02-06 North American Emerald Mine File Pt. 16

North Carolina
James D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist
AM_
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
March 4, 2005
Mr. J. Ronald Summers
North American Emerald Mines, Inc.
531 Duncan Lane
Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636
RE: Permit No. 02-06 / North American Emerald Mine
Alexander County / Yadkin River Basin
Dear Mr. Summers:
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
The purpose of this letter is to clarify your company's recent request to operate a rock
crusher at this site in order to crush rock into gravel. Your company has been approved to do
so contingent upon the following: 1) any necessary permits or approvals required by the
Division of Air Quality to operate said equipment on the site shall be obtained and 2) no off -site
generated rock material shall be brought onto the site without prior approval from the
Department.
The issuance of a mining permit and/or any modification to it does not supersedelocalzoning
regulations. The responsibility of compliance with any applicable zoning regulations lies with
you.
As a reminder, your permitted acreage at this site is 94.6 acres and the amount of land
You are approved to disturb is 15.1 acres.
Please advise this office at [phone] should you have any questions concerning
this matter.
S
FRW/jw ?James D. Simons, PG, PE
cc: Mr. Doug Miller, PE
File
Land Quality Section 919-73345741 FAX: [phone] - Geological Survey Section 919-733-24231 FAX: [phone]
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Division of Land Resources 919-733-38331 FAX: [phone] Internet: wwwAr.enr. state.ne.us/dlr.htm
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 110%, Post Consumer Paper

October 27, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Brenda M. Harris, Secretary=
SUBJECT: Notice of Issuance of Mining Permit
A copy of the attached "Notice of Issuance of Mining Permit' was sent to all
people listed in the Affidavit of Notification and any additional people who sent in letters.
If a public hearing was held, a copy of the "Notice of Issuance of Mining Permit' was
sent to all people who signed the sign in sheet at the public hearing. My initials, written
in red, will be beside the names of the people in the file who were sent this "Notice".
Cc: Mr. Doug Miller

Ncrh Carolina
James 0. Simons, P.G., P.E.
Cirector and Stare Geologist
rir
NCDENR
Department of Environment and (Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. J. Ronald Summers
!North American Emerald Mines, Inc.
531 Duncan Lane
Hiddenite, North Carolina 28636
RE: Permit No. 02-06
North American emerald dine
Alexander County
Yadkin River Basin
October 27, 2004
7002 3150 1313133 7p42 2572
Michael = Easley, Governer
William G. I, s Jr., Secretar
Your recent request to have the above referenced mining permit modified inas been
a c, oved. The ^'edification °s tc increase the permitted acreage : 94.6 acres and the
affected acreage at this site to 15.1 acres. The modification includes the addition of'a'
haul
I oad and over: urden disposal area as indicated on the mine maps received by the Land
Ouaiity Section cn September 23, 2002. A copy of the modified permit is enclosed.
The conditions in the modified permit were based primarily upon the initial application.
Modifications were made as indicated by the modification request and as required to insure
compliance with The (Mining Act of 1971. The expiration date, mine name and permit number
shall remain, the same as before the modification. I would like to draw your particular attention
to the following conditions where minor additions or changes were made: Operating Condition
Nos. 4C, 5 and 3, and Reclamation Condition INC. 3.
The issuance of a mining permit and/or any modification to it does not supersede locai
zoning-eguiaticn,s. The responsibility of compliance with any applicable zoning regulations
lies �,vith ••icu.
.',s we 'lave .received the 359,000.CC Assignment of Savings ACcvunt, I am returnin,,
the SH, 00.0( .-ssicnmen of Savings , . CCL,:i reviously held 5y'hls :office for this site fcr
% our ._t; s p-_s al.
.As a reminder, your permitted acreage at this site is 94.6 acres and the amount of land
you are approved to disturb is 15.1 acres.
Geological Survey • Land —_cality . Geodetic Survey
Division of Lana Resources • 1612 Alail Service :enter, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1612
512 North Saliscurry Street. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
919-7 23-381-a 1, F.M: C-19-715-8801 `. Internet www.dir.enr.state.nc.us/dlr.htm
..A, f.-m=!Ve .A=or=mclover - 50% Recyc:ed� '.0% Post Consumer ?aoer

Certified Maii
Mr. Summers
Page Two
Please . eview the modified permit and contact Ms. Judy Wehner, Assistant Mining
Specialist, at 1"919) 733-4574 should you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
`—•.4�� �
Floyd R. Williams, PG, CPG, CPESC
State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
FRWtjw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Doug Miller, PE
Ms. Shannon Deaton - WRC, w/enclosures
Mr. Bradley Bennett - DWQ, w/enclosure
Mr. 'William Gerringer-.Mine and Quarry Bureau, w/c enclosure
-He

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
PERMIT
for the operation of a mining activity
In accordance with the provisions of G.S. 74-46 through 68, "The Mining
Act of 1971," ;dining Permit Rule 15A NCAC 5 3, and other applicable
!aws, rules and regulations
Permission is hereby granted to:
North American Emerald Mines, Inc.
North .American Emerald Mine
Alexander County - Permit No. 02-06
for the operation of a
Gemstone dine
Which shall provide that the usefulness, productivity and scenic values of
all ;ands and waters affected by this mining operation will receive the
_ eaLes-- 3 actical Degree _ and restoration.
MINING PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: March 15, 2010

ge
in accordance with the application for this mining permit, which is hereby approved by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources hereinafter referred :c as the Department,
and in conformity with the approved Reclamation Plan attached to and incorporated as Dart of
this permit, provisions must be made for the protection of the surrounding environment and for
reclamation of the land and water affected by the permitted mining operation. This permit is
expressly conditioned upon compliance with all the requirements of the approved Reclamation
Plan. However, completed performance of the approved Reclamation Plan is a separable
obligation, secured by the bond or other security on file with the Department, and may survive
the expiration, revocation or suspension of this permit.
This permit is not transferable by the permittee with the following exception: If another
operator succeeds to the interest of the permittee in the permitted mining operation, by virtue
of a sale, lease, assignment or otherwise, the Department may release the permittee from the
duties imposed upon him by the conditions of his permit and by the Mining Act with reference
to the permitted operation, and transfer the permit to the successor operator, provided that
both operators have complied with the requirements of the Mining Act and that the successor
operator agrees to assume the duties of the permittee with reference to reclamation of the
affected land and posts a suitable bond or other security.
In the event that the Department determines that the permittee or permittee's successor is not
complying with the Reclamation Plan cr other terms and conditions Df this permit, or is failing
W achieve the purposes and requirements of the Mining Act, the Department may give the
operator written notice of its intent tc modify. revoke or suspend the permit, or its intent to
modify the Reclamation Plan as incorporated in the permit. The operator shall have right to a
hearing at a designated time and place on any proposed modification, revocation or
suspension by the Department. Alternatively and in addition to the above, the Department
may institute other enforcement procedures authorized by law.
Definitions
Wherever used or referred to in this permit, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise,
terms shall have the sane meaning as supplied by the :Mining Act, N.C.G.S. 74-49.
Modifications
March 13, 2002: This permit has been modified to allow blasting activities at this site
October 27. 2004: This permit has been modified to Increase the cermitted acreage to 94.5
acres and the affected acreage at `his site :c 15.1 acres. he modification includes the
addition of a haul road and overburden disposal area as indicated on the mine maps received
by the Land Quality Section on September 23, 2002.
Expiration Date
This permit shall be effective from the date of its issuance until March 15, 2010

3ge ,
Conditions
This Permit shall be subject to the provisions of the iNilining Act, N.C.G.S. 74-46, at. seq.. and
to the following conditions and limitations:
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
Wastewater and Quarry Dewaterinq
A. Any wastewater processing or mine dewatering shall be in accordance with the
permitting requirements and rules promulgated by the N.C. Environmental
Management Commission.
B. Any storm water runoff from the affected areas at the site shall be in accordance
with any applicable permit requirements and regulations promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency and enforced by the N.C. Environmental
Management Commission. it shall be the permittee's responsibility to contact
the Water Quality Section, Division of Water Quality, to secure any necessary
storm water permits or other approval documents.
2. Air Qualitv and Dust Control
A. Any mining related process producing air contaminant emissions ind!a ing
fugitive dust shall be subject to the requirements and rules promulgated by the
N.C. Environmental Management Commission and enforced by the Division of
Air Quality.
B. During processing operation, water trucks or other means that may be necessary
shall be utilized to prevent dust from leaving the permitted area.
3. Buffer Tones
A. Any mining activity affecting waters of the State, waters of the U. S., or wetlands
shall be in accordance with the requirements and regulations promulgated and
enforced by the N. C. Environmental Management Commission.
3. Sufficient huffier (minimum 100 foot undisturbed) shall be maintained betI eer,
any affected land and any adjoining waterway or wetland to prevent
sedimentation of that waterway or wetland from erosion of the affected :a.... a--d
to preserve the integrity of the natural watercourse or wetland.

