adjourned. Copies of the application materials may also be
viewed upon request after tonight at the Land Quality Section's
Wilmington Regional Office and the Raleigh Central Office.
III. LQS Presentation:
- Now i would like to defer to Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining
Specialist with the Land Quality Section, for a brief explanation of the
mining permit procedures as set forth in the Mining Act of 1971 (see
attached "Land Quality Section Public Hearing Presentation")
IV. Comment Procedure:
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7)
denial criteria listed under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the
Department considers in making its decision to grant or deny a mining
permit application. These criteria are the ones that were explained in
detail to you a few minutes ago by the Land Quality Section Mining
Program staff.
Again, if you have not already signed the attendance sheet in the back,
please do so now. This will provide us with an accurate attendance

record and will let us know who wishes to speak at the hearing tonight.
We do not want to miss anyone.
In light of the number of people who have indicated their desire to present
comments on this application, I will limit oral comments to 5 minutes per
person in order to give everyone desiring to speak adequate time. If there
is additional time available at the end of the hearing, I may allow
additional comments at that time.
- There is no particular order in which I will call on you to speak, unless you
have specifically requested so prior to the start of this hearing. Therefore,
I will proceed row by row down the attendance sheets calling on those
who have indicated that they wish to speak.
Please step forward to the podium when I call your name. If you have
written comments it would be extremely helpful if you would provide them
to us before you start your presentation.
(Call on each person who wishes to speak and take notes on their comments,
concerns, etc.)
LQS staff will address questions concerning the Act.
After all of the individuals that have indicated that they wish to speak have
finished their presentations, ask if anyone else wishes to speak. Ask
them to approach the podium.
Is there anyone else?
At this time, would the applicant wish to make some brief comments?
We would like to thank everyone for attending this public hearing tonight
and for the important comments and questions raised. The Department
will review the items presented tonight as they relate to G.S. 74-51 of the
Mining Act of 1971.
The proceedings of this public hearing will remain open for a period of 10
days from tonight or until November 25, 2012 for the filing of additional
written comments to be included in the official hearing summary I will
prepare for the Director of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land
Resources.
Please send 3 copies of any written comments to me at the following
address:

e
Dr. Kenneth B. Taylor, PhD
State Geologist
NC Geological Survey
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Please note that even though the public hearing summary will close on
November 25, 2012, the Department will continue to accept written public
comments on this application throughout the application review process
until a decision is made.
- Are there any questions? If not, this public hearing is now adjourned.

7/24/2006
LAND QUALITY SECTION PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION
As Dr. Taylor stated, my name is Judy Wehner. My title is Assistant State Mining
Specialist with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Energy,
Mineral and Land Resources, Land Quality Section.
My job, and that of the other members of the staff, is to review all applications for a
mining permit as they relate to The Mining Act of 1971. There were copies of the Act
(hold up) placed at the sign in area.
1 would like to take a moment and briefly review a few specific areas of the Act. If you
would refer to G.S. 74-47, Findings, on the first page of the Mining Act handout (white
handout):
"The General Assembly finds that the extraction of minerals by mining is a basic and
essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of North
Carolina and the Nation. Furthermore, it is not practical to extract minerals required by
our society without disturbing the surface of the earth and producing waste materials,
and the very character of certain surface mining operations precludes complete
restoration of the land to its original condition. However, it is possible to conduct mining
in such a way as to minimize its effects on the surrounding environment. Furthermore,
proper reclamation of mined land is necessary to prevent undesirable land and water
conditions that would be detrimental to the general welfare, health, safety, beauty, and

property rights of the citizens of the State. The General Assembly finds that the
conduct of mining and reclamation of mined lands as provided by this Article will allow
the mining of valuable minerals and will provide for the protection of the State's
environment and for the subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land."
On page 7 of the Mining Act, under G.S. 74-51, Permits._=Application, granting, conditions, the
Act states, under subsection (b) that:
"The Department shall grant or deny the permit requested as expeditiously as possible, but in
no event later than 60 days after the application form and any relevant and material
supplemental information reasonably required shall have been filed with the Department, or if
a public hearing is held, within 30 days following the hearing and the filing of any relevant and
material supplemental information reasonably required by the Department.
On page 7 of the Act, under subsection (c), the Act goes on to state:
"The public hearing shall be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period within
any requests for the public hearing shall be made."
The most important information that I can present to you tonight is found under subsection (d)
beginning at the bottom of page 7 of the Act. It states:
"The Department may deny the permit [or modification to the existing permit] upon
finding [only one of,the seven criteria listed on pages 7 and 8 of the Act]:

I
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will be
violated by the proposed operation;
This means that the very nature of the activity proposed in the application
will immediately violate any of the basic requirements of the Act and
corresponding Administrative Rules.
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater
supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
The application was routed to WRC and USFWS on September 7, 2012 for
their review and comment. WRC's comments were received by LQS on
September 26, 2012 and WRC had no comment on the application. US FWS
response was received November 5, 2012 and they had no comment on the
application. In addition, DWR provided comments on September 18, 2012
regarding impacts to ground water supplies. Their comments included the
following: the applicant needs to register water withdrawals greater than
100,000 gallons per day.
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
ground water quality that have been promulgated by the Department:
The application was routed to the Division of Air Quality and the Division of
Water Quality for review and comment. Comments were received from .
DWQ on October 2, 2012 and noted the following: impact on 404 wetlands
need to n=be monitored and there is an overlap of plans from the airport

and the proposed mine site. DAQ requires no permits and states any open
burning must comply with NC rules.
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 the use of a public road;
The application will be required to provide detailed information regarding
active and final slopes at the site.
5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a
publicly owned park, forest or recreation area;
The activity proposed in the application is located within 5 miles of
Dutchman Creek Park. Impacts to said park will be evaluated.
6. That the 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;
A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan was submitted with the
application and will be thoroughly evaluated by both the Land Quality
Section's Wilmington Regional Office staff and the Raleigh Central Office
staff.

OR
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.
This pertains to the applicant's prior operating record with the Mining
Program and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources as a
whole.
The Act goes on to clearly state that:
"In the absence of any findings set out in subsection (d) of this section, or if adverse
effects are mitigated by the applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a
permit shall be granted."

Please be advised that offsite truck traffic on public roads, noise, and potentially
negative impacts on property values are not within the jurisdiction of The Mining Act of 1971.
These items are more properly addressed through local zoning ordinances. I also would like
to draw your attention to G.S. 74-65, Effect of local zoning regulations, on page 18 of the Act.
The Act basically states that the issuance of a state mining permit, and any transfer, renewal
or modification to it, does not supersede any duly adopted local zoning ordinance.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the local authority, not the Department, to enforce any
such ordinance that may be in effect covering the project area.
The decision on the issuance of a mining permit will not be made tonight. The authority
to issue or deny a permit lies with the Director of the Division of Land Resources, Mr. Tracy
Davis.
Any permit issued shall be expressly conditioned upon compliance with all requirements
of the approved reclamation plan for the operation and with such further reasonable and
appropriate requirements and safeguards as may be deemed necessary by the Department to
assure that the operation,will comply fully with the requirements and objectives of the Mining
Act.
If the Department denies this application for a permit, it shall notify the operator in
writing, stating the reasons for its denial and any modifications in the application, which would
make it acceptable. The operator may thereupon modify his application or file an appeal to
the Office of Administrative-Hearings. In the event that the application for a mining permit is

approved, any aggrieved parties will be notified by the Department of the permit issuance and
i
its rights to file an appeal contesting the Department's issuance of the permit.
I would like to reiterate what Dr. Taylor said earlier, the hearing record will remain open
for a period of up to 10 days from tonight or the November 25, 2012. This gives those
individuals that were unable to attend an opportunity to comment. You may also think of
something else that you would like to add to your comments made here tonight. This provides
you that opportunity.
Now that a public hearing has been held on this application, the Department has a 30-
day review clock. The 30-day period starts after this hearing tonight. Should the Department
request additional information from the applicant, the 30 day clock would start over upon the
Department's receipt of all of the requested information. Such a process would continue until
all of the Department's questions have been answered and a decision is made on the
application.
If there are no questions, I would like to turn the program back over to Dr. Taylor.

Air Quality
We believe that this sand mining operation will violate federal standards of air quality. Sand grit and
dust pollution will be harmful,especially to people with respiratory problems.There is already a cement
factory abutting this property. How much more noise pollution and dust pollution do the neighbors in
this heavily residential community have to endure?The application states that a water truck will be
available for any potential dust problems. is this really sufficient for a project this size?Will the truck be
there for the next ten years?Will there be any monitoring of the dust levels and air quality for possible
contaminants? Has the applicant applied for an Air Quality permit?
The application states that the mining will be accomplished with front end loaders,self-loading scrapers
and shovels(l).This excavating equipment will emit pollutants as well as noise.Since the applicant says
that there will be no stockpiles or waste piles,that must mean that all the sand will be loaded
immediately onto trucks and directly moved off the property.
The volume of materials from an 18.8 acre mine excavated to a depth of 30' is greater than
900,000cu.yd.That is more than 57,000 dump truck loads(typical 15 yd.truck).That much truck traffic
will have huge impacts on the air quality and the environment as well as local roads.The impacts have
not been addressed.
In yesterday's(11/14/12)Star Mews Op-Ed page,the editor commented on the importance of our new
governor looking carefully at all environmental issues unique to our area of the state. "We are
surrounded by water and wetlands and we depend on the health of these two natural resources for
economic prosperity. Republicans and Democrats alike want to protect the health of their families and
preserve the characteristics of their environment." We agree completely. We ask that this hearing deny
this mining permit and recognize that the Herring property is zoned residential (R-75)and should only
be developed In an environmentally sound manner suitable for a residential neighborhood.

■.� IR q
R
i

ABCPOA Concerns Regarding Proposed Sand Mine Site
Good evening, my name is Phil Sloat and I am the Vice President of the Alliance of
Brunswick County Property Owners Associations (ABCPOA). We represent 16
POAs in Brunswick County with over 14,000 property owners and one of our
members, St James is located adjacent to the proposed sand mining site.
I would like to thank the DENR for holding this public meeting and for allowing
the opportunity for resident inputs. As required by your procedures, I have three
copies of my comments available for you tonight.
Local media have suggested that the developer of the property believes that the
term "sand mine" is misleading and that his wishes are to excavate two ponds for
inclusion in an anticipated residential development. While we do not have any
objection to the development of residences on this property we are very
concerned with the scope of the sand mining permit the developer is requesting,
as we understand it approximately 22 acres in size, somewhat larger than one
might expect for a residential development. We are concerned not only about
the impact on St james but also other area developments that will be impacted if
a permit is issued without the appropriate safeguards.
We believe that before any permit is granted that the scope of the project should
be defined in a much clearer manner, will this project be a housing development
or a large commercial mining operation?
What will be the impact on air quality if this project is allowed to move forward.
Also, will it have adverse effects on potable ground water supplies, wildlife, or
fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries. Disturbing the estuaries, for instance,
can have adverse impacts on both the fowl and marine life in the Intracoastal
Waterway, Elizabeth River and Cape Fear River habitats."

So many serious questions remain unanswered how can we proceed before all of
these concerns are addressed?
We urge DENR to take all of the necessary steps to ensure that these concerns are
addressed prior to the issuance of any permit for an operation of the size
reported by our local media.
Thank you for the opportunity to address this hearing.

I
We request that the permit for new surface reining be denied. There are many reasons to deny the
permit: envirommnental issues, negative impact on quality of life,threats to water and air supply etc.
The permit should be denied not only because of these negative impacts but because of the lack
of specifics in addressing these concerns in the application itself.
For Example: PG-rt G �r MininS l�trm�i a lrca�lun adcirrSSva "4,fCCFton 0[ N"Arkt
rt VOCS. i�tio+src�+1
1.1n the application, pg 18 Part C#1: "Describe in detail the sequence of events for the development
and operation of the mine and reference the sequence to the mine mops(s)."
The response reads: "Sand will be excavated as needed by customers." This response in no way
"describes in detail"the operation and development of the mine.
2. to continue, Part C#2:" Describe specific erosion control measures to be installed prior to land
disturbing activities and during mining to prevent offsite sedimentation (include specific plans for
sediment and erosion control for mine excavation(s),waste piles, access/mine roads and process areas),
and give a detailed sequence of installation and schedule for maintenance of the measures. Locate and
label all sediment and erosion control measures on the mine map(s) and provide typical cross-
sections/construction details of each measure. Engineering designs and calculations are required to
justify the adequacy of any proposed measures."
The r ,cwn4 rPs A
� peig -Fe—s: The mine site is relatively flat and will not have the potential to create any erosion
problems.) It is well inside a 102 acre site that the applicant owns. A minimum 50' undisturbed buffer
will be maintained between the affected area and wetlands that have been delineated on site."
We question how the applicant has determined that the site "will not have the potential to create any
erosion problems"? Are there any official studies to support this supposition? Since there are quite a
few wetlands inside this property, who determines how they will all be affected? Has the area been
mapped out by the land Quality division?
Also, in#5b...":A minimum 50 foot wide buffer wil be required between any land disturbing activities
within the mining permit boundaries and any natural watercourses and wetland unless smaller
undisturbed buffers can be justified. Depending on site conditions, a buffer wider than 50 feet may be
needed." The response reads: "A minimum 50' undisturbed buffer will be maintained between the
mine permit boundary and any wetlands." Again,we question if the area in question has been
specifically and officially mapped out to delineate wetlands?
o,,,� C 3 e-
3. Another part of the application reads"Will any part of the proposed mine excavation(s)extend below
the water table?" The applicant answers: "Yes" It goes on: If yes,do you intend to dewater the
excavations)?" Again, the answer is "Yes." If yes,what impact, if` y,willa minor ewatering have on
neighboring wells? Estimated withdrawal rate in gallons per day: <100,000.° The response to this is:
"Applicant plans, if needed to pump from one pit to another. No mine water discharge from the site

1
will take place. All areas within 500'of the excavation are served by a public water system."
Again there is a lack of specificity--how deep is the water table? Is there hard pan?What will be the
effect on adjoining irrigation wells? There is no calculation for how much water nor for rate of
infiltration. There IS mention of pumping from one pit to another,so it seems there will be more than
one deep site excavated. If the dewatering continues for the 10 years of the permit,where is the water
going? is there any reliable calculation of the effects. To dewater, you have to put pumps in or wells for
dewatering and there is no mention of this, no details again. What will be the effects on groundwater,
on native species and on erosion of wetlands? Again, no specifics are given. Has the department
investigated any of these concerns?
Per C w b
4. Concerning air quality,one of the questions asked on the permit application is How will dust from
stockpiles, haul roads, etc. be controlled? The answer"A water truck will be available, if needed, for any
potential dust problems." Is there an air quality permit? Have the potential effects/risks been
addressed? What type of monitoring will be done and who will do it and how often? I don't find it
credible that even if only dust pollution is generated that it can be controlled by the presence of a water
truck. There is a lack of specifics that any other plan exists beyond having a water truck available.
We ask that the permit be denied because the application does not contain specifics nor does it address
in full any of the possible negative outcomes. It seems there has not been official studies made of the
impacts to land quality,air quality,water quality—Are there any impartial reports available or is our only
information coming from the applicant and what companies the applicant may hire? Does the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources have impartial studies and reports that would
impartially inform us on these matters? Should we consider the implications before sand mining is
begun or wait til after the fact to correct negative outcomes? We ask that we get much more specific
information from impartial sources as the effects on the environment,the air,the water, on wetlands
and on native species.

�b K Q
Testimony Regarding Proposed Sand Mine
Good evening, my name is Tom Kuhn and I am one of four elected members of
the St. James Plantation Property Owners' Association Board of Directors. The
Board represents over 4200 property owners immediately adjacent to the
proposed sand mine project.
Please let me take this opportunity to thank the NCDENR for holding this public
meeting and for allowing the opportunity for citizen input. As required by your
procedural outline, I have three copies of my presentation for filing with you this
evening.
We have noted that per your procedural outline there is a period of ten days for
additional written input. We are not sure that we would be able to analyze the
responses to our questions, solicit additional input from our residents, and
respond to NCDENR within that ten day period. Therefore, we respectfully
request that your office allow adequate opportunity for analysis and further
input, in written format, by parties potentially impacted by this project, prior to
your office taking action on this permit request.
The local print media have suggested that the developer of the property believes
that the term "sand mine" is misleading and that his wishes are to excavate two
ponds for inclusion in an anticipated residential development. A Star News Online
article dated October 7, 2012 states that the application is for a permit for a "22.5
acre swath of land to a depth of 30 feet". Apparently there is already a pond or
hole of approximately 5 acres. The application actually asks for 22.54 acres.
The POA Board has several questions regarding the proposal.
1. Is it a 5 acre pond or a 22.54 acre pond or both?
2. Will the 22.54 acre swath be in addition to the existing 5 acre digging or will it
incorporate the current digging?
3.If the application is only for mining sand, what is the future use intent of the
22.54 acre swath?

S r
w

r
4. What is the intent and scope of the proposed project? Sand mine or
residential development?
5. If a sand mine, please define the purpose, use, and scope of the mine. What
will be the intended duration of use of the mine?
6. How large and deep will the ponds be? Has a hydrological study been
conducted to determine the effect of the ponds on nearby ponds in Glee-Oak
Oakwood Glen and St. lames neighborhoods?
7. Will the ponds be "static"? Will water be drawn or pumped from the ponds for
other purposes such as irrigation, mining, commercial, or manufacturing?
8. If approved, will the permit allow for the use of heavy machinery? What type
of machinery will be used... earth moving equipment? Mining machinery or
equipment? For what duration will the heavy machinery be permitted?
9. Will the operation cause the potential for airborne particulates to be carried
onto adjacent properties? If so, will the permit require periodic watering of roads
and other areas to minimize off-site dust and dirt on roadways and residential
properties?
10. Will the proposed project cause excessive noise or odors emanating from the
property? If so, what measures will be employed to control such problems?
11. Will the proposed project cause any contamination to be allowed to enter
into the aquifer or any watercourse in the adjacent properties?
12. If a permit is approved, how will NCDENR monitor compliance with the
permit conditions pertaining to proper operation of the site? Will NCDENR
conduct periodic inspections on-site? If so, how frequently will on-site inspections
be conducted?
13. If approved, what will be the duration of the permit?
On behalf of the St. lames Plantation POA Board of Directors, please accept our
appreciation for your willingness to conduct this public meeting.

�,
.f
I�
. . ;�f;, I .. . .
. 4 � � .. ;.
1 i '
.. _ � � � ..
�,!
1 J .
}
1 � � -1 1
� 1
t �
•1

� MAIAfin 11Or A
Impact of Sand Mining on the Wetlands
What is the effect of a sand mining operation of this size on wetlands?Has an Environmental Impact
Statement been submitted?There are numerous delineated wetlands on this site.We realize that the
applicant wants to wrestle as much profit out of this land that he can, but is he acting responsibly and in
ways that don't affect our coast's natural health and productivity?This Is a large parcel of land that has
already been excavated and cleared with abandon.
The proposed mine is"C-shaped",wrapping around one wetland on three sides.According to the
application,the mine may be excavated to within 50 feet of that or other wetlands.The effect on
proximate wetlands of dewatering the mine to a depth of 30'should be rigorously evaluated.Ground
water flow modeling Is needed to evaluate the effects of dewatering on shallow ground water levels
and to provide assurances that wetlands will not be negatively impacted. The permit would allow the
excavation to be dewatered continuously for 10 years. This mine could affect the superficial aquifer
which is the recharge aquifer for wetlands, ponds and shallow water wells.
Each unique habitat, such as-wetlands and our southeastern pine forests and savannas, host equally
unique plants and wildlife.There are several threatened or endangered species found exclusively in the
state's SE coastal plain.Are there red-cockaded woodpeckers?Are there Rare Carolina gopher frogs?
Are there Venus flytraps,sundews or Pitcher plants?We ask that a Natural Resource Inventory be
conducted by the DENR.
Wetlands are not waste lands to be bulldozed, filled in or paved over.They are crucial habitats for
breeding and life cycles of many amphibians,fish,insects,crustaceans and birds.It is imperative that the
water levels remain constant to sustain the wetlands and maintain their productivity.
Maryann Horgan
4567 Regency Crossing
Southport, NC. 28461

1
V
�,
. { . ..
. . . _
_ ., ;�„
f. • .
., .- , .�
. . ., , _ . _
., . . : . .

�• 0", � G�j
The Berm: Noncompliance with laws or rules
The application states that there will be no stockpiles or waste piles on the property. What will be done
with the overburden and vegetation from the mine area?This is a question of great concern for abutting
property owners, based on recent history.
Approximately a year ago,the applicant constructed an earthen berm along the western boundary of
the Herring property. It is actually a 10-15'tall "debris hill" consisting of overburden, piled up branches
and uprootings resulting from his initial bulldozing and clearing of hundreds of trees_ There are several
environnmental problems caused by this berm, besides the unconscionable eyesore placed on his
neighbors' property line.
First,the excavation and piling of debris has resulted in significant flooding on adjacent properties (letter
from James Belvin to Land Quality Section dated 9/30/11).The State should insist that the applicant
demonstrate,by applicable quantitative modeling,that receiving areas have the capacity to contain all
discharge waters under extreme scenarios,and that the infiltration capacity of site soils will not be
exceeded. The applicant's simple assertion that no mine water will leave the site is not creditable unless
it can be supported by good science.
Second, a large ditch runs along the base of the berm.The water is stagnant and is the perfect breeding
ground for mosquitoes.
Third,The State required that the berm be vegetated. After a year,the only vegetation on the berm is a
few weeds.There Is a Sedimentation Inspection Report detailing the results of an inspection of the
berm conducted on May 23, 2012 by the Land Quality Section. In part,that report states:
...better ground cover is needed on the exposed slopes of the berm. Merely seeding does not constitute
providing ground cover,slopes should be seeded and mulched per the seeding specifications on the
approved plan....continue to monitor to ensure that adequate permanent groundcover is established.
The application lists seeding schedules and seed types to be spread after the mining is finished, We are
concerned that there is no effort being made to actually reclaim this land to even remotely resemble the
original habitat that will be destroyed. Hundreds of trees have been removed already. We request that
the State require a reforestation plan to be submitted and approved by a certified forester.
To date there is still no vegetation on the berm.The applicant has not complied with the previous
permit requirements nor with instructions in the inspection report. The Mining Act of 1971 states that it
may deny a permit upon finding that the applicant has not been in substantial compliance with the laws
or rules of this state for the protection of the environment.This should be taken into account when
making a determination about granting a permit for the mine now proposed by the same applicant.
Greg Horgan
4567 Regency Grossing, Southport, NC. 28461 (910-454-0481)

My name is Bobby Sands. With your permission, I would like to read a
prepared statement. If you would like, I will --at its conclusion and for
the record -leave a copy with you.
In the way of further introduction, I am a retired senior divisional vice-
president of a major U.S. corporation, a resident of St. James Plantation
and a friend of Davy Herring. However, let me make it perfectly clear
that I am NOT here at his bequest or-even with his knowledge.
Furthermore, I am not here as his representative nor to I presume to
speak for him.
I am here only because I wanted to hear the other side of the story, and
to try to understand some of the confusion that seems to exist in the
minds of certain St. James residents with regards to the so-called
commercial mining operation. I would add that I can well understand
the strong feelings and perhaps the anger of those whose property backs
up on Davy's land and their distraught at having to listen to the sounds
that accompany a hunting preserve. However, I would say to those St.
James property owners that perhaps their anger should be directed not
at a person who is using his land for the purpose it has been used for
years, but rather towards the people who sold them that property
without telling them it backed up to a hunting preserve.
t
Be that as it may, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that,
based on what Mr. Herring has personally told me as a friend, that it is
not his intention to desecrate his land with a commercial mining
operation, but rather to build a pond merely for the purposes of
enriching wildlife and fisheries habitat, while enhancing the property
value should he at some future date decide to pursue its residential
development. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Herring's voracity in this
regard.
Thank your.

'V
September 21, 2012
ERIC A. SUMMERVILLE
4157 Shearwater Way
St James, NC 28461
[phone]
NJDENR
Attn: Land Quality Section, Div of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: Herring application for sand mining permit,
Oak Island, NC
Dear Sir or Madame:
l am in receipt of a Notice of an application for a sand mining permit by Davis C.
Herring, Jr. My wife and I own a building lot adjacent to the proposed mine. 1 object to
the proposed use and request that you schedule a local hearing so that all issues may be
fully aired. At this time I would make the following comments;
1. My understanding is that the property is zoned for residential use. The
application admits that the land in question has never been used as a mine. Hence the use
can not be permitted as a prior non-conforming use.
2. The lot my wife and I own is part of a large residential development which
literally contains thousands of homes. The proposed use is inconsistent with this already
ongoing use.
3. The map which I was mailed as part of the NOTICE to adjoining landholders
does not contain a scale as required by Section B (2) of the application. If the one inch to
50 feet scale, as required by B (2) (q) is used my property would be less than 50 feet from
the site of the proposed mine. I suspect the scale is not one inch to 50 feet. Nonetheless,
the effect is that at best I can not tell exactly how close the mining operation will be to
my lot.
4. if the scale is correct then it is clear the information supplied as to the size of
the buffer zone is incorrect.
5. The map fails to show the means of ingress to the site and egress from the site.
I believe this means the application is incomplete. The map fails to show wetlands which,
based on information and belief, are present on the property. If I read the application
correctly, such is required by your department. The buffer zones and stockpile areas are
not shown on the map. Again this appears to be required.
6. My property was acquired initially so my wife and I could build a retirement
home there. We later decided to buy elsewhere in the development and hold the property
as an investment. When we did so we relied on the existing uses in place and had no
reasonable expectation a mine would someday be operated next store to us. Clearly, such
use would negatively affect the value of our property.

7. The application does not indicate the level of usage or the equipment to be
used. If as I suspect large trucks will be coming and going to remove sand excavated by
heavy equipment the noise level would likely be inconsistent with a use adjacent to a
residential development.
In conclusion, 1 would request the application be denied or, at a minimum, that a
hearing be scheduled. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Eric A. Summerville
c.c. James Belvin
Floyd R. Williams

'0
1 '' 3714 Bradford Circle
Southport, N.C. 28461
September 28, 2012
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Drive
Raleigh, N.C. 27699
RE: New Surface Mining Permit by Davis Herring with Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County
We live in a community,St.James Plantation,which abuts the property of Davis Herring. We strongly request that a
permit for new surface mining be DENIED. There are many reasons for our request: environmental issues,quality of life
issues, property value issues,etc. 'Sand raining will result in negative-impact in all these areas of concern to all residents
and businesses adjoining this property.
There has already been environmental damage to the area due to the past year's activities on the Herring property—
deforestation,excavating soil,altering water flow patterns,and building a"debris hill"which they have called a "berm."
In reality this "berm" consisted of piled up branches and and uprootings resulting from the initial bulldozing of trees.
This complete removal right up to property lines was done on Memorial Day weekend of 2011,without any prior
notification or explanation (or justification we feel). We were told at that time that this land,which previously had been
described as wetlands,forever natural,was destroyed for a quail-hunting business—although even then we were at a
loss to understand how total removal of native trees could help quail hunting.'Again,this deforestation was done right
up to the adjoining property lines,with no buffer—which we will discuss later.
Those of you charged with protecting the environment are asked to consider the negative effects now of this proposed
sand mining:
I. Air quality—these mining sites "have two types of air emissions. The first is dirt that may be emitted during
the mining and handling of sand. The second is from various pollutants emitted from equipment used to
mine, handle and/or process sand." (SC Research&Essays,Vol.6(6).pp. 1216-1231, 18 March 2011).
Dust pollution alone is harmful to those living near this, never mind any contaminants that may also be stirred
up and released into the air. Careful monitoring will need to be done on a daily basis to prevent harm to those
living or working in surrounding areas.We are told in the application"A water truck will be available, if needed,
for any potential dust problems." Will the presence of a water truck be sufficient for any dust problems, of
course depending on what contaminants are exposed and the wind currents at the time? Have they applied for
an air quality permit? Is there a Division of Air Quality to monitor all on a daily basis?Are those who may issue
the permit also willing to reimburse us for any health problems which may arise?
2. Water quality—Prior to sand removal,a thorough study should be undertaken of potentially harmful toxic
sediment contaminants which could be dispersed to the air or the groundwater. Sand deposits are linked
to one ariother so that addition or removal of sand from one area affects all other environments. "If sand
mining operations are performed below the water table,they may require significant groundwater
pumping in order to dewater the active mining area. This can lead to an increased potential for impacts to

groundwater and surface water resources." (SC Research & Essays, Vol. 6(6), pp. 1216-1231, 18 March 2011).
"Another effect...is modification of the recharge area for groundwater by changing the land surface...Such
changes may increase or decrease rainwater recharge to groundwater. Shorter flow paths pay increase
susceptibility to contamination while redirected flow paths may deplete total recharge of the aquifer."
(Peckinham,Thorton,&Whalen, 2009). The deforestation which was done in 2011 has already resulted
in altering natural water flow and creating flooding on neighboring properties. We received no notification
of pending permits before that was done in 2011--and are left wondering if environmental issues/impacts
were addressed then. The land in question sits on top of the Castle Mayne aquifer from which Brunswick
County gets water. We are rightfully concerned about contaminants such as mercury and other carcinogens and
chemicals getting into the water supply, not only for neighbors to the property but for all who get their water
supplied by Brunswick County. In the actual applications for the Herring property, the box is marked YES next to
the question, "Will any part of proposed mine excavation extend below the water table?" The application
goes on to say"Applicant plans, if needed,to pump from one pit to another. No mine water discharge from the
site will take place." Is this a guarantee? How can they KNOW so surely that no water discharge will take place?
Who will be held responsible and accountable if the water supply is proved tainted in the future and has caused
health problems and/or death to those exposed?
3. Biodiversity and protection of endangered species— Physical disturbance of the habitat includes generation
of noise,which can interrupt nesting/breeding activities of native species. Other effects include destruction of
the habitat for foraging and nesting,as well as increased exposure to contaminants. What is harmful or toxic
to animals also applies to humans. However, here we are talking about destroying the natural habitat
of various native species. Again, we are made to wonder about the quail—we were told last year that the
deforestation was done to improve quail hunting—we cannot think that sand mining and the heavy equipment
which it will bring can still encourage the quail,or any other species in that area or any surrounding. When we
purchased our property,we were told that other than clearing the area needed to build our home, the trees
on the property could not be cut down by our choice because the red-cockaded woodpecker was an endangered
species and so protected in this area. We wonder why the Herring property is exempt from those prohibitions?
What about wood storks,copley's meadowrue,rough-leaved loosestrife and all other species of
flora and fauna that according to federal law should be protected?
4. Quality of life—The quality of life of surrounding housing and businesses will be affected by ANY negative
impact to the air or water supply. Further,the presence of sand mining so near residential areas will lower
home values—certainly prospective buyers will not choose to live adjoining a sand mine with the heavy
- equipment, noise pollution, increased truck and vehicle traffic,and impact on nearby roads. Beyond this, most
of us who live here chose this area specifically to enjoy the natural beauty and quiet of this area. "Quality
of Life"describes an environment of pure air to breathe, pure water,free of noise pollution,and the tranquility
of living in balance with surrounding nature. Sand mining does not"fit in" with a residential community.
We realize its value to our society but it should be restricted to industrialized areas or areas not zoned as
residential. The application for the sand mining includes a requirement that"a minimum 50' undisturbed buffer
will be maintained between the affected area and wetlands that have been delineated on site"and also that a
"minimum 50' buffer will be required between any land-disturbing activities within the mining permit
boundaries and any natural watercourses and wetlands unless smaller undisturbed buffers can be justified..."
The applicant responds that"a minimum undisturbed buffer will be maintained between mine permit boundary
and any wetlands." We do not feel that this was done in 2011 and are not reassured it will be done in the
future. Further, even with a 50' buffer, quality of life in the area will be forever altered. Again,would anyone
CHOOSE to live in an area knowing that it adjoins a sand mining operation and all that that entails?

�.�.�
; ,
.. � .. r �.

We residents implore the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources to DENY this application.
At the very least,we call for a public hearing, before an approval,to investigate our concerns and justify why
this area should be rezoned and mining permitted. We understand that since 2011 when trees were razed
all along adjoining properties,there has been ongoing mining done without necessary permits up until May
of this year. We would also like these allegations addressed and necessary legal action taken. This property,
parcel#225000019, is currently zoned R-75 (residential per the Brunswick County website), We ask your
Department to conduct hearings and investigate all that has happened so far and how this area and
its residents will be impacted if sand mining is permitted. However,we hope that you will DENY this
application now based on the issues raised in our letters to your department. Thank you for your consideration
of our requests.
Sincerely,
Tve -e w
Roger and eraldine Whitney

ATTENDANCE REGISTRATION SHEET
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PUBLIC HEARING FOR HERRING MINE
DAVIS C HERRING Jr
November 15, 2012
. . PLEASE PRINT . . .
CHECK IF YOU
CHECK IF WISH TO RECEIVE
YOU WISH A COPY OF
NAME MAILING ADDRESS TO SPEAK HEARING SUMMARY
�n { or+IL
NC
we- -.fkAt)
H
Ag A
1r + r
l 7/ -
1 S sp

Z ATTENDANCE REGISTRATION SHEET
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PUBLIC HEARING FOR HERRING MINE
DAVIS C HERRING Jr
November 16, 2012
. . PLEASE PRINT . . .
CHECK IF YOU
CHECK IF WISH TO RECEIVE
YOU WISH A COPY OF
NAME MAILING ADDRESS TO SPEAK HEARING SUMMARY
f � �a-� 453
rc�C3A 3 7 t� � d.•�'or� C ti arc[�_
rb.1C��r. wh, 0
1� 31-7(L4 --araet -c4`d r —C.(e
7L
�j► 7 275'2-. L�
C_ 24L G /
o � Pzl
JC 59 (-AJ rke`.ur\P-4- ,Ar,

3 ATTENDANCE REGISTRATION SHEET
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PUBLIC HEARING FOR HERRING MINE
DAVIS C HERRING Jr
November 16, 2012
. . PLEASE PRINT . . .
CHECK IF YOU
CHECK IF WISH TO RECEIVE
YOU WISH A COPY OF
NAME MAILING ADDRESS TO SPEAK HEARING SUMMARY
C5
00)
3 7A 6 A), �L�LS'redOL Cis��.

ATTENDANCE REGISTRATION SHEET
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PUBLIC HEARING FOR HERRING MINE
DAVIS C HERRING Jr
November 15, 2012
. . PLEASE PRINT . . .
CHECK IF YOU
CHECK IF WISH TO RECEIVE
YOU WISH A COPY OF
NAME MAILING ADDRESS TO SPEAK HEARING SUMMARY
17 -7 ?I-^yet Q-uo PQ,uF
t�L
47" vr�c� roe✓ L' i
H�'ic5 UoNN 4 Pdkr

SATTENDANCE REGISTRATION SHEET
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PUBLIC HEARING FOR HERRING MINE
DAVIS C HERRING Jr
November 15, 2012
. . PLEASE PRINT . . .
CHECK IF YOU
CHECK IF WISH TO RECEIVE
YOU WISH A COPY OF
NAME MAILING ADDRESS TO SPEAK HEARING SUMMARY
374/ i<AYt s �'�ur7 r7i2
rt/C r/
e ✓ G 7 kel4-
�-A
�a►+-� ��[�n� �l� Er�r�c� �ry s�1 ic�

ATTENDANCE REGISTRATION SHEET
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PUBLIC HEARING FOR HERRING MINE
DAVIS C HERRING Jr
November 15, 2012
. . PLEASE PRINT . . .
CHECK IF YOU
CHECK IF WISH TO RECEIVE
YOU WISH A COPY OF
NAME MAILING ADDRESS TO SPEAK HEARING SUMMARY
Y{v

Wehner, Judy
I
From: Dana Lutheran <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:48 AM
To: Boyer,Janet;Wehner,Judy
Cc: James, Trentt
Subject: RE: Herring Mine - Permit # 10-89, Oak Island, NC
Thank you, Janet.
Judy,
Based upon Janet's response, the Applicant has decided to withdraw their request to modify their permit. The
stockpile will be removed from the property.
Hope you both have a good day.
Dana
pa„a A.L„t6ran
,Soutbern Irnvironmontal Group,Inc.
1)15 South[ollose Koad,Suitc E
Wilmington,NC za41 z
Office 9 10,41 z.27 1 1
Mobile 910,728.1 ilk 1
r"r E
't
SI�.GI
From: Boyer, Janet[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3:06 PM
To: Dana Lutheran
Cc: Wehner, Judy; James, Trentt
Subject: RE. Herring Mine - Permit # 10-89, Oak Island, NC
Dana,
I just got back to town. Sorry I didn't get to your email before I left.
Question 1: Is it necessary to include the stockpile as part of the mining permit, if the stockpile is not directly
associated with the mining operation?
The stockpile should be included on the mining permit and within the permit boundary. This is consistent with
the stockpiling of clean concrete at quarry sites.
Question 2: If it is necessary, what level of notification, if any, is required to modify the mining permit?
Permit modifications that increase acreage require notification of any adjoining landowners (far that section
being added) and the county manager.
i

I hope this answers your questions.
Regards,
Janet
Janet S. Boyer, PE
State Mining Specialist
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9220 office
[e-mail]
512 N. Salisbury Street—Archdale Building
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
-','-'Nothing Compares
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Dana Lutheran [mailto:dl,[e-mail]
Sent: Monday,April 17, 2017 1:28 PM
To: Boyer,Janet<[e-mail]>
Cc:Wehner,Judy<iudy.wehnerCa)ncdenr.gov>;lames,Trentt<[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Herring Mine - Permit# 10-89, Oak Island, NC
Good afternoon, Janet.
I hope you had a nice Easter weekend.
I understand you are busy, but would you please provide a response to my email (see below), so I can inform
the property owner on how to proceed. As always, feel free to call me directly at 910.228.1841.
Thank you,
Dana
Dana A.Lutheran
5out6m Environmental Group,Inc.
31 g 50utk College Koad,Sul ite E
Wilmington,NC 2st 1 2
Orficc 9 10.4J2.2]1 1
Mobile 91 o.2zs.1 s4.1
'•e
2

From: Dana Lutheran [mailto:dlutheranCa@segiusJ
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 12:29 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: 'Wehner, Judy; '3ames,Trentt'
Subject: FW: Herring Mine - Permit # 10-89, Oak Island, NC
Hello, Janet.
have a unique situation and a question (or two) revolving around it. Judy thought it best I reach out to you, as
it is more a policy question.
Mining Permit 10-89 covers only the excavation area and haul roads within its "Mining Permit Boundary" (see
attached mine plan). Mined dirt and sand are removed from the pit without ever being stockpiled. The property
owner allows the mine operator to use part of the property to stockpile concrete. The stockpile area is adjacent
to the Mining Permit Boundary and within the same property as the mine. The concrete scraps comes from
projects within the area (Oak Island, Southport, etc), where demolition has been undertaken. With that being
the case, the material neither meets the definition of"overburden" (i.e. "Overburden" means the earth, rock,
and other materials that lie above the natural deposit of minerals § 74-49(10)) nor the definition of"refuse"
("Refuse" means all waste soil, rock, mineral, scrap, tailings, slimes, and other material directly connected with
the mining, cleaning, and preparation of substances mined and shall include all waste materials deposited on
or in the permit area from other sources (§ 74-49(14)). Therefore, the stockpile does not meet the definition of
a "spoil bank" ("Spoil bank" means a deposit of excavated overburden or refuse (§ 74-49(16)). At no time is
mined material, such as overburden or refuse, being stored within the stockpile area.
Question 1: Is it necessary to include the stockpile as part of the mining permit, if the stockpile is not directly
associated with the mining operation?
Question 2: If it is necessary, what level of notification, if any, is required to modify the mining permit?
Thank you, in advance, for your time
Dana
Dana A.Lut6ran
50"ti,em rnvironmuntal[group,Int.
5 3 15 50ut6 Collcgc Road,5uita E_
Wilmington,NC 18+11
Officc 910.+52.27 1 1
Mobile 91 o.zza,1 a+1
~ L
,51_G
Virus-Free. www.avast.com
3

Wehner, Judy
From: Wehner, Judy
Sent: Wednesday, November 21,2012 3:27 PM
To: Taylor, Kenneth
Subject: Herring hearing Summary
Attachments: 10-89 public hearing summary.docx
Here it is. I will bring you the hearing info.
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
[phone]
[phone] fax
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records taw and may be
disclosed to third parties.
1

04 i A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dr. Kenneth Taylor
AV
FROM: Tracy E. Davi
Director, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
DATE: November 2, 2012
SUBJECT: Public Hearing
Davis C. Herring, Jr.
Proposed Herring Mine
Brunswick County
The Land Quality Section has received significant public interest relative to a mining permit
application filed by Davis C. Herring, Jr.. I have determined that a public hearing is warranted.
Thus, I am requesting your assistance in performing the duties as hearing officer. Judy
Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist, will be in touch with you to work out any questions
you may have.
Please find enclosed copies of the Public Notice concerning the hearing and the Public
Hearing Format. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated.
TE Drjw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, PE
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1612•Telephone [phone] FAX:[phone]
512 North Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604.lnternet:htto:llportal.ncdenr.orglwebArMand-quality
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper

ONME'1Y►71S,{V lIP n
ENVIRONMENT AN1} a!
R SOURC
.o-IVIS p1R�O++A�NIy..1}�/�L,F E Y, i •
RAND QUALITY SECTI `_=
,41.: .:PUBLICyNOT10Eta -Val
heating to be held by the North Car,a
olina;Depaetntent;.oC, Eavitviirment BRUNSWICK COUNTY
ind'Natural,Risis rcea.concerning*
&a ,C:Hertinp, Jr.'s-a puat nJ NORTH CAROLINA
Car i iniai"g permit Cora-and mining
i�,�operatlon located ofC vuhmovi Loopy_
Road In Brunswick County..`:"`'<7 `
fAUTHORrI'Y::N.C:G&7441 A dd. - AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
r_N.CA.C:Title ICJ, Chapter--5 Sab•'':
' cliagppter'$B;5eetlus►.00II. �, ��� :•"•:.1
iPL`A :TIHEi DATE:,•DiAd-.R.*
sandifer.�,County.,, Administratioo.s Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of said County and State,
BuDding,First p'Ioor;30 Government,t
.Cedterrrloe NE,Bauviii North Car:., duly commissioned, qualified and authorized by law to administer
olbra-28422;7:00 P.M:,,Noremlier;l5,':
zolx � . .. ..` oaths, personally appeared MARISA BUNDRTCK, who, being
:' ..p[]1ZPC)SE.". 7,�.:.-.
ppili ecelvr r.ameat;reiate mil'!e. first duly sworn, deposes and says that she is the employee autho-
'appllcationoCor.a minlugppeeFiisit:.Cor�•.
a land mining operation Eocatcd''off`•
villanova.,Loop Road In:Brunsswick R, rized to make this affidavit, of The State Port Pilot Inc., engaged
County:_ Yr
'Cymmenta shun be wnit�d to me-�..."-ttiat relate"dh�eetly;tothe�serei p)7 I in the publication of a newspaper known as THE STATE PORT
'denlal criteria listed under GS•701,A" PILOT, published, issued and entered as periodicals mail in the
•'of'llre MWng•Aet of.i971that the 13
Department considers•In_making:Ito'
decision to grant or deny a Geri min_ City of Southport, in said County and State; that the notice or other
I permit-application ior=a modlfl=
motion 6,an iiktingmialag perinit::.'s legal advertisement, a true copy of which is attached hereto, was
';These erlteris ate 4-Callow-:y '.;,
The Department may;deny such J, published in THE STATE PORT PILOT on the following dates:
pecnilt upon lindings' +
f i'That 'aayrrequiremeut of:this-1 oranyru here-e e OI3
iunder'wtll be violated',by thepro;:�
poseduperatlnsi; ' rude," and that said newspaper in which said notice, paper, document or
�-'2: That theoprratfonJwill'%have`'!
CundalyIdv�e'.. -is-on-patbbk,- legal advertisement was published was, at the time of each and
i'groaud.water -u plies;wS, e,1orp
Ieshwaterr,es ndge.or as>kh x every such publication, a newspaper meeting all of the requirements
3.�-That"t;a ioperativa'+wiI1. Yin , and qualifications of Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North
late•standards-of air quality,anrfacil. q
water qualltj,o[ground water quad ,
Icy-which have beetr Promulgated-bx Carolina and was a qualified newspaper within the meaning of
the
t, Section 1-597 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.
-trite a direct and subatartttal;ph jol- • J
csi hazard-to public.heatth•and onfc� This the Wl�it day of ,20�.
%'ty or to a neighboring dwelling house;a -
school;church,hosp1bd,"cernmerc...
:-or todustrial.buildtag;pubLl6roail or r
other public propeety,,excluding mat-
'%tees relatin to'use of a public road;"`-
r5:That.,le operation W l have.aL
';_signiflcantly,'..adverwe.,effect ion;.,the,
lg�nrPase-"Of,e'publiC)yowaed park;= (Signature of person making affidavit)
'Fore9t Or,recreation area;.. e T.,' ' 4
`6.'Thit.prevla'us ' rlersce'with'
similar,operations Indicates,a sub,41
°'stiintial possibility thnt'the:•opera-.,
tinu"ie§ull in snbslantiai depotite.,. Swo n to and subscribed before me this day of
of-edlment in elream,bedeiar.lakes,;
laitdelides,or add venter poliuttop;or, , 20
7;That the applicant or any parent,
LL
skbaidlary; or other WEliate of.tble'l
applicant or parent hue not been"InA
'sWrsta»tial c moli a with this
sle,rates adapted tinder this Article; / fry
or,athcr laws or,rnt�l.ulilrls5tate tor:- :�/' ota lC
the"Silo ctinaof"the.eJrvitvameat,ur�F. /j 1i
bas,not:corrected::all,rtolatioas:that:,; 1 J E7 L. K@Y€5
tha:applicant ar aW parent;sub-Id-4 �� Notary pu lie, North Carolina
or other atSltaw of the applicant:; Brunswick County
or parent may have cummltted udder MY Commission Expires
- is Ardcle_or.-rules:adopted antler" December 17. 2014
-ft Article and that result In:p a.Revocation of hii permit,',
%b.-Forfeltare•of-peut.or au df his.
bond or,other:security,,.<t r ". 0.
:.:�c..Con�lctiau-o[�a?misdeme`anoTa
under GS 7444,or;-„
,d,iAnynother.",6ur v order_•Issued
'ender G5:74•;'64;or�a���...�� ��'-.��.:('
.�ei l+bral essessmeat of a aivll penaltyT,
nnder.G S ,74:641;;i �.
"'1n:We;atistnce:of�anp.8>Edingsset;�

i
's:Revacatian at;�is permlt,"n'�--+*s--.
b.Far[ritnie of pert ar alt of his.
bond or other sec ty, -i
.c: Convictton:of;a,.miadanseanor=
uaderGS.74.64,or'- .,
d. Auy.-outer court ur_ Le !nursed
'under GS:74.64,or :` ` c.. -",+,
a.Final assessment of o'civil penalty ------r-
uader G.S.74-64: 1C,
an the:ahaeoee of.aay,Badfnga'ed,
out above;=ojr:ff ad.ase effeets:ore
raitigatrd;key-the:i pptiei&W-is.deter-.
utined necrssaq-by the'Deperbaimt;,
a permit shall be granted:!
`ij;;,COMMENT_FROCEDUkE-�?[~
Ali-persoeslmti �fm;this suet-F
e#.ter_arcivitcrl!ta;atteod:,.The:.hesri
iii;will be conducted in the full&i6g
manner: :
i r.Lrxptanation of the'a(46 for
wwCh rile hermit:to required try the
i}earing off! r x>.s,_.
?2.Expisnat#)a of the perniit.prace. .
dare as,set.forlh In The Mining Act,-
of 1971�,by,,ths;IHvisiati I Lttergy;
' Mineral,and i:sAd'R Land.:
G Quality Section. s:r pe
3.'Public Con6ent' =Camments,e
statements, data, and other>.lnfor-i,
matron may be'submitted In writing']
i.prior to.ar daring the hearin or,meyu
lbe presented orally at the:
Persons desiring-la speak will indl
:sate their intent,at-the.time of'reg=r'
'istration at the henrtag..56?that.au-,
persona desiring to speak i*do'so;
lengthy statements-may,be.limlted at=s
itlie disrredon of the beatiug,ot'hcer._!
Orni-presentations•mast not exceed fi
the time 11mit established by the hear•.t
Ing oiRcer.=;Anq:oral pre�tatlon 4
tbat-exceeds`.three(3) Aslnutea must
be_accompsufed by three:(3)wrfttens
copies; wblch wlll`be filed.with tb6
hearing Aker at the tiiginning gf the`
oial presentattpn:ra.,. F
'4:vCro§s�eiaminatiun",� peibons��
praend�uf teatlritony.'-will—
ask not best
alk+wed;.hoiv6vcr,llie�fniartng oflkcr-s
Osay questlow ror clarFifcadon: �11
)3M(Optionat),Jhe.applicant TAY
make a sbort.presentetlon at the ead s;
of the heatingg•. may, avaiiable-
-for Indhidnatlgroup dis�lon,attec
$ the hearing 6 edJourned> •
-- G.-J-heL,proceedta -,win -iemwn--
open;fir-la period-of ten (10),daydr
followingithe-isearingafar•addlt#ooe1�--
{ r►rltten'ergumeots or state heats :a
�: ;A'eopy"af the;mining permit eppli-':
catfon.and-corrrsppaa Mii nding a� arei
'oA•9leawltii•,We ►'4'illafagtAA:Re�o A=� -
.1'aud'Melgh Central-W,[,and-.,
Qaallty Section,for the public's infotyj_
oration and review,prior to the date of c'
. the pablk,hearing. 'Addttional•ta1'or• ,�
madim coacerulegg this huriag ms�
tie obtalnid bj t►rltitig or.caUlaB:. r'
Jutklr Wehstet'"•*'p�..•-�,*�s..,r�..,�.�
Addstant State Mining 5pedalist.
Wd.QuvAt*Section',
Division d'Eaergy, Mfuieral awt
Land Resoorces' r, a'•,;:"
Departmen't'of'Erivfrd6t.'eud .
.�1812 Mall Service Ccater:,r .1�,..,r
NC 27i -16127-:71-i

Dale
4-310 3 1 b.
StqXe Pal-t P:9
114 E. Moore Street Phone Number: (910) 457-4568
Southport NC 28461 3926
Visit us at stateportpilot.com!
visa/Mastercard payments accepted
Call Jan at 910-457-4568 Ext 127 or
ID# 1571 Pay online at stateportpilot.com
Land Quality Section - NCDENR
Judy Wehner
1612 Mail Service Ctr.
Raleigh NC 27699-1612 Due Date; 11/25/2012
Balance Due: 163 .63
5
7M
24 4Ug.
iX%
- ;. 1. R U. t1, F 1 U1 , - A
N 1
escrp P
-4
10/31/2012 legal advertisement 19.-250 Inches 163 -63
Public Notice - Herring Mining Permit
Balance Due 163 .63
NOV
Current 30 60 90 90+
163. 63 0. 00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00
Please be reminded that balances not paid by the 25th day of the month
are subject to a charge of 1.75%
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REMITTANCE COUPON
Land Quality Section - NCDENR Account No, 157l
Judy Wehner
1612 Mail Service Ctr. Amount Due Now: 163. 63
Raleigh NC 27699-1612
THANK YOU for the opportunity to serve your business ! Amount Enclosed:
State Port Pilot
114 E. Moore Street
Southport NC 28461 3926

A
Ai"
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Director October 22, 2012 Dee Freeman, Secretary
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED.
7008 1300 0000 1126 1747
Ms. Marissa Bundrick
State Port Pilot
Legal Ads
114 East Moore Street
Southport, North Carolina 28461
RE: Legal Ad
Notice of Public Hearing
Dear Madam,
Please run the enclosed notice as a legal ad in your paper on October 31, 2012.
Please bill us at the below address in triplicate and include the proper affidavit that the
ad was published. Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Sincerely,
Judith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, PE
1612 Mail Service Center,Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1612•Telephone [phone]I FAX:[phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh,North Carolina 27644-Internet: htlp:llpottal.ncdenr.org/webilr/land-quality
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer--50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
i DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES - LAND QUALITY SECTION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources concerning Davis C. Herring, Jr.'s application for a mining
permit for a sand mining operation located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
AUTHORITY: N.C.G.S. 74-51 And N.C.A.C. Title 15, Chapter 5 Subchapter 513, Section .0011
PLACE, TIME, DATE: David R. Sandifer County Administration Building
First Floor
30 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
7:00 P.M.
November 15, 2012
PURPOSE:
To receive comment related to the application for a mining permit for a sand miming operation
located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7) denial criteria listed
under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department considers in making its
decision to grant or deny a new mining permit application or a modification to an existing
mining permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department may deny such permit upon finding:
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will
be violated by the proposed operation;
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground
water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water
quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by the
Department;
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;

5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly-owned park, forest or recreation area;
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; or
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 result in:
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64, or
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64.
In the absence of any findings set out above, or if adverse effects are mitigated by the
applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a permit shall be granted.
COMMENT PROCEDURE:
All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be conducted in the
following manner:
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the hearing
officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act of
1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, Land
Quality Section.

3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other information
r may be submitted in writing prior to or during the hearing or may be
presented orally at the hearing. Persons desiring to speak will indicate
their intent at the time of registration at the hearing. So that all persons
desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the
discretion of the hearing officer. Oral presentations must not exceed the
time limit established by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that
exceeds three (3) minutes must be accompanied by three (3) written
copies, which will be filed with the hearing officer at the beginning of the
oral presentation.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be allowed,
however, the hearing officer may ask questions for clarification.
5. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end of the
Bearing and may be available for individual/group discussion after the
hearing is adjourned.
6. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days following
the hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
INFORMATION:
A copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file with the
Wilmington Regional and Raleigh Central Office, Land Quality Section, for the public's
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional information
concerning this hearing may be obtained by writing or calling:
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
October 22, 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
7008 1300 0000 1126 1754
Mr. Davis C. Herring
823 Robert Ruark Drive
Southport, North Carolina 28461
RE: Herring Mine
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Herring:
The Director of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources has determined
that significant public interest surrounds your above referenced application for a mining permit.
He has authorized a public hearing to be held on the matter. Enclosed is a copy of the
hearing notice for your review.
Please call me at [phone] if you or your representatives plan to attend and if a
short presentation is planned. Your continued cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely.
J dith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist'
Land Quality Section
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dan Sims, PE
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612-Telephone [phone] f FAX:[phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604- Internet:http:/lportal.ncdenr.org/web/Ir/land-gualit
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

low
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES - LAND QUALITY SECTION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources concerning Davis C. Herring, Jr.'s application for a mining
permit for a sand mining operation located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
AUTHORITY: N.C.G.S. 74-51 And N.C.A.C. Title 15, Chapter 5 Subchapter 5B, Section .0011
PLACE TIME DATE: David R. Sandifer County Administration Building
First Floor
30 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
7:00 P.M.
November 15, 2012
PURPOSE:
To receive comment related to the application for a mining permit for a sand mining operation
located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7) denial criteria listed
under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department considers in making its
decision to grant or deny a new mining permit application or a modification to an existing
mining permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department may deny such permit upon finding:
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will
be violated by the proposed operation;
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground
water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or.marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water
quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by the
Department;
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;

5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly-owned park, forest or recreation area;
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; or
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 result in:
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64, or
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64.
In the absence of any findings set out above, or if adverse effects are mitigated by the
applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a permit shall be granted.
COMMENT PROCEDURE:
All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be conducted in the
following manner:
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the hearing
officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act of
1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, Land
Quality Section.

3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other information
may be submitted in writing prior to or during the hearing or may be
presented orally at the hearing. Persons desiring to speak will indicate
their intent at the time of registration at the hearing. So that all persons
desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the
discretion of the hearing officer. Oral presentations must not exceed the
time limit-established by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that
exceeds three (3) minutes must be accompanied by three (3) written
copies, which will be filed with the hearing officer at the beginning of the
oral presentation.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be allowed,
however, the hearing officer may ask questions for clarification.
5. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end of the
hearing and may be available for individual/group discussion after the
hearing is adjourned.
6. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days following
the hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
INFORMATION:
A copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file with the
Wilmington Regional and Raleigh Central Office, Land Quality Section, for the public's
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional information
concerning this hearing may be obtained by writing or calling:
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]

A F-MA
ll j
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM Beverly Eaves Perdue, Govemor
Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
October 22, 2012
Ms. Margie Stevenson
County Clerk's Office
Brunswick County
PO Box 249
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
RE: Public Hearing
Proposed Herring Mine
Dear Mr. Stevenson:
This letter is to acknowledge your approval of the Department's request for use of the
facilities at the David R. Sandifer County Administration Building, Commissioner's Meeting
Room, to conduct a public hearing on November 15, 2012. Enclosed is a copy of the public
notice that is to be published in The State Port Pilot on October 31, 2012. Please note the
hearing is scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. We will be arriving between 6,00 and 6:15 p.m.
and would like to have someone on-hand to unlock the facility at that time.
Your cooperation in providing the facility for our use is greatly appreciated. Should you
have any questions, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Ju ith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dan Sams, PE
Mr. Marty Lawing, Brunswick County Manager, with enclosure
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612•Telephone [phone] FAX:[phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh,North Carolina 27604•Intemet:http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/Irland-guali
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

Wehner, Judy
From: Legals [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 3:32 PM
To. Wehner, Judy; Lee Hinnant
Subject: Legal notice
Attachments: 10-89 Public Notice.doc
Good afternoon Judy,
Confirming receipt of the Herring DENR public notice scheduled for our October 31 edition of The State Port
Pilot newspaper. We'll bill your account accordingly and forward Affidavit of Publication to your attention.
Thanks much,
Marisa Bundrick
Legal Advertising
The State Port Pilot, Inc.
le als@state ort ilot.com
www.stateportpilot.com
910-457-4568, ext. 120
Join us on Facebook...
www.facebook.comlth estate gortpilo#
On Oct 22, 2012, at 10:25 AM, Wehner, Judy wrote:
Dear Madam,
Please run the attached notice as a legal ad in your paper on October 31, 2012.
Please bill us at the below address in triplicate and include the proper affidavit that the ad was
published. Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone]. Your cooperation
is appreciated.
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
i
h

Raleip North Carolina 27699-1612
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
[phone]
[phone] fax
------------------------------------------
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
2

Wehner, Judy
From: Sams, Dan
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:49 AM
To: James, Trentt
Cc: Wehner, Judy; Miller, Carol; Hall, Rhonda
Subject: Herring Mine Hearing Date
Trentt:
Judy has set up a public hearing date for the Herring Mine application, for Thursday, November 15 at 7:00 pm. You and I
need to plan to attend.
Thanks....
dan
1

Wehner, Judy
From: Wehner, Judy
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:26 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Wehner, Judy
Subject: Legal ad
Attachments: 10-89 Public Notice.doc
Dear Madam,
Please run the attached notice as a legal ad in your paper on October 31, 2012,
Please bill us at the below address in triplicate and include the proper affidavit that the ad was
published, Should you have any questions, please contact me at [phone]. Your cooperation
is appreciated.
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
[phone]
[phone] fax
-------------------------------- ---------
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
. 1

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES - LAND QUALITY SECTION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources concerning Davis C..Herring, Jr.'s application for a mining
permit for a sand mining operation located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
AUTHORITY: N.C.G.S. 74-51 And N.C.A.C. Title 15, Chapter 5 Subchapter 5B, Section .0011
PLACE, TIME, DATE: David R. Sandifer County Administration Building
First Floor
30 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
7:00 P.M.
November 15, 2012
PURPOSE:
To receive comment related to the application for a mining permit for a sand mining operation
located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7) denial criteria listed
under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department considers in making its
decision to grant or deny a new mining permit application or a modification to an existing
mining permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department may deny such permit upon finding-
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will
be violated by the proposed operation;
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground
water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water
quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by the
Department;
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;

5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly-owned park, forest or recreation area;
6. That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial
possibility that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment
in stream beds OF lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution; or
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 result in.
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64, or
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64.
In the absence of any findings set out above, or if adverse effects are mitigated by the
applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a permit shall be granted.
COMMENT PROCEDURE:
All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be conducted in the
following manner-
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the hearing
officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act of
1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, Land
Quality Section.

3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other information
may be submitted in writing prior to or during the hearing or may be
presented orally at the hearing. Persons desiring to speak will indicate
their intent at the time of registration at the hearing. So that all persons
desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the
discretion of the hearing officer. Oral presentations must not exceed the
time limit established by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that
exceeds three (3) minutes must be accompanied by three (3) written
copies, which will be filed with the hearing officer at the beginning of the
oral presentation.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be allowed;
however, the hearing officer may ask questions for clarification.
5. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end of the
hearing and may be available for individual/group discussion after the
hearing is adjourned.
6. The proceedings will amain open for a period of ten (10) days following
the hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
INFORMATION:
A copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file with the
Wilmington Regional and Raleigh Central Office, Land Quality Section, for the public's
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional information
concerning this hearing may be obtained by writing or calling:
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES - LAND QUALITY SECTION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources concerning Davis C. Herring, Jr.'s application for a mining
permit for a sand mining operation located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
AUTHORITY: N.C.G.S, 74-51 And N.C.A.C. Title 15, Chapter 5 Subchapter 5B, Section .0011
PLACE, TIME, DATE: David R. Sandifer County Administration Building
First Floor
30 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422
7:00 P.M'
.M.
November 15, 2012
.PURPOSE:
To receive comment related to the application for a mining permit for a sand mining operation
located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7) denial criteria listed
under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department considers in making its
decision to grant or deny a new mining permit application or a modification to an existing
mining permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department may deny such permit upon finding:
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will
be violated by the proposed operation;
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground
water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water,'estuarine, or marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water
quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by the
Department,
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;

5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly-owned park, forest or recreation area;
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; or
7. That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the
applicant or,parent has not been in substantialcompliance 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 result in:
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64, or
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64. r
In the absence of any findings set out above, or if adverse effects are mitigated by the
applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a permit shall be granted.
COMMENT PROCEDURE:
All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be conducted in the
following manner:
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the hearing
officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act of
1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, Land
Quality Section.

3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other information
may be submitted in writing prior to or during the hearing or may be
presented orally at the hearing. Persons desiring to speak will indicate
their intent at the time of registration at the hearing. So that all persons
desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the
discretion of the hearing officer. Oral presentations must not exceed the
time limit established by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that
exceeds three (3) minutes must be accompanied by three (3) written
copies, which will be filed with the hearing officer at the beginning of the
oral presentation.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be allowed;
however, the hearing officer may ask questions for clarification.
5. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end of the
hearing and may be available for individual/group discussion after the
hearing is adjourned.
6. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days following
the hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
INFORMATION:
A copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file with the
Wilmington Regional and Raleigh Central Office, Land Quality Section, for the public's
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional information
concerning this hearing may be obtained by writing or calling:
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL, AND LAND RESOURCES - LAND QUALITY SECTION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources concerning Davis C. Herring, Jr.'s application for a mining
permit for a sand mining operation located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
AUTHORITY: N.C.G.S. 74-51 And N.C_A.C. Title 15, Chapter 5 Subchapter 5B, Section .0011
PLACE, TIME, DATE: David R. Sandifer County Administration Building
First Floor
30 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422 '
7:00 P.M.
November 15, 2012
PURPOSE:
To receive comment related to the application for a mining permit for a sand mining operation
located off Villanova Loop Road in Brunswick County.
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7) denial criteria listed
under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department considers in making its
decision to grant or deny a new mining permit application or a modification to an existing
mining permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department may deny such permit upon finding-
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will
be violated by the proposed operation;
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground
water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water
quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by the
Department;
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;

5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly-owned park, forest or recreation area,
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; or
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 riot 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 result in:
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64, or
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64.
In the absence of any findings set out above, or if adverse effects are mitigated by the
applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a permit shall be granted.
COMMENT PROCEDURE:
All persons interested in this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be conducted in the
following manner:
1. Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the hearing
officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act of
1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources, Land
Quality Section.

3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other information
may be submitted in writing prior to or during the hearing or may be
presented orally at the hearing. Persons desiring to speak will indicate
their intent at the time of registration at the hearing. So that all persons
desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the
discretion of the hearing officer. Oral presentations must not exceed the
time limit established by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that
exceeds three (3) minutes must be accompanied by three (3) written
copies, which will be filed with the hearing officer at the beginning of the
oral presentation.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be allowed;
however, the hearing officer may ask questions for clarification.
5. (Optional) The applicant may make a short presentation at the end of the
hearing and may be available for individual/group discussion after the
nearing is adjourned.
6. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days following
the hearing for additional written arguments or statements.
INFORMATION:
A copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file with the
Wilmington Regional and Raleigh Central Office, Land Quality Section, for the public's
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing. Additional information
concerning this hearing may be obtained by writing or calling:
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist -
Land Quality Section
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]

---- -_ _CPS._3). - - - - -- _ _ _ --- - --: - - -- -
__. - - .__ _- - -._.w gyp..-- - - --- -- - _-- � - - _ _ _ __ .
__ - - - sou�,��,t-,- N� ---any-�i -- -- -- - -- - - - -- - . - �

1. 1 �r

rrm-pryl
-'gym
4-1 OC bhC p,
Q00 - l

r
r
1
I
r.
E
517
IN.. It
VP
S�
' _ • . `t'+,.J + `{ tip' ,y `J f, `� J �' •
ti
�• •` M
1
i

Wehner, Judy
From: Sam Johnston [e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 12,50 PM
To: King, Morella s
Cc: Carey, Erin; Bushardt, Jim; Farnell, John; Gaines, Amanda; [e-mail];
Kegley, Geoff; Rowland, Kevin; Wehner, Judy
Subject: Oak Island Sand Mine
ALCON,
I have just recently been notified of a meeting being held this evening to discuss allowing a Davey Herring to
mine his property off of Villa Nova Road. I am working tonight and unable to attend, but for what it is worth I
would like to have some input.
1 live at 3512 Heron Cir SE, My home is fed via well water. I am concerned that Mr. Herring's project could
have ill effects on my water supply. At the most, this 22.5 acre, 30 feet deep "pond" would be Iocated less then
half a mile from my ground water well. I rely on this well for my home as it is my only option,just as it is for
my neighbors. I find it difficult to believe that such a project wouldn't open my water source up to possible
contamination at the very least. This "pond" could possibly pull from my well rendering it dry.
If Mr. Herring would like to build such a"pond" for his envisioned subdivision, he should first have to provide
independent studies (not at the cost of taxpayers) to prove that no ill effects could be done to the environment or
preexisting subdivisions and neighborhoods.
I can only hope that my humble thoughts arrive to the correct people in time for tonight's meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
V/R
Samuel M. Johnston
3512 Heron Cir SE
Southport,NC 28461
910-237-1709
i

- �
P
J
ro
i1 r..elll
\dd
03AI30

Cll Z3/�O
`/

IMF%
2!
rj
USArIR� C' •Sl 0'EV

1 r
5
NI
..r
_,5 1

y � RECEIVED
To Whom It May Concern. OCT 29 2012
Div of Land Resources
am the owner of a rental house in
Oakwood Glen which is a subdivision
adjacent to property owned by Mr. Davey
Herring (St. James abutts his
other margin).
was never advised by the state that Mr.
Herring wants to dig a 22. 5 acre
30 foot deep lake on his property until 1
read of it in the State Port: Pilot in, .
the October 24, 2012 edition. My -house-and
many others in close proximity
to his proposed lake is dependent on well
water.
The earth covering the land is much like
skin on a body, viz. if prevents infections.
To dig a lake here would be akin to an
Page 1

1
abscess, will facilitate contamination of
the groundwater and aquifer, cause
significant evaporation of valuable water
resources, and the evaporation will
concentrate salts and other contaminants.
! hereby wish to make clear my complete
and absolute opposition to any more
lakes on property!
Martyn Hawkins
owner.' 3512 Heron Circle SE
Southport, NC 28461
Page 2

Bw
ART N,,IJAWKINS�"°f E- t�{ T U' t _F� iL .�; - "" ��• ,..
1 -��`�
r 117 NE 34TH ST.1 U +...tJu�rT�� I'�'4:i�+J�YR�4i J''ii h w�� �. • ,.
�_l / bA1C`1SL-AN� NC 28465.: "
7/o/
C � �
RECEIVED
OCT 2 9 2012
Div of Land Resources
2 S'9S-i"G;12 1111#1111113rJ,,IJ114111# lisleIIJ1121911r1

Wehner, Judy
From: ann baldzicki ([e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 2:35 PM
To: Wehner, Judy
Subject: Proposed Sand Mining in Brunswick County
Attachments: 2012 Sand.docx
Ms. Wehner:
I am attaching a copy of the letter I mailed regarding the proposed sand mine permit adjacent to residential property of
St.James Plantation where I live.
I would appreciate your careful consideration of the request and hope that the permit will be denied outright or that
public hearings will take place near the proposed sand mine location so that the public can provide input for your
decision. Thank you.
Ann Baldziclti
910-253-9992 home
440-225--9840 cell
3561 St James Drive
Southporry NC 28461
i

Edward and Ann Baldzicki
3561 St. ,lames Drive
Southport, North Carolina 28461
October 1,2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R.Williams, PG,CPESC, CPG
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C, Herring- Hering Mine, Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St. James Plantation community, a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life, property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St.James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concems about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to, the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eitherlboth?
+ How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion, sinkholes,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
input.
Sincerely,

Edward and+Ann Baldzicki
3561 St.James Drive
Southport, North Carolina 28461
910.253.9992
October 1,2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27690-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land ResourceRECEIVE[)
OCT 0
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC,CPG
, 2012
Re: Notification
QUALrTYcation of Proposed Sand Mine �'�`�"'�,4 �O�Rq�p
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St.James Plantation community,a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life, property value,and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St. James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include,but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publicalf addressed during the hearing process:
O Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eltherlboth?
O How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
® Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
o What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution,and surface water pollution?
o What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
o How wilt this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
Q Why is surface sand mining the Crest use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
Input
Sincerely,

1
.• `��''r
lk
..Sur � t s l� �` � ., \ •i�r_r I �1' .},
� y SF i. � ' _ _ •� •1 `mow 4
��tr_ IJ� syj�y'�\ r.� - �,��_,�,� � 1<;` ' f r- }I. 7,� Z '�!`. r/.C.. i '•.I-,I
t Nin eA
'. �. r Cilrh�tl�} { �,Ortr' �'• Cp.rtiial RrOU
:.,.. 4
.. r r' rj.�.•r:1-++ul��_.3"°l Clld .'✓a�r f'-
MmpeiFear�. Regional Jetport r Sixttt r'
p"Mbati Island' '
YAupvn'4t`...
srat�
f l
I
ContribLAed by M. Matt, Janippa and others
12 Google-TerraMetrics-

i
i
S'c
f
r
! L
,� { `'S'�,1 � �� ,• .1 �� ti,.rah � �' ,F�.S?�1i� d'f���'' �����rr--.d
j ! 'c}'^R'+ t � $ ' '•r "! rnPc Hlatles
��.. `� °; r � *F''I '.,��r b. as`.. � • _ ti• � ,, et§oitthp+irt .,
t � ,�// li �_ •' �' x , Sales 4ffu s k `.
Tk
cr
cl
t C11r1['hrnan
Cilia
Spe Fear �jCrrrrh Perk *., t L
���A�>k � is -t ; �� rl.; �;'R. .. nM+fs•r i - 1- M �r i.» , :� ;g,�7 4'
I + f�rn'-'4'flak isfand £ 1•,2 f i J,r }, `'• I r {1 ' 7 _ r. s
• each
j4. } lP,r
clak ';1L Cattt'ibLlted by Google users
DigitaalGlobe, GeoEye. New f-laooveI fwaunty INCt rh. i I Survey, USDA Farm Service A -
' 1 1 WAM

� r
�� r . , � fir;. ,a •, .- t ,.y r
•� ' , r Il�f t�i"t ` 1 1 +"T v 4 - r r4�� F. [YNorth Carolina . /
,a• 5 gyp- ,i►.' � y,,�� 4 ./
r �
i
par •I rr .-}
co
� -k— J,
r
�
ear
•. F QH k•tWartd Wr p f 1
'•�p, ,' ICI th�r Y:u 11 ,i, .. ,I` .'.r" !/. •j ~,
i •I t 8PA
Cont-ibuted by Jamppa, c;VV, HaMil ald otters
Gott 'lul
IC eklr: -:!r,E_5'Y I�evr ..lu�vei Comity Iti!{ iJ&I4„Idgicai Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency -

illI I I FF F 1 1 lF :i31 t j�i
�- jo �� v
i
74odglnoS
saFuef lumS f93(
If Ito I uuv ,sg
, -.. �.�...,,p" .a,,. "'^.ry......I' i,...{'�!!'Ki'' 'a.}'•.,�.+.,�....��'j�,4.tit•ar•._J• -•1,".3^,!;;s-t�S-?•�.-`}
I

QcOb"1, 20112 RECEIVED
Barth'Carolina ftamtmnerrt rrf FnviroT neat and NaW4 Resources OCT 0 91011
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources LAND QUALITY SE,CTIQN
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
Piease consider this iettm as out request to you to hoid public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St. James Plantation community, a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand miring but know that it will forever impact the health, quality of life, property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St. James Plantatlon and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publicaily addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is dearly a iovv lying area in a hurricane area and flood piain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of either/both?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the teaching of toxic substances,poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion, sii*fioies,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why fs surface sand mining the best use of this part{cutarland?
Sincerely,
Jim and Shar Alzheimer
3682 Players Club Dr SE
Southport, NC 2M1
910-457-7349

TIC
Al
DOTTIED LINE
oo a000aou o000000
e101 �k)4L U.S. POSTAGE
�O GI F" z'D y( J PA I O
SOUTHPORT.NC
28g61
yq
ukrrsosr'�Es UCAMOINJT 2
POST6CS cMViCF $310
7011 3500 0000 1239 0275 1000 27649 5o
Haute
Route 2 D,11Yery POW ent and.-. Natur4 ,q,UD (1 a./i fy ..] L�GI tw �rl
Environm
S IP A-) J-41js i&1t y Jf OCT a 9 Zo1z
TD113500000O12390275 .� - - �/� I�/ II/ `rCr� � 7 G Dy 5
� 1111��1�111111111���1�11�«`�1ti IAND QUALITY SECTION ,.
l«�ti�t��l�ti ti�111�tititi ttittl�1
w�oonos�Yw_ -
,..�.�._,_

October:*,2012
To: Mr.Mall Nevils,PE
Land Quality Section Chief
C11=NR
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27W4 Oct• 0 91012
Re: Botrfi�v s C Proposed
Q�SeHerar�d Mine
ng, Brunswick CountyL4f�D QV,4LlTy SECTION
Y 9
Mr.Nevils:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St.James Plantation community, a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health, quality of life, property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,O00 plus other property owners within St. James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to, the following items which we would like to have
pub6cally addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is c'earty a tow lying area in a hurricarre area and rrbad plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of either/both?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate,'mpact-reports been prepared to determine the sbcTt-and tong term acts on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the envirnrrrnental-impactofthris mining such-as-erosion, sinkhotes, and-inappropriate changeslo the surrounding
land?
• Flow will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Natty is fa€ve sand mining the best use of this particuiar land?
Sincerely,
? aw� 4&wq.,4,)
and Alzheimer
3682 Players Club Dr SE
Southport, NC 28461

r
7011 3500 0000 1239 ❑268

3� aYL�S U.S. POSTAGE
PAl
50UTHPORT.HC
(/ 28
°c 46]
.oarnt sw 4MOUNT!2
7011 35an 0000 1239 0268 1DOD $3,90
27659 QQQ43631-Q9
15,A) it Route 2
Ensironmant and Natura
roil
330DDG[}Og23a026A
y WIaa�rlllllJ1l1�l1JIJ
� ��Qt 11J1J1JJ11JIIJ1J1J1I
a
�lJJ11
' l�yv �������s7���:��°�:�.�i:� l„1,1i��►fill�ai�l}�I�i�,►„iiFif„�,�I1},l,lf,i,�l,l�,i��„�

Denis and Christina Healy
3993 Marshfield Drive
Southport, North Carolina 28461
October 2, 2012
Mr. Mell Neviis, P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
512 N_ Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re:Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring Mine,Brunswick County
Mr. Nevils:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St James Plantation community, a map of which is included,
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life,property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our ooncems about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to, the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated,residential area of the County and on land dearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of either/both?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances,poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
input.
ncerely, RECEIVED
Q
Denis&Christinarea,
OFT 1 o 2012
LAND QUALITY SECTION

Denis and Christina Healy
3993 Mla r shf i e l d Drive
Southport, North Carolina 28461 RECEIVED
UL I a 4 2012
October 2, 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and!Natural Resources LAND QUALITY SECTION
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG,CPESC, CPG
Re:Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St, James Plantation community, a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life, property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St. James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include,but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land dearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is dearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of either/both?
• How can such a project be considered on land direcfty adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances,poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes, and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
input.
Sincerely,
b iS gr_AL�A
Q- Cal ASTtMA OCALy

RE
C. H ......
3993 Marshfield Di.
'u"thport,NC 2.8461-8176 C 2 2 -f7
'
ENT +
10 ATU
lap,
-kk�Lv bA

RFOEWED
OCT 0 3 2012
LAND QUALITY
30 September 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Attention: Floyd R. Williams, Land Quality Section, Division of Land Resources
Subject: Concern On Application to the NC Department of Environment&
Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit(specifically a new surface
mining permit) .,.Within the Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County
Mr. Williams,
My neighbor recently provided a fetter (enclosure (1)) informing them that Mr.
Davis C. Herring has issued a notification of intent to "apply to the NC
Department of Environment & Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit
(specifically a new surface mining permit) ...within the Town of Oak Island in
Brunswick County."
I and my neighbors think this heavy mining effort is bad for Oak Island, St, James
Plantation and the entire area of coastal Brunswick County. We strongly
recommend this application be denied.
The Notification of Proposed Sand Mine letter enclosure (1) specifies the
property for this permit abuts St. James Plantation, Villanova Loop Road, Glen
Oak Subdivision, and is approximately .5 miles north-northwest of the Brunswick
County Airport. The totality of this mining footprint is shown on page three of
enclosure one. An expansion of this mining footprint shows several housing
communities, commercial shopping centers that have made major investments to
be part of the Oak Island and St James communities.
Large Industrial mining is important to our society, but not when it is done in
residential and commercial retail areas. Additionally the Regional Airport may be
impacted by the mining gasses and particulate matter emanating from the
Industrial Mining Operations within one half mile of its runway.
Large Industry mining involves the use of huge heavy machinery that will
generate noise and environmental emanations. There is the possibility of
penetrating into the aquifer... the communities` source of drinking water. This
equipment and the trucks that will be needed to transport the mined sand will be

extremely heavy crushing our local roads requiring millions of dollars of repair to
maintain our roads and support our local community.
I request the NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources deny this
application or as a minimum call a public hearing to allow the mining developer to
address the concerns of the local Brunswick County community.
R ectfu DQ��
Dave D. and Kay S. Miller
4530 Regency Crossing, St James Plantation (Property Abutting the Proposed
Industrial Sand Mine)
[e-mail]
310-498-6642
Encl (1): Copy of Williams Environmental and Geological Services LLC Letter of
5 September 2012
Copy to: Mr. Robert and Carla Garr

David-D. and Kay S-Miller' �' �_ _ .•� '
2t ; 4956 Long Beach RD. Ste 14; #311 .._,. :t 4> '�} " tW:a:�?�, _ 1 AALEI
;1 9 Uth port,'NC''28461,t, 2.
1 �• a +w,Y' �4.1: '4 ;i. + " i. - �'+a .iM�! L,l�,, ,� •r 4
J
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
' Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Attention: Floyd R. Williams, Land Quality
Section, Division of Land Resources
• � �� s��+Z 11111111111111111111111111 till 11 till 1111111111111111f111111111
.I

RECEIVED
OCT 0 s 2012
30 September 2012
LAND QUALITY SECTION
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E.
Land Ouality Section Chief DENR
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Subject: Concern On Application to the NC Department of Environment&
Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit(specifically a new surface
mining permit) ...Within the Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County
Mr. Williams,
My neighbor recently provided a letter (enclosure (1)) informing them that Mr.
Davis C. Herring has issued a notification of intent to °apply to the NC
Department of Environment & Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit
(specifically a new surface mining permit) ...within the Town of Oak Island in
Brunswick County."
I and my neighbors think this heavy mining effort is bad for Oak Island, St. James
Plantation and the entire area of coastal Brunswick County. We strongly
recommend this application be denied.
The Notification of Proposed Sand Mine letter enclosure (1) specifies the
property for this permit abuts St. James Plantation, Villanova Loop Road, Glen
Oak Subdivision, and is approximately .5 miles north-northwest of the Brunswick
County Airport. The totality of this mining footprint is shown on page three of
enclosure one. An expansion of this mining footprint shows several housing
communities, commercial shopping centers that have made major investments to
be part of the Oak Island and St James communities.
Large Industrial mining is important to our society, but not when it is done in
residential and commercial retail areas. Additionally the Regional Airport may be
impacted by the mining gasses and particulate matter emanating from the
Industrial Mining Operations within one half mile of its runway.
Large Industry mining involves the use of huge heavy machinery that will
generate noise and environmental emanations. There is the possibility of
penetrating into the aquifer... the communities' source of drinking water. This
equipment and the trucks that will be needed to transport the mined sand will be
extremely heavy crushing our local roads requiring millions of dollars of repair to
maintain our roads and support our local community.

I request the NC Department of Environment& Natural Resources deny this
application or as a minimum call a public hearing to allow the mining developer to
address the concerns of the local Brunswick County community.
7 7T
pec I '
71�
a
Dave D. and Kay S. Miller
4530 Regency Crossing, St James Plantation (Property Abutting the Proposed
Industrial Sand Mine)
[e-mail]
310-498-6642
End (1): Copy of Williams Environmental and Geological Services LLC Letter of
5 September 2012
Copy to: Mr. Robert and Carla Garr

�pavid.D. and Kay S. Miller
i.4956 Long Beach RD. Ste 14,#311 _
S`uthport, NC 28461 �.. U.S. POSTAGE
qs PAID
i' SOUTHPORT.NC ti
—,
28161
OCT 02. 12
IINflFP(TATFS AMOUNT
POSTALsimv F
° Rou1e 7011 3500 0000 1239 0282 1000 $310Route 2 . __. _ _ 27601 09
G°llv°ry Point 1 - -`-- - - -. ..
Environment and Hatur::
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief DENR �� �VED
70773B00000012396282—-. 512 N. Salisbury Street lll , Raleigh, NC 27644 OCT 0 9 2012
.AND QUALITY SECTION
276 4+1170:CO02 Ir►1f11fll pit III IMi1f1111IJ1li11fiilliflithil

�. /�� 7011 3500 0000 1239 0282

Friday, September 27, 2012
Mr Mel Nevils PE
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
512 Salisbury St
Raleigh,NC 27604
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Nevils
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of"sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60 days following the 30-
day comment period"specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday,September 7,2012. As no mention was made of how
many letters define°sufficient public interest,"we assume our letter alone merits scheduling a public hearing.The certified letter we
received,dated September 5,2012,did not reach all the property owners at the same time. Ours was one of the first. That in itself is
highly questionable as responses are required within 30 days of the issuance of the correspondence.
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy trying to understand the topic. What seems
implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+acres,zoned for single family housing AND in a
historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete company,ammunition depot,nuclear energy
facility,aric!16 tried-to get a porti Extensive land has beeii.deared too the pertphery.of this property;.well-outside the diagram included
in the certified letter::This suggests!an altemative purpose or purposes in pursuing.this permit,or at the very least utilizing far more
land than is shown on the map:
We have questions,facts we have learned,concerns,and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
• Is this acreage still zoned R-75?
• Did the applicant for this permit apply for a request in zoning for this acreage?
• If so,when?Through what entity?Has the applicant complied with ALL aspects of proper application for a zoning change and
who is responsible for confirming this?
Are applications for a zoning change public record?
• How can such a zoning request change occur,if it did,without those affected being notified?
• Under whose jurisdiction is this property?.
• How can extensive and ergoing work to this property happen,AND IT HAS, if permits have not been granted?
• Who has actually been to this property and seen the visual effects?
-• ,jIs,'�North,Carolina so withoutilaws as not-to protect primarily:rnsidential areas?
What�agericies'are-involved in looking out for the greater good'of•the immediate communities^affected:and!Brunswick County?
. .r+F� .?` ' i�J�' '; i+J�.?'•i'3�'��.� '.�-..:j '? �jt �':' ....r.rE .I� .S .:}3r:'„f:i j .'Sf_ }' � i, 'C'1 t"'( ..[:. ., :1,- -%:;til Yw:'.iJ, rvo}M-•1, 'f` =1 C �:
1��E,
..r � -:.hte! }•e.r,r+1l�.Ja .ra..l .ta- ,.'fbSr: ' . '.]';r .K•+ ... �.. ' .� r'sP:_ii, ..-.i E -
2012
What we are leaming:
LAMS .;rIT'� Sr-L,TION

.'s
- . Jay i ti= tii
4YV „ tR
01
72
TL
r

• Surface mining is a broad category of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is removed. It is the
opposite of underground mining,in which the overlying surface is left in place,and the desired product removed through
shafts or tunnels.
• In most forms of surface mining,heavy equipment(LOTS OF THAT AND NOISE!),such as earthmovers,first removes the
overburden. Next, huge machines,such as dragline excavators or Bucket wheel excavators,extract whatever is being mined.
• The environmental impact of mining includes erosion,formation of sinkholes loss of biodiversttty,contamination of
soil,groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. (THIS ACREAGE IS ADJACENT TO
BRUNSWICK COUNTY WATER SUPPLY.)
• In some cases,additional forest logging(LOTS OF THAT)is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available
room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD CONTAIN WHAT???)
• Besides creating environmental damage,contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affects the heafth of the
local 22pulabon.
• Mining(in a populated area)can produce noise pollution,dust pollution and visual pollution.(THE EFFECTS OF THAT
ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
• The effects of leaching of toxic substances into soil and water and the poisoninq of wildlife is dangerous and
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.
• Mercury a known carcinogen, DIFFICULT TO MEASURE,is a byproduct of the mining industry.
• The metamorphosis of frogs,changing from a tadpole fin an adult,can be used as an indicator of water pollution,and
therefore is potentially harmful.
Our immediate concerns:
➢ Zoning and land use changes
➢ Jurisdiction over any and all factors of this situation
➢ More industry in a heavily residential area
➢ Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers(precedents exist in several other states)
➢ Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢ Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
➢ Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
➢ Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution,and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
➢ Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In our opinion,by even considering this request,the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources the best interest of the greater community in mind. Rather,the applicant is seeking a way to make a profit at a huge and
long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage,we are toll,fell through a few years ago. We've heard
everything from housing community,to hunting preserve,to wanting to build lakes to make the land more saleable or to expand hunting
opportunities,some of which sound much closer than the 270 yards we are told is required from a residence.
If the applicant was to sell or donate the acreage to the greater community we think an army of volunteers would rally to create what
could be a permanent place of beauty. Instead,the applicant and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources have become a joint harbinger of what this community does not need,more industry in a heavily populated area that will
immeasurably and negatively impact all who call this home.
Sincerely, June S Simpson
3243 East Lagoon Ct SE
Southport, NC 28461

4.
.7

October 1,2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612-Mail Service Center. _ ,
Raleigh,North Carolina27699-1612, _ fREOEIVED ..
Land Quality Sectlan-Division of Land Resources UL' 0 4 2fl12
To: Floyd R_Williams,PG,CPESC,CPG ,
L ND QUALITY SECTION
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring- Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St.James Plantation community,a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life,property value,and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus.other property owners within St James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our_eoncems about this poteptially,damaging situation include,but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publically,addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated,residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eitherlboth?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?.
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution,and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
Input
Sincerely,
June S Simpson
3243 East Lagoon Ct SE
Southport, NC 28461

� ��
i
�.
w
�.�.5
�.
r
�.-
Y, _
=a
C `
� �_
,_ }
r:7� - � .
.r
t`
•��4
.'I '�
�Lti

Ms_June S.Simpson ' OAC At ICARIOL194A 'ARIE-A ,
3243 E.lagoon Cr.SE y + I
Sourhlx)rt,,IC
,284h1
PG el9e SeVITDid
I /1�,ti i}fir
; '"E1161 i��l,l1���I�11„Llr�llr, „11�11r��r�ll�,ifll�lf,l�l„Irl���

leer
it
fig
f �e101�•; ;��t i � a � �
' foo-
l:�
BltPSim
�fe�
IL IL
r

� -
' ,
' ,, 4
1 �
'a +
' � .
I,
• f -
t � � '
A
� r
e

C�
All.
JAW
t$�epDe . 151A Valli
lit agaEj� p �
i

HII `I 5
Its
d �
a �
� a
M Qs
- w a
CL w p
a �x
y
.n a
z
S.n
ti
r
a
JL
M �1
1
5

John&Nikki Burke
26M St.James Ur.
Southport,NC 2s461
SOUT"RT TN E
7010 2780 0003 4071 8657 � r� �F �CAMOUHTrz
1000 $5 75
Qao��e3 r-os
tuft
toute a
t e k
L-AM0 V V^ c e776/f/
DECEIVED D6.,V, 1a,z
OCT o 9 7017 Ia JA2-1f,&aey r-PT
flgp47��g$7 I
QUALITY SECTION y
LAND111111
111111
++ ii F% }j jW�+Oj +t
w=�_=:=7.�r y ?•~�W= III r111111 Wit l=llllfl!(1J it Hit IIIlit i�t It lip=l=Ili l lfl

� rye : ..
-��.•«�.
I
.,
---��
�.
r

r � )yam y''�
RECEI !1 IG�.J �
S°W'p°rt NC 2W)
OCT a 3 Ia12
LAND QUALITY SECTION
N.C.Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1801 Mail Service Drive
Raleigh, N.C.27699
IRE: New Surface 111fcning Permit by Davis Herring with Town of Oak island in Brunswick County
We live in a community, St.James Plantation,which abuts the property of Davis Herring_ We strongly request that a
permit for new surface mining be DENIED. There are many reasons for our request: environmental issues,quality of life
issues,property value issues,etc. Sand mining will result in negative impact in all these areas of concern to all residents
and businesses adjoining this property.
There has already been environmental damage to the area due to the past year's activities on the Henfng property—
deforestation,excavating soil,altering water flog patterns,and building a`debris hilt'which ttrey have called a'berm.`In
reality this"bean'consisted of piled up branches and and uprootings resulting from the initial bulldozing of trees. This
complete removal right up to property lines was done on Memorial Day weekend of 2011,without any prior notification or
explanation(or justification we fees. We were told at that time that this land,which previously had been described as
wetlands.forever natural,was destroyed for a quail-hunting business—although even then we were at a loss to
understand how total removal of native trees could help quail hunting- Again,this deforestation was don%right up to the
adjoining property tines,with no buffer--which we will discuss later.
Those of you charged with protecting the environment are asked to consider the negative effects now of this proposed
sand miring:
Air quality--these mining sites`have two types of air emissions_ The first is dirt that may be emitted during the mining
and handling of sand. The second is from various pollutants emitted from equipment used to mine.handle and/or process
sand.' (SC Research&Essays,Vol.6(6)pp- 1216-1231, 18 March 2011).
Dust pollution alone is harmful to those living near this,never mind any contaminants that may also be stirred up
and released into the air. Careful monitoring will need to be done on a daily basis to prevent harm to those Living
or working in surrounding'areas-We are told in the appiicatiom'A water ti-6&will be available,if needed,for any
potential dust pmblems.'V011 the presence of a water truck be sufficient for any dust problems,of course
depending on what cantanvnants are exposed and the wind currents at the time?Have they applied for an air
quality permit?is there a Division of Air Quality to monitor all on a daily basis?Are those who may issue the
permit also willing to reimburse us for any health problems which may arise?
Water quality—Prior to sand removal,a thorough study should be undertaken of potentially hamrtul.toxic sediment
contaminants which could be dispersed to the air or the groundwater_ Sand deposits are linked to one another so that
addition or removal of sand from one area affects all other environments. 'If sand mining operations are performed bgLaw
the water table,they may require significant groundwater pumping in order to dewater the active mining area. This can
lead to an increased potential for impacts to groundwater and surface water resources-" (SC Research&Essays,Vol.6
(6),pp. 1216-1231. 18 March 2011).
"Another effect...is modification of the recharge area for groundwater by changing the land surface...Such changes may
increase or decrease rainwater recharge to groundwater. Shorter flaw paths pay increase susceptibility to contamination
while redirected flow paths may deplete total recharge of the aquifer." (Peckinham,T?hortcn,&Whalen,2009). The
deforestation which was done in 2011 has already resulted in altering natural water flow and creating flooding on
neighboring properties. We received no notification of pending permits before that was done in 2011-and are left
wondering if environmental issueslirnpacts.were addressed then. The land in question sits on top of the Castle Hayne
aquifer from which Brunswick County gets water. We are rightfully concerned about contaminants such as mercury and
other carcinogens and chemicals getting into the water supply,not only for neighbors to the properly but for all who get
their water supplied by Brunswick County.In the actual applications for the Herring property,the box is marked YES next
to the question,"Wilt any part of proposed mine excavation extend below the water Wb1a?" The application goes on to
say'Applicant plans, if needed,to pump from one pit to another. No mine water discharge from the site will take place.' Is
this a guarantee?How can they KNOW so surely that no water discharge will take place?Who will be held responsible
and accountable if the water supply is proved tainted in the future and has caused health problems and/or death to those
exposed?
Blodlyersity and protection of endangered"species- Physical disturbance of the habitat includes generation of noise,
which can interrupt nestirig/breeding aties of native species. Other effects include destruction of the habitat for
foraging and nesting,as well as increased exposure to contaminants. What is harmful or toxic to animals also applies to
humans: However,-here we are talking about destroying the natural habitat'of various native species. Again,we are made
to wonder about the quail—we were told last year that the deforestation was done to improve quail hunting- we cannot
think that sand mining and the heavy equipment which it will bring can still encourage the quail, or airy other species in that

r

Jahn&f4kip Burke
r
2688 St Jos C?r.
xt NC 28461
m or any surrounding. When we purchased our property,we were told that other than Bearing the area needed to build our
home,the trees on the property could not be cut down by our choice because the red-cockaded woodpecker was an
endangered species and so protected in this area. We wonder why the Herring property is exempt from those
prohibitions? What about wood storks,coptey's meadowrue,rough-leaved loosestrft and all other sperms of
flora and fauna that according to federal taw should be protected?
Quality of iff&--The quality of life of surrounding housing and businesses will be affected by ANY negative impact to the
air or water supply. Further,the presence of sand mining so near residential areas will lower home values—certainly
prospective buyers will not choose to live adjoining a sand mine with the heavy equipment.noise pollution,increased truck
and vehicle traffic,and impact on nearby roads. Beyond this, most of us who We here chose this area specifically to
enjoy the natural beauty and quiet of this area. `Quality of Life'describes an environment of pure air to breathe,pure
water,free of noise pollution,and the tranquility of living in balance with surrounding nature. Sand mining does not`tit in'
with a residential community.We realize its value to our society but it should be restricted to industrialized areas or areas
not zoned as residential. The application for the sand mining includes a requirement that"a minimum 50'undisturbed
buffer will be maintained between the affected area and wetlands that have been delineated on site'and also that a
'minimum 50'buffer will be required between any land-disturbing activities within the mining permit boundaries and any
natural watercourses and wetlands unless smaller undisturbed buffers can be justified...'
The applicant responds that`a minimum undisturbed buffer will be maintained between mine permit boundary and any
wetlands.' We do not feel that this was done in 2011 and are not reassured if will the done in the future. Further,even
with a 50'buffer, quality of life in the area will be forever altered- Again,would anyone CHOOSE to five in an area knowing
that it adjoins a sand mining operation and all that that entails?
We residents implore the N.C.Departmentof Envhoikei rrt and Natural Resounms to DENY thls application.
At the very least,we call for a public hearing,before an approval,to investigate our concerns and justify why this area
should be rezoned and mining permitted- We understand that since 2011 when bees were razed all along adjoining
properties,there has been ongoing mining done without necessary permits up until May of this year. We would also Like
these allegations addressed and rheoessary legal action taken. This property,parcel#225000019,is cunentty zoned R-75
(residential per the Brunswick County websde). We ask your Department to Conduct hearings and investigate all that has
happened so far and how this area and its residents wilt be impaled if sand mining is permitted. However,we hope that
you wid DENY this application now based on the issues raised in our letters to your department. Thank you for your
consideration of our requests.
oZ �d'd' (P fie.

-
�
| �M�1
' 2 )
� � !
� ©
4
q % § 22
$
, o)
� §)
§ )]
f
� !
/ |
. |

V 5�
Jo6ii'&Nikki Burke
268&St.JamesDr.
Ct.A-b-.}_.AL C A#�"OUMA AREA
Southport,NC 284 1 � NC fi.ta 3 x i
9-9 7r
W-
S ar S Z'A III ifllkldf III llEIIfiiiillEE)IltlliflE�lill'.11f�iFlll}111141

RECEIVED
RECEIVED SEP 2 5 2012
SEP t 0 1011
22 September 2012 �,At4D DUALITY SECTION
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Subject: Concern On Application to the NC Department of Environment &
Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit(specifically a new surface
mining permit) ...Within the Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County
My neighbor recently provided a letter (enclosure (1)) informing them that Mr_
Davis C. Herring has issued a notification of intent to "apply to the NC
Department of Environment & Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit
(specifically a new surface mining permit) ...within the Town of Oak Island in
Brunswick County."
I and my neighbors think this heavy mining effort is bad for Oak Island, St. James
Plantation and the entire area of coastal Brunswick County. We strongly
recommend this application be denied.
The Notification of Proposed Sand Mine letter enclosure (1) specifies the
property for this permit abuts St. James Plantation, Villanova Loop Road, Glen
Oak Subdivision, and is approximately .5 miles north-northwest of the Brunswick
County Airport. The totality of this mining footprint is shown on page three of
enclosure one. An expansion of this mining footprint shows several housing
communities, commercial shopping centers that have made major investments to
be part of the Oak Island and St James communities.
Large Industrial mining is important to our society, but not when it is done in
residential and commercial retail areas. Additionally the=R, egionalAirporttmay be
impacted by the mining gasses and particulate matter emanating from the
Industrial Mining Operations within one half mile of its runway_
Large Industry mining involves the use of huge heavy machinery that will
generate noise and-en ry onr ental_emanationi� There is the possibility of
penetrating-into-the aquifer_:.=ttie-communitiestisource_of_ddnking-water This
equipment and the trucks that will be needed to transport the mined sand will be
extremely heavy crushing our focal roads requiring millions of dollars of repair to
maintain our roads and support our local community.

I request the NC Department of Environment& Natural Resources deny this
application or as a minimum call a-pu�blic_headng to allow the mining developer to
address the concerns of the local Brunswick County community.
R7pelly,
Dave D. and Kay S. Miller
4530 Regency Crossing, St James Plantation (Property Abutting the Proposed
Industrial Sand Mine)
[e-mail]
310-498-6642
Encl (1): Copy of Williams Environmental and Geological Services LLC Letter of
5 September 2012
Copy to: Mr. Robert and Carla Garr

a'j':�s
WILLIAMS Voice I Fax[phone]
P.O. Box 190
t tivironrur11tal &(K-01ehlical tic��ic:�a�•�. t: Bath,NC 27$0$
www.W illiamsEGS.com
September 5, 2012
Certified Mail
Return Receipt re nested
7009 2820 0000 6216 8823
Mr. Robert R. Garr
ETUX Carla H. Garr
4532 Regency Crossing
Southport, NC 28461
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been retained by Mr. Davis C. Herring to apply to the NC Department of
Environment & Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit on property owned by Mr. Herring
within the Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County. The property is located at the end of
Villanova Loop Road, just north of Oakwood Glen Subdivision and approximately .5 miles
north-northwest of the Brunswick County Airport.
In accordance with G. S. 74-50 (61), the applicant for a mining permit is required to
make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the Department of Environment&Natural Resources, to
notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
tract of land where the proposed mine is to be located. In addition, the applicant must also notify
the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality in which any part of the proposed
area is located.
To satisfy this requirement, I have enclosed the NOTICE OF APPLICATION and a
location map.
If you have any questions,please contact me or Mr. Davis C. Herring.
Sincerely,
A2
Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
cc: Davis C. Herring
Enc. Notice of Application
Adjoining Property Owners List
Location Map

NOTICE
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50(bl)of The Mining Act of 1971,Notice is hereby given that
Davis C. Herring,Jr. _ _ has applied on 915/12
(Applicant Name) (Date)
E to the Land Quality Section, Division of Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environment
t and Natural Resources, 1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1612, for(check one):
i
X a new surface mining permit,
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area;or
❑ a modification of an existing surface mining permit to add land to the permitted area with no disturbance
in the area proposed. Please note that future modification(s)may be submitted by the applicant to
allow disturbance within this area without re-notification of adjoining landowners.
The applicant proposes to mine Sand on 22.54 acres located
(Mineral,Ore) (Number)
in the Town of Oak Island off/near road Airport Road _
(Nearest Town) (Number/Name)
in Brunswick County.
*SEE ATTACHED MAP FOR PROPOSED PERMIT BOUNDARIES AND CORRESPONDING
ADJOINING LANDOWNER NAMES AND LOCATIONS*
In accordance with G.S. 74-50(bl), the mine operator is required to make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the
Department, to notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the ruining
permit boundary; if an adjoining tract is owned or leased by the applicant or is owned by the lessor of the mine tract, all
owners of record of tracts adjoining these tracts must be notified (that are within 1,000 feet of the mining permit
boundary). In addition, the mine operator must also notify the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality
in which any part of the permitted area is located. Any person may file written comment(s) to the Department at the
above address within thirty(30)days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the application for a permit, whichever
is later. Should the Department determine that a significant public interest exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public hearing
will be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day comment period specified above.
r A copy of the permit application materials is on file and available for public review during normal business hours at the
above listed address as well as at the appropriate regional office. For information reearding the specifics of the
Proposed mining activity, lease contact the applicant at the following telephonep number:
For information on the mining permit application review process, please contact
e Mining Program staff at [phone]. Please note that the Department will consider any relevant written
comments/documentation within the 2Lovisions of the Mining_Act of 1971 throughout the application review process
i until a,final decision is made on the application.
Mr. Robert R.Garr
ETUX Carla H.Garr
4532 Regency Crossing
Southport,NC 28461 Mr. Davis C. Herrin Jr.
(Addressee/Owner of Record's (Naive of Applicant: Include Contact Person
Name and Address) &Company Name, if Applicable)
823 Robert Roark Drive
9/5/12 South ort NC 284461
(Date of Issuance of this Notice/ (Address of Applicant)
` Mailed to Addressee/Owner of Record)
16

f
1'rlrtt i'rcvicw I Page I of
ife Bap, P rc
(MOON a
w a
Brunswick County,NC
PRO PQSEV N&ft 24 M-IN 6 b
. 27
V, a
N
28
i
�' 2g
NB7 G 86
i3
nreorarmor Map nna parcel aura
oro b.M1 to bo accurate,but
acarraey Is not guamnteed.Title
Is not a legal domment and
r} g z 3a o�4 nat� u or
we manh,appmkK WHY".to xontng vor8lcadon. I
} H no d o on )
11 ,J alU I-IJ
htlp:Ngib.brutmuo.noVprintllmview.avpx?i'rintOI)tf)attt-ilrunrwiek County,N(1712]Ihl:xftFLWlfiilrc]futWIrOJKJ2277065,42i9788516N329.082762448412283486.196625611716!r0.4 2 87 3 7 8 0 81 01011t619,Rt)5502050880).12!)&g.,. 8/13/2012
•rHhY Cvp'Ai 13vvA1 TV r-1/.oA5jz'ry N'vA,8gkr

Adioinina Property Owner ]List
1 Town of Long Beach 18 Mr. Richard A. Morschauser
2 Shelia E. Swanson & Martin B. Heller ET Helen J. Morschauser
3 David G. Skehan 19 Mr. Thomas Cambria
4 Joseph W. Pierce ETUX Linda Cambria
5 Mr. Robert C. Wagoner, ET 20 Mr. Michael S. Kenzel
Gladys F. Wagoner ETUX Jennifer J. Kenzel
6 Lourente B. Tigas ET Janet Tigas 21 Mr. Calvin E. Smith
7 Lourente B. Tigas ET Janet Tigas ETUX Kathleen Smith
8 Mr. Fortunato R. Macatol, Trustee 22 Mr. Robert R. Garr
9 Mr. Fortunato R. Macatol, Trustee ETUX Carla H. Garr
10 Mr. Fortunato R. Macatol, Trustee 23 Mr. David Miller
11 Mr. Fortunato R. Macatol, Trustee ETUX Kay S. Miller
12 Mr. William K. Walsh 24 St. James Plantation Property Owners Assoc.
13 Mr. Walter J. Taylor, Trustee 25 Clubs at St. James Plantation, LLC
14 Mr. Davis J. & Deborah C. Larsen 26 Mr. C. E. Hartman
15 Mr. James Belvin 27 Mr. C. E. Hartman
ETUX Bertie Belvin 28 Mr. Joseph Spencer
16 Mr. Eric A. Summerville 29 Ms. Josann A. Campanello
ET Rosann Summerville 30 Mr. Hassan Ezzeddine
17 St. James Property Owners Association, Inc. 31 Brunswick County Airport Commission

s -

` David P. and Kay S. Miller
`'4956.L'ong Beach RD. Ste U,0311
:•;.136uthport, NC 28461 i. �. .J . . �; + •;
NC Department of Environment & Natural
Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
'U w-.S=- '•& 4_q,•':3�, 11FII�IFi11IliI�I�lilll]!!I 11111}i� f1i1F7lIFillll�l!l11111�1

Monday,October 01,2012
To: Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
512 Salisbury Street n {� ® g
Raleigh, NC 27604 E C E i �% E D
From: Mr.and Mrs.Robert R.Garr
ocr o s 2012
4532 Regency Crossing
Southport(St.James), NC 28461 LAND QUALITY SECTION
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr, Nevils,
When we received our certified letter regarding application for a sand mining permit September 7,no mention was made of this
address for sending a response;therefore,we sent our letter to the only address provided in Mr. Williams'letter. We trust that the
many letters sent to the only address provided are reaching the correct destination. Today we learned of this address,only because
our POA sent an e-mail blast to the entire community.
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirement of'significant public interest to merit a public hearing within 60 days following the 30-
day comment period"specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday, September 7,2012. As no mention was made of how
many letters define"significant public interest'and since the applicant cannot be considered a mine operator without a permit,we
assume our letter alone merits scheduling a public hearing to announce denial of this oermiN
The certified letter we received, dated September 5, 2012,did not reach all the property owners at the same time. Some letters arrived
as late as September 14.Ours was one of the first. That in itself is highly questionable as,according to what we read, responses are
required `within thirty(30)days of the issuance of this Notice or the filing of the application for a permit,whichever is later.'
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy trying to understand the topic. What seems
implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+acres,zoned for single family housing AND in a
historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete company,that we hear may or may not be
working with appropriate permitting,ammunition depot, nuclear energy facility,shooting range separate from the shooting on the
applicant's property,and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been cleared to the periphery of this property;seemingly well
outside the 22+acres defined in the certified letter. This suggests an altemative purpose or purposes in pursuing this permit,or at the
very least utilizing far more land than is shown on the map_ That's a really scary thought.
We have questions, facts we have learned,concerns,and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
• HOW CAN THERE BE NO REQUIREMENT FOR NOTIFICATION FOR THE EXCAVATION ALREADY COMPLETED GIVEN
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IT HAS TOHAVE? IS THAT A DEPARTMENT OVERSIGHT?STATE?LEGISLATIVE?
• HOW CAN A PERMIT EVEN BE CONSIDERED IN A HEAVILY RESIDENTIAL AREA ZONED R-75?
• Has the applicant for this permit applied for a request in zoning for this acreage?
If so,when?Through what entity? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GUARANTEEING THE APPLICANTS INTENT AND WHAT
THAT IS?

• Under whose jurisdiction is this property? Oak Island, Brunswick County? North Carolina?
• How can extensive and ongoing worts to this property happen,AND IT HAS, if permits have not been granted?
• Who has actually been to this property and seen the visual effects?
• How are all the agencies involved in this situation communicating to make certain everyone is on the same page?
What we are learning:
■ Surface mining is a broad category of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is removed. It is the
opposite of underground mining,in which the overlying surface is left in place,and the desired product removed through
shafts or tunnels.
• In most forms of surface mining,heavy equipment(LOTS OF THAT AND NOISE!),such as earthmovers,first removes the
overburden. Next, huge machines,such as dragline excavators or Bucket wheel excavators,extract whatever is being mined.
• The environmental impact of mining includes erosion,formation of sinkholes,loss of biodiversity,contamination of
soils groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. HIS ACREAGE IS NEARLY ATOP THE
BRUAI&WCK COUNTY WATER SUPPLY.}
• In some cases,additional forest longing SLOTS OF THAT)is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available
room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD CONTAIN WHAT???)
• Besides creating environmental damage,contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affects the health of the
local population.
• Mining(in a populated area)can produce noise pollution,dust pollution and visual pollution.(THE EFFECTS OF THAT
ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
• The effects of leaching of toxic substances into soil and water and isonin wildlife is dangerous and DIFFICULT TO
MEASURE.
• Mercury a known carcinogen, DIFFICULT TO MEASURE,is a byproduct of the mining industry.
• The metamorphosis of frogs,changing from a tadpole to an adult,can be used as an indicator of water pollution,and
therefore is potentially harmful.
Our immediate concerns:
➢ Zoning and land use changes
➢ Jurisdiction over any and all factors of this situation
➢ More industry in a heavily residential area
➢ Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers(precedents exist in several other states)
➢ Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢ Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
➢ Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
➢ Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution, and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
➢ Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent casts
➢ Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
➢ Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In our opinion,by even consideriing this request,the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources has the best interest of the greater community in mind. Rather,the applicart is seeking a way to make a profit at a huge
and long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage,we are told,fell through a few years ago. We've
heard everything from housing community,to hunting preserve,to wanting to build lakes to make the land more saleable or to expand
hunting opportunities,some of which sound much closer than the 270 yards we are told is required from a residence.
The applicant and the DENR have become a joint harbinger of what this community does not need;more industry in a heavily
populated area that will immeasurably and negatively impact the environment and quality of fife for all who call this home.

We have written to our congressional representatives and plan to expand our outreach. We chose this community for a peaceful
retirement 12 years ago after working 34}years to earn it and this is not what we envisioned.
We expect this Permit to be denied and a public hearing held to announce it. If the DENR
thinks this is an acceptable practice, then we invite the applicant and the DENR to jointly buy
all the abutting properties and live next door to a sand mine. The daily dust in the air alone
should really make for a pleasant and healthy environment for how long?

IT, ntpi"LO
ooaboo"
From: 4632, Reamev rV!S6,jf7
Me 0 I
7011 3500 0000 1238 7121
m
Z• OI]�flOy
Noute
Route 2 OCfi 0 9 1�11 =cri N M
c m
6 zvironment and iyat jrc LAND QUALITY SE ftON
•
70113SOOD00012387721- - AN./I� ©JJ,2Ii-�V a�or1-ti onCh, -
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
R C� a � O � � ��h�,� s+.
D o c u m e n t M a i l e r
�W_r• .•_ • -�• I�tltli�„Itll�tll��t�ltlt�tll��tlllt„Illt.,,,,IIt,I,liti„►

UNI DSTb7'a .
P05TdLSERVICE. .lope f
1PJE2150•AIC-083
PrOdUat Code 0300002
WWWAMPLOOM
A product of the Upped 81etee POW SWvkM
MADE IN THE tJ" 4 00933 000021
• I
I

-+nday, September l!,ZU1Z
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27694-1612 ,1
Land Quality Section RECEIVED
Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG 0%CT 0 3 2012
From:Mr.and Mrs.Robert R.Garr
4532 Regency Crossing LAND QUALITY
Southport(St.James),NC 28461 M,1,N!NG 4ROGRAM
Re- Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By_ Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of`sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60 days
following the 30-day comment period" specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday,September 7, 2012. As no
mention was made of how many letters define`sufficient public interest,"we assume our letter alone merits scheduling a
public hearing. The certified letter we received,dated September 5, 2012,did not reach all the property owners at the same
time. Ours was one of the first That in itself is highly questionable as responses are required within 30 days of the issuance
of the correspondence.
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy Vying to understand the topic. What seems
implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+acres,zoned for single family housing AND in
a historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete company,ammunition depot,nuclear
energy facility,and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been cleared to the periphery of this property, well outside the
diagram included in the certified letter: This suggests an alternative purpose or purposes in pursuing this permit,or at the very
least utilizing far more land than is shown on the map:-
We have questions,facts we have learned,concerns,'and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
• Is this acreage stiff zoned R-75?
What we are seaming:
• Surface mining is a broad category of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is removed. It
is the opposite of underground mining, in which the overlying surface is left in place,and the desired product
removed through shafts or tunnels.
• In most forms of surface mining,heavy equipment(LOTS OF THAT AND NOISEI),such as earthmovers,first
removes the overburden. Next,huge machines,such as dragline excavators or Bucket wheel excavators,extract
whatever is being mined.
• The environmental impact of mining includes erosion,formation of sinkholes,toss of biodiversity,
contamination of soil.-groundwater and surface water by chemicals fiom mining processes. (THIS ACREAGE IS
ADJACENT TO BRUNSW ICK COUNTY WAFER SUPPLY.)
• In some cases, additional forest login (LOTS OF THAT)is done in.the vicinity of mines to increase the
available room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD CONTAIN WHAT???)
• Besides creating environmental damage,contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affects the
health of the local Population,
Mining(in a populated area)can produce noise pollution dust poilution and visual pollution.(THE EFFECTS
OF THAT ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
• The effects of leaching Of toxic substances into soil apd water and the R&2ft of wi dlife is dangerous and
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.
• Mew,a known carcinogen, DIFFICULT TO MEASURE,is a byproduct of the mining industry.
• The metamorphosis of frogs,changing from a tadpole to an adult, can be used as an indicator of water pollution,
and thPrPfnrp iS nntPntially hnrmfid

i
Our immediate concerns: -- T -
➢ Zoning and land use changes
➢ Junsdicfion aver any and aft factors of this situation
➢ More industry in a heavily reside ntial aitea
Y Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers(precedents exist in several other states)
➢ Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢ Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
➢ Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
➢ Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution, and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
➢ Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
Negative impact on home values and subsequent foss of growth to the area
In our opinion,by even considering this request,the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources has the best interest of the greater community in mind. Rather,the applicant is seeking a way to make a profit at a
huge and long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage,we are told,fell through a few years
ago. We've heard everything from housing community,to hunting preserve,to wanting to build lakes to make the land more
saleable or to expand hunting opportunities,some of which sound much closer than the 270 yards we are told is required from
a residence.
If the applicant was to sell or donate the acreage to the greater community we think an army of volunteers would rally to
create what could be a permanent place of beauty. Instead,the applicant and the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources have become a joint harbinger of what this community does not need,more industry in a heavily
populated area that will immeasurably and negatively impact all who call this home.
r
Jim and Faye Curry
2824 Moorings Way
Southgart, NC 2846-1

Jim and Faye Curry
-'2824 Moorings Way rr : . . _ . .. ...... ..
Southport, NC 28461
m vc
2 , IU C. -2-7 9--
ram77SSSAf1.6.1't IIIIII!llll III its 111f1dillIll1!!l

I
Friday,September 27,2012
y
4
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1612 RECEIVED
Land Quality Section !�
Division of Land Resources OCT 034 2012
LAND QUALITY
To: Floyd R. Williams,PG,CPESC,CPG MINING PROGRAM,
From:Mr. and Mrs.Robert R.Garr
4532 Regency Crossing
Southport(St.James),NC 29461
Re:Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C.Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of"sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60 days
following the 30-day comment period"specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday,September 7,2012.
As no mention was made of how many letters define"sufficient public interest,"we assume our letter alone merits
scheduling a public hearing.The certified letter we received,dated September 5,2012,did not reach all the property
owners at the same time. Ours was one of the first. That in itself is highly questionable as responses are required within
30 days of the issuance of the correspondence.
http://mail.aol.com/37001-l 1 l/aol-6/en-us/maiUPrintMessage.aspx 3 0/1/2012

Letter ready to print and mail regarding proposed surface sand mine Page 2 of 4
S
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy trying to understand the topic. What
seems implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+acres,zoned for single family
housing AND in a historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete company,
ammunition depot,nuclear energy facility,and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been cleared to the periphery of
this property,well outside the diagram included in the certified letter_ This suggests an alternative purpose or purposes in
pursuing this permit,or at the very least utilizing far more land than is shown on the map.
We have questions,facts we have learned,concerns,and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
Is this acreage still zoned R-75?
Did the applicant for this permit apply for a request in zoning for this acreage?
If so,when?Through what entity?Has the applicant complied with ALL aspects of proper application for awning
change and who is responsible for confirming this?
Are applications for a zoning change public record?
How can such a zoning request change occur,if it did,without those affected being notified?
Under whose jurisdiction is this property?
How can extensive and ongoing work to this property happen,AND IT HAS,if permits have not been granted?
Who has actually been to this property and seen the visual effects?
Is North Carolina so without laws as not to protect primarily residential areas?
What agencies are involved in looking out for the greater good of the immediate communities affected and Brunswick
County?
What we are learning:
Surface raining is a broad category of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is removed. It is
the opposite of underground mining,in which the overlying surface is left in place,and the desired product removed
through shafts or tunnels.
Inmost forms of surface mining,heavy equipment(LOTS OF THAT AND NOISE ),such as earthmovers,first
removes the overburden.Next,huge machines,such as dragline excavators or Bucket wheel excavators,extract whatever
is being mined.
The environmental impact of mining includes erosion,formation of sinkholes loss of biodiversity,contamination
of soil,groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes.(THIS ACREAGE IS ADJACENT TO
BRUNSWICK COUNTY WATER SUPPLY.)
http://mai1.aol.com/37001-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 10/1/2012

��. . w,.
�� ,.

,Letter ready to print and mail regarding proposed surface sand mine Page 3 of 4
In some cases,additional forest logging(LOTS OF THAT)is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the
available room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD CONTAIN WHAT???)
Besides creating environmental damage,contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affects the health of
the local p2pulation.
• Mining(in a populated area)can produce noise lLollution,dust DQUytion and visual pollution.
(THE EFFECTS OF THAT ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
The effects of leaching of toxic substances into-soil and water and the poisoning of wildlife is dangerous and
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.
Mercury,a known carcinogen,DIFFICULT TO MEASURE,is a byproduct of the mining industry.
The metamorphosis of frogs,changing from a tadpole to an adult,can be used as an indicator of water pollution,and
therefore is potentially harmful.
Our immediate concerns:
➢• Zoning and land use changes
➢• Jurisdiction over any and all factors of this situation
➢• More industry in a heavily residential area
➢• Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers(precedents exist in several other states)
➢• Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢• Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
➢- Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
➢- Noise pollution,lack of laws for noise pollution,and impact on those nearest property already
➢• Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢• Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
➢• Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
➢• Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢- Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
➢• Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In our opinion,by even considering this request,the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources has the best interest of the greater community in mind. Rather,the applicant is seeking a way to make
a profit at a huge and long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage,we are told,fell through
a few years ago. We've heard everything from housing community,to hunting preserve,to wanting to build lakes to make
the land more saleable or to expand hunting opportunities,some of which sound much closer than the 270 yards we are
told is required from a residence.
http://mail.aol.com/37001-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx 10/1/2012

� r_..,._..,.
,c
� � '
' •5
1

Letter ready to print and mail regarding proposed surface sand mute Page 4 of 4
s
If the applicant was to sell or donate the acreage to the greater community we think an army of volunteers would rally to
create what could be a permanent place of beauty. Instead,the applicant and the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources have become a joint harbinger of what this community does not need,more industry
in a heavily populated area that wilt immeasurably and negatively impact all who call this home.
�S
F
http://mail.aol.com/37001-111/aol-6/en-us/maiVPrintMessage.aspx 10/1/2012

i Ms..Caro!Roche Z�-
2W2 inverness Cir.SE
MIM
Southport,NC 28461-80B0,,.
UWC6-
va��,

■�� _.
�..
. !�ti
.�
• e
'�,
' > ,
;e
i� iy 1 + � iij4 t4 j �� { i ' : i
11 i 1 �e ii P1 . � + llii � t!t �j I I!1 r` � ' ri

Friday, September 27, 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Maii Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R.Williams, PG,CPESC,CPG RECEIVED
From: Mr.and Mrs. Robert R.Garr
4532 Regency Crossing C1-7 T 01 2012
Southport(St.James),NC 28461
LAND QUALITY
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine MINING PROGRAM
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of"sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60 days following the 30-
day comment period"specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday, September 7, 2012. As no mention was made of how
many letters define"sufficient public interest,"we assume our letter alone merits scheduling a public hearing.The certified letter we
received,dated September 5,2012,did not reach all the property owners at the same time. Ours was one of the first. That in itself is
highly questionable as responses are required within 30 days of the issuance of the correspondence.
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy trying to understand the topic. What seems
implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+acres,zoned for single family housing AND in a
historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete company,ammunition depot,nuclear energy
facility,and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been cleared to the periphery of this property,well outside the diagram included
in the certified letter. This suggests an alternative purpose or purposes in pursuing this permit,or at the very least utilizing far more
land than is shown on the map.
We have questions,facts we have learned,concerns, and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
• Is this acreage still zoned R-75?
• Did the applicant for this permit apply for a request in zoning for this acreage?
• If so,when?Through what entity?Has the applicant complied with ALL aspects of proper application for a zoning change and
who is responsible for confirming this?
• Are applications for a zoning change public record?
• How can such a zoning request change occur,if it did,without those affected being notified?
• Under whose jurisdiction is this property?
• How can extensive and ongoing work to this property happen,AND IT HAS,if permits have not been granted?
• Who has actually been to this property and seen the visual effects?
• Is North Carolina so without laws as not to protect primarily residential areas?
• What agencies are involved in looking out for the greater good of the immediate communities affected and Brunswick County?

What we are leaming:
• Surface mining is a broad category of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is removed. It is the
opposite of underground mining, in which the overlying surface is left in place,and the desired product removed through
shafts or tunnels.
• In most forms of surface mining, heavy equipment(LOTS OF THAT AND NOISE!),such as earthmovers,first removes the
overburden_ Next, huge machines,such as dragline excavators or Bucket wheel excavators,extract whatever is being mined.
• The environmental impact of mining includes erosion,formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversiitt C,contamination of
soil,groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes.(THIS ACREAGE IS ADJACENT TO
BRUNSWICK COUNTY WATER SUPPLY.)
• In some cases,additional forest logging(LOTS OF THAT)is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available
room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD CONTAIN WHAT???)
• Besides creating environmental damage,contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also affects the health of the
local population.
• Mining(in a populated area)can produce noise polluUon.du�flution and visual,pollution.(THE EFFECT'S OF THAT
ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
• The effects of leaching of toxic substances into soil and water and the p2isoning of wildlife is dangerous and
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.
• Mercury,a known carcinogen,DIFFICULT TO MEASURE,is a byproduct of the mining industry.
• The metamorphosis of frogs, changing from a tadpole to an adult, can be used as an indicator of water pollution, and
therefore is potentially harmful.
Our immediate concerns:
D Zoning and land use changes
➢ Jurisdiction over any and all factors of this situation
➢ More industry in a heavily residential area
➢ Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers(precedents exist in several other states)
➢ Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢ Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
➢ Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution,and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
➢ Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Negative impact on tourism and subsequent floss of revenue
➢ Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In our opinion, by even considering this request,the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources the best interest of the greater community in mind. Rather,the applicant is seeking a way to make a profit at a huge and
long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage,we are told,fell through a few years ago. We've heard
everything from housing community,to hunting preserve,to wanting to build lakes to make the land more saleable or to expand hunting
opportunities,some of which sound much closer than the 270 yards we are told is required from a residence.
If the applicant was to sell or donate the acreage to the greater community we think an army of volunteers would rally to create what
could be a permanent place of beauty. Instead,the applicant and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources have become a joint harbinger of what this community does not need,more industry in a heavily populated area that will
immeasurably and negatively impact all who call this home.

e
Gerald and Julie Coddington
3888 Ridgecrest Drive
St James,NC 28461
1 October 2012
PaKEIVED
11L' 4 5 201T
+-AD DUALITY SECTION
Mell Nevins, PE
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
Raleigh, NC 27604
NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED SAND MINE
Mr Nevils, please consider this as our request to hold public hearings regarding the
proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick County on land immediately adjacent to
St James Plantation.
Our concerns include,but are not limited to:
Flooding in a low-lying area
• Noise and water pollution
• Devaluing of residential property
• Inappropriate use of land designated as residential
We strongly urge you to hold public hearings prior to even considering this
poteqUally damagi en 'ronlnental project
GERALD&JULIE COD DINGTON 9,

:1'
�tt ry Y:r4. �'1W - � .. '
' .l
` I ..
����
� ���i:
hr T�
.�
t
� �
'�
1
1
f
�t 4 � a ., 1 Sri { � „
•Y'
�S

s,
G Coddington yy .p RO/
3888 Ridgecrest Dr .NC: 2:81-4 . 1. 'L..: .
St. James, NC 28461 .M OC T'.:.i'03:2' 1~' 3 *''""'`*►,,,�,
Mell Nevins, PE
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
Raleigh, NC 27604
�c"'?���3+'s.�.�►'3'�3 liill1�1111i1�!l4�ili11!l1�l�lt�lit�ltllk�1�1111111i111111t1i1 .N ti`` _

RECEIVED
oL"T 0 a 2011
Gerald and Julie Coddington
3888 Ridgecrest Drive LNi)Q6ALF Y
St James,NC 28461 MINING PROGRAM
1 October 2012
Floyd R Williams, PG,CPESC,CPG
NC Dept of Environment&Natural Resources
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED SAND MINE
Mr Williams, please consider this as our request to hold public hearings regarding
the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick County on land immediately
adjacent to St James Plantation.
Our concerns include,but are not limited to:
• Flooding in a low-lying area
• Noise and water pollution
• Devaluing of residential property
• Inappropriate use of land designated as residential
We strongly urge you to hold public hearings. prior to even considering this
pote 'ally agi a ,' o rfiental project
GERALD&JULIE CODDINGTON

G Coddington "'" ' �
3 8$Ridgecrest.l7r _ YL7O , T l.t .C�4R!C ..'il WA AREA
1 :E:A ..
St. James, NC 2WI . _ ,, NC 263 4 L
1
Floyd R Williams
NC Dept of Environment&.Natural Resources
Land Quality Section-Div of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
� "d,S.'�i�r�'�!'�t1A�1rC � �Jill��ill1l13lI�ElJitl�Ji{IIF'l��E11J1�1l1�i1�11lIFEIl1!l�ill

>�
it Sit ., , ; , � ° i � i „t , � �s s t; .41 ',t
ii i�S �i � ii � � � ti cif i1i i, it � � i �l, ,l
r
!�
' .1 � �� 1
�' s ,.

!' RECEIVED
Richard and Donna Godbout OCT 0 3 2012
2718 Harbormaster Dr
Southport, North Carolina 28461 LAND QUALITY
MINING PROGRAM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R.Williams,PG,CPESC,CPG
Re:Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C.Herring-Herring Mine,Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface
sand mining in Brunswick County on land immediately adjacent to our St James Plantation community,a
map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life,
property value,and environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St James
Plantation and surrounding residential beach communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include,.but are not limited to,the following'Rems
which we would like to have publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land
clearly designated fir residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and Hood plain-What will be the impact
to the local environment in the event of either/both?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh
water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects
on our health and soil due to the leaching of toxic substances,poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution,and surface water
pollution? ' - . ­
•• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion, sinkholes,and inappropriate
changes to the surrounding land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of
Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we strongly request you conslder all of our concerns and not move forward without public
input Thank you,
Sincerely, Richard and Donna Godbout
a ,

Mr Richard Godbout-- r
2778 Harbormaster Dr SE ClOASTALCAROUNA1Eq A w a2
1..r outhport.NC 2&t81=' if11i + 8 ) " eta
A702 " is
r
.01 -CVCT'.2DI Pad
�►L4

Richard and Donna Godbout
V 8 Harbormaster Dr
Southport, NC 28461
Mell Nevils, P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief RECEIVED
DENR
512 N. Salisbury St OCT 0 91012
Raleigh, NC 27604
LAND QUALlTy SECTION
Re:Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C.Herring-Hemng Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Nevils,
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St James Plantation community,a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life, property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other properly owners within St.James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include,but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publicaily addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of either/both?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?.
• have the appmpriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution,and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we ask you to please consider all of our concerts and not allow this project to move forward without public input.
Sincerely,
to

— s
G :GodkboutHarbormaster br.SE
U.S. POSTAGE
port,NC 28461-8000 SOUTHPORT.NC
OCT2846112
IJNI rFD SfiAfiFs
rosraa scavTcF PMBU'NTT
7011 35110 [1000 1239 4211 rood $3 q 0
ft�ta to
Ra°� 4u1nt ant an—
1�
OCT 0$ 2012 111 •
LAND QUALITY SECTION ,a�'3�°oaaaa 111''
111�111 �i
J
.�r CL 4S i 1 r L /1l��lff i F ff IIl1. � ta�a��TF11irIlF/1�!'11�J 11

i
October , 2012
CERTIFIED MAIL GL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED "R
Mr. and Mrs.
RE: Davis C. Herring
Proposed Herring Mine
Brunswick County
Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. and Mrs. *-
The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources has received considerable
correspondence related to the referenced mining permit application and, pursuant to G.S. 74-51 of the
Mining Act of 1971, the Director has deemed that a public hearing is warranted. Please find enclosed a
copy of the public notice listing the date, time, and location of the hearing along with a brief description
of the hearing format. Also, the Mining Act of 1971 may be downloaded by going to
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/webfir/mining.
Please note that a copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file
with both this office and our Wilmington Regional Office (phone no. 910-796-7215)for public
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing.
G.S. 74-51 lists seven denial criteria that can be considered by the Department in making its
decision to grant or deny a mining permit. Please note that the Act does not have iurisdiction over
offsite truck traffic, noise, and potential impacts to property values. G.S. 74-65 explains the Act's
effect on local zoning ordinances.
Please contact this office if you have.any questions. Your attendance and participation will be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Enclosure
CC' Mr. Dan Sams, PE

October* 2012
1
Mr. and Mrs. end Icy„
RE: Davis C. Herring
l�
Proposed Herring Mine
Brunswick County
Cape Fear River Basin
Dear Mr. and Mrs.
The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources has received considerable
correspondence related to the referenced mining permit application and, pursuant to G.S. 74-51 of the
Mining Act of 1971, the Director has deemed that a public hearing is warranted. Please find enclosed a
copy of the public notice listing the date, time, and location of the hearing along with a brief description
of the hearing format. Also, the Mining Act of 1971 may be downloaded by going to
htt :II ortal,ncdenr.or /web/ir/minin .
Please note that a copy of the mining permit application and corresponding maps are on file
with both this office and our Wilmington Regional Office (phone no. 910-796-7215) for public
information and review prior to the date of the public hearing.
G.S. 74-51 lists seven denial criteria that can be considered by the Department in making its
decision to grantor deny a mining permit. Please note that the Act does not have iurisdiction over
offsite truck traffic, noise, and potential impacts to property values. G.S, 74-65 explains the Act's
effect on local zoning ordinances.
Please contact this office if you have any questions. Your attendance and participation will be
appreciated.
Sincerely,
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Dan Sams,"PE

October 1, 2012
Richard and Sally Erickson
3741 PIayers Club Dr.
Southport, NC 28461
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Proposed Sand Mine by Davis C. Herring of Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Dear Mr.Nevils,
We are residents of the Players Club community within St. lames Plantation in Southport NC. We
understand that the property directly behind us, parcel is # 225000019, is zoned R-75, per the Brunswick
County web site. Being residential, we wondered why gunfire was heard directly behind our house which
seemed contrary to the zoning. Then we heard heavy equipment noises (loud) and what sounded like
timber cutting equipment. Our impression was that the property owners were preparing to build a
development. As we all are aware this R-75 zone property does not allow for non-residential usage of
property. Now we find out a sand mining operation has been in operation...and in violation of zoning
statutes.
Our immediate concerns;
➢ Zoning and land use changes
i Jurisdiction over this situation
➢ More industry in a heavily residential area
Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers (precedents exist in several other states)
➢ Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution,and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
We join with others in our area to request a public hearing on this matter.
Thank you, in advance, for acting on our concerns and informing us on the actions being taken in this
matter.
Best regards,
RECEIVED
OCT 10 2012
Richard and Sally Erickson
LAND QUALITY SECTION

obe—el—,20112
2
F. A. Blackburn 3435 St, James Dr.
Southport, NC 28461
910-253-3462
[e-mail]
lk arolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ail Service Center
41gh, North Carolina 27699-1612
ng Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
En �--W 1Jiams PG, CPESC, CPG R E I V E D
-1
e: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine C 1012
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring Mine, Brunswick County LAND QUALITY SECTION
lease consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in
runswick County on land immediately adjacent to our St. James Plantation community,
e are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life, property value, and
nvironment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owner;within St. James Plantation and surrounding residential
ach communities.
ur concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to, the following items which we would
ke to have publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment i
the event of either/both?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution,and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion, sinkholes, and inappropriate changes to the
surrounding land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
ir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward
lthout public input.
incerely,

f
October 8, 2012
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E.
r
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR ;<1
512 N.Salisbury Street YSCC710Ar
Raleigh, NC 27604
1 am writing to express my concern about an application to you for a Sand Mining permit by a Mr. Davis
C. Herring,on property owned by him on Villanova Loop Road, in the town of Oak Island, in Brunswick
County.
This property is zoned residential, as is mine. His property is immediately across Regency Crossing Drive
from my property. I am very concerned about a commercial mining operation being put in place across
the road from my property.
When I bought my property and built my house, it was my understanding that his property was zoned
Residential,so I did not worry about it,and went ahead and invested several hundred thousand dollars,
building my retirement home. I am very concerned that in addition to the noise and dust I would be
subjected to, my property value would be greatly reduced by the proximity of such an operation.
I would thus greatly appreciate it if you would ensure that no permit is issued to allow Mr. Herring to
establish and operate a commercial mining operation on that property.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
Mark E.Zaenglein
3715 Fairfield Way
Southport, NC 28461-8119

Joseph Woods
3700 Players Club Drive
Southport, NC 28461
910-454-9194
October 2, 2012 RECEI
Qrr 11 j-
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief QtfA
DENR
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine by Davis C Herring, Herring Rhine, Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Nevils:
As residents of the Players Club section of St. James, we were surprised and appalled that a
permit for sand mining on the adjacent residential area of Oak Island was being applied for by
Mr. Davis Herring, Jr. We are opposed to such a change in the residential character of that
area zoned for single family housing.
We ask that there be a public meeting so that all parties can voice their concerns, and obtain
the pertinent information as to the environmental and other consequences of this project.
There are many questions as to how this mining will impact the health of the residents of the
local community by its effects on water, air and noise pollution_ What impact will this project
have on a community whose economic well being is tied to tourism? Have the legal
requirements for such a project been fully met?
An examination of the details implicit in these questions merits a halt to any activity related
to such mining and the calling of a meeting by the DENR to assure that the character of this
community and the well being of its citizens are protected.
Yours truly,
&osephods

Patricia Woods
3700 Players Club Drive
Southport, NC 28461
910-454-9194
October 3, 2012 &'E CL:!
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E. oe7
Land Quality Section Chief SAID �z
DENR1,C,,f,
512 N. Salisbury Streeter tpN
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine by Davis C Herring, Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Nevils:
We live in the Players Club section of St. James and I am alarmed hear of the that a permit for sand
mining on the adjacent residential area of Oak Island has been applied for by Mr. Davis Herring, Jr.
I cannot imagine how this application was even considered since the ramifications to all life in this
area will be threatened. Wildlife, human life and nature will suffer if this application is accepted.
We are opposed to such a change in the residential character of that area zoned for single famity
housing.
There are many people opposed to this transaction and we hope you will consider the health and
beauty of the area, rather than some quick and damaging use that may create dollars for the
person or company now, but cause great economic and health damage in the future.
An examination of this deal must be fully evaluated to protect the people affected by such a grave
misuse of the property in this residential area. We implore the DENR to put a stop to this surface
mining transaction, and do a complete evaluation. There should be public meetings to hear all
parties affected by this possible misuse of the property mentioned. We pay taxes to protect our
environment for this generation and for the next and future generations, so they may also enjoy
clean air, clean water and a wholesome environment.
Please put a stop to this possible environmental catastrophe and protect the people, animals, birds,
water, air and all nature which could be destroyed by such a grave misuse of the property in
question. Our citizens need the protection of the DENR and government agencies to prevent
companies who are onty interested in their monetary growth from destroying our environment. That
is why we pay taxes for these agencies, and why we are now asking for your assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely,
6-1"
Patricia Woods

Joe and Josann Campanello
4230 Airport Road
Southport, NC 28461
P CEIV-D
North Carolina Dept. of Environment _ N 2012
And Natural Resources aCl
Land Quality Section, Divs. Of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center LAND N PROOGRGR�s
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612 h1NilaG PROGRAM
RE: Davis C. Herring, Jr.—Sand Mining Permit Application
Notice From Williams Environment & Geological Service Dated September 15, 2012
I` To Whom It May Concern:
As adjoining property owners to Mr. Herring's property we submit for the record our major
concerns relative to the permit request.
First and foremost is the impact on the water table and our private well for potable water at
our home. Our well is 90'to 100' fee# deep. Should our water supply be affected we will assume it is
the result from the depth of the current 5 acre lake that he dug last winter under a Sedimentation and
Control permit. Now, if approved, under the sand mining permit he will be able to do the same again.
I witnessed the depth of the current lake last January or February and I was shocked at the depth of
the slopes before there was surface water. Now the lake is completely full, which leads us into our
second concern. We have a 3 acre lake on our property that to date has not recovered to normal
water level, even after the weeks of steady rainfall during late August and early September. In the past
we have observed the water level return to normal levels within a reasonable period of time and
precipitation. We believe the water table in our area has been impacted as a result of work to date,
and will be further affected with additional digging. The Castle Hayne aquifer runs directly under this
part of the county.
Another concern is that there is little or no state oversight and or inspections during these
permitted activities to insure pits are dug to the depth that is permitted. Obviously the more sand/soil
removed the deeper the pit equals maximum revenue to the land owner.
We are not opposed to Mr. Herring developing his property as he wishes as long as the water
resources are not negatively impacted and he follows all relative state and federal regulations.
Sincerely,
J�6e Campanello
Q/lLi�
osann Campanello

To Whom it may Concern:
I live in Southport (St. James) and I am very concerned about the environmental impact Mr.
Davis C. Herring Jr.'s project of Sand Mining will have on our environment.
(Project located on 22.54 acres in the town of Oak Island, off Airport Road, in Brunswick
County, NC)
Some of my immediate concerns are:
O Zoning and land use changes
0 Jurisdiction over any and all factors of this situation
O More industry in a heavily residential area
0 Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers (precedents exist in several other states)
O Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
O Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
0 Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
O Noise pollution,
PJ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
O Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
0 Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
0 Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
0 Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
0 Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In my opinion, by even considering this request, neither the applicant nor the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources has the.best interest of the greater
community in mind. Rather, the applicant is seeking a way to make a profit at a huge and long
lasting negative impact to the community, and surrounding areas.
I would like to see a well publicized public meeting explaining why we should/should not have
this project, with proven facts and figures stating there will be no negative impact to the
environment and surrounding community.
Please reconsider this project knowing that there will be a negative impact on the sensitive,
frail, beautiful environment.
Sherry A. J o� �
4159 Shearwater Way SE
Southport, NC 28461 RECEIVED
OCT 10 2012
LAND QUALITY SECTION

Karen Heiser
2814 Moorings Way SE
Southport,NC 28461
(9I0)854-0123
Mr. Melt Nevils, P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh,NC 27604
Dear Mr.Nevils:
It has recently come to my attention that a sand mining permit application has been filed on the Herring property to
Southport/Oak Island,NC. I would like to voice my concern over this permit and hope that this letter will help support a
detailed and thorough investigation into this venture.
First and foremost,this land is zoned residential. Therefore:
• How can one mine on residential land?
• Why hasn't an open meeting been scheduled to review this permit with the three residential communities with
which it borders?
• What environmental studies have been done,reviewed and released to the public?
• Is there a required buffer zone between this"residential sand mine"and the surrounding residential areas?
0 If so,what is the buffer and buffer size—trees,fence,cleared land or all three?
a What is the impact of this"residential sand mine"on the ground water and water table?
Are chemicals released during the"mining process"that can impact the surrounding residential communities?
Have there been or will this process cause chemical plumes that could impact not only the three surrounding
residential areas,but also travel to our waterways?
• if construction of the new pond/mine causes problems in the three surrounding residential communities,who
is responsible for the damage?
• Once the Herring property is mined,what are the requirements for returning the land to its original state, i.e.,
chemical clean-up, if necessary; landscaping;debris clean-up?
• What is the impact of a commercial business of this magnitude on the surrounding streets?
Does the permit include noise restrictions for the three surrounding residential communities?
• Why hasn't your department or the Town of Oak Island issued the Herring property a stop work order until all
environmental and residential concerns have been investigated and resolved for the betterment of the
communities involved?
Since arriving in North Carolina,i have been greatly surprised at the lack of control over environmental issues and the
Poor follow through of the local and state governments regarding issues that impact many areas. It appears that money or
lack of it is truly behind the outcome of many poor decisions made by the local and state governments. One often reads
articles in the local newspapers and magazines touting the beauty of the North Carolina coasts and mountains,yet this
type of business in a coastal,tourist oriented area might be allowed without impunity and regard to our dwindling natural
surroundings? Sadly,this seems to be following the fracking debacle in the western part of the state.
Thank you for your time. I hope to see much more about this problem in the local papers and news in the coming weeks
and hope that your department takes the led in stopping this extremely ill advised and (poor use of our natural resources.
REC
EIVED
ECEIVED
OCT iuli
K en Heiser LAND QUALITY SECTION

- ....
t
. . 4 _ .�
�� � � � - y-
- ,
_ _ � - --
• � - - - -
',
�' -- .:
- � � - � - � -
- � .. _ -
- � . _ i
�•
Y7 - - .r . -� .. ,_ - _
� _ _ - � C
` 1 �

October 1, 2012
Frederick C. Scherr
4365 Gauntlet Dr. APPROVED FOa
Southport, NC 28461
PAYMENT
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E. OCT 10 2012
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR By:
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Sir:
It is my understanding that there is a pending mining permit application to dig a pond,
presumably for the purpose of mining sand or similar activity,on property adjacent to the Town
of St.James in Brunswick County. The property involved is in the Town of Oak Island and is
zoned residential (R-75, I believe). This letter is in opposition to the permit application.
It is obvious that any commercial operation of this sort will use heavy equipment and will result
in considerable noise and dust. Also,water pollution is always a possibility as a result of any
mining venture (I'm an engineer). This sort of operation is inappropriate in an area zoned as
residential and adjacent to valuable residential properties. Prohibition of this sort of activity in
residential areas is of course the purpose of such zoning,as the owner of the property must
certainly be aware.
While I am sure that there are cases where it would make sense to allow such activities,for
example where adjacent areas had been zoned residential but were at present undeveloped,
that is not the case here. The abutting areas, in the Town of St.James and elsewhere,are
instead well developed and populated. If the property owner wishes to perform this kind of
operation,the appropriate course would seem to be to first get the property rezoned, with the
appropriate public hearings and public comment periods.
Very truly yours,
Frederick C. Scherr
RECEIVED
ng 10 2012
LAND QUALITY SECTION

ALBERTO G. SOLANA , P.E. 910.M.5092/732.684.3502
2732 Chadsworth Ln. sa1lstj�sma�l_com
St. James , NC 28461
11 OCT 201
NC DENR
1612 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH , NC 27699
LAND QUALTY SECTION / DIV. OF LAND RESOURCES
ATTN:TRACEY E DAVIS , PE , DIRECTOR
RE: MR DAVIS C HERRING JR
SURFACE MINIG PERMIT APPLICATION @ AIRPORT RD, OAK ISLAND . BRUNSWICK CTY.
Dear Mr Davis ,
I am writing to you in support of Mr. Herrings application for a surface mining permit at the referenced
location.
I am prompted to write to you as a result of seeing hysterical opposition by some of my neighbors in
the town of St James. This opposition is unwarranted as it is founded on ignorance of the facts ,
exaggerations and baseless accusations and claims.The attacks on Mr Herring are revolting , as they
seek to strip him of his constitutional rights to legally develop and improve his personal propertry for
which he pays taxes for.
I am familiar with the subject property property and Mr Herrings intent to create a pond and thus
create a new fresh water wetland that is in harmony with the surroundings. I have met Mr Herring and
know that he is an avid hunter and fisherman and has the utmost respect for the environment . In
addition , he has a history of developing residentiasl areas that exist in harmony with the
environment.
The excavation and selling of the spoils will provide some needed work in this county with high
unemployment and at the some time provide for needed tax revenue.
I urge you to discount the baseless and accusatory letters from hysterical St James residents against
Mr Herrin and his surface mine application and consider his application favorably, as it is beneficial
to the community and permits a good local citizen to improve his property which has sat idly for
many years.
S erely,
l
Alberto Solana , PE CC:Floyd Williams /Davis Herring A

- Coastal C:aralina'Areas._ v 9
Mr Alberto G Solana 1 .00T �`�..0� F:H.I.T
< 2732 Chadsworth Ln '"" i `
�.` ty
Southport, NC 28461-8351 qua i
[ � FOREVER
�
J
t't��612 h 1hifl 1111/111 Will 111111101111 fill oil I1[[t!11[lolul1 Lila

• �til�, }t,o,
",•-;�•%ti'.�JIS� f.`r'r. �: - .f�i3'}ir �+:'� ��lJ�}�y�a'`•••�•'"•••"`�_'-
:1•. .�,.�l1; t` 'tom .:.,�` i�. ,`:'.�-r.•:;,����l�:k .�w.;y�.

� t
G.H.Bowers,Jr.
2820 Marsh Point Lane
Southport, NC 28461
910-253-7374
October 1,2012
Mr. Mell Nevils, PE
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
512 Salisbury Street
Raleigh,NC 27604
Dear Mr. Nevils,
I am writing to you with regard to the Sand Mining Permit Application recently
submitted for the Herring property in the Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County,NC.
As a resident of the adjacent Town of St. James, I am concerned about the potential
impact on St. James that might result should the above mentioned application be
approved.
While I support the rights of private land owners to utilize their land in accordance with
existing statues and zoning regulations;the idea of having a mining operation on that
property raises many questions and concerns to us as neighbors such as the noise level of
the mining equipment and associated trucking of sand removed from the site and the
effect on air quality on nearby properties.
Inasmuch as the Herring property is zoned residential by the Town of Oak Island, such
activity as suggested by this application seems inconsistent with the current approved use
of the property.
Given these concerns, I strongly request that your office, in conjunction with the Town of
Oak Island, request from the applicant a plan for the ultimate use of the property. If, in
fact,the property is to become a residential development, approval of such development
should PRECEDE any approval of the Sand Mining Permit Application.
Sincerely,
G.H. Bowers,Jr.
ECEIVED
loll
LAND QUALITY$ECT!QN

I
. _�
.�
� - � � .. .
J � � - _ .
h

v
r.
Bowers
2820 Mmsli-I'oint Ln.SG. .
p5outhport,,NC 28461 �}
F c;
f
aECEIV
ED/�
_j,.pVD QUAL
ITY SECTIO/ N s�
P-v �/ / Y
f` f
2 't 04+F 1 1'701 r1/r1�ri 17rIrI1Frt1l171111111rll llr�tl l 1 111 111111 rr 11 1 1 r I 1 1111

Mr. Melt Nevils P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR
512 N. Salisbury St
Raleigh NC 27604
Subject: Mining Permit Application For D.C.Herring in Brunswick County.
Mr Nevils
I am a resident of the Players Club in St.James Plantation,whose lot backs up directly to Mr Herring's
property.
I have been here 10 years and have seen many changes to said property
I. Several years ago I saw bulldozers clearing what looked like wetlands for a housing development.
2.A year or so ago a 8 to 10 foot berm was built,by Mr.Herring,right on the property line of my and my
neighbors back yards.This caused flooding on some of these lots.
3.Then last year said property was turned into a BIRD HUNTING PRESERVE,with Shotguns going off
during the day during hunting season..
4. We then heard,several months ago,heavy equipment again operating on Mr. Herrings property.
Had no idea what he was doing;then.
5.Then we get a notification that Mr. Herring wants to start a sand mining operation on said property.
Our understanding is that his property is zoned RESIDENTIAL.
My questions are how does North Carolina allow land that was partially wetlands become all of the above
uses.
How does North Carolina, Brunswick County and Oak Island permit a MINING operation directly adjacent
to residential homes and lots.
Thank you for your time and attention.
William K. Walsh
3734 Winstead Circle
Southport NC 28461
RECF
OCT 16 W1
�.A1Na QUALITY SECTION

-
W intlstead C,tr L,._ l+ s l'tn �i = g PV!'e'
Southport,NC,2MI-9044 '�• � .; j� j' y • !s!, ham_ .+
Mr. Mell Nevils PE
DENR
RECEIVED 512 N. Salisbury St
Raleigh NC 27604
OCT 16 -
LAND QUALITY SECTION'

Monday,October 1,2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section RECEIVED
Division of Land Resources
OCT 5 2Q11
To: Floyd R.Williams, PG,CPESC, CPG
From: Mr.and Mrs. Robert McKinley " LAND QUAL17Y SECTIOiy
3776 Traemoor Road
Southport(St.James),NC 28461
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of'sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60 days following the 30-
day comment period"specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday, September 7,2012, As no mention was made of how
many letter's define'sufficient public interest,'we assume our letter alone merits scheduling a public hearing.The certified letter we
received,dated September 5,2012,did not reach all the property owners at the same time. Ours was one of the first. That in itself is
highly questionable as responses are required within 30 days of_the issuance of the.correspondence.
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining.and have been,quite busy trying to understand the topic. What seems
implausible is the ability of an individual tD apply for such a permit on.land,.112+acres,zoned for single family housing AND in a
historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete company, ammunition depot, nuclear energy
facility, and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been cleared to the periphery of this property,well outside the diagram included
in the certified letter. This suggests an altemative purpose or purposes in pursuing this permit, or at the very least utilizing far more
land than is shown on the map.
We have questions,facts we have learned,concerns,and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
• Is this acreage still zoned R-75?
• Did the applicant for this permit apply for a request in zoning for this acreage?
• if so,when?Through what entity?Has the applicant complied with ALL aspects of proper application for a zoning change and
who is responsible for confirming this?
• Are applications for a zoning change public record?
• How can such a zoning request change occur,if it did,without those affected being notified?
• Under whose jurisdiction is this property?
How,ran extensive and ongoing work to this property.happen,AND IT HAS,if permits have not been granted?
• Who has actually been to.this property and seen the visual effects?
• Is North Carolina so without laws as not to protect primarily residential areas?
• . What agencies are involved in looking out for the greater.good of the immediate communities affected and Brunswick County?

i - '
�s
,:'
t��' s
�, .
a
�` i
' 1 ��.
�.,
_.
._ �] .�
:U
- _ �S ,S-
.. �`.
y. �
_ .�
f' .€ _� .-
• .i; �.
i
.\
�. ��. ...
�_ � _ f
�F
7
. a

What we are learning:
• Surface mining is a broad category of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is removed_ It is the
opposite of underground mining, in which the overlying surface is left in place,and the desired product removed through
shafts or tunnels.
• In most forms of surface mining, heavy equipment(LOTS OF THAT AND NOISEI),such as earthmovers,first removes the
overburden.Next,huge machines, such as dragline excavators or Bucket wheel excavators,extract whatever is being mined.
• The environmental impact of raining includes erosion,formation of sinkholes,loss of biodiversO,contamination of
soil,groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. (THIS ACREAGE IS ADJACENT TO
BRUNSWICK COUNTY WATER SUPPLY.)
• In some cases,additional forest logging(LOTS OF THAT)is done in the vicinity of mines to increase the available
room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD CONTAIN WHAT???)
• Besides creating environmental damage, contamination resutting from leakage of chemicals also affects the health of the
local population.
• Mining(in a populated area)can produce noise pollution.dust polMon and visual pollution.(THE EFFECTS OF THAT
ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
• The effects of leaching of toxic substances into soil and water and the poisoning of wildlife is dangerous and
DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.
• Mercury a known carcinogen, DIFFICULT TO MEASURE,is a byproduct of the mining industry.
• The metamorphosis of frogs,changing from a tadpole to an adult,can be used as an indicator of water pollution,and
therefore is potentially harmful.
Our immediate concerns:
➢ Zoning and land use changes
➢ Jurisdiction over any and all factors of this situation
➢ More industry in a heavily residential area
➢ Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers(precedents exist in several other states)
➢ Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢ Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
> Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution, and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
➢ Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
➢ Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In our opinion, by even considering this request,the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources the best interest of the greater community in mind. Rather,the applicant is seeking a way to make a profit at a huge and
long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage,we are told,fell through a few years ago. We've heard
everything from housing community,to hunting preserve,to wanting to build lakes to make the land more saleable or to expand hunting
opportunities,some of which sound much closer than the 270 yards we are told is required from a residence.
If the applicant was to sell or donate the acreage to the greater community we think an army of volunteers would rally to create what
could be a permanent place of beauty. Instead,the applicant and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources have become a joint harbinger of what this community does not need,more industry in a heavily populated area that will
immeasurably and negatively impact all who call this home.

id RECEIVED
OCT 15 2012
LAND QUALITY
MINING PROGRAM
I

} Linda W-McKinls - E =11IE L7 FAYE. '
3776 7raemaor Rd. r '•
Southport. NC 28461-8219
LAN"QUALITY cTroN
�ai'���, nee � � �� •
2?fsG441L?n �tt�tf�ttt�t11tt1{1tt ill sitslllm f�stt� tttstts��tt�t��tttt�

ST, JAMES
+140 Soutkport-Supplq RoaJ,Suite B
Sout}port, NC 26+61
R`, 910-z��-4so5 • rax y10-255-4808
Property Owners'Association
ONy7
October 2,2012 �t'�z
Department of Environment and Natural Resources !
Mr. Mell Nevils,P.E.
Land Quality Section Chief
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh,NC 27604
Re: Application for Proposed Sand Mine Permit
Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Nevils,
My name is Gordon T. Corlew. I am the President of the Board of Directors of the St. James Property Owners'
Association, St. James North Carolina, Our Association represents of over 4,300 property owners within St. James
Plantation who own property which has the potential to be impacted by the proposed sand mine project. Our Association
also owns common property which may be impacted. We request that the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources hold public hearings on this project.
Attached is the certified letter dated September 5, 2012 received by the St. James Plantation Property Owners'
Association with enclosures. Also attached is a copy of the NCDENR Letter of Approval dated August 24,201 L
The St. James Property Owners" Association hereby requests that a public meeting be held to explain this project's impact
on adjacent properties to include but not limited to any potential pollution of wetlands, runoff impact into adjacent
streams, effects on the water table, and potential significant airborne particulate matter. We further request that the public
hearing define the scope, timing, and complete project plans including clear and defined intended use of the property.
Once this is done, we request adequate time be allowed for the all parties to assess the impact. Then we request that a
second public meeting be scheduled to receive public input and answer questions.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We would be happy to arrange the meetings mentioned above at the
St. James Community Center. Our point of contact is Judith Marshall, St. James POA Community Manager. She can be
reached at(910)253-4085 or iudyAstiamespoa.net.
Your timely response is appreciated.
Sincerel
Gar on T.Co r ew, President
St.James Property Owners' Association

RECEIVED
' WILLIAMS SEP u 6 2012 Voice I Fax[phone]
P.O. Box 190
1'.ticircit7tiitlltal .� [:cc�lc ic:aI tirr►•icx,FlT-, Bath,NC 27808
September 5, 2012 www.WilliamsEGS.com
Certified Mail
Return Receipt rcQuested
7009 2820 0000 6216 8809
St. lames Plantation Property Owners Assoc.
Suite B
4140 Southport—Supply Road
Southport, NC 28461
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine,Brunswick County
To Whom It May Concern:
I have been retained by Mr. Davis C. Herring to apply to the NC Department of
Environment & Natural Resources for a Sand Mine Permit on property owned by Mr. Herring
within the Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County. The property is located at the end of
Villanova Loop Road, just north of Oakwood Glen Subdivision and approximately .5 miles
north-northwest of the Brunswick County Airport.
In accordance with G. S. 74-50 (61), the applicant for a mining permit is required to
make a reasonable effort, satisfactory to the Department of Environment&Natural Resources, to
notify all owners of record, both public and private, of all tracts of land that are adjoining the
tract of land where the proposed mine is to be located. In addition, the applicant must also notify
the chief administrative officer of the county or municipality in which any part of the proposed
area is located.
To satisfy this requirement, I have enclosed the NOTICE OF APPLICATION and a
location map.
If you have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Davis C. Herring.
Sincerely,
Floyd R. Williams,PG,CPESC,CPG
cc: Davis C. Herring
I
Enc. Notice of Application
Adjoining Property Owner List
Location Map

i
NCD84R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
Jaynes D. Simons, PG, PE Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Director and State Geologist Dee Freeman, Secretary
August 24, 2011
LETTER OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS AND PERFORMANCE
RESERVATIONS
Davis C. Herring,Jr.
823 Robert Ruark Dr.
Southport,NC 28461
RE: Project Name: Herring Property Drainage
Project 1D: BRUNS.2&r 1-042 Acres Approved: 5.00
County: Brunswick, off SR 1102, Oak Island
River Basin: Lumber Stream Classification_ Other
Submitted By: .1_ Phillip Norris,Norris&Tunstall Consulting Engineers,P.C.
Date Received by LQS: 'August 12, 2011 and August 17,2011
Plan Type: Revised
I
Dear Mr. Herring.
This office has reviewed the subject erosion and sedimentation control plan and hereby issues this
Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations. A list of the modifications
and reservations is attached. This plan approval shall expire three (3) years following the date of
approval, if no land-disturbing activity has been undertaken,as is required by Title 1 SA NCAC 4B
.0129. Should the plan not perform adequately, a revised plan will be required(G.S. 113A-54.1)(b).
Please.be advised that Title 15A NCAC 413 .0118(a)requires that a copy of the approved erosion
control plan be on file at the job site. Also,you should consider this letter to give the Notice
required by G.S. 113A-61.1(a)of our right of periodic inspection to ensure compliance with the
approved plan.
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control Program is performance-oriented, requiring
protection of existing natural resources and adjoining properties. If, following the commencement
of this project, it is determined that the erosion and sedimentation control plan is inadequate to meet
the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General
Statute 1 13A-51 thru 66), this office may require revisions to the plan and implementation of the
revisions to ensure compliance with the Act,
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington,North Carolina 28405 Phone,(910)796-72151 Fax[phone]

Letter of Approval with Modifications and Performance Reservations
Project Herring Property Drainage
August 24, 2011
Page 2 of 4
Acceptance and approval of this plan is conditioned upon your compliance with Federal and State
water quality laws,regulations,and rules. In addition, local city or county ordinances or rules may
also apply to this land-disturbing activity. This approval does not supersede any other permit or
approval.
Please be aware that your project will be covered by the enclosed NPDES General Stormwater
Permit NCGO1 OOOO(Construction Activities), You should first become familiar with all of the
requirements for compliance with the enclosed general permit.
Please note that this approval is based in part on the accuracy of the information provided in the
Financial Responsibility Form, which you have provided. You are requested to file an amended
form if there is any change in the information included on the form. In addition, it would be helpful
if you notify this office of the proposed starting date for this project. Please notify us if you plan to
have a preconstruction conference.
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
C
Rhonda Hall
Assistant Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Enclosures: Certificate of Approval
Modifications and Performance Reservations
NPDES Permit
cc: J. Phillip Norris, PE,Norris& Tunstall Consulting Engineers, P.C_

Ar4s & pat sWo*M
r 3687 Fairfield Way
Southport, NC 28461
Telephone[phone]
Cell(724)799-6333
E-mail: wvumumaarnsn.com
[e-mail]
September 29,2012
NC Dept of Environmental&Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Drive
Raleigh,NC 27699
Re: Davis C. Herring—Herring Mine-Proposed Sand Mining Permit,Town of Oak Island,
Brunswick County
This letter is to express our concern regarding the sand mining permit submitted by Davis C. Herring—Herring
Mine—located in the Town of Oak Island,Brunswick County.The site is adjacent the Town of St.lames. Our
principal concerns include, but are not limited to,environmental impacts to water(quality&capacity)and air due
to emissions of toxic substances,dust,etc..
Economic capacities of the owner to fulfill obligations associated with surface mining during operation such as
impacts on air and water quality plus post operation liabilities as regards restoration and preservation/restoration
of effected habitats also needs clarification.
Awaiting your further review and comments
Max Hooper—Pat Hooper OCT 10 2012
LAND QUALITY SECTION
RWE'M
Offlae of the Secrokw
OCT - 32012
bepadnvnt at EnAmnmert
and Natural Resources

("VW Ion
��r+�✓.? �' !+� \ l�lJ���,�\�� Jpj4D( 1 •�IN
` L

t
Charles and Nancy Krambuhl R��t
ot�,a
3711 Fairfield Way oG0
Southport,NC 28461
e�
a1 S utc$
0090, Ado
NC Department of Environment& Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Drive
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re: New Surface Mining Permit by Davis Herring within Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County
We are concerned residents of ST.James Plantation who live near the property of Davis Herring.We
request that his permit to receive a new surface{Wining permit be denied.
There are many environmental issues being raised by this proposal. Many trees have already been cut
down and a 15'high berm has been built at the edge of his property and St James . This has altered
natural water flow,creating flooding conditions on neighbors' property as well as standing water in
trenches,which in turn creates a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
The present sand mining proposal will affect soil,water and air quality.The dust pollution will be very
harmful to people who have COPD or other respiratory conditions. A mining operation could also
contribute to the contamination of soil,ground water and surface water by the leaching of toxic
substances. Indigenous wildlife on this property,already impacted by the removal of trees and soil
excavation for the berm,will be further impacted by sand mining should the permit be approved.
The residential property owners who surround Mr. Hearing's property have their own list of grievances
beyond environmental concerns—loss of property value, noise pollution from heavy equipment,
increased volume of truck traffic,excessive wear to our roads, negative impact to our quality of life.
We ask the Dept.of Environment&Natural Resources to deny Mr.Davis Herring's permit to start a
new surface mine in our residential neighborhood.Thank you for your consideration of this request.
C arles~ d Nancy Krambuhl ,, ni E CEA V E D
"OCT I 201'Z
LAID QUALITY SECTION

w
ch
3711 Fiu 'fdW WC -283, 2"T,
-IOUI Ort, rt&Car Tina Ol OCT201228461
FORF.VF.N
t4l6p Vt (-,OqrM,*A Ana jre--wz�
/a le, i

ei
2 October 2012
NC Dept of Environmental& Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Drive
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re: Davis Herring new surface mining permit
Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County abuts STJ-parcel#225000019
Dear Sir.
We are contacting you to ask that you deny the permit application of Davis Herring to mine on his
property which abuts the Players Club at St. James. Also, we demand that a public hearing be held if the
Dept of Environmental and Natural Resources are considering granting the permit. The mine permit
proposes excavating 22+acres to possibly 30' in depth_ The operation will affect our quality of life in so
many ways, including, but not limited to truck traffic, road wear, loss of home values, negative impact on
tourism, etc_
There would be a significant environmental impact from such a huge mining operation on our
neighborhood and the surrounding area: erosion, contamination of groundwater and surface water,
leakage of toxic chemicals, noise pollution, dust pollution and visual pollution; damaged land and habitats,
and loss of wildlife diversity. I also have personal health concerns, ex. respiratory issues.
Thank you!
Om°Q of the e
pC� _3 2Q12
Dennis and Darla Hergenreter en1
Dope," a Rs n es
tirt.+'wD and t4
2- Aerc� Oross�n
RECENED
OCT 10 2012
.AND QUALITY SECTION

rr� u s a
Jen 1'l k s PrvA Y` COAS.J.A.#.. -€:ARO'.lWA AREA
FOR
C 946 j � -D
AIC Def>zz` of ivrra�K�P� v� �� lr �erouNcer
/ 6 al 1;/Ia/'1 Service I-) �-I`v�e
k�a CgY-Olrrl2
2 ?694

3708 Fairfield Way
Southport,NC 28461-8119
October 1,2012 RECEIVE®
Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E. OCT 0 9 2012
Land Quality Section Chief
DENR LAND QUALITY SECTION
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: New Surface Mining Permit by Davis Herring with Town of Oak Island in
Brunswick County abutting St James Plantation-parcel #225000019
We live in the community St James Plantation,which abuts the property of Davis
Herring.
There are many reasons for our request: environmental issues,quality of life issues,
property value issues,etc. Sand mining will result in negative impact in all these
areas of concern to all residents and businesses adjoining this property.
There has already been environmental damage to the area due to the past year's
activities on the Herring property—deforestation,excavating soil,altering water
flow patterns,and building a"debris hill"which they have called a"berm." In reality
this "berm"consisted of piled up branches and uprooting resulting from the initial
bulldozing of trees. This complete removal right up to property lines was done on
Memorial Day weekend of 2011,without any prior notification or explanation (or
justification we feel). We were told at that time that this land,which previously had
been described as wetlands, forever natural,was destroyed for a quail -hunting
business-although even then we were at a loss to understand how total removal of
native trees could help quail hunting. Again,this deforestation was done right up to
adjoining property lines,with no buffer-which we will discuss later.
Those of you charged with protecting the environment are asked to consider the
negative effects now of this proposed sand mining:
1. Air Quality-these mining sites"have two types of air emissions. The first is
dirt that may be emitted during the mining and handling of sand. The second
is from various pollutants emitted from equipment used to mine,handle
and/or process sand." (SC Research &Essays,Vol.6 (6) pp. 1216-1231, 18
March 2011).
Dust pollution alone is harmful to those living near this, never mind any
contaminants that may also be stirred up and released into the air. Careful
monitoring will need to be done on a daily basis top prevent harm to those
living or working in surrounding areas. We are told in the application "A
water truck will be available,if needed,for any potential dust problems."
Will the presence of a water truck be sufficient for any dust problems,of

course depending on what contaminants are exposed and the wind currents
at the time? Have they applied for an air quality permit? Is there a Division
of Air Quality to monitor all on a daily basis? Are those who may issue the
permit also willing to reimburse us for any health problems,which may
arise?
2. Wafgr QUghly- Prior to sand removal,a thorough study should be
undertaken of potentially harmful toxic sediment contaminants,which could
be dispersed to the air or the groundwater. Sand deposits are linked to one
another so that addition or removal of sand from one area affects all other
environments. 'if sand mining operations are performed below the water
table they may require significant groundwater pumping in order to dewater
the active mining area. This can lead to an increased potential for impacts to
groundwater and surface water resources." (SC Research &Essays,Vol. 6 (6),
pp. 12 16-12 3 1, 18 March 2011). "Another effect ...is modification of the
recharge area for groundwater by changing the land surface ...such changes
may increase or decrease rainwater recharge to groundwater. Shorter flow
paths pay increase susceptibility to contamination while redirected flow
paths may deplete total recharge of the aquifer."(Peckinham,Thorton,&
Whalen,2009). The deforestation,which was done in 2011,has already
resulted in altering natural water flow and creating flooding on neighboring
properties. We received no notification of pending permits before that was
done in 20 11 -and are left wondering if environmental issues/impacts were
addressed then. The land in question sits on top of the Castle HaM
A9jAj&r fmm whiff ki Brunswick County gets water. We are rightfully
concerned about contaminants such as mercury and other carcinogens and
chemicals getting into the water supply, not only for neighbors to the
property but for all who get their water supplied by Brunswick County. In
the actual applications for the Herring property,the box is marked YES next
to the question,"Will any part of proposed mine excavation extegAbelow
the water table?" The application goes on to say"Applicant plans,if needed,
to pump from one pit to another. No mine water discharge from the site will
take place." Is this a guarantee? How can they KNOW so surely that no
water discharge will take place? Who will be held responsible and
accountable if the water supply is proved tainted in the future and has
caused health problems and/or death to those exposed?
3. HiodiXgUlty and Protection of Endangered Species-Physical disturbance
of the habitat includes generation of noise,which can interrupt
nesting/breeding activities of native species. Other effects include
destruction of the habitat for foraging and nesting,as well as increased
exposure to contaminants. What is harmful or toxic to animals also applies
to humans. However,here we are talking about destroying the natural
habitat of various native species. Again,we are made to wonder about the
quail -we were told last year that the deforestation was done to improve
quail hunting-we cannot think that sand mining and the heavy equipment

which it will bring can still encourage the quail,or any other species in that
area or any surrounding.
4. Quality of life-The quality of life of surrounding housing and business will
be affected by ANY negative impact to the air or water supply. Further,the
presence of sand mining so near residential areas will lower home
values-certainly prospective buyers will not choose to live adjoining a
sand mine with the heavy equipment,noise pollution,increased truck
and vehicle traffic,and impact on nearby roads. Beyond this,most of us
who live here chose this area specifically to enjoy the natural beauty
and quite of this area. "Quality of Life" descries an environment of pure a'
wreathe,puze water.free of noise pollution.and the tranquility of living�n
balance with surrounding nature. Sand mining does not"fit in"with a
communijy. We realize its value to our society but it should be
restricted to industrialized areas or areas not zoned as residential. The
application for the sand mining includes a requirement that"a minimum 50'
undisturbed buffer will be maintained between the affected area and
wetlands that have been delineated on site"and also that a "minimum 50'
buffer will be required between any land-disturbing activities within the
mining permit boundaries and any natural watercourses and wetlands
unless smaller undisturbed buffers can be justified..." The applicant
responds,"A minimum undisturbed buffer will be maintained between mine
permit boundary and any wetlands." We do not feel that this was done in
2011 and are not reassured it will be done in the future.
We residents implore the N.C.Department of Environment and Natural
Resources to DENS this application. At the very least,we call for a public hearing,
before approval,to investigate our concerns and justify why this area should be
rezoned and mining permitted. We understand that since 2011 when trees were
razed all along adjoining properties,there has been ongoing mining done without
necessary permits up until May of this year. We would also like these allegations
addressed and necessary legal action taken. The property, parcel #225000019,is
currently zoned R-75 (residential per the Brunswick County website). We ask your
Department to conduct hearings and investigate all that has happened so far and
how this area and its residents will be impacted if sand mining is permitted.
However,we hope that you DENY this application now based on the issues raised in
our letters to your department. Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
Sincerely,
Robert and JoAnn Rod gu
910-454-9816

-low z,�

s �.
- ,_`
r,�
�1
f
n�i
.',r

�0 0 o
RECEIVED
Lauren Ddgosh
2741 Cedar Crest Drive ou o 8 2912
Southport, NC 28461-8367
LAND QUALITY
October 1,2012 M ING pRQGR,AM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring- Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings
regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick County on land
immediately adjacent to our St. James Plantation community, a map of
which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever
impact the health, quality of life, property value, and environment for us
as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St. James Plantation
and surrounding residential beach communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not
limited to, the following items which we would like to have publically
addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential
area of the County and on land clearly designated for residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood
plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in the event
of either/both?

• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the
Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the
short and long term effects on our health and soil due to the leaching
of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust
pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as
erosion, sinkholes, and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon
which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir, we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow
this self-serving project to move forward without public input.
Sincerely,

; l
i
N �
N !•
CP
to 0
01
bc
�
C
r � ? i'k IQJ f•1
Ff
_ (J3 h'
r,
--�--- ...........

Jacqueline Beaumont
3681 Fairfield Way
Southport, North Carolina 28461
October 1,2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center RFC F IVED
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources OCT 0 u 2012
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG LAND QUALITY
M!N!NG PROGR M
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herrirrg Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately-adjacent-to our Shames Plantation community,a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life,property value,and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St.James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities,
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearfy a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eitherlboth?
+ How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion, sinkholes, and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
+ How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
+ Why is surface sand mining the hest use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
input.
Sincerely

�■ _ ... .
�,
I
. . -,
� z
_ �...
.. t .
�i•
� �
_ 'S'
y

• a•� s-
aj
�'� `-' la 4hq. ,ll o.l,,Ii 11/1111

' Robert E. Beaumont
3681 Fairfield Way
Southport, North Carolina 28461
.Od,obec 1.,2012 R E I y E
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resoun~,es �_ 0�2
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 LAND QUALITY
Land Quality.Section-
Division of Land Resources- M!1\!NG P'R;OGRAM
To: Floyd R.Williams, PG, CPESC,CPG
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring-Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St.James Plantation community,a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,qualt y of life, property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St.James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity In a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eitherlboth?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate Impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes, and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
input.
Sincerely,

� -
z
*,.
� .' �:,
f t � ,,�
{
.. r
t•
T
C
.� r � .�
} � � ..
L
• j � �
� � t
�. y

Cx.c l +yar tiaav: Arm-;

r
Claudette and Edmund Nowe,Jr_
3597 Medinah Avenue W.
f; �J� '
Southport, NC 28461
OCT 0 8 2012
October 3,2012 LAID G Ai+i Y
MINING PRpC-RAaV
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R.Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St. James Plantation community,a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life, property value, and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
a Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
a This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eitherlboth?
O How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
Y Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances,poisonous chemicals?
a What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution,and surface water pollution?
a What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes, and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
a Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
input.
Sincereiy,

--- ' ��' rim` f � .,+e • �
OAK_ -EST
59,
w- +ice, • �- �� 'n :�, .! y
Af7"
--VMUkN4VA-
VA
�`;�-+��.`�'a arm....__. �• - - _ ��\`!_, � j
w
r
pp �i
- • •s-

f"dntund E'.Norve Jr. -
3597 Meclitrjli Avenuc W.
American Southport,NC _z8�}61-So3;3 :. �.�...., 2.. ii .e. .-, ..,,. �,' .�,:...,
Red Cross " '
R
North Ccrolina Den-artment of Environment
and. Natural A(esources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh , NC 27699-1612
E
Land Quality Section-Division of Lc ��� Ifres

John and Lourdes Levis
4405 Harbortown Circle RECEIVED
Southport, North Carolina 28461
October 1, 2012 OCT 0 8 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources LAND QUALITY
1612 Mail Service Center MNING PROGRM,1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
Att: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring- Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand
mining in Brunswick County on land immediately adjacent to our St. James Plantation community, a map of
which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health, quality of life, property
value, and environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St. James Plantation and
surrounding residential beach communities.
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to, the following items which
we would like to have publically addressed during the hearing process:
o Why permit this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of Brunswick County and on land
clearly designated for residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the
local environment in the event of either/both?
a Haw can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water
supply?
a Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our
health and soil due to the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
d What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution
as well as heavy machine traffic?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion, sinkholes, and inappropriate
changes to the surrounding land?
• How will this activity impact the long terra tourism industry upon which our beach community of
Southport depends? -
n Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir, we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward
without public input.
Sin P
rely,
ou es a Jo Levis

y
r
- .;
- � � � -
,,
> � ..
,;
_ _. _
_. � ,�
�. � ,
v
r ,
-� — � � 3�. - ..
,t � � J
'L
"' v
T � �. " �
� t�
_. is
' - _
r .. �
l
- �
' ` -� r

Sdptember 30, 2012
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources ,U
From: Mr. and Mrs. John Levis
4405 Harbortown Circle r
Southport (St. James), NC 28461
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Williams:
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of"sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60
days following the 30-day comment period" specked in the initial certified letter we received on Friday, September
7, 2012. As no mention was made of how many letters define sufficient public interest,'we assume our letter
alone merits scheduling a public hearing. The certified letter we received, dated September 5, 2012, did not reach
all the property owners at the same time. Ours was one of the first. That in itself is highly questionable as
responses are required within 30 days of the issuance of the correspondence.
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy trying to understand the topic.
What seems implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+ acres, zoned for
single family housing AND in a historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a
concrete company, ammunition depot, nuclear energy facility, and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been
cleared to the periphery of this property, well outside the diagram included in the certified letter. This suggests an
alternative purpose or purposes in pursuing this permit, or at the very least utilizing far more land than is shown on
the map.
We have questions, facts we have learned, concerns, and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
o Is this acreage still zoned R-75?
o Did the applicant for this permit apply for a request in zoning for this acreage?
o If so, when?Through what entity? Has the applicant complied with ALL aspects of proper application for a
zoning change and who is responsible for confirming this?
a Are applications for a zoning change public record?
o How can such a zoning request change occur, if it did, without those affected being noted?
o Under whose jurisdiction is this property?
o How can extensive and ongoing work to this property happen, AND IT HAS, if permits have not been
granted?
• Who has actually been to this property and seen the visual effects?
• Is North Carolina so without laws as not to protect primarily residential areas?
• What agencies are involved in looking out for the greater good of the immediate communities affected and
Brunswick County?

w�
-� ..
_ ,,
' .. Y w � i v ��
� r { 1 .'}'
� �'f .. �
., k. � .. i _ _ �;
an
.- +
i, c '+` F
• � .._ �
' a v �:
u _
` .. r
. ' � � l r
- y.. •. _
�. � � f .. .. -�
F. � r {� r.
�� ..
r: .
_• ,r
_.� F_ .
r r r, � �;.
.. � {
`� f
�_ , ^ x ,
_, � �. ,
��
J ,tr . _ c
� i 1 .i
�' _ } ,1
y
�,
.� y �
� ... (�•
�.• �
t _
� t -' i
� � 2
4
_��

Whatwe are learning:
• Surface mining is a broad category.of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is
removed. It is the opposite of underground mining, in which the overlying surface is left in place, and the
desired product removed through shafts or tunnels.
o In most forms of surface mining, heavy, equipment (LOTS OF THAT AND NOISEI), such as earthmovers,
first removes the overburden. Next, huge machines, such as dragline excavators or Bucket wheel
excavators, extract whatever is being mined.
• The environmental impact of mining includes erosion, formation of sinkholes, loss of blodiversi ,
contamination of soil, aroundwrater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. (THIS
ACREAGE IS ADJACENT TO BRUNSWICK COUNTY WATER SUPPLY.)
o In some cases, additional forest logging(LOTS OF THAT) is done in the vicinity of mines to increase
the available room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD CONTAIN
WHAT???)
• Besides creating environmental damage, contamination resulting from leafage of chemicals also affects
the health of the focal population.
o Mining (in a populated area) can produce noise pollution, dust pollution and visual polfufion. (THE
EFFECTS OF THAT ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
a The effects of leaching of toxic substances into soil and water and the poisoning of wildlife is
dangerous and DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.
a Mercury, a known carcinogen, DIFFICULT TO MEASURE, is a byproduct of the mining industry.
o The metamorphosis of frogs, changing from a tadpole to an adult, can be used as an indicator of water
pollution, and therefore is potentially harmful.
Our immediate concerns:
➢ Zoning and land use changes
➢ Jurisdiction over any and all factors of this situation
➢ More industry in a heavily residential area
➢ Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers (precedents exist in several other states)
➢ Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢ Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
➢ Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
➢ Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution, and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
➢ Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Public safety concerns from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
➢ Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In our opinion, by even considering this request, the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources the best interest of the greater community in mind. Rather, the applicant is seeking a way
to make a profit at a huge and long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage, we
are told, fell through a few years ago. We've heard everything from housing community, to hunting preserve, to
wanting to build lakes to make the land more saleable or to expand hunting opportunities, some of which sound
much closer than the 270 yards we are told is required from a residence.
If the applicant was to sell or donate the acreage to the greater community we think an army of volunteers would
rally to create what could be a permanent place of beauty_ Instead, the applicant and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources have become a joint harbinger of what this community does
not need, more industry in a heavily populated area that will immeasurably and negatively impact all who call this
home.

_ 11

1 ,.,.... FAYETTEVILLE N'C.`2 3
Coastal-Qatoli lra.J�i1 - •�,
05 OCT 2012 PM 4 L
s�y
LA4 - r
��+�� �ll�f11!lilil�iililll�l�llffll�lllllill��il�il�i�ii�ilii�ll!!!_ '

4567 Regency Crossing
Southport, NC 28461
September 15, 2012 RECEIVED
NC Department of Environment& !Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Drive
LAND QUALITY
Raleigh, NC 27699 DINING PROGRAM
Re: New Surface Mining Permit by Davis Herring within Town of Oak Island in Brunswick County
We are concerned residents of ST.James Plantation which abuts the property of Davis Herring.We
request that his permit to receive a new surface mining permit be denied.
There are many environmental issues being raised by this proposal. Mr. Herring has already spent over a
year cutting down hundreds of trees,moving and excavating soil, building a 15' high berm at the edge of
his property and St James,altering natural water flow,creating flooding conditions on neighbors'
property as well as standing water in trenches, which creates a breeding ground for mosquitoes. This
massive destruction was done with no prior notification or explanation to any of the property owners
who abut his property.
The present sand mining proposal will affect soil,water and air quality.The dust pollution alone will be
very harmful to people like myself who have COPD or other respiratory conditions.There is a cement
factory in this neighborhood already which causes dust and particulate matter to contaminate the air
and water.We are very concerned about the contamination of soil,ground water and surface water by
the leaching of toxic substances, such as mercury. Mr. Herring has already destroyed the habitat of the
indigenous wildlife of south eastern NC on his property and the sand mining industry will further alter
the habitat and the biodiversity of our area.Who knows if the damage could ever be repaired?Does Mr.
Herring propose restoration of the land when he gets through raining it?
The residential property owners who surround Mr. Herring's property have their own list of grievances
beyond environmental concerns —loss of property value,noise pollution from heavy equipment,
increased volume of truck traffic, excessive wear to our roads, negative impact to our quality of life.
We ask the Dept.of Environment&Natural Resources to deny Mr.Davis Herring's permit to start a
new surface mine in our residential neighborhood.Thank you for your consideration of this request.
incerely,
Maryann Greg Horgan

b �
r: df;: „fI•
• s

_ ti � rYs•.-, �:+.tc t t- ea r.r x .ss t na.t,t' ax x-r-ax .,.a' �i._..
4ss7��
'Y8anC-Horg� NC 283 Y T
s°=+thPort eIYC 28481 8087 ! t 'o► "14=1:v �rl i ? PEN .:.* u�a i .• _.,...-
FOREVER �
s
IL
co

i
Alan Robidoux and
Annette Wiley-Robidoux
2986 Trailwood Drive
Southport, North Carolina 28461
October 1,2012 RECEIVED
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources gl i 0 5 2011
1612 Dail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 LAND C;2lWAUTY SECTION
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG,CPESC,CPG
Re:Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr.Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St.James Plantation community.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life,property value,and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities.
r
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include,but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low tying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eitherlboth?
• How can such a project be considered on land direcity adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution,and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion, sinkholes,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concerns and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
input.
Sincerely
W

1

M a 1 1 cue
7 / W2,
L i4Z �`�� ,'C� E!l1ll�lfi�l��El�ilil�ifiElEl�ill�ilfll��IilEl�i�

N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources RECE1VF-Q
1601 Mail Service Drive
Raleigh, N.C. 27699 LANP QUAUU SEECT!QN
RE: New Surface Mining Permit by Davis Herring with Town of Oak Island in
Brunswick County
We live in a community, St. James Plantation, which abuts the property of Davis
Herring. We strongly request that a permit for new surface mining be DENIED. There
are many reasons for our request: environmental issues, quality of life issues, property
value issues, etc. Sand mining will result in negative impact in all these areas of
concern to all residents and businesses adjoining this property.
There has already been environmental damage to the area due to the past year's
activities on the Herring p rope rty----deforestation, excavating soil, altering water flow
patterns, and building a "debris hill" which they have called a °berm." In reality this
"berm" consisted of piled up branches and uprooting resulting from the initial bulldozing
of trees. This complete removal right up to property lines was done on Memorial Day
weekend of 2011; without any prior notification or 'explanation (or justification we
feel). We were told at that time that this land, which previously had been described as
wetlands, forever natural, was destroyed for a quail- hunting business--although every
then we were at a loss to understand how total removal of native trees could help quail
hunting. Again, this deforestation was done right up to the adjoining property lines, with
no buffer—which we will discuss later.
Those of you charged with protecting the environment are asked to consider the
negative effects now of this proposed sand mining:
<!--[if EsupportL1'sts]-->1. <!--[endif1-->Air quality—these mining sites "have two types of air
emissions_ The first is dirt that may be emitted during the mining and handling of
sand. The second is from various pollutants emitted from equipment used to mine,
handle and/or process sand." (SC Research & Essays, Vol.6(6) pp_ 1216-1231, 18
March 2011).
Dust pollution alone is harmful to those living near this, never mind any
contaminants that may also be stirred up and released into the air. Careful
monitoring will need to be dome on a daily basis10 prevent harm to those
living or working in surrounding areas. We are told in the application "A v
water truck will be available, if needed, for any potential dust problems."
Will the presence of a water truck be sufficient for any dust problems;of
course depending on what contaminants are exposed and the wind
currents at the time? Have they applied for an air quality permit? Is there a

Division of Air Quality to monitor all on a daily basis? Are those who may
issue the permit also willing to reimburse us for any health problems which
may arise?
<!--[if!supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]--> Water quality—Prior to sand removal, a thorough
study should be undertaken of potentially harmful toxic sediment contaminants which
could be dispersed to the air or the groundwater. Sand deposits are linked to one
another so that addition or removal of sand from one area affects all other
environments. "If sand mining operations are performed below the water table, they
may require significant groundwater pumping in order to dewater the active mining
area. This can lead to an increased potential for impacts to groundwater and surface
water resources." (SC Research & Essays, Vol. 6 (6), pp. 1216-1231, 18 March 2011).
"Another effect_._is modification of the recharge area for groundwater by changing the
land surface...Such changes may increase or decrease rainwater recharge to
groundwater. Shorter flow paths pay increase susceptibility to contamination while
redirected flow paths may deplete total recharge of the aquifer_" (Peckinham,Thorton,&
Whalen, 2009)_ The deforestation which was done in 2011 has already resulted in
altering natural water flow and creating flooding on neighboring properties. We
received no notification of pending permits before that was done in 2011--and are left
wondering if environmental issues/impacts were addressed then. The land in question
sits on top of the Castle Hayne aquifer from which Brunswick County gets water. We
are rightfully concerned about contaminants such as mercury and other carcinogens
and chemicals getting into the water supply, not only for neighbors to the property but
for all who get their water supplied by Brunswick County. In the actual applications for
the Herring property, the box is marked YES next to the question, uWill any part of
proposed mine excavation extend below the water table?" The application goes on
to say "Applicant plans, if needed, to pump from one pit to another. No mine water
discharge from the site will take place." Is this a guarantee? How can they KNOW so
surely that no water discharge will take place? Who will be held responsible and
accountable if the water supply is proved tainted in the future and has caused health
problems and/or death to those exposed? i
<!--[if!supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]--> Biodiversity and protection of endangered
species-- Physical disturbance of the habitat includes generation of noise, which can
interrupt nestinglbreeding activities of native species. Other effects include destruction
of the habitat for foraging and nesting, as well as increased exposure to
contaminants. What is harmful or toxic to animals also applies to humans. However,
here we are talking about destroying the natural habitat of various native
species. Again, we are made to wonder about the quail—we were told last year that the
deforestation was done to improve quail hunting—we cannot think that sand mining and
the heavy equipment which it will bring can still encourage the quail, or any other
species in that area or any surrounding. When we purchased our property, we were
told that other than clearing the area needed to build our home, the trees on the

i
1
1�

property could not be cut down by our choice because the red-cockaded woodpecker
was an endangered species and so protected in this area. We wonder why the Herring
property is exempt from those prohibitions? What about wood storks, copley's
meadowrue, rough-leaved loosestrife and all other species of
flora and fauna that according to federal law should be protected?
<!--[if NupportLists]-->4. <!--[cndifj-->Quality of life--The quality of life of surrounding
housing and businesses will be affected by ANY negative impact to the air or water
supply. Further, the presence of sand mining so near residential areas will lower home
values—certainly prospective buyers will not choose to live adjoining a sand mine with
the heavy equipment, noise pollution, increased truck and vehicle traffic, and impact on
nearby roads. Beyond this, most of us who live here chose this area specifically to
enjoy the natural beauty and quiet of this area. "Quality of Life" describes an
environment of pure air to breathe, pure water, free of noise pollution, and the tranquility
of living in balance with surrounding nature. Sand mining does not "fit in" with a
residential community. We realize its value to our society but it should be restricted to
industrialized areas or areas not zoned as residential. The application for the sand
mining includes a requirement that "a minimum 50' undisturbed buffer will be maintained
between the affected area and wetlands that have been delineated on site" and also
that a "minimum 50' buffer will be required between any land-disturbing activities within
the mining permit boundaries and any natural watercourses and wetlands unless
smaller undisturbed buffers can be justified..."
The applicant responds that "a minimum undisturbed buffer will be maintained between
mine permit boundary and any wetlands." We do not feel that this was done in 2011
and are not reassured it will be done in the future. Further, even with a 50' buffer,
quality of life in the area will be forever altered. Again, would anyone CHOOSE to live
in an area knowing that it adjoins a sand mining operation and all that that entails?
We residents implore the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
to DENY this application.
At the very least, we call for a public hearing, before an approval, to investigate our
concerns and justify why this area should be rezoned and mining permitted. We
understand that since 2011 when trees were razed all along adjoining properties, there
has been ongoing mining done without necessary permits up until May of this year. We
would also like these allegations addressed and necessary legal action taken. This
property, parcel#225000019, is currently zoned R-75 (residential per the Brunswick
County website). We ask your Department to conduct hearings and investigate all that
has happened so far and how this area and its residents will be impacted if sand mining
is permitted. However, we hope that you will DENY this application now based on the

issues raised in our fetters to your department. Thank you for your consideration of our
requests.
Respectful)
John and Julie Sk of
3755 Players Club Drive
St James, NC 28461
[e-mail]

CAP'I'.John Skrief,USNR(RET.) F
' 3755 Plnyers Club Dr 5E U.S. POSTAGE
Southport,NC-28461-8063 R C-'EkVED SOUTHB ST.NC
(/Nf fFD;TA7F; OCT 02. 0
rosrAiasnu�rF 1000 aM0UN7 @
OCT 4 zort
27699 Rauto S ._
I�ND QUALITY SECTION Route 2
aolivary point
O DO000000� , OOOOO nmec p Enviro
. �. . nR and Na
tura
(:?&+.tr�e2 7oit3soaoobai24o9a4�
� 6R g--�Co ! 11[[�1111�[11J f f f if f f 11f if
7011 3500 0000 1240 9847 , ^ 1��[r�ll�1I1111!!II[I[� f f 1f 11f
w100005cws
.27699+1612 11i Kill.li11.1,1.1.1".4.11111i oil 1li„1,1111„1111,1.11'r

4 0�(1 - ti�0� 1
..,.
e j
i
r+

Mr. Mell Nevils, P.E., Land Quality Section Chief October 2,2012
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
Subject: 915/12 application by Davis C. Herring, Jr. for a new surface mining permit to mine sand on 22.54
acres located in the Town of Oak Island near Airport Road in Brunswick County.
Many local citizens have raised significant questions and concerns about the proposed sand mining.
Accordingly,this letter requests a public hearing on the subject application before any N.C. approval is
made. It is also requested that appropriate N.C. officials visit the property to verify compliance with all N.C.
land use restrictions, including zoning,environmental,noise, and other residential restrictions and
requirements.
Questions and concerns:
• The proposed mining acreage is next to a residential community. The noise from mining
operations can significantly affect time peaceful enjoyment by residents and visitors of their
communities. Any air, soil and water pollution can significantly affect the health and safety of local
residents and visitors. Next follows greatly diminished home values and excessive economic
losses that would not otherwise occur.
• Some citizens understand that the proposed mining is directly over the Castle Hayne Aquifer; if so,
this poses a potential serious threat to the Brunswick County water supply. Will the proposed
mining damage the water supply? Shouldn't N.C. officials carefully assess and evaluate this
before any mining is approved?
• Has the mining that has already occurred,and that may be occurring, complied with all N.C. land
use restrictions, including zoning, environmental, noise, and other residential restrictions and
requirements?
• Does the future mining being proposed fall within existing N.C. land use restrictions, including
zoning, environmental, noise, and other residential restrictions and requirements?
• Given the significant questions and concerns raised by many citizens, appropriate N.C. officials
should visit the property to verify and confirm compliance with all N.C. land use restrictions,
including zoning, environmental, noise, and other residential restrictions and requirements.
Sincerely,
'eCEIVED
OCT 0 4 all William H. Price, Jr.
Carol Price
LAND QLJA.LlTy 990TI©N 2766 Harbormaster Drive SE
Southport, N.C. 28461

f � --mom
W 1 L L Ir„ ' l U SPRTdS3AGE
�9 j E SOCTH02.*1 NC '
ua:rcc.arFs AMOUT:T '� \
sac,1r .PaR? NC 2 I 1psrn�zcevrcc N
im
1000 $1,85-
RECEIVEDIR M�L-L NlEOL 5$ P. E.
OCT a 4 2011 LIJOVD Q ou r t' �a
d � te
Alr o►��fP OF EnN1�iD1�IMi�l
��
9092 6E2T 0000 0l'f4o' LjTY SECn T „
En �ro",fien
1N1A7U,49?'L R�SouRcF 5 1�1
12 n1. uR EF T
� �� s� Y s� �� 111111
R,4f-�1611 NC 27601iAk
-
r000aoc� 000000bo 11 p0�
P11111I Hill 111,ploffill to III*$If Ill]1ill11r}F1111111

14� kl
J - 2'?97 � crr` you c
Southport, North Carolina 28461 o -c 2841
� �o
October 1,2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1612 R E C E NE L
Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
Ul;I 0 4 2012
To: Floyd R.Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
LAND QUALITY SECTION
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring-Herring Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in Brunswick
County on land immediately adjacent to our St.James Plantation community,a map of which is included.
We are not experts on surface sand mining but know that it will forever impact the health,quality of life,property value,and
environment for us as well as 4,000 plus other property owners within St.James Plantation and surrounding residential beach
communities_
Our concerns about this potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to,the following items which we would like to have
publically addressed during the hearing process:
• Why consider this type of activity in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on land clearly designated for
residential use?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying area in a hurricane area and flood plain-What will be the impact to the local environment in
the event of eitheriboth?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Have the appropriate impact reports been prepared to determine the short and long term effects on our health and soil due to
the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution,dust pollution,and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes,and inappropriate changes to the surrounding
land?
• How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport depends?
• Why is surface sand mining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we beg you to please consider all of our concems and not allow this self-serving project to move forward without public
Input
Sincerely,

� _ L��•� lose
P^
y. ^
f
W
� a � ..
d
.� ♦ " a
_ � s

Friday, September 27, 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 1612 Mail Service Center RECEIVED
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 UUl 0 4
Land Quality Section LAND QUALITY SECT16N
Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R.Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
From: L6�i .
Mr.Adam Sokoloski
3262 Beaver Creek Dr. SE
Southport,NC 28461 i1
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine, Brunswick County

This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of"sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60
days following the 30-day comment period"specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday, September
7, 2012. As no mention was made of how many letters define"sufficient public interest,"we assume our letter
alone merits scheduling a public hearing. The certified letter we received, dated September 5, 2012,did not reach
all the property owners at the same time. Ours was one of the first. That in itself is highly questionable as
responses are required within 30 days of the issuance of the correspondence.
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy trying to understand the topic.
What seems implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+acres,zoned for
single family housing AND in a historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete
company,ammunition depot, nuclear energy facility,and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been cleared to
the periphery of this property, well outside the diagram included in the certified letter. This suggests an alternative
purpose or purposes in pursuing this permit,or at the very least utilizing far more land than is shown on the map.
We have questions, facts we have learned,concerns, and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
Is this acreage still zoned R-75?
• Did the applicant for this permit apply for a request in zoning for this acreage?
• If so, when?Through what entity?Has the applicant complied with ALL aspects of proper application for a
zoning change and who is responsible for confirming this?
• Are applications for a zoning change public record?
a How can such a zoning request change occur, if it did, without those affected being notified?
• Under whose jurisdiction is this property?
• How can extensive and ongoing worts to this property happen, AND IT HAS,if permits have not been
granted?
o Who has actually been to this property and seen the visual effects?
• Is North Carolina so without laws as not to protect primarily residential areas?
• What agencies are involved in looking out for the greater good of the immediate communities affected and
Brunswick County?
AlkJ

What we are teaming:
• Surface raining is a broad category of mining in which soil and/or rock overlying the desired product is
removed. It is the opposite of underground mining, in which the overlying surface is left in place,and the
desired product removed through shafts or tunnels.
a In most forms of surface mining, heavy equipment(LOTS OF THAT AND NOISE!), such as
earthmovers,first removes the overburden. Next, huge machines,such as dragline excavators or Bucket
wheel excavators,extract whatever is being mined.
• The environmental impact of mining includes erosion formation of sinkholes, loss of biodiversity,
contamination of soil,groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining processes. (THIS
ACREAGE IS ADJACENT TO BRUNSWICK COUNTY WATER SUPPLY.)
o In some cases, additional forest logging(LOTS OF THAT)is done in the vicinity of mines to
increase the available room for the storage of the created debris and soil. (THAT WOULD
CONTAIN WHAT???)
s Besides creating environmental damage,contamination resulting from leakage of chemicals also
affects the health of the local population.
o Mining(in a populated area)can produce noise pollution,dust pollution and visual pollution. (THE
EFFECTS OF THAT ARE ALREADY CLEARLY EVIDENCED.)
a The effects of leaching of toxic substances into soil and water and the poisoning of wildlife is
dangerous and DIFFICULT TO MEASURE.
a Me_ rcury,a known carcinogen, DIFFICULT TO MEASURE, is a byproduct of the mining industry.
The metamorphosis of frogs,changing from a tadpole to an adult,can be used as an indicator of water
pollution,and therefore is potentially harmful.
Our immediate concerns:
Zoning and land use changes
➢ ,ludsdiction over any and all factors of this situation
> More industry in a heavily residential area
Unknown and immeasurable environmental dangers(precedents exist in several other states)
Unknown and immeasurable health dangers
➢ Occupational lung diseases due to proximity to area
Water pollution and increased cost for clean water
Noise pollution, lack of laws for noise pollution, and impact on those nearest property already

➢ Air pollution and impact on those nearest property already
➢ Leaching toxic chemicals into nearby water supply
Damage and excessive wear to roads from trucking traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Public safety corrcems from the volume of truck traffic and subsequent costs
➢ Negative impact on tourism and subsequent loss of revenue
➢ Negative impact on home values and subsequent loss of growth to the area
In our opinion, by even considering this request, the applicant nor the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Rmurres has the best interest of the greater community in mind, Rather, the applicant is seeking a
way to make a profit at a huge and long lasting expense to the greater community since the sale of said acreage,
we are told,fell through a few years ago. We've heard everything from housing community,to hunting preserve,to
wanting to build lakes to make the land more saleable or to expand hunting opportunities, some of which sound
much closer than the 270 yards we are told is required from a residence.
If the applicant was to sell or donate the acreage to the greater community we think an army of volunteers would
rally to create what could be a permanent place of beauty. Instead,the applicant and the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources have become a joint harbinger of what this community does not
need, more industry in a heavily populated area that will immeasurably and negatively impact all who call this home.
s

Y
4 ♦gtiati0
aP
606
0

- - - ��Qy�`r Rom=• ,�.i k�:�.i�'+t '+Tr ..,�4r.,, :r:• uisR':9`�%'�1}��r .
Mrs Susan A Sokoloski �i`� . 31 �.. ! ;
3262 Reaper Creek Dr SE_- :
Soutiipart,NC 28461-869. 48 �" p� .
7 ,lk
2-
rL-�����.tlr'�¢,��rL Illiil�ll!'1��1111�1i7141iiS4�111�11111111111�'11111i}1111�i11 ,

Randall&Betsy Foote
3526 Methbers Golub Blvd
Southport, North Carolina 28461
October 1,2012 RECEIVED
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources UL 2012
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 LAND QUALITY SECTION
j Land Quality Section-Division of Land Resources
To: Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPESC, CPG
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring- Herring; Mine, Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
Please consider this letter as our request to you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed surface sand mining in
Brunswick County on land immediately adjacent to our St. James Plantation community-
While we are not experts on surface sand mining, but we do recognize that it will forever negatively impact the health,
quality of life, property value,and environment for us as well as the 4,000 plus other property owners within St. James
Plantation and surrounding residential beach communities.
Our concerns about this'potentially damaging situation include, but are not limited to, the following items which we would
like to hive publically addressed during the hearing process:
Why is this type of activity even being considered in a heavily populated, residential area of the County and on
4.1 x_ re=-, s - ,n• :'�1::•i.'3 :S rilf' 24• larid'cleariy designated`f©r resident"'use?
` f' •'� Has_an Environmental Impact'Statement(EIS)!been`completed?`'If not;why not?•`If sa;please make it"publicly
- available. ..
For example, what are the EIS findings concerning the short and long term effects on our health and soil
due to the leaching of toxic substances, poisonous chemicals?
• What are the plans to mitigate the associated noise pollution, dust pollution, and surface water pollution?
• What will be the environmental impact of this mining such as erosion,sinkholes, and inappropriate changes to the
surrounding land?
• This acreage is clearly a low lying flood plain area and in a hurricane area. What impact will the proposed use
have to the'local environment when flooding and hurricane landfall occur?
• How can such a project be considered on land directly adjacent to the Brunswick County fresh water supply?
• Has an Economic Impact Analysis(EIA) been performed? For example,
o How will this activity impact the long term tourism industry upon which our beach community of Southport
depends?
o Why is surface sand reining the best use of this particular land?
Sir,we urgently request that you to please consider all of our concerns,and ensure due diligence is performed
by initiating'and following the•NEPA'process,which is desigriedto invoke the public a6d'gatherthe'best
available1646'fmation in a single place so'that'decision makers can be fully informed when they make their
`Since ''�' '' s� .0 ;.a: -

,3
r^
' v
it
' .. -

� Randall Foote
� i d'�i_ E .{:hi-�:�C_;�E .Ct�t A Pi f:L_ t in. _•. ti`yn_ w`.
3526 Members Club Blvd.SE
i h Southport, NC 28461-Mi 1 �t[: .`�83, 2 .Y
. . ,i. .,.. ..n FORE�fA, I
co ri � 1 /1
Q r7 w!P�f� �-} C�v�vv vl n1 Q.,,( r ,,,.jQLry
rl��tt v
f2vc'0Q CCq 3 '
(QV, 14Y spL47M
'LZ f.3'*4r%A lrrt �ts�� �ssi�s4�i��i�t+���itstsf�siltssit��tsls�ltitsls�ttlti4ttl

Friday, September 27, 2012
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources RECEIVED
1612 Mail Service Center UZ I 0 4 2012
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Land Quality Section
Division of Land Resources ���QUALITY SECTION
To:Floyd R.Williams,PG,CPESC,CPG
From: Ms. Patricia A Rodrick
4110 Kittiwake Court SE
Southport(St,James), NC 28461
Re: Notification of Proposed Sand Mine
By: Davis C. Herring
Herring Mine,Brunswick County
Mr. Williams:
This letter is to evidentially meet the requirements of'sufficient public interest to merit a public hearing within 60 days following the 30-
day comment period'specified in the initial certified letter we received on Friday,September 7,2012. As no mention was made of how
many fetters define'sufficient public interest,'we assume our letter alone merits scheduling a public hearing. The certified letter we
received,dated September 5,2012, did not reach all the property owners at the same time. Ours was one of the first. That in itself is
highly questionable as responses are required within 30 days of the issuance of the correspondence.
We are not knowledgeable about surface sand mining and have been quite busy trying to understand the topic. What seems
implausible is the ability of an individual to apply for such a permit on land, 112+acres, zoned for single family housing AND in a
historically residential and tourist community that peripherally already has a concrete company,ammunition depot,nuclear energy
facility,and has tried to get a port! Extensive land has been cleared to the periphery of this property,well outside the diagram included
in the certified letter. This suggests an alternative purpose or purposes in pursuing this permit,or at the very least utilizing far more
land than is shown on the map.
We have questions,fads we have learned,concerns,and opinions regarding this incredibly shocking situation.
Questions:
• Is this acreage still zoned R-75?
• Did the applicant for this permit apply for a request in zoning for this acreage?
• If so,when?Through what entity?Has the applicant complied with ALL aspects of proper application for a zoning change and
who is responsible for confirming this?
• Are applications for a zoning change public record?
• How can such a zoning request change occur,If it did,without those affected being notifred?
• Under whose jurisdiction is this property?
• How can extensive and ongoing work to this property happen,AND IT HAS, if permits have not been granted?
Who has actually been to this property and seem the visual effects?
• Is North Carolina so without laws as not to protect primarily residential areas?
What agencies are involved in looking out for the greater good of the immediate communities affected and Brunswick County?

,. , y
.+ _ -.
;��
�•T• _ '`
�• � l.. -
�' � � - '.L
�� _ � .,
� ` � +' .�•
.rl I
- i3 � '^ _
.. t.,
_ �,�. ..
' .. , 1 • �.
t .. .. � `�
t. � '_
' A ..
_ .- _ �`[
..x
� ...
.. _ `+