Wake Stone transcript Vol 3

,Mamie P Cyrrim amd Associates
GENERAL COURT REPORTING SERVICES
RALEIGH 9 DURHAM 9 OXFORD
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA.
COUNTY OF WAKE.
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA MINING COMMISSION.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
IN THE MATTER OF:
WAKE STONE CORPORATION )
PERMIT DENIAL APPEAL, )
CARY QUARRY SITE, )
WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA.)
----------------------------)
T R A N S C R I P T
O F T H E
P R O C E E D I N G S
V O L U M E III
Before: The North Carolina Mining Commission;
Dr. Henry B. Smith, Chairman;
Mr. Stanley R. Riggs, Member;
Mr. Earl Van Horn, Member;
Mr. P. Greer Johnson, Member;
Dr. W. W. Woodhouse, Member;
Mr. T. W. Tysinger, Member;
Mr. Harry L. Salisbury, Jr., Member.
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Commission: Ms. Becky French, Department Hearing Offi
appearing as counsel to Commission.
For the Department Daniel C. Oakley, Esquire,
of Natural Resour- Assistant Attorney General,
ces and Community N. C. Department of Justice,
Development: P. 0. Box 629,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
David Heeter, Esquire,
Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs,
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
For the Petitioner, James M. Kimzey, Esquire,
Wake Stone Corpora- Kimzey, Smith and McMillan,
tion: Attorneys at Law,
P. 0. Box 150,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
P. O. BOX 30112 - 201 N. ROXBORO ST. 203 MAIN ST.
RALEIGH, N. C. 27622 DURHAM, N. C. 27701 OXFORD, N. C. 27568
1919)851-3936 (9191682.3107 (9191693.6954

a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TABLE
OF C O N--T
E:,N T- S
E
X A M I N A T I
0 N S
witne s
Examination
Bz whom
Betty Ann Knudsen
Direct
Mr. Kimsey
Cross
ter. Oaaley
Redirect
fir. Ximsey
Commission
Members
James 1$o Simons
Cross
Mr, ..Xtmzey
Redirect
biro Oakley
Re -cross
Mr, Ximsey
Further
Mr. Oakley
Redirect
Commission
Members
Harlon X. Britt
Direct
Mr, Oakley
Cross
Mr. rd=ay
Comnission
Members
.,James Ro Bailey
Direct
Mro Oakley
Cross
11r, Ximaey
Commission
Members
Alan Eakes
Direct
i=bra Heater
Cross
Mr, Ximxey
Colloquy
F
452
460
464
465
467
526
537
540
541
562
571
578
587
617
638
643
697
732

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
T A B L E O F C 0 N T L N T S
B X R 18 I T S
Exhibit
Description
Lama No
State's
19
Community Noise Response Analysis
451
5tate0s
20
Piaster Flan - Umstead park
451
State's
21
Deed to Park
451
State's
22
Environmental Impact Statement
451
State's
23
flap of existing park
451
State B e
24
Map of Master plan
451
State's
25
Elevation Zones
451
State's
26
Views Illustrations
451
%Fake Stone's 30 Letter to Attorney Tom Adms
From Walton Jones, Department
of URCD
697

r� 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
a
0
N
0
18
N 19 0
0
0
20
W
= 21
0
a
m
u 22
a
= 23
6
24
25
�- 4 1
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
The following Administrative Hearing before the
Mining Commission of the Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, Division of Land Resources,
was reported by N. Annette P. Myers, Notary Public in
and for the State of North Carolina in the Hearing Room
6X, AmMale Building, State Government Complex, Raleigh,
North Carolina on Friday November 7, 1980, continuing
at 9:00 a.m.
The hearing was reconvened and the following
proceedings were had, to wit:
(DEPARTMENT11 EXHIB TS 19 -
MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We will reconvene this
hearing of the Mining Commission. Take note
that Commissioner Riggs is out temporarily. He
will be back shortly. We shall go ahead.
By agreement, as I understand it, from the
attorneys, Mr. JUMMY has an arrangement to
introduce one more witness.
Is that correct, Mr. Ximzey?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4�2
Colloquy
MR. RIMEBY: That's correct, thank you.
We have k1s. Betty Ann Knudsen, and by agreement
with the attorney for the State and the Bearing
Examiner, we'll put her on out of turn. It will
be a very brief witness, we hope.
Ms. Knudsen, would you come around, please,
and be sworn.
Whereupon,
BETTY ANN KNUDSEN
Having been first duly sworn
was examined and testified as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, KIMZEYa
4 State your name, please, ma'am.
I'm Betty Ann Knudsen.
4 Ms. Knudsen, are you currently a member of the
Wake County Commissioners?
A. Yes, sir.
OL Bow long have you served in that capacity?
A Almost four years.
OL And in what capacities have you served with
that body?
�. I am a Commisioner. I serve on all of the regular