-age
4. E-msicn and Sediment Contrcl
A. Adequate mechanical barriers including, but not limited tc diversions. earthen
dikes, silt check dams, silt retarding structures, rip rap pits, or ditches snail be
provided in the initial stages of any land disturbance and maintained to prevent
sediment from discharging onto adjacent surface areas or into any lake, wetland
or natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
B. All mining activities shall be conducted as indicated by the Erosion and
sedimentation Control Plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the
supplemental Erosion and Sedimentation Control Narrative and design
calculations.
C. Mining activities associated with the addition of the haul road and overburden
disposal area, including the installation and maintenance of all associated
erosion and sediment control measures, shall be conducted as indicated on the
mine maps received by the Land Quality Section on September 23, 2002.
5. Markinc Boundaries
All affected area boundaries (15.1 acres) shall tie permanently marked at the site on
100 foot intervals unless the line of sight allows for larger spacing intervals.
6. Graded Slopes and Fills
The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater than the angle which can be
retained by vegetative cover or other adequate erosion control measure, structure, or
device. In any event, exposed slopes or any excavated channels, the erosion of which
may cause off -site damage because of siltation, shall be planted or otherwise provided
with groundcover, devices or structures sufficient to restrain such erosion.
7. Surface Drainace
The affected land shall be graded so as to prevent collection of pools of water that are,
or likely :o become, noxious cr foul. Necessary structures such as drainage ditches or
conduits shall be constructed or installed when required to prevent such conditions.
8. Blastirc
The operator shall monitor each blast with a seismograph located at a distance
no farther than the closest off site regularly occupied structure not owned or
leased by the operator. A seismographic record including peak particle velocity, air
overpressure, and vibration frequency levels shall be kept for each blast (except as
provided under Sections 8B. and 8D. of this permit). The following blasting conditions
shall be observed by the mine operator to prevent hazard to persons and adjacent
property from surface blasting:

A.
a
?age
Ground Vibration With Monitoring:
In ail blasting operations, the maximum peak particle velocity cf ami component
of ground motion shall not -exceed =!gure 1 (below) at the immediate location of
any regularly occupied building outside of the permitted area such as a dwelling
house, church, sc`'cc!, cr tlic, commercial or institutional building.
J.Q
S:•a.r Vibration H<
Ground Vibration Without Monitoring:
In the event of seismograph malfunction or other condition which prevents
monitoring, blasting shall be conducted in accordance with the following
formulas:
W = (D/DS)Z D$ =Wvz
V = 160(DS)-16
W = Maximum charge weight of explosives per delay period of 3.0 milliseconds
or more (pounds).
D = Distance from the blast site. to the nearest inhabited building not owned or
leased by the mine operator (feet).
Ds = Scaled distance factor.
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second).
The peak particle velocity of any component shall not exceed 4.0 inch per
second, for the purposes of this Section.

age ,
Air blast With Monitoring:
Air blast overpressure resulting from surface blasting shall nct axceed 129
decibels linear (dBL) as measured at the immediate location of any regularly
occupied building not owned or leased by the operator outside of the permitted
area such as a dwelling house, church, school, or public, commercial or
institutional building, unless an alternate level based on the sensitivity of the
seismograph microphone as specified below is being used:
Lower Frequency Limit of Max Level,
Measuring System in Hz in dBL
0.1 Hz or lower -flat response 134 peak
2.0 Hz or lower -flat response 133 peak
6.0 Hz or lower -flat response 129 peak
D. Air blast Without Monitoring:
In the event of seismograph malfunction or other condition which prevents
monitoring, blasting shall be conducted in accordance with the fcllowing
formulas:
To convert U (psi) to P (dBL):
J = 82 ID„ N0'33)-i
P = 20 x log (U/2.9x10'9)
Confined Air blast/Overpressure (dBL)
for quarry situation:
A=P-35
U = Unconfined air overpressure (pounds per square inch).
W = Maximum charge weight of explosives per delay period of 8.0 milliseconds
or more (pounds).
D = Distance from the blast site to the nearest inhabited building not owned or
leased by the mine operator (feet).
= Unconfined air overpressure (decibels).
A = Air blast or air overpressure for typical quarry situations (decibels).
The air blast/overpressure shall not exceed 129 decibels, for the purposes of this
Section.

?uge:
�. Record Keecinc:
The operator shall maintain records on each individual blast describing: the total
number of holes; pattern of holes and delay of intervals; depth and size of holes:
type and total pounds of explosives; maximum pounds per delay interval; amount
of stemming and burden for each hole; blast location; distance from blast to
closest offsite regularly occupied structure; and weather conditions at the time of
the blast. Records shall be maintained at the permittee's mine office and copies
shall be provided to the Department upon request.
Excessive Ground Vibration/Air blast Reoortin
If ground vibration or Air blast limits are exceeded, the operator will immediately
report the event with causes and corrective actions to the Department. Use of
explosives at the blast that produced +the excessive he Department are taken. reading
Howe eshall
blasting
cease
ng until
corrective actions approved b Y
may occur in other approved areas within he permitted boundary..Authcrization
to blast at the blast site may be granted at the time of the verbal reporting of the
high ground vibration or high air blast reading if the circumstances justify ,derbal
approval. Failure to report will constitute a permit violation.
G. Flvrock Prevention:
The operator shall take all reasonable precautions to -ensure that flyrock's not
thrown beyond areas where the access is temporarily or permanently guarded by
the operator. Failure to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock and
repeated instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation of the Mining ?ermit.
,. Flvrock Recortine:
Should flyrock occur beyond the permitted and guarded areas, the operator shall
immediately report the incident to the Department. ;=urher use of explosives on
the mine site shall be suspended until the following actions have been taken:
1. A thorough investigation as to he cause(s) of the Incident shall be
conducted.
2. A report detailing the investigation shall be provided to the Department
within 10 days of the incident. The report shall, at a minimum, docu: ent
the cause(s) of the incident along with technical and management actions
that will be taken to prevent further incidents. The report shall meet with
the approval of the Department before blasting may resume at the mine
site.

,Ge
studies:
r v of the findings _or ar'r'°
onse to an exceedence or a
The operator shall provide to the Department a „op,
seismic studies conducted at the mine site in resp
level allowed s these blasting conditions. The operator shall make ever i
reasonable effort to incorporate the studies' recommendations into the
production blasting program.
Notice:
The operator shall, when requested by the Department, give 24-hour advance
noticeof e a d notice Quality
t reecho Regional office prior to any blast during a
period
Visual screening
=xisting vegetation shall be maintained between the mine and public thoroughrares :c
screen the operation from the public. Additional screening methoodsate by he
constructing earthen berms, shall be employed as eemed appropriate
Department.
r=diacenI ?'Ocertv Suffers
ermit boundary or right-of-way to protect adjacent ropem:.
Sufficient buffer (minimum Of 50 foot pundisturbed) shall be maintained bet veen an,
excavation and any mining p
1 lichwalh ass
A physical barrier consisting of a fence
around the perimeter of any highwall.
or earthen berm, etc., shall be maintained
�Pfl�p
permit
A. No on -site disposal of refuse or other solid waste that is generated outside of ', e
mining permit area shall be allowed within the boundaries of the mining pe
area unless authorization to conduct rnentdan{dpheal has first been Land Quality Section,
-rem
both the Division of Waste Management
Department of environment and proved reclamation llResources. n.
The method cf dispcsal
shall be consistent with the approve
g. Mining refuse as defined by G.S. 74-49 (14) of The dining Act of 1971
generated on -site and directly associated with the mining activity may be
disposed of in a designated refuse area. a All iy he Division ther ste pof d ucts must be
disposed of t. a disposal petroleum app the
Management. y of ent. to p be considered hazardous rshall beodiisa sec of containers
or any other material that may
within the permitted area.

?ace .
es
the
C. =or the purposourc
ses of 'his permit, thefusesion additoo toehcse specficalersis listed
following materials to be "mining
under G.S. 74-49 (14) of the N.C. dining Act of 1971):
1. on -site generated land clearing debris
2. conveyor belts
3. wire cables
4. v-belts
5. steel reinforced air hoses
g, drill steel
D, If mining refuse is to be permanently disposed within the mining permit vapproved by the
boundary, the following information must be provided to and app
rip or to commencement of such disposal:
Division of Land Resources
1. the approximate boundaries and size of the refuse disposal area;
2. a list of refuse items to be disposed;
inimum of 4 feet of cover will be provided over the
3. verification that a m
refuse;
4. verification :hat the refuse will be disposed at least 4 feet above the
seasonally high Water table; and �''n=_d
verification, that d permanent .egetathre groundcover .vi!! be esta :.;s
13. Annual Reclamation Reoerf.
ed
An Annual Reclamation 'J Reotcaac.al/ ae Jnbmittceama+oon a n is omplrm ete by
approved.
Department by
1 a. Plan M ific� n
or arosionisediment control plan
The operator shall netif - the Department !r. •,vr!ting of :he desire to delete, modify or
otherwise change anv par of the mining, aeciamatise�mit and any approved revisions to
contained in the approved application -or mining
it. Approval to implement such, changes ;rust be obtained fron the Department prior to
on -site implementation of the revisions.
15. Sondino
The security, which was posted pursuant L N.C.G.S. 74-54 in the form of a �59,GGG.GG
r 'he operation as
Assignment of application. Savings
Account, is This security must in force for this permit to l be valid. cated in t The
approved
ed
total affected land shall not excethe bonded acreage.

�. ar haeolccical Resources
Authorized 'epresentatives of the vivision of presence of significant
Jhall e
granted access to the site to determine the
archaeological resources.
and Human
Pursuant to NCGS 70 Article 3, "The Unmarked Human Burial er on n his
Skeletal Remains Protection Act," should the operator or any pl be
emploed to thetcounty medical exlam ner and the ch of archeologist,
te notification hNlorth
provided
Division of Archives and History.

image
rr
�� performance CT SVhICh 15 a CCndItiCC
g P �rmit. Additionally, the Reclamation Plan is aaa Permit.
T„e Mining Permit incorporates .his �Peclamaticn Plan, •, e
on the continuing validity of that dining
seoarable obligation of the permittee, which continues beyond the terms of the Mining .
The approved plan provides:
Minimum Standards As Provided By G.S. 74- it ravel and other unconsolidated
The final slopes in ail excavations in soil, sand, g
materials shall be at such an angle as to minimize the possibility of slides and be
consistent with the future use of the land. provided in all
�_ Provisions for safety to persons and to adjoining property must be
excavations in rock.
ance with
g. All overburden and
Ipractices andl shall be left �which n a configuration
table for the'proposed s in subsequent use
accepted conservation
of the land.
4. No small pools oec anerno shall be aaiousdo foulcollect or remain on the mined area that are.
or are likely to b
the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
The revegetation plan shall conform to accepted and
5. recommended agronomic an
reforestation practices as established by
Station and the North Carolina Forest Service.
g. Permittee shall conduct reclamation activities pursuant tc the Reclamation Plan herein
incorporated. the 141me schedule
lanewhichtshall ies io'Ithe extent be Ceas ble provide deng oreclamation simultaneous
included in the p went, provide reclamation at the earliest practicable
with mining operations and in and
time after completion or termination. of mining on any segment of the permit area and
shall be completed within two year
after compietion or termination OCT mining.
RECLAMATION CONDITIONS: he planned reclamation
1 Provided `urther, and subject to the ?edamatien Schedule, ed areas..
o rade and satisfzctcrlly re /egetaie a
shall be , g planned
2. The specifications for surface gradient restoration to a surface suitable for the
future use are as follows:
tal opes shall be graded to a 2 horizonto
A. Ail sidesl1 vertical or flatter slope.
ing ponds and sediment control 'basins shall be backfilled and stabilized.
g, Any se sl

-he processing, stockpile, and
other disturbed areas "eighccdr.g the , _e
G. _reoared before
excavation shall be leveled anc ,mcotspsoiled or cU erNise
D Compacted surfaces shall be disced, On -site
revegetation. of at the mine site.
No contaminants shall be p
ermanently disposed orating Conditions N
E. os• 12.A.
disposal cf'vaste shall be inaccordance with P
through D.
F land shall be graded to prevent the collection of noxious or'
The affected ou
water.
3 Reve etation Plan
etated as Per the Revegetation
, all disturbed areas shall be reveg
After site preparation Mr. Dan McClure, District Conservationist'Nith the Natural Resource
Plan approved by 1999.
Conservation Service on June 14, etated with native warm season
Whenever possible, disturbed areas should be veg
^rass, 'oluestem and gamma g
rass, Indian a o ist Nith the ' I
grasses such as switch g a orcfessio..a' 1wiljilfe ;•ol g
JtWlth
In addition,
the permittee shall to enhance post project wildlife habitat at the site.
Wildlife Resources Comm
Reclamation Plan, vith mining c .he
P <tent feasible. 'r
4. letion or
ermit. e aft reclamation, Including
Reclamation shall ti conducted simultaneous Y completion
e termination of
n mine segment under p
n event, reclamation shall be initiated as soon s sore n pie at`er coin
any
termination Of mining I beOf leted within ,wo Year
revegetation,
mining.
2000 and modified March 1
is hereby modified
2004 pursuant to G•S• 74'S2.
This permit, issued March 1
this 27th day of October,
By:
Simons, Director
James!? Resources
Division of Lof the Secretaryatural
By Authority
Of the Department of Environment and nResource

NCTt MININ1= OF:
landowner
permit `fled'^y `lorth 4.merican Emerald (no 02 06) was
You have previcusly expressed an interest and/or are listed as an adjoining
t mcdify this mining , The mining p
�• the appiicaticn .p 1491 in Alexander County.
cpnduct mining activities off SR
modified on October 27, 2004. rieved by the issuance of a mining permit to
North Carolina law allows persons agg case in the office of
decision by filing a petition f r a cc the Admindistrative Pro edu e Act(APA)trative
contest the 1508 2
Hearings pursuant to N.��G•S• of the APA and NC
aggrieved party within the meaning
If you believe that you are an agg office
etition for a contested case must of filed
snotice tyou of
General Statute 74-61, a P r rescribed by
Administrative Hearings within thin (301 days of the mailing
and in the form p
petition, it must e I on arid, one copy with the Office of
If you file a contested oer File the. original p NC 27699 6714.
N C General Statutes 1508 Mail Servce Center, Raleigh, Office of
Administrative 'Hearings, 6' be directed to the Clerk of the
questions about filing a petition rna7�� 0-26.
Any Q F honing ; �I-I , 0-0
� t.aep � mailing a
administrative Hearing Y Natural
,ou must serve the Department of Environment seat and General Counnsael Raleigh,
NC
01 the petition to vlr. Daniel A. Oakley, Registered 01
1601 Bail Service Center,
cony
Department of Environment and Natural Reso�ce
27699-1601. �f '_1 , ) '
JL �
Jame Simons
^� Director
Division of Land Reartmeet of
North Carolina Dep
Environment and Natural
Resources
I
This notice was mailed
Brenda Harris
ining Program Secretary
%d

I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WILLIAM FRED WALKER, JR., )
Petitioner, )
V. )
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT)
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, )
Respondent. )
TO: William W. Toole
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04 EHR 2162
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION
Attorneys for Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
Respondent, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR"),
through counsel, hereby answers Petitioner's Requests for Admission. The requests have been.
restated, as authorized by N.C. R. Civ. P. 36 and are followed by the Respondent's answers.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Respondent objects to the scope of these requests to the extent that they seek
information relating to: (1) information prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for
trial; (2) information encompassed within the attorney -client and work product privileges; or (3)
any other information that is not properly discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, State

statutes, or the common law.
2. Respondent objects to these requests as unduly burdensome and oppressive to the
extent they seek information already in Petitioner's possession.
3. Respondent further objects to these requests to the extent they assume facts that
do not exist or are incorrect.
4. Respondent objects to any request that seeks information that is irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
5. Respondent assumes no duty to supplement its answers except to the extent
required by Rule 26(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent reserves the right to modify,
amend, or add to its responses or objections.
To the extent applicable, Respondent incorporates by reference all of these General
Objections into its Responses below.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the modification of the permit in
2004 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl).
RESPONSE: DENIED.
2. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the permit in 2004
as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) was defective.
RESPONSE: DENIED.
3. The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2004.
RESPONSE: DENIED.
4. DENR did not give notice to all affected parties of NAEM's application for the
permit in 2002 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-5l(b).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
5. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2002 as required
by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
6. NAEM did not give notice of its application for modification of the permit in

2002 as required byN.C.G.S. §74-50(bl).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
7. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the permit in 2002
as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(b1) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
8. The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2002.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
9. DENR did not give notice to all affected parties of NAEM's application for the .
permit in 2000 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
0

10. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2000 as required
by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
11. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
12. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
13. The permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2000.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

under Rule 26.
14. The permit is null and void.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26.
15. Section 8(g) of the permit requires NAEM to take all reasonable precautions to
ensure that flyrock is not thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently
guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
16. Section 8(g) of the permit provides that failure to take corrective measures to
prevent flyrock and repeated instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
17. Fyyrock has been thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or
permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
18. NAEM has failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
19. NAEM's failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
20. NAEM has failed to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
21. NAEM's failure to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
7

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
22. There have been repeated instances of flyrock being thrown beyond areas the
access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
23. Repeated instances of flyrock being thrown beyond areas the access to which is
temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM are a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
24. Section 8(h) of the permit requires that, should flyrock occur beyond the permitted
and guarded areas, NAEM must immediately report the incident to DENR.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
25. Section 8(h) provides that, after NAEM reports flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas to DENR, further use of explosives at the mine shall be suspended until (1) a
thorough investigation as to the cause(s) of the incident has been conducted and (2) a detailed
report documenting the cause(s) of the incidents and actions to be taken to prevent further

incidents shall have been submitted to and approved by DENR.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
26. NAEM has never reported to DENR an instance of flyrock being thrown beyond
the permitted and guarded areas.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit
No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
27. NAEM's failure to report to DENR instances of flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
28. The deposition of flyrock into a waters of the state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands
without a permit is a violation of section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
administers section 404 of the Clean Water Act and would have to make a determination of its
violation. As the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not a party to this contested case, this request
exceeds the permissible scope of inquiry under Rule 36.
29. Section 3(a) of the permit requires that any mining activity affecting waters of the

state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands shall be in accordance with the requirements and regulations
promulgated and enforced by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
30. Section 3(b) of the permit requires that NAEM maintain a minimum 100-foot
undisturbed buffer between any affected land and any adjoining waterway or wetland.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
31.
roads.
RESPONSE:
Under N.C.G.S. §74-49(1), the definition of "affected land" includes non-public
Admitted to the extent that non-public roads are considered "affected land"
when used safely for the purpose of the permitted mining operation.
32. NAEM has constructed a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream.
RESPONSE: Denied.
33. NAEM's construction of a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream is a
violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit
10

No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
34, Section 4(a) of the permit requires NAEM to constrict adequate mechanical
barriers to prevent sediment from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the
affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
35. NAEM has failed to construct adequate mechanical barriers to prevent sediment
from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
36. As a result of NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers,
sediment has discharged into a natural watercourse in proxiity to the affected land.
m
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
therefore is not reasonably calculated
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
37 NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers is a violation of the
permit.
11

RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
38. Section 4(b) of the permit requires that NAEM conduct mining activities as
indicated by the erosion and sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the
supplemental erosion and sedimentation control narrative and design calculations.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.
39. NAEM has not conducted mining activities as indicated bysupplemental erosion e erosion dand
sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the
sedimentation control narrative and design calculations.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
40. NAEM's failure to conduct mining activities as indicated by the erosion and
sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the supplemental erosion and
sedimentation control narrative and design calculations is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
e in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
02 06 are not an issu
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26
12

41. Under N.C.G.S. §74-51(d)(2), DENR maY
deny a permit application upon finding
oundwater.
that the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable gr
RESPONSE: Admitted. wells that
42 DENR has received complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged
deliver potable groundwater. permit No.
grounds that alleged violations of Mining
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grcalculated
02-06 are
not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26 Y
b NAEM has damaged
43. DENR has not investigated the complaints that blasting
wells that deliver potable groundwater. permit No,
the grounds that allege
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on d violations of Mining
request therefore is not reasonably calculated
02-06 ale not an issue in this contested case and the
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule source
of potable water to a dwelling's
44. Where damage to a well that is the sole source potable
due to blasting pursuant to the permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on
groundwater.
n the
SPONSE: Respondent objects oe grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
burdensome. Respondent further objects as the request
or place, and is overly broad, and unduly
s irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
seek under Rule 26.
admissible evidence, thereby exceeding
the scope of permissible discovery
le wells that are the sole source of potable water to
45. Where damage to multip
13

dwellings is due to blasting pursuant to the permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on
potable groundwater.
objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
RESPONSE: Respondent
or place, and is overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Respondent further objects as the request
seeks irrelevant informatin and is not reasonably calculated to
olead to the discovery of
overy under
admissible evidence, thereby exceeding the scope of permissible ll
used to monitor blas s at the
46. Section g of the permit requires that the seismograph
arly occupied
mine be located at a distance no farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regul
structure not owned or leased by NAEM. unit
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 p
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
47. The seismograph used to monitor blasts at the mine is not located at a distance no
farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned or leased
by NAEM• October 27, 2004 permit
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the
nly provided a buffer at the mining site.
modification which is the subject of this contested case o
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
ssible evidence under Rule 26.
calculated to lead to the discovery of admi
blasts at the mine is not located at a
48. The fact that the seismograph used to monitor
closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned
distance no farther from the blast than the
14

or leased by NAEM is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
49. Regulating the distance of the seismograph from the blast is not the proper means
of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit modification
which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site. As no
blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
50. The proper means of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels is to
the same ridge of rock into which NAEM is blasting.
require NAEM to place the seismograph on
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit modification
which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site. As no
blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
51. In order to obtain accurate readings of blasting levels at the mine, the seismograph
must be placed on the diorite rock into which NAEM is blasting.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
15

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
52 The permit should require that the seismograph be placed on the diorite rock.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that (1) the conditions of Mining Permit No.
time limit has run and (2) the October
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory Provided a buffer at
27, 2004 permit modification which is the subject of this contested case only p
the mining site and no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage. The request therefore
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
is not uld set blasting levels in permits it issues low enough to prevent
5DENR sho
structural damage to nearby houses and buildings.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
scribe with
or place, and is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and does notas the October 27, 20014 permit
particularity the information sought. Respondent further object
provided a buffer at the mining site
this
modification which is the subject of
contested
ermitted acreage. The request therefore seeks irrelevant
and no blasting occurs on the addittonalP
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
54. Blasting NAEM has conducted pursuant to the permit has caused structural
damage to a nearby house.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
a
provided a buffer at the mining site -
tested case
modification which is the subject of this Permitted acreagel
As no blasting occurs on the additionalp the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
16

55. If NAEM is blasting within levels established by the Permit, the permit sets those
blasting limits too high. permit No. 02-
gESpONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining
time limit has run and the request
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory of admissible evidence under Rule
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
26.
56. James King Hill owns a majority stake in NAEM-
uest No. 56 may be construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Req
ersonal knowledge of Respondent.
seeking or does seek information not within the P
57, James King Hill has a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
Request No. 57 maybe construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that
personal knowledge of Respondent*
seeking or does seek information not within the p Hill has been denied a
58, As a result of his drug and alcohol abuse, lames King
drivers license by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles-
. N
uest No58 maybe construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Req
personal
knowledge of Respondent.
seeking or does seek information not within the p Hill was charged with assault
59. On or about January 31, 2005, James King
involving affliction of serious injury in Alexander County
Request No. 59 maybe construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that
ersonal knowledge of Respondent.
seeking or does seek information not within the P Hill was charged with carrying a concealed
60. On or about Jun' 1, 2004, James King North
weapon, wing while impaired and reckless drivinglwanton disregard in Dare County,
17

Carolina. ects on the grounds that Req uest No. 60 may be construed as
Respondent obj a of Respondent.
RESPONSE: personal knowledge
es filed on June 1, 2004 in
seeking or does seek information not within the p
il] is scheduled to be tried on the charg
61. James King H
Dare County on or about April 22, 2005' be construed as
ounds that Request No, 61 may
Respondent objects on the grondent.
RESPONSE: personal knowledge of Resp
seeking or does seek information not within the P es King Hill was charged with assault
62 On or about December 19, 2003, Jam
affliction of serious injury in Alexander County be construed as
involving ounds that Request No. 62 may
PXSpONSE: Respondent objects on the gr Respondent
ersonal knowledge of
seeking or does seek information not within the p On oed with being
James King""' was charged
r about February 15, 2000, North
63. personal property in Catawba County,
intoxicated and disruptive and causing damage to
Carolina. Request No. 63 may be construed as
ects on the grounds that
Respondent obj e of Respondent.
RESpON5E: person knowledg
15, 2000, James King Hill pled guilty or .
seeking or does seek information not within the P
64. Pursuant to the charges filed February 2000.
to personal property on or about June 29,
it by a judge of injury 64 may be construed as
was found guilty ounds that Bequest No•
SpONSE: Respondent objects on the grRespondent.
e personal knowledge of
James King Hill was charged with carrying a concealed
seeking or does seek information not within
2,1999,Jam North
65. On or about May to personal property in iredell County,
weapon driving while impaired, and causing Injur
19

uest No. 65 may be construed as
CaT0l1na' grounds that Re4
Respondent objects on the � ondent.
gESpONSE: personal knowledge of Resp
information not within the p gill pled guilty or was
seeking or dpeS seek inform 2 1999, James King
pursuant to the charges filed May 1999.
66. tember 9,
while impaired on or about Sep be construed as
guilty by a judge of driving nest No. 66 may
found gu grounds that Re4
Respondent objects on the gr ondent*
gE5pON5E: personal knowledge of Resp
information not within the P losives to a compaT y whose
seeking or does seek inform with exp
67. Issuing a raining permit that allows blasting
of hysical violence, drug and alcohol abuse is a violation of DENR
majority owner has a history P
N.0 Gen. Stat. §
74-46 et seq. or N.C.
policy. Act of 1971,
pXSpONSE: Denied. Neither the Mining applicant for a mining permit to disclose
r. 5B.0101 et seq. require an PP
��. Code tit. 15A, agents an
personal d representatives.
A
,s employees, g
information about a company 2005.
This the day of R0,Y COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LeVeatix General
Assistant Attorney
N.C. Bar No.13667
N. C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, I 27699
phone; [phone] ENT
ATTORNEY FOR RESPOND
19

RTI I AT ERVI E Requests for
d has this date served the
This is to certify Petitioner's
that the undersigned Express Priority Overnight mail,
Admission upon the Attorneys for petitioner by Federal
addressed as follows.
W illiam W • Toole
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900 C 29246
Charlotte, N
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tn on Street
Suite 1900NC 28246
Charlotte,
,this — day
Of
2005.
ROy COOPER
XTTORN GENERAL
�LeV eaux e General
Assistant Attorney
20

V 1 T N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLIN
COUNTY OF WAKE deposes and says he is the Director,
F G p E, first duly sworn, P that he has
Jaynes D. Simons, d Natural Resources,
the Department of Environment and that he is
Division of Land Resources, for Admissions an
Respondent's Response to Petitioners' Request e of his own
read the foregoing that the same is true
things stated and alleged up"
information and belief,
familiar with all of the facts and circumstanheSgtated therein;
knowledge except as to those matters and
them to be true•
and as to those matters and things he believes
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this the _ day of
2005.
N to —teary public
My Commission Expires:
lames D. Simons
21

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WILLIAM FRED WALKER, JR., )
Petitioner, )
V. )
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT)
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, )
Respondent. )
TO: William W. Toole
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04 EHR 2162
RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER'S REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION
Attorneys for Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.
Respondent, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENIV),
through counsel, hereby answers Petitioner's Requests for Admission. The requests have been
restated, as authorized by N.C. R. Civ. P. 36 and are followed by the Respondent's answers.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Respondent objects to the scope of these requests to the extent that they seek
information relating to: (1) information prepared or obtained in anticipation of litigation or for
trial; (2) information encompassed within the attorney -client and work product privileges; or (3)

any other information that is not properly discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure, State
statutes, or the common law.
2. Respondent objects to these requests as unduly burdensome and oppressive to the
extent they seek information already in Petitioner's possession.
Respondent further objects to these requests to the extent they assume facts that
do not exist or are incorrect.
4. Respondent objects to any request that seeks information that is irrelevant and not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Respondent assumes no duty to supplement its answers except to the extent
required by Rule 26(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent reserves the right to modify,
amend, or add to its responses or objections.
To the extent applicable, Respondent incorporates by reference all of these General
Objections into its Responses below.

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
NAEM did not give notice of its application for the modification of the permit in
2004 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl).
RESPONSE: zD,=- k, )%,0
2. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the permit in 2004
as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) was defective.
RESPONSE: =-) e r I -PW
The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2004.
RESPONSE:
4. DENR did not give notice to all affected parties of NAEM's application for the
permit in 2002 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admis ible evidence
under Rule 26. Witho-ut_waivinQ this -objection; R �T� - "" � `� " " o'pfi
5. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2002 as required
byN.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. W.ith,out-waiving-this-objection, Request No. 5-is //

6. NAEM did not give notice of its application for modification of the permit in
2002 as required byN.C.G.S. §74-50(b1).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without a"kviigtliis objection, I?f�y� �i� 1 A"
µ/a5 nC'f• re u�r-f tt�� toes tl+-o'�"�'w* d "f-"1'nis ..�Tprme'€"YY!Oc{d et..e�a-✓--�
7. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the permit in 2002
as required byN.C.G.S. §74-50(b1) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection; "
8. The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2002.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a permit
modification in 2002 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and
the request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without waiving -this objection Request No."8 red
9. DENR did not give notice to all affected parties of NAEM's application for the
permit in 2000 as required byN.C.G.S. §74-51(b).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
11

under Rule 26. Without-waivingthisobjection; Regttesrl'�a=4'is = 1'4 4"
10. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the permit in 2000 as required
by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection, R�uasVN - n yl fq- —
11. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2).
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection, Request No. 17 is 4 ir
12. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for the permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2) was defective.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without waiving this -objection, Request No. 12 is ( vy're"""�.w'"�
13. The permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2000.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
5

request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection, Request -No, 13 is -AP ✓'
14. The permit is null and void.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that NAEM's application for a mining
permit in 2000 is not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the
request therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence
under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection, Request NU.-"14 is "t'YfiT
15. Section 8(g) of the permit requires NAEM to take all reasonable precautions to
ensure that flyrock is not thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently
guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26. Withnufwary ni g ithith s objection,`Req- ubsiNZi: r5-is
16. Section 8(g) of the permit provides that failure to take corrective measures to
prevent flyrock and repeated instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26. Withoutwaivingthis objection Request No:-16 is
17. Flyrock has been thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or
permanently guarded by NAEM.

RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection,
,,c:) F—T Al 'fa y.`;e..... ..F.,....._,(.a.l„.r .:r ,..-L�,� 1
J-1'�ro w� �e yOr C/ QYP NI 'faP atl a3s I� �e .v.. Pdra �� ar �aP Man��l �,7 Jva'.-Iw `((Ny opk'ra(
18. NAEM has failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection,
Reis --r �'-_.r
L.
19. NAEM's failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection,-.- - ---
-1S
$PP lPSa s2 ^ !T,
20. NAEM has failed to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. o bjeetion,

ig=- $yen �: r. 5.��.,n.y.rr-•y ---��%
21. NAEM's failure to take corrective measures to prevent flyrock being thrown
beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM is a violation
of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. With-outwaiving-this-objection--
--R
22. There have been repeated instances of flyrock being thrown beyond areas the
access to which is temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. W- thout-waivhir s-otl t-i®n;
Requ'�Mq;U--Q is
23. Repeated instances of flyrock being thrown beyond areas the access to which is
temporarily or permanently guarded by NAEM are a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without•waiving°this`objectiorr, -
Request No: 2? is SeP . I"ro
24. Section 8(h) of the permit requires that, should flyrock occur beyond the
permitted and guarded areas, NAEM must immediately report the incident to DENR.

RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
of admissible evidence under Rule
26. Without-waivingthis-objeetion; Request No. "24-is--C i't�-t`"�"`""-----
25. Section 8(h) provides that, after NAEM reports flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas to DENR, further use of explosives at the mine shall be suspended until (1) a
thorough investigation as to the cause(s) of the incident has been conducted and (2) a detailed
report documenting the cause(s) of the incidents and actions to be taken to prevent further
incidents shall have been submitted to and approved by DENR.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26. Without -waiving -this objection; Request o_ 25 is
26. NAEM has never reported to DENR an instance of flyrock being thrown beyond
the permitted and guarded areas.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit
No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without- waiving.this--
objection, Request No. 26is'
27. NAEM's failure to report to DENR instances of flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
0

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without waiving-this.obj,ection,—
+r-
Request No. 27is-"`2"v�e���'"S�uT
28. The deposition of flyrock into a waters of the state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands
without a permit is a violation of section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344.
prM r / r
RESPONSE: vtS: CoN�S cs( �N3pN.�Prs QQMrNrS��s PcT,to �{0`�� wDufG;
fa+u o u ''4r/ 'rcr r,H 06 v io(a F104 F
29. Section 3(a) of the permit requires that any mining activity affecting waters of the
state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands shall be in accordance with the requirements and regulations
promulgated and enforced by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence under Rule
26. WYthout waiving this objection, Request No. 29 is t.rl p6,
30. Section 3(b) of the permit requires that NAEM maintain a minimum 100-foot
undisturbed buffer between any affected land and any adjoining waterway or wetland.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26. Without waiving -this objection, Request No. 30 is m
31. Under N.C.G.S. §74-49(1), the definition of "affected land" includes non-public
roads.
RESPONSE: �VaK—Pa�li�
LA 5 tea{ 54/
0 pe(, d 41
loads
Gre '4aNS��or.�
„ "
C -fLrr�rp' a 'd WA1-�,
{ro,-
�� Pur�B
sp
O �'
fti P QP/'n�rffp�
r�•trrt rrr9
10

32. NAE-M has constructed a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream.
e.�cY
dh, µTic 1»0� �e�pp4,s i'MmMtYLt, Nt�aPs, fo hd °� a
RESPONSE:
e �
Pe.? cdnsru�1�/ b� e ��
mi r was P�i,�.tf!
33. NAEM's construction of a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream is a
violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit
No. 02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without Waiving this
ohjection, Request No:33 i"s—::77`
34. Section 4(a) of the permit requires NAEM to construct adequate mechanical
barriers to prevent sediment from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the
affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26. Withorrt waiving ttlris objeetiorr—Requ�st No: 34 is? -
35. NAEM has failed to construct adequate mechanical barriers to prevent sediment
from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
36. As a result of NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers,
11

sediment has discharged into a natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
37. NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers is a violation of the
permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. iVithoat--wmvirrg--thisrebjee%ori,
38. Section 4(b) of the permit requires that NAEM conduct mining activities as
indicated by the erosion and sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the
supplemental erosion and sedimentation control narrative and design calculations.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
26.itkiout waivnig trijeetienecitt
39. NAEM has not conducted mining activities as indicated by the erosion and
sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the supplemental erosion and
sedimentation control narrative and design calculations.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
12

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26 _ s objection,
40. NAEM's failure to conduct mining activities as indicated by the erosion and
sedimentation control plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the supplemental erosion and
sedimentation control narrative and design calculations is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
41. Under N.C.G.S. §74-5 1 (d)(2), DENR may deny a permit application upon finding
that the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: 6J V^'� 2
42. DENR has received complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged wells that
deliver potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without waiving this objection,
�1 43. DENR has not investigated the complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged
wells that deliver potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that alleged violations of Mining Permit No.
13

02-06 are not an issue in this contested case and the request therefore is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without-waiving=this=objeotion,
44. Where damage to a well that is the sole source of potable water to a dwelling is
due to blasting pursuant to the permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on potable
groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
or place, and is overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Respondent further objects as the request
seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
45. Where damage to multiple wells that are the sole source of potable water to
dwellings is due to blasting pursuant to the permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on
potable groundwater.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
or place, and is overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Respondent further objects as the request
seeks irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
46. Section 8 of the permit requires that the seismograph used to monitor blasts at the
mine be located at a distance no farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly
occupied structure not owned or leased by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit ti 1 ��
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
14

As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without waivirrg-this
objection; RegaesMNU-416'i'T'
47. The seismograph used to monitor blasts at the mine is not located at a distance no
farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned or leased
by NAEM.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. WfEout warvin, s
objection; Request No. 47 is
..
48. The fact that the seismograph used to monitor blasts at the mine is not located at a
distance no farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned
or leased by NAEM is a violation of the permit.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without-waiving-tltis—
objection, Request No. 48-is----
49. Regulating the distance of the seismograph from the blast is not the proper means
of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
W

modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
covery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Without waiving this
calculated to lead to the dis
. objection, RequestXO.'I's �—
50. The proper means of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels is to
require NAEM to place the seismograph on the same ridge of rock into which NAEM is blasting.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
er Rule 26. Withowwaivi22gthis
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence und
i
,objection;:Regs°
51. In order to obtain accurate readings of blasting levels at the mine, the seismograph
must be placed on the diorite rock into which NAEM is blasting.
( RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining site.
As no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage, the request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26. Wes'
s
obj�>> e h be placed on the diorite rock.
52, The permit should require that the seismograp permit No.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that (1) the conditions of Mining
time limit has run and (2) the October
02-06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory provided a buffer at
27, 2004 permit modification which is the subject of this contested case only p
16

the mining site and no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage. The request therefore
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
revent
53. DENR should set blasting levels in permits it issues low enough to p
structural damage to nearby houses and buildings.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is not limited in time, scope
or place, and is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and does not describe with reasonable permit
t Respondent further objects as the October 27, 2004 p
particularity the information sough • site
modification which is the subject of this contested case only provided a buffer at the mining
and no blasting occurs on the additional permitted acreage. The request therefore seeks irrelevant
information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
thereby exceeding the scope of permissible discovery under Rule 26.
54. Blasting NAEM has conducted pursuant to the permit has caused structural
damage to a nearby house.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that the October 27, 2004 permit
onl
modification which is the subject of this contested case y p
rovided a buffer at the mining site.
Pe der
acreage,
As no blasting occurs on the additional pthe request therefore is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the
of admissible evidence under Rule 26.
discovery ��a 'rvrngt#ris'
objection RequesW—o' 4-i'S"""`""y-' permit sets those
55. If NAEM is blasting within levels established by the permit, the p
blasting limits too high.
grounds that the conditions of Mining Permit No. 02-
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the
17

06 are not an issue in this contested case since statutory time limit has run and the request
therefore is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Rule
— Trze*No:..55.48-' r1
26. V�thotx-warvmg"tkis'abJectien;R
56. James King Hill owns a majority stake in NAEM.
ounds that Request No. 56 may be construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the gr
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent-
seeking,
James King Hill has a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 57 may be construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
aobeen denied a
Hill
58. As a result of his drug and alcohol abuse, James King
or Vehicles*
driver's license by the North Carolina Departmethatof tRequest No. 58 maybe construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
59. On or about January 31, 2005, James King Hill was charged with assault
involving affliction of serious injury in Alexander County.
Res est No. 59 maybe construed as
Respondent objects on the grounds that Requ
RESPONSE: p
ersonal knowledge of Respondent.
seeking or does seek information not within the p a concealed
60. On or about June 1, 2004, James King Hill was charged with carrying North
weapon, driving while impaired and reckless driving/wanton disregard in Dare County,
Carolina.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 60 may be construed as
information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
seeking or does seek
M

61. James King Hill is scheduled to be tried on the charges filed on June 1, 2004 in
Dare County on or about April 22, 2005. be construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 61 may
ersonal knowledge of Respondent.
seeking or does seek information not within the p Hill was charged with assault
62• On or about December 19, 2003, James King
in Alexander County
involving affliction of serious injury be construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 62 may
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
On or about February 15, 2000, James King
Hill was charged with being
63.
intoxicated and disruptive and causing damage to personal property in Catawba County, North
Carolina. be construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 63 may
seeking or does seek information not within the Personal knowledge of Respondent.
James King Hill pled guilty or
64. Pursuant to the charges filed February 15, 2000,
was found guilty by a judge of injury to personal property on or about June 28, 2000.
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Request No. 64 may be construed as
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondenn g a concealed
65. On or about May 2, 1999, James King Hill was charged with °
wea on, driving While impaired, and can
injury to personal property in Iredell County, North
P
Carolina' uest No. 65 may be construed as
RESPONSE: Respondent objects on the grounds that Req
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of Respondent.
19

66. Pursuant to the charges filed May 2,1999,
James King Hill pled guilty or was
found guilty by a Judge of driving while impaired on or about September 9, 1999.
ounds that Request No. 66 may be construed as
gESPON5E: Respondent objects on the gr Respondent'
seeking or does seek information not within the personal knowledge of
67. Issuing a mining permit that allows blasting
with explosives to a company �' hose
ri owner has a history of physical violence, drug and alcohol abuse is a violation of DEN'
maJo tY
policy.
Act of 1971, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74-46 et seq. or N.C.
RESPONSE: Denied. Neither the Mining erxnit to disclosure
re uire an applicant for a mining p
Admin. Code tit. 15A, r. SB.O101 et seq. 4
an 's employees, agents and representatives.
personal information about a company �
This the day of 2005.
�-
Roy
COOPER
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
ATTORNE
Anita LeVeaux General
Assistant Attorney
N.C. Bar No.13667 Justice
N. C. Department
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 2799
66 6600
Phone: (919)
ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT
20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
ed has this date served the petitioner's Requests for
This is to certify that the undersign wrapper in
Admission upon the Attorneys for Petitioner by depositing a copy thereof in postpaid
a post office of official depository
under the exclusive care and custody of the United States
Postal Service, Postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
William W • Toole
Robinson, Bradshaw Hinson, PA
101 North Tryon Street
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshawtxe& Hinson, PA
101 North Try
et
Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246 2005.
This day of
ROY COOPER
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Anita LeVeaux General
Assistant Attorney
21

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE deposes and says he is the Director,
James D. Simons, P-G,, P E•, first duly sworn,
Resources the Depa�ent of Environment and Natural Resources, that he has
fissions and that he is
Division of Land Resou Response to Petitioners' Request for Adm
oin Respondent's ResP e of his own
read the foregoing that the same is true
stances stated therein; anon and belief,
familiar with all of the facts and circum s stated and alleged upon inform
knowledge except as to those matters and thing
and as to those matters and things he believes them to be true -
and
,oar' p. lip
Subscribed and sworn to before mey° �piARY
��M�(� 2005.
this the '�A day of ��t"
a Gi
isNo +dJtN7C11i9N
My Commission Expires,
22

COUNTY OF WAKE
capacity as the State Mining Specialist of the Division of Land
1, Floyd Williams, in my p ondent in
Department of Environment and Natural Resources and on behabe being firs duly
Resources, Administrative Hearing ,
Number 04 EHR 2162 before the Office of Adm responses to Petitioner's Request for
Case
sv,,orn, deposes and says that I have read the foregoing t as to any matters stated on
Admission, and the responses are true to my knowledge except
information and belief and as to those matters I believe th to be true •
d Williams, P.G.
Fl4oyd
0. jo
to before me C i ��ARY
Subscribed and sworn i $
fin, �, 2005.
this the L9a Y of -�.,P— ; c?• ; PtiBl
NYPO*N'� COO
Notary Pub c
My Commission Expires.

Fwd: FW: Notice of Appearance and Document Requests
Subject: Fwd: FW: Notice of Appearance and Document Requests
From: "Marjorie Downey" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:29:59 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Attached is a copy of the discovery we received from Mr. Walker's attorney.
Anita would like to verify that all the requested documents are in your file, then make
arrangements to review the file before we allow opposing counsel to look through them.
Subject: Fwd: FW: Notice of Appearance and Document Requests
From: "Anita Leveaux" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 12:45:58 -0400
To: "Marjorie Downey" <MDOWN [e-mail]>
Marjorie,
Please print these out and include in the file. Please forward copies of the discovery
requests to Floyd, and regional folks working on this case with a note to make a
work copy and provide a copy of requested documents or place where the
documents might be pulled and copied by the Petitioner. Remember, if they choose
the later I will have to First review all documents that the Pet. wishes to
inspect. Then, Please email copy of our revised Discovery to Pet., like atty. did here
and overnite our revised discovery request... please include ownership issues,
whether he buys or leases his property, how long he has owned the property, how
much land he owns ... check other discovery requests for the proper format. Thanks
very much. --Anita
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
919-716-6600
Subject: FW: Notice of Appearance and Document Requests
From: "Revelle, Jennifer F." <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:14:28 -0400
1 of 3 4/7/2005 4:19 PM

FW: Notice of Appearance and Document Requests
Subject: FW: Notice of Appearance and Document Requests
From: "Revelle, Jennifer F." <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 11:14:28 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>
Anita, attached please find the Notice of Appearance and First
Request
for Production of Documents that I forwarded to the improper email
address on Friday. We will turn our attention to your discovery
requests early this week and respond as quickly as possible.
Best regards,
Jen
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Direct Line: 704-377-8112
Direct Fax: [phone]
This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and may
contain
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are
hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
erase all copies of this message and its attachments and notify us
immediately. Thank you.
<<Filing to Office of Administrative Hearings.pdf>>
1 of 1 4/7/2005 4:09 PM

ROBINSON BRADSHAW & HINSON
CHARLOTTE OFFICE
April 1, 2005
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
DIRECT DIAL: 704.377.81 1 2
DIRECT FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]
Re. JackB. Wooten & Co. and Wm. Fred Walker, Jr. v. N.0 Dept ofEnvironment
and Natural Resources, 04-EER-2162
Dear Sir or Madam:
This firm represents Petitioner William Fred Walker, Jr. in the above -referenced matter.
Enclosed please find the following:
1. One original and two copies of our Notice of Appearance;
2. One original and two copies of Petitioner Walker's First Request for Production of
Documents; and
3. A self-addressed, postage pre -paid envelope.
Please file each original and return one file -stamped copy of each document to us in the
enclosed envelope. Should you have questions or concerns, please contact me immediately.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Jennifer F. Revelle
JFR/llw
Enclosure(s)
cc: William W. Toole (w/o enclosures)
Anita LeVeaux (via Email & First Class Mail)
C•926572VI 18484.00011
Attorneys at Law
Charlotte Office: 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246 Ph: 704.377.2536 Fx: 704.378.4000
South Carolina Office: 140 East Main Street, Suite 420, P.O. Drawer 12070, Rock Hill, SC 29731 Ph: 803.325.2900 Fx: 803.325.2929

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
JACKB. WOOTEN & CO.
WM. FRED WALKER, JR.,
Petitioners,
V.
N.C. DEPT, OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04-EHR-2162
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that William W. Toole and Jennifer F. Revelle of the law firm
of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. in Charlotte, North Carolina hereby appear in this matter
as counsel on behalf of Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr. All pleadings, notices, calendars, or
other documents should be directed to the attention of the undersigned.

This 1 st day of April, 2005.
William W. Toole
N.C. Bar No. 16862
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28249-1900
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email? wtoole&a&h.com
Je f Re elle N
N. . Bar No. 32896
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28249-1900
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: irevelle rrbh.com
Attorneys for Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing NOTICE OF APPEARANCE has been served upon
each of the parties to this action by email and by depositing same in the United States mail, postage
prepaid, in an envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Anita LeVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
[e-mail]
This 1st day of April, 2005.
JeAfer'
Revelle

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
JACKB. WOOTEN & CO.
WM. FRED WALKER, JR.,
Petitioners,
V.
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04-EHR-2162
PETITIONER WALKER'S FIRST
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Rule 34 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and North Carolina
Administrative Code Title 26, Rules 3.0101 and 3.0112, Petitioner William Fred Walker, Jr.
("Petitioner"), through counsel, requests that the N.C. Dept. of Environmental and Natural
Resources ("DENR") permit Petitioner to inspect and copy any and all Documents described
below which DENR possesses, has access to, or has custody of, at the offices of ROBINSON,
BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A., 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900, Charlotte, NC 28246.
Pursuant to N.C. Admin. Code Rule 3.0112(f), within 15 days of receipt of these requests, the
Respondent must (1) move for relief from the requests; (2) provide the requested materials; or
(3) offer a schedule for reasonable compliance with the request.

DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
1. "DENR," "You" or "Your" shall mean the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Resources and its officials, employees, agents and representatives.
2 « NAEM, shall mean North American Emerald Mines, Inc. and its employees,
agents and representatives.
3 "Permit" shall mean Mining Permit No. 02-06 held by NAEM.
4, "Mine" shall mean the reining operation permitted by the Permit and located in
Alexander County, North Carolina.
5. "Affected Parry" shall mean any record owner of land adjoining that lies within
1,000 feet of the Permit boundaries, any record owner of land that lies directly across and is
contiguous to any highway, creek, stream, river, other watercourse, railroad track, utility or other
public right-of-way that lies within 1,000 feet of the Permit boundaries, and any other persons,
corporations or other entities who are "persons aggrieved" as set forth inN.C.G.S. §150B-2(6).
6. "Document" refers to all items subject to discovery under Rule 34 of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, including, but not limited to, any written or recorded material
of any kind, including the originals and all non -identical copies, whether different from the
originals by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise; notations of any sort of
conversations, telephone calls, meetings or other communications; all graphic or oral records or
and mechanical, electronic or computer -stored records or
representations of any kind;
representations of any kind, including writings'
drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, video and
audio tapes, cassettes, diskettes, records, CD's, e-mail, computer hard drives, software, or other
`a

data compilations from which information can be obtained through detection devices and
translated into reasonably usable form.
7. Proprietary Matter. If any Document request is deemed to call for disclosure of
confidential or proprietary data within the meaning of Rule 26(c)(7) of the North Carolina Rules
of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff s counsel is prepared to receive such data pursuant to an appropriate
order with respect to confidentiality.
g, Privilege or Immunity from Production. To the extent that any Documents are not
a submit a list identifying each such
produced on the basis of a claim of privilege or immunity:() work product) which is being
Document; (b) identify the nature of the privilege (including
claimed; and (e) identify each person having knowledge of the factual basis, if any, on which the
claim of privilege or immunity is based. For these purpo
ses, "identify" shall mean in the case of
was
a Document, to state the Document's date, its author, its recipient or the person for whom[s resent
prepared, the type of Document (e.g., letter, memorandum, chart, or other category), p
location or custodian, a summary of its contents, and any other information necessary to render
the Document distinguishable from all others and subject to ready location.
9, Destroyed Documents. If any Documents requested herein have been lost,
discarded, or destroyed, the Documents so lost, discarded, or destroyed shall be identified as
completely as possible, including,
without limitation, the following information' date of
disposal, manner of disposal, reason for disposal, person authorizing the disposal, and the person
disposing of the Document.

10. Marking and Arrang
emeni. The Documents produced in response to this request
shall be marked and arranged in such a way as to indicate clearly the request to which each such
Document is responsive,
DOCUMENTS REQUF-STED
Produce the following: support of your position at
1 All Documents you may introduce as exhibits or use in
any hearing in this matter.
Res onset
Documents submitted to you by NAEM or any
2. All applications and supporting Dom
party on behalf of NAEM in
connection with obtaining the Permit or requesting any
modifications of the Permit, including those pertaining to the original issuance of the Permit in
2000 and the modifications in 2002 and 2004.
geg_nsese:
4

3_ All Documents sent to any Affected Party by DENR or NAEM purporting to give
lication for issuance or modification of the Permit, including those pertaining to
notice of an aPP
the original issuance of the Permit in 2000 and the modifications in 2002 and 2004, and al
Documents in your possession relating or referring to such notices.
Res onset
arties entitled to notice from NAEM of an application
4 All Documents identifying P to the original issuance of
for issuance or modification of the Permit, including those pertaining
e permit in 2000 and the modifications in 2002 and 2004, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) and
th
(b2)•
p p_—°=se
5 All Documents identifying pales entitled to notice from DENR of the issuance,
renewal, or modification of the Permit pursuant to N.C.G.S. §150B-23(f)-
ROR_ouse_

All Documents sent to the chief administrative official of Alexander County by
6, issuance or modification of the
DENR or NAEM purporting to give notice of an application for
original issuance of the permit in 2000 and the
Permit, including those pertaining to the
modifications in 2002 and 2004, and all Documents in your possession relating or referring to
such notices.
Ropo�-
7.
All Documents that support the blasting levels allowed by Section 8 of the permit.
Res once:
8.
All Documents that support blasting levels lower than those allowed by Section 8
of the Permit.
Res Ouse:
0

9. All Documents reflecting the location at any time of the seismograph required
under section 8 for monitoring under the Permit.
ReS onse:
to the Mine.
10.
All Documents reflecting seismographic records relating
ReS onse:
Documents reflecting geolo gical records and surveys of the M111e and the area
11. All
Within 1,000 feet of the Permit boundaries'
Res onse.
faints made to DENR
regarding blasting at the
All Documents pertatmng to comp made in
12. gations and responses DENR
hyne, mining operations, or the P ernff and any invest'

response to those complaints•
ges onse: complaints
NAEM in connection with any
13 All Documents submitted to DENR y operations, or the Permit.
or investigations made regarding blasting at the Mine, mining p
ges onse:
by DENR and any
Documents pertaining to inspections of the Mille operations
enforcement actions taken by DENR with respect
14. All Docum blasting at the Mine, mining P
to any
or the permit.
Res onse:
All
b DENR due to violations
Documents relating to notices of violation Issued y ertammg to
15. a licable laws or regulations p
of the permit or relating to `isolations of any other pp
mining operations) or the permit.
blasting at the Mine,
Rom.
16. All Documents
reflecting reports made by NAEM to DENR regarding erosion or

scent to the Mine or into Erosion and
any
natural watercourse in
sediment onto surface areas adj
Mine in violation of Paragraph 4 of the Permit and the
discharge of
proximity to the Ml
Sedimentation Control Plan referenced therein.
Res once:
regarding any flYrock
re orts made by NAEM to DENR g
17. All Documents reflecting p h g(G) of the porrnit.
tbrowa beyond guarded areas of the Mine as prohibited by P azaS aP
Romnat:
18 A11 Do�nents reflecting reports made by
NP,EM to DENR regarding
. excess of levels established in the P ermit or Tegarding any other
seismoSr'aphlo activity
violations of the Permit.
Res once:
d Sedimentation Control Plan and the snpPlenental Erosion and
19. The, Erosion an
w

Sedimentation Control N
tive and design calculations referenced in Paragraph 4(B) of the
arra
permit.
ROOM;
20. The mine map
m referenced in Paragraph 4(C) of the Peru and any similar maps
relating to the Mine that have been submitted to DENR.
Rem onse:
operations at the Mine on
ents relating to Possible adverse effects Mitigation of those possible
21. All D°cum to any
potable groniidwater supplies, and all Documents relating
effects.
ges onse:
Documents relating to whether operations at the Mine n ht conmtttute a
22. All Docum
10

or to any neighboring
dw ,"ing house, school, church,
and to public health or safety other e c property, and all
physical haz ublic road, or P
hospital, commercial or industrial building, p
Documents relating to any mitigation of such potential hazard.
Res onse:
All Documents relating to whether NAEM or any parent, affiliate, shareholder or
23. withDI.C.G.S. §§
74-46 et seq., rules adopted
owner of NAEM has failed to comply substantially
any laws or rules of the state of North Carolinafor the Protection of the
thereunder, or
environment.
BOP -On -Se.
ch failure to comply resulted in
a, All Documents relating to whether su
revocation of any p�"t, forfeiture of Part or all of any bond or other
der N.C.G.S. §74-64, any other
security, conviction of a misdemeanor urn al assessment of a civil penalty
court order under N.C•G.S- §74-64, or fin
under N.C.G.S. §74-64.
$eS onse: adverse effects resulting from
b. All Documents relating to mitigation of any
11

such failure to comply.
ReS onse:
regarding the ownership or corporate structure of NAEM•
24 All Documents
ReS onse:
interpretations Prepared or issued by
DEN'
with regard to
All guidance and regulations'
25. and any associated regal
N,C.G.S. §§74-46 et seq•,N.GG.S. §§143-211 et seq.,
ReS onse:
and require suppl,nental responses in the event you obtain
requests are continuing of then P e of hearing or
These xeq response
and the time
or discover additional information between the date
trial.
12

This 1st day of April
L
William W •Toole
N.C. BarNo• 16862
ROBINSON, BRADSFIAW & it, 190 P.A.
101 North Trion Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, North Carolina 28246
D73
irect Dial: (704) 377 $373-3973
DirectFacsMule: (704)
Email: wto_ °leC�co
J fer . Revelle
N•C. Bar No. 32896
S &HTNSON,P A
ROBINSON, BR Oil
Street, Suite 1900
101 North Tri Carolina 28246
Charlotte, N° 04) 377-9112
Direct Dial: (• e -3412
Direct Ft•e •(704)339 bh.com
Email: 1 — e
Attorneys for petitioner Win. Fred Wye', Jr•
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
T REQUEST FOR
that the foregoing PETITIO ed Rpo e� of the parties to tbis action by
I hereby certify E, NTS has been sery postage lnePaid' in an envelopes)
PRODUCTION OF DOCUM
mail and T depositing same in the United States mail, p
addressed as follows.
Anita LeV eaux
N.C. Deponent of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail 3erviCe Canter
Raleigh, NC 27699
[e-mail]
This 1st day of April, 2005.
4Senn . Revelle
14

Fwd: Walker/DENR
Subject: Fwd: Walker/DENR
From: "Anita Leveaux" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:08:48 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
sorry
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
919-716-6600
Subject: Fwd: Walker/DENR
From: "Anita Leveaux" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:11:30 -0400
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: "Marjorie Downey" <[e-mail]>
Hey guys please review for later discussion. --Anita
Anita LeVeaux
Assistant Attorney General
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
919-716-6600
Subject: Walker/DENR
From: "Revelle, Jennifer F." <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:52:35 -0400
To: "Anita Leveaux" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Toole, William" <[e-mail]>, "Revelle, Jennifer F."
<[e-mail]>
1 of 4 4/14/2005 3:25 Ph

Fwd: Walker/DENR
Anita,
Please find our attached requests for admissions and initial
deposition
notices. I will forward hard copies to you via mail.
Best regards,
Jen
Jennifer F. Revelle
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Direct Line: 704-377-8112
Direct Fax: [phone]
This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may
contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and may
contain
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are
hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is
strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please
erase all copies of this message and its attachments and notify us
immediately. Thank you.
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Anita Leveaux
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
END:VCARD
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Anita Leveaux
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
2 of 4 4/14/2005 3:25 PM

Fwd: Walker/DENR
END:VCARD
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Leveaux, Anita
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL•WORK;PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
END:VCARD
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Leveaux, Anita
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
END:VCARD
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Anita Leveaux
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
END:VCARD
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Anita Leveaux
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
END:VCARD
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Leveaux, Anita
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL•WORK•PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
END:VCARD
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
3 of 4 4/14/2005 3:25 Ph

Fwd: Walker/DENR
X-GWTYPE:USER
FN:Leveaux, Anita
ORG:;DOJ\Environmental Protection
EMAIL;WORK;PREF:[e-mail]
N:Leveaux;Anita
END:VCARD
4 of 4 4/14/2005 3:25 PN

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WM. FRED WALKER, JR.,
Petitioner,
V.
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04-EHR-2162
PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION TO JAMES D. SIMONS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner William Fred Walker, Jr., through counsel and
pursuant to Rule 30 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, will take the deposition upon
oral examination of James D. Simons of Defendant N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural
Resources. The deposition will be taken before an authorized officer at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday,
May 5, 2005 at the offices of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., 101 North Tryon Street,
Suite 1900, Charlotte, North Carolina 28246. The deposition will continue from day to day until
completed.
Pursuant to Rule 34of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, you are also required
to make available for inspection and copying all documents which were reviewed or relied upon
in preparing for this deposition.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]

This 14th day of April, 2005. � ; /L/
William W. Toole
N.C. Bar No. 16862
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28249-1900
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: wtoole(o)xbh.com
Jinnifer F. evelle
N.C. Bar No. 32896
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28249-1900
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: jrevelleQrbh.com
Attorneys for Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO JAMES D. SIMONS
has been served upon each of the parties to this action by email and by depositing same in the
United States mail, postage prepaid, in an envelopes) addressed as follows:
Anita LeVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
aleveaux(ftcdoi.org
This 14th day of April, 2005.
ij -I _j/ -
jerihiferlF.Re elle

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WM. FRED WALKER, JR.,
Petitioner,
V.
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04-EHR-2162
PETITIONER'S RULE 30(B)(6) NOTICE
TO DEFENDANT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner William Fred Walker, Jr. ("Petitioner"),
through counsel and pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure,
will take the deposition upon oral examination of a representative or representatives of
Defendant N.C. Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources ("Defendant"). The deposition
will be taken before an authorized officer at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 at the offices
of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28246. The deposition will continue from day to day until completed.
Pursuant to this Notice, Defendant shall designate one or more officers, directors,
managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf as to matters known or
reasonably available to Defendant relating to the following matter:
Defendants' responses to Petitioner's Requests for Admission,
Pursuant to Rules 30(b)(6) and 34of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, you are
also required to make available for inspection and copying all documents which were reviewed
or relied upon by the 30(b)(6) designee in preparing for this deposition and all documents which
were reviewed in responding to Petitioner's Requests for Admission.

This 14`h day of April, 2005. -�L
William W. Toole
N.C. Bar No. 16862
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28249-1900
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: wtoole(airbh.com
M"I" iYy"iM;Mff
N.C. Bar No. 32896
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28249-1900
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: irevelle�(a)rbh.com
Attorneys for Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing RULE 30(B)(6) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT has been
served upon each of the parties to this action by email and by depositing same in the United States
mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Anita LeVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
aleveaux(airiedoi.org
This 14th day of April, 2005.
Jenni r F. kevelle

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ALEXANDER
WM. FRED WALKER, JR.,
Petitioner,
V.
N.C. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
Respondent.
IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
04-EHR-2162
PETITIONERS' REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION
Pursuant to Rule 36 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and North Carolina
Administrative Code Title 26, Rules 3.0101 and 3.0112, Petitioner William Fred Walker, Jr.
("Petitioner"), through counsel, requests that the N.C. Dept. of Environmental and Natural
Resources ("DEW,) admit the truth of the following statements. Pursuant to N.C. Admin.
Code Rule 3.0112(f), within 15 days of receipt of these requests, the Respondent must (1) move
for relief from the requests; (2) provide the requested responses; or (3) offer a schedule for
reasonable compliance with the requests. Pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure
37(c) and N.C. Admin. Code Rule 3.0112(g), if the truth of any matter denied herein is
established at the hearing in this matter, Petitioner will apply to the Administrative Law Judge
for an order requiring DENR to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof,
including reasonable attorneys' fees.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
1. "DENR," "You" or "Your" shall mean the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Resources and its officials, employees, agents and representatives.

2. "NAEM" shall mean North American Emerald Mines, Inc. and its employees,
agents and representatives.
3. "Permit" shall mean Mining Permit No. 02-06 held by NAEM.
4. "Mine" shall mean the mining operation permitted by the Permit and located in
Alexander County, North Carolina.
5. "Affected Party" shall mean any record owner of land adjoining that lies within
1,000 feet of the Permit boundaries, any record owner of land that lies directly across and is
contiguous to any highway, creek, stream, river, other watercourse, railroad track, utility or other
public right-of-way that lies within 1,000 feet of the Permit boundaries, and any other persons,
corporations or other entities who are "persons aggrieved" as set forth in N.C.G.S. §150B-2(6).
Admit:
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
1. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the modification of the Permit in
2004 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl).
2. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the Permit in 2004
as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) was defective.
3. The modification of the Permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2004.
4. DENR did not give notice to all Affected Parties of NAEM's application for the
Permit in 2002 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b).
5. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the Permit in 2002 as required
byN.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.

6. NAEM did not give notice of its application for modification of the Permit in
2002 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl).
7. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for modification of the Permit in 2002
as required by N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl) was defective.
The modification of the permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2002.
13
9. DENR did not give notice to all Affected Parties of NAEM's application for the
Permit in 2000 as required by N.C.G.S. §74-51(b).
10. Any notice DENR gave of NAEM's application for the Permit in 2000 as required
byN.C.G.S. §74-51(b) was defective.
11. NAEM did not give notice of its application for the Per
in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S.§74-50(bl)-(62).
12. Any notice NAEM gave of its application for the Permit in 2000 as required by
N.C.G.S. §74-50(bl)-(b2) was defective.
13. The permit was not properly issued by DENR in 2000.
14. The Permit is null and void.
15. Section 8(G) of the Permit requires NAEM to take all reasonable precautions to
ensure that flyrock is not thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or permanently
guardedbyNAEM.
Section 8(G) of the Permit provides that failure to take corrective measures to
16.
prevent flyrock and repeated instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation of the Permit.
17. Flyrock has been thrown beyond areas the access to which is temporarily or
permanently guarded by NAEM.

27. NAEM's failure to report to DENR instances of flyrock beyond the permitted and
guarded areas is a violation of the Permit.
28. The deposition of flyrock into a waters of the state, waters of the U.S. or wetlands
without a permit is a violation of section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1344.
29. Section 3(A) of the Permit requires that any mining activity affecting waters of
the State, waters of the U.S. or wetlands shall be in accordance with the requirements and
regulations promulgated and enforced by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission.
30. Section 3(B) of the Permit requires that NAEM maintain a minimum 100-foot
undisturbed buffer between any affected land and any adjoining waterway or wetland.
roads.
31. Under N.C.G.S. §74-49(1), the definition of "affected land" includes non-public
32. NAEM has constructed a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream.
33. NAEM's construction of a non-public road within 27 feet of a stream is a
violation of the Permit.
34. Section 4(A) of the permit requires NAEM to construct adequate mechanical
barriers to prevent sediment from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the
affected land.
35. NAEM has failed to construct adequate mechanical barriers to prevent sediment
from discharging into any natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
36. As a result of NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers,
sediment has discharged into a natural watercourse in proximity to the affected land.
Permit.
37. NAEM's failure to construct adequate mechanical barriers is a violation of the
11

38. Section 4(B) of the Permit requires that NAEM conduct mining activities as
99 and the
indicated by the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan last revised December 22, 19
supplemental Erosion and Sedimentation Control Narrative and design calculations.
activities indicated by the Erosion and
39. NAEM has not conducted mining
Sedimentation Control Plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the supplemental Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Narrative and design calculations.
40. NAEM's failure to conduct mining activities as indicated by the Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan last revised December 22, 1999 and the supplemental Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Narrative and design calculations is a violation of the Permit.
41. Under N.C.G.S. §74-51(d)(2), DENR may deny a permit application upon finding
that the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater.
42• DENR has received complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged wells that
deliver potable groundwater.
the complaints that blasting by NAEM has damaged
43. DENR has not investigated
wells that deliver potable groundwater..
44. where damage to a well that is the sole source of potable water to a dwelling is
due to blasting pursuant to the Permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on potable
groundwater.
Oat Where damage to multiple wells that are the sole source of potable water to
the Permit, such damage is an unduly adverse effect on
dwellings is due to blasting pursuant to
potable groundwater.
Ri

46. Section 8 of the Permit requires that the seismograph used to monitor blasts at the
Mine be located at a distance no farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly
occupied structure not owned or leased by NAEM.
47. The seismograph used to monitor blasts at the Mine is not located at a distance no
farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned or leased
by NAEM.
48. The fact that the seismograph used to monitor blasts at the Mine is not located at a
distance no farther from the blast than the closest off -site, regularly occupied structure not owned
or leased by NAEM is a violation of the Permit.
49. Regulating the distance of the seismograph from the blast is not the proper means
of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels.
50. The proper means of ensuring that NAEM is blasting within permitted levels is to
require NAEM to place the seismograph on the same ridge of rock into which NAEM is blasting.
51. In order to obtain accurate readings of blasting levels at the Mine, the
seismograph must be placed on the diorite rock into which NAEM is blasting.
52. The permit should require that the seismograph be placed on the diorite rock.
53. DENR should set blasting levels in permits it issues low enough to prevent
structural damage to nearby houses and buildings.
54. Blasting NAEM has conducted pursuant to the Permit has caused structural
damage to a nearby house.
55. If NAEM is blasting within levels established by the Permit, the Permit sets those
blasting limits too high.
56. James King Hill owns a majority stake in NAEM.
7

57. James King Hill has a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
58. As a result of his drug and alcohol abuse, James King Hill has been denied a
driver's license by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles.
59. On or about January 31, 2005, James King Hill was charged with assault
involving affliction of serious injury in Alexander County.
60. On or about June 1, 2004, James King Hill was charged with carrying a concealed
weapon, driving while impaired and reckless driving/wanton disregard in Dare County, North
Carolina
61. James King Hill is scheduled to be tried on the charges filed on June 1, 2004 in
Dare County on or about April 22, 2005.
62. On or about December 19, 2003, James King Hill was charged with assault
involving affliction of serious injury in Alexander County.
63. On or about February 15, 2000, James King Hill was charged with being
intoxicated and disruptive and causing damage to personal property in Catawba County, North
Carolina.
64. Pursuant to the charges filed February 15, 2000, James King Hill pled guilty or
was found guilty by a judge of injury to personal property on or about June 28, 2000.
65. On or about May 2, 1999, James King Hill was charged with carrying a concealed
weapon, driving while impaired, and causing injury to personal property in Iredell County, North
Carolina.
66. Pursuant to the charges filed May 2, 1999, James King Hill pled guilty or was
found guilty by a judge of driving while impaired on or about September 9, 1999.
0

67 Issuing a mining permit that allows blasting with explosives to a company whose
majority owner has a history of physical violence, drag and aloohol abuse is a violation of DENR
policy.
This 14th day of April, 2005.
�'--
�ti,r A
William W. Toole
N.C. Bar No.16862
ROBINSON, BxAD S
101 North Try et, uite 1900 .A.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28246
Direct Dial. (704) 77 9373
373-3973
Direct Facsimile: ( )
Email: wtool�sbh'com
Je 'fer . Refelle
N.C. Bar No. 32896
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, North Carolina 28246
Direct Dial: [phone]
Direct Facsimile: [phone]
Email: irevell
Attorneys for Petitioner Wm. Fred Walker, Jr.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing PETITIONER'S FIRST REQaction by UESTS
FOR
dRepositing
ADMISSION has been served upon in an enveltope(s) addressed as follows:
same in the United States mail, postage
Anita LeVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
aleveaux@ncdoJ-org
This r day of April, 2005.
L
4Jee"Rlle
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the foregoing PETITIONER'S FIRST REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSION has been served upon each of the parties to this action by email and by depositing
same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, in an envelope(s) addressed as follows:
Anita LeVeaux
N.C. Department of Justice
Environmental Division
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
[e-mail]
This q day of April, 2005.
4J?. Re Belle