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
Knudsen Direct
board meetings, and I serve as chairman of
a number of subcommittees, and participate in
a lot of extracurricular activities for the board.
Qt Ms. Knudsen, are you here appearing as a
representative of the board, or are you --
(Interposing) No, sir. I am representing only
Betty Ann Knudsen.
Right. Ms. Knudsen, I'll try to make this as
expeditious as possible.
Did the County Commissioners consider this
particular site for rezoning?
MR. OAKLEY: Objection.
A Yes, sir.
MS. FRENCH: Grounds?
MR, OAKLEY: I don't think it's relevant
to the hearing. we're not here to try the
rezoning, or rehear the rezoning.
MR. KIMZBY: It's simply a background question.
I'm not asking her about rezoning.
Mr. Chairman, this is just to demonstrate
that she has a knowledge of the site.
MS. FRENCH: We're going to overrule your
objection, Mr. Oakley.
MR. KIMZEY: Thank you.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Knudsen Direct
ft. Ktkmey).- Ms. Knudsen, would you just explain
.to the Mining,CommisSion how you came to your
decision in terms of the desirability of this
site for a quarry operation?
�. We did have a request for rezoning for this
particular piece of property from residential
to 0 and I, Industrial -- Office and Industrial.
There are many uses that can take plAce
in such kinds of zoning. Some of those, I find
more objectionable than others as far as the
impact it would have upon the environment of
Wake County.
And in my deliberations, I rejected the
request for rezoning that particular piece of
property, Office and Industrial, because I felt
that there were some uses that would be very
detrimental.
For example, a shopping center, if a great
deal of the property were -- were graded and
leveled off and paved -- on the runoff, the
traffic, and other reasons, I felt it would be
undesirable.
So, I voted against the rezoning to office
and Industrial,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Knudson Direct
�► And how did you come to your conclusion
concerning the desirability of the quarry site?
L In the process of the rezoning efforts, it
became common knowledge that the intended use
of that pierce of property was :mining.
At the same time, the Board of County
Commissioners was considering a special
ordiance which would allow mining to take place
with the use of a special permit in any zoning
district, including Residential, or any other
zoning district,
The reason for that was the fact that we
thought that mm that the wise use of the
natural resources that we had was something
that was extremely important for us in wake
county.
And it is obvious that seining can only take
place where there is minerals -- where there are
minerals to be mined,
And, so, we did adopt a special use permit
which---
MRo OAKLEY: (Interposing) I would like to
object, again. She's talking about the board 4=4=
what the board did in the rezoningmCO

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4:)G
Knudsen Direct
MS. FRENCH s ( Interposing) I'll sustain
that objection.
L My--
4 '(Mr.3itin) (Into rposing) That's been sustained.
Let me ask you another one.
L Excuse me.
a Do you consider yourself a conservationist?
L Oh, yes. I amc*-
(Interposing) How does your attitude about
yourself fit into your appearing in support of
this wining quarry.
L Okay. I ass a conservationist. That means
conserving of all of natural resources, human
resources, time, money, and any other resources.
In making any decisions that I make for
the county, I try to look at the total impact
of those decisions as it pertains to the resources
that we have available.
At the time that I voted against Office
and Industrial zoning for that piece of property,
I made a public statement which said. -- and I
said, that if a request were to come for a
special use permit for that piece of property
for mining, that I would vote for it. And the

0
Z
W
CL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4a7
Knudsen Direct
reason that I felt like that I could and
should vote for it would be because I thought
that that was the best use of that particular
resource on that particular piece of property.
I took into account what I thought the
impact mould be on the park. I evaluated that
impact against what I know is happening in that
section of wake County, and the votes that I
have made on the Board of County Commissioners
to purchase additional land in western wake
County for the use of flood control structures
and recreational needs for the county.
We are in the process of purchasing more
than twenty --five hundred acres of land to
construct flood control structures and to
provide recreational programs for Make County.
Just west of this site ---
MR. OAKLEY: Objection.
MS. FRENCH: Grounds?
MR. OAKLEY: I'd like to move to strike the
whole testimony. I don't see any relevance,
whatsoever.
MR. KIMZEYs May we be heard on that?
MS. FRENCHa why don't you two come forward

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Knudsen Direct
MR, KIMZEY: Was the objection overruled?
That's my understanding of the ruling. Is that
correct?
MS. FRENCH: Objection was overruled, but
we want you to have it more of a question and
answer -type.
MR. XIMZEY: But she can finish her answer,
I take it.
MS, FRENCH: Okay.
-+ir. Kimzey) If you can pick up your train of
thought before you were interrupted, you can
finish your answer. If not, I can ask you another
question.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: May I address the witness,
please. Betty Ann, one of the issues here, and
why you're running into objections is a previous
agreement by the attorneys that they would deal
only with the question of whether the operation
of the query will have a significant adverse,
effect on the purposes of a publicly owned park,
forest, or recreation area.
A. Okay .
CHAIRMAN SMITH: That's the reason why you're
running into these objections.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Knudsen Direct 45 9
L All right. Well, then, I can only tell you
my own personal opinion.
4 (fir., y) ' That' s what we' re asking .
L And that is, that I considered other uses of
that land next to the park and found some of
them, I thought, extremely objectionable, which
is shy I voted against O and I zoning classificat
I looked at what I thought the effects of
a mine on the park would be, and it is my
understanding that there are efficient guidelines
by the state and federal government as it
pertains to protecting the environment -- the
physical environment of the park.
And that I would suppose that the state
would have the capability and the intent of
monitoring to make certain that there would not
be adverse environm ntal effects.
I personally went out to look at wake
Stone's operation to see what I thought the
impact environmentally was on the neighbors of
Wake Stone.
From my own personal observation, certainly,
the approach to that particular facility is such
that it looks like a park from my perspective.
8.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
0
N
18
0
19
0
20
W
0 21
a
m
u 22
0
W 23
a
24
25
460
Knudsen Direct
Q Did you come to a conclusion as a result of
all these considerations?
L And as a result of all these considerations,
I came to the conclusion that it would not be
a materially adverse impact, and, certainly,
that the desirability of having the product was
extremely important.
And, therefore, should a request come to
us for a special permit, that I would vote to
grant that permit.
4 And are--. you here appearing in behalf of the
application for a specific use -- namely, the
quarry that is now before the Mining Cormission?
A. Yes,
MR. KIMZEY: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Cross-examination,
CROSS-EXAMIMATIOH BY MR. OAKLEY:
MR, OAKLEY: Again, I would like to renew
my general objection, and move to strike her
entire testimony.
I mould just like to renew the objections
that I made. I .;- coon' t expect a ruling.
MS. FRENCH: Okay. We'll- note your objection

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Knudsen Cross
for the record, Mr. Oak ley .
MR. OAKLEY: Can I ask Ms. Knudsen a few
questions.
MR. K1M=s I'm sorry, I didn't hear the
ruling.
MS. FRENCH: It was not a ruling. we just
noted his objection for the record.
MR. KM-ZEY: Thank you.
¢ (Mr. Oakley) Do you know the proximity of the
proposed quarry to the William B. Umstead Park?
L Yes.
a What is it?
L Right next door to it -- adjacent.
4 Do you know how far the quarry pit area would
be from the -- from the park?
L The actual number of feet, no, I do not.
Are you aware of how close the -- do you know
what a crusher is?
L Yes, I have seen one.
What is your impression of the crusher?
L
MR. XnVM,i,- Objection.
MS. FRENCHs Grounds?
MR, KI10EYs That seems such a general, broad

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Knudsen Cross
question, I don't know -- I don't mind him
seeking. It just seems to me to be a very
broad, irrelevant question. Her impressions
of a crusher is what makes me -- I don't know
what he's seeking.
MS. FRENCH: Overruled. You may answer
the question.
A. Do I know what a crusher is? Yes, I do know
what a crusher is. I have seen a crusher, What
else do you want me to tell you about it?
Q. (Mr. Oakley) I'd like you to describe a crusher
for me.
L it's --- it's c-- well, there is several things.
There is a crane -type iaplement that knocks
larger pieces of stone.
There are belts that carry the material
up, and grind them up as they go through. I
presume that's what you're talking about as
being the crusher.
And when you are standing right at a crusher
it is noisy, but it is not noisy very far away,
and, certainly, from any observation having been
to Wake Stone, that if you are not right at the
H
pit --,,if you- are away from the pit, that you do

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
463
Knudsen Cross
not get very much noise, and, certainly, on
the highway you get none.
4 Do you know how close the crusher proposed at
the wake Stone site would be to the park?
L I would presume that it would be about the
same distance from the park as where Betty Silver
lives in relationship to Wake! Stone.
Q. Do you know the length -- the distance from
the crusher at the proposed site to the park?
L The number of exact feet, I do not.
Do you know the length of life expectancy for
the proposed quarry?
L That depends, air, on the demand for the product.
Bo you know the length of life expectancy for -Am
L (Interposing) I can give you a guess.
MR. I=fig; Objection to the - tive. He,
got her answer. He just asked the same question
t*ice.
MR. OAKLEY: I don't think she answered.
MS. FRENCH: I don't believe she answered.
Overruled.
MR. KXK=: I'm sorry?
1S. FRENCH: I don't thank she answered his
question. Overruled.

0
N
z
cc
0
N
O
O
w
O
z
Lj
Z
Z
O
I.
m
0
0
Z
W
d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Knudsen Cross
A It could be anywhere from ten, twenty to forty
years depending on how much stone is mined at
what rate.
AIR. OAKLEY : I don't have any further
questions.
MR. IMWZ8 I have one on redirect.
�rr•rwrrllrrr - - -
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY ERR. L"IrkIZEY:
Qt If you were informed that the crushers in the
pit were from fifteen hundred to two thousand
five hundred feet from the park border, would
that ..coincide with your impression about the
noise at Betty Silver's house?
A. well, that is my supposition, yes.
4 Thank you.
MR. Kn4=8 No further questions,
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Are there any questions
from the council?
Mrs. Knudsen, are you testifying as a member
of the wake County Commissioners, or are you
testifying —
A. (Interposing) I am testifying as an individual
reporting on the thinkings and my value judgments
that I arrived at while performing duties on the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4,
Knudsen Committee
Bcard of County Commissioners, and I am
representing myself, and not the Make County
Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: So, the information you've
given us is not necessarily the view of the
commission at all, is that correct?
A. No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITHS All right. You may step
down.
MR. KS W7: Well, I have one question on
that since that leads to another question.
The property was zoned by the whole County
Commissioners to permit quarry, was it not, and
is now zoned that way?
A. it is -- well, we do have a special use permit
and a mining ordinance that would allow it to
be.
MR. KDMI And it's zoned appropriately
to be mined under that permit, isn't that correct?
A. Yeah, when that permit is issued.
MR. ems.: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SMITHs A point of clarification --
it was my understanding that the Wake County
Commissioners had zoned that property as industrial.

a
m
0
N
E
0
U.
0
0
s
z
Lj
Z
Z
0
m
0
a
Z
W
d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
�. 466
Knudsen Committee
It will be necessary, then, to obtain a second
permit from the Wake County in order to operate
a quarry there?
L The only zoning classification that we have at
the moment that would allow mining as a general.
use is Industrial 2.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Industrial 2, and that's
what this is zoned at?
L This is zoned as Industrial 1, Q and I one (1).
MR- KXMEys We have a zoning expert we're to
put on later for that. It is zoned I will
state that the applicant does intend to ask for
a special use permit, and it is zoned to allow
raining under that special use permit.
CHAIN SMITH: Mr. Oakleys, do you have
any comments or questions?
MR. OAKLEY: Igo, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: You may step downs, Mrs,
Knudsen.
MS. KNUDSEN: Thank you.
(WITNESS EXCUSED,)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I think the next paint of
order here is -- the'next step in our program
is that of the cross-examination in Mr. Simons'

1 �
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
cc 18
0
19
0
0
Z
20
W
Z
0 21
r
m
u 22
0
<
W 23
a
24
25
Simons Cross
testimony which was completed through the
direct examination stage last night. Is
that correct, gentlemen?
(Whereupon, the testimony of Mr. James M.
Simons having been recessed at 10:10 pm.,
Thursday, November 6, 1980, was reconvened
with cross-examination at 9:45 a.m.)
CROSS-m$ IMATION BY MR. KIMZEY
Q. Mr. Simons, you testified that you have been
with the Stater seven and a half years as a
mining inspector, is that correct?
L I have been involved in mining inspecting,
reviewing applications, other activities related
to -the Mining Act,, yes*
And I believe you also stated that although
you weren't sure you had visited every quarry
site in the state, you thought you had visited
the vast majority of them -- perhaps over a
hundred sites. Is that correct?
L over a seven and a half year period, I feel that
I've seen a hundred quarry sites, yes.
QL Is it fair to say that you're very familiar with
quarry operations in the State of North Carolina?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
. 7t
Simons Cross
Yes, sir.
I take it, since you also testified that the
Knightdale quarry had been under your direct
Jurisdiction, you are familiar with Wake Stone's
operation Knightdale quarry.
I am.
And you're also familiar with the Wake Stone
operation at its moncure quarry,
�. Yes, sir.
Would you, for the purpose of this Pining
Commission, characterise how you view stake
Stone as a quarry operator in the State of
North Carolina?
We have always had very good cooperation from
Wake Stone. Their quarries have a -- a pleasing
appearance as far as the entrance roads -- entrance
it's evident that -- that some attention is
paid to quarry beautification as far as can be
done during the operation.
In general, I would say that as far as
we're concerned, good operations.
As a matter of fact, you have a continuing
monitoring program for Wake Stone quarries, do
you not?

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r. 4 9
Simons
Cross
A.
(Witness does not respond)
¢
I'm talking about you -- I mean the division---
L
(Interposing) Yes.
¢
--itself. You visit the sites, yourself?
�.
Yes, sir. Well, wake Stone as other quarries
are inspected on a regular basis.
Q;
All right.
A.
Right.
Q.
And you have conducted those inspections -- is
that correct?
L
I have conducted some, yes. I don't conduct
routinely any more, but I see them occasionally.
¢
Other personnel in the division --
(Interposing) Yes, sir.
¢
--conduct those. For instance, I believe you
have a David Daniel who conducts regular,
routine inspections for the purpose of air
pollution control, is that correct?
A.
I know that someone does. I don't know who, right.
¢
Have you reviewed the files on Wake Stone's
Rnightdale and Moncure quarries that the state
has concerning its regular monitoring of wake
Stone's activities?
A.
I have reviewed our files. I -- I've not reviewed

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
0
N
17
0
18
0
0
s
19
20
_
0
21
m
V
a
22
=
LL
23W
24
25
470
Simons Cross
the Division of Environmental Management's
files.
Q You are aware that there have been no violations
found in Make Stone's operations in either of
these quarries by the state, isn't that true?
L Not technically speaking. There have been
minor erosion control deficiencies which were
corrected in due time at the at the quarries,
but it certainly did not require any further
enforcement action on our part. Just a letter --
what we call a letter of -ftfi.ciency.
Q There's been no finding of any air quality
violations at all, have there?
L I can't testify to that. I don't know one
way or the other. I haven't reviewed their
files.
Q Subject to check --
(Interposing) None have been brought to my
attention.
Q Subject to check, you would agree that that's
true, wouldn't you -- with the state's files
which —
(Interposing) Well, if that's what the state
files reveal, right.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons
Cross
4
Now, in the application -- the application,
itself, is for a ten year period of time, is
it not?
A
That's correct.
OL
And the application, itself, calls for regular
monitoring by the state during the initial
process of construction of the proposed mining
quarry, does it not?
A.
Yes.
Q.
And the permits that were issued -- there was
a water and air permit issued, I believe, is
that correct?
A
Yes.
4
Two different --
A
(Interposing) Right.
A water permit and an air permit.
A
Right.
And both of those permits call for regular
monitoring during the construction stage, and
during the operation of those devices permitted,
is that correct?
A
That's correct.
And you don't really have any doubt, do you,
that Wake Stone can construct and maintain those

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
0
N
0
18
N 19
0
0
s
20
W
Z
Z 21
O
'a
m
22
O
Z 23 W
d
24
25
Simons Cross
devices under the standards set forth in
those Permits and the application?
MR. OAKLEY.- Objection.
MS. FRENCH: Grounds, Mr. Oakley?
MR• OAKLEY: He's already testified that
he doesn't have responsibility over, or super-
vision of the air and water quality pests.
And we stipulate that those permits have
been issued for these quarries.
MR. KIMZY: Well, you know, he put this
witness on. This is his witness, not ours. He
had this witness state that what he's concerned
with is maintenance and initial construction.
I'm asking the witness' opinion about
this operator at that site. I think this is
clearly out of bounds on objection.
MF. OAKLEY: I think if he limits it to
the the concerns of the land quality section,
I have no objection to it.
MR. KIMZY: As the State's witness, I'm
simply asking him whatever is under his control.
I'm not limiting it to anything.
MS. FRENCH: We're going to sustain Mr.
Oakley's objection.

1
Simons
Cross
2
MR. Y-.37-TEY:. You sustained that? I'd like
3
the answer in the record for record purposes.
4
MR. OAKLEY: Can we have that question
5
repeated?
6
(Mr. Xirnaey) Based on your knowledge of stake
7
Stone's operation, you have no doubt that they
s
can both initially construct and maintain these
9
facilities as required by the permits, do you?
10 iL
By the water -- the water and air permits been
11
issued?
12
Yes.
13
It would be my opinion they could comply with
14
the permits.
15
Okay., Now, Mr. Simons, you testified on several
16
direct concerns that ,you expressed from the land
0
N
17
quality section in reviewing this applicant
a
18
yesterday, did you not?
0
0
19
Yes, sir.
20
One of those concerns you mentioned was visibility,
W
_
0
m
21
is that correct?
0
22
That I s correct.
a
a
23
I balieve my notes indicate that your your
24
testimony was, and I want you to mane it clear,
25
that you had visited the site, yourself. Is that

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
correct?
�. I have.
Do you agree with Mr. Hardison's testimony
that on the site you have primarily pine trees »*
evergreen growth?
You would have to define "primarily". I'm not
sure that I agree with -- did he say, eighty
percent ( 80 %) ?
I would agree that it's fifty percent (50%)
or more. Perhaps, somewhat less than eighty
percent over -- over the entire site.
Have you had an opportunity to look at Plaintiff's
Exhibit -- Fake Stone's Exhibit 10 and 11 if
I can find eleven.
�• (Witness looks at exhibit 10)
Mould you look at exhibits 10 and 11, please?
(Witness looks at exhibits)
OL Can you locate the sites in those pictures and
the adjacent park property?
�. Yes.
And those pictures, I believe, testified were
taken on November the lst. Can you tell the
changes in color from the hardwoods and the
evergreens in those pictures?

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simone Cross
A. I dan .
¢ And do they give an accurate representation
of the amount of evergreens there as constrasted
with the colored there?
A I certainly see considerable green, but upon
close examination, a lot of the green does
appear to be deciduous or hardwood trees.
So, you know, on the basis of what's
yellow and what's green, it':s overwhelmingly
green, but I'm not sure that will tell the �M
you known, at the time of this photograph, if
that will tell the percentage of hardwoods versus
evergreens,
Q You think the hardwoods on last Saturday's
date would not be indicated as hardwoods in
those pictures?
A I don't.bhink all the hardwoods are yellow, yet,
or red, or have changed as of last Saturday.
Q At any rate, you would agree that the Commission
could determine for itself the amount of ever-
greens and pines out on that site by a physical
visit to the site, could they not?
A No, I would not m- I would agree that they could
if they walked over the entire site. I would

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
Simons Cross
question whether or not they could if their
examination was limited to the more readily
accessible area, meaning the top of the ridge
where the existing haul road goes in.
This is more -- I feel more predominantly
evergreen thing in the entire site.
Looking at exhibit number ll, would you point
out the area that you're talking about there?
�. I guess in this access road here.
And looking between there and the park border,
would you show that? Mould you show that area
to me?
IL Right, okay.
Q That portion of the picture is actually a lot
greener than the portion'on the other side, is
it not, comparing these trees with these trees
between it and the park? (Indicating on exhibit)
L It is greener, yes.
Q: So, that would indicate there'd be more pine
trees towards the park than away from the park
from that particular plant site location, doesn't
it?
L It indicates that there are more trees -- there's
more green shown.

0
_
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
Q! All right. That's sufficient. Did you state
on direct that you could see through the
canopy on the site to the park?
A. At certain areas, yes.
OL Mould you -- that's what I thought you said.
Would you show me where you could by pointing
to the map behind you. That's exhibit 14,
There could you stand on the site and see
through the canopy.
A. Coming up the access road all the way to the
end of Oman about the end of the road wandering
just slightly beyond where the road ends but
still on top of the ridge.
There are certainly areas where you can see
through the canopy to the adjacent hillside
which mm which must lie across the creek which
must lie on the park property. (Indicating on
map) y:
Qt So, where you placed -- would you point out,
again, about where you were the area you
were?
L (indicates on map)
That's down --- that's to the park side of the
plant site, is that correct?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
478
Simons Cross
Yes, slightly.
All right, you may have a seat. Did you go
over into the park and see if you could see
back into the plant site, Mr. Simons?
No, I have not.
You've been in the park before, though, I believe
you testified, didn't you?
Yes, I have. If I may point on the map -- I have
been in the park. I've not been down in this
area of the park. (Indicating on map)
You've been further away from the plant site?
Yes, the pie - - in the general vicinity of the
picnic area, and the parking lot area of the
park, and within, say, a couple of hundred yard
radius of the existing picnic area beside the
parking lot of the park.
And is there a fairly thick canopy of trees in
that area where you've been?
Yes.
And you can't see through that canopy over to
the plant site, can you?
No.
Even if the plant site --
(Interposing) Or I haven't been able to.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
OL You haven't been able to. Even if the plant
site was totally cleared you couldn't see it
because of the canopy of trees on the park site,
isn't that correct?
�. I couldn't say for sure, but from the area I
have been -- within the picnic area, I wouldn't
think that you could see across the boundary.
4 My point is, if you couldn't see it clear, you
couldn't see it -- I mean, if you couldn't see
it in its present state, you couldn't have seen
it in any state, could you?
A. Well, there are more leaves, or there were more
leaves on the trees during our site inspection
than there will be later.
OL But you're not answering my question. You
made the point that they would be clearing some
area, and it would make it more visible.
A. Right.
Q► That would really not make any difference when
you're looking from the park. If you can't
see the area as it is now, you couldn't see it
cleared, could you, Aix. Simons?
A. Well, you mentioned from the park, and I
mentioned that the only areas that I have -- have

1Slimons
2
3
4
5
6
1
21
2'
2;
2;
21
2!
3
7
3
3L
A
IL
_.. 40
Cross
viewed have been in the picnic area.
And that's the only area I'm asking about,
Right.
And it would make no difference whether the
site areas are cleared or not?
From that angle., no, I wouldn't think so.
All right. You stated that your.:- concernLi
about visibility was the stockpile area, is that
correct?
Stockpile and plant area, yes.
You would not differentiate between the stockpile
and plant area?
No. They are usually adjacent to each other.
You would agree that a site forty feet above
the plant area would encompass all the areas of
your concern insofar as the line of sight and
visibility?
Yes.
Moving on to the air quality or dust considerations
that you discussed yesterday, there has been an
air quality permit issued, is that correct?
Yes.
And that permit was issued and previously
identified as the Wake Stone Exhibit number 5.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Q
0
0
N
17
0
U.
18
N
O
0
a
19
z
20
Ui
Z
0
a
21
m
0
22
4
V
Z
a
23
24
25
Simons Cross
Is that a copy of the permit? You are familiar
with that, aren't you?
A. Yes, I am. (looks at exhibit)
4 What are the standards -- state standards for
the air quality or dust emissions?
X It's -m off the top of my head, I don't
remember the units. It's a given unit per
hour, I suppose, as far as the actual standard.
Well, I didn't mean -® do you have another copy
of this you could refer to? Maybe it would help
you.
The standard is m® set forth in the permit
is seven point eight seven point zero eight
(7d08) pounds per hour. Is that right --® correct
particulate emissions?
L Yes.
4 And this state has been satisfied that hake
Stone will come well within those limits, is
that not correct?
L Evidently, or the permit would not have been
issued,
Q. Now, the state also monitors particulates at+
operating quarries, is that not correct?
L That is correct.

1
Simons
Cross
2
¢
And do you know what the standard that the
3
state seeks to monitor is, say, at Wake Stone's
4
Knightdale quarry?
5
L
(No response)
6
¢
Well, let me ask this. Are you aware that the
7
standards are stated differently, sixty (60)
s
micrograms per cubic yard, rather than so many
9
pounds per hour?
10
L
I'm afraid you've gotten outside my field of
11
expertise. I couldn't give you standards on
12
particulates per hour form
13
0
(Interposing) You' re not aware of what that
14
standard is? You have absolutely no information --
15
you're not testifying that Wake Stone would
16
violate any --9 either of those standards at
•
0
N
17
this proposed site, is that correct?
0
18
A.
That I am not testifying?
"g
0
19
q
You're not testifying that they would.
z
20
L
That's correct.
Z
Q
m
21
Q.
Are you aware that sixty micrograms per cubic
0
22
yard emissions, even if it got up to that
W
d
23
standard, is not visible to the human eye? Do
24
you know that?
25
L
I don't know.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
433
Simons Cross
Do you know whether or not seven point 0
eight (7.08) pounds per hour is visible to
the human eye?
16 I would have no opinion on that.
You don't know whether any emissions, then,
within these standards would be visible from
the park site at all?
That is correct.
You mentioned, did you not, in your -- really,
the only dust consideration that I recall you
mentioning was the possibility, not the probability
the possibility of blasting dust escaping into
the park, is that correct?
I believe I mentioned that plus other dust
sources which are not addressed in the permit.
Those dust sources were off site, I believe you
mentioned.
I mm as I recall, I was referring to onsite
sources, but blasting would be the primar"-
(interposing) Blasting was your concern that
you really articulated.
Now, you did not testify that there would
be any blasting dust going to the park within
your knowledge, did you?

a
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.. 4- 3 4
Simons
Cross
�.
I said if weather conditions were favorable,
and the wind direction was going that way, the
possibility did distinctly exist.
I believe you testified that you had inquired
of the weather bureau of the prevailing winds.
!.
I did.
Did you learn that the prevailing winds that
you testified to occur less than forty percent
of the time during the winter, and less than
fifty percent of the time during the summer?
A.
I'd have to thinly about that to get the per-
centages in view of what I had heard.
I have the weather sheet. As I recall,
it's prevailing winds from the southwest eight
or nine months out of the year.
Q.
But the prevailing winds may be still a less
percentage than forty percent if the winds
blowing from the other directions vary, too,
isn't that correct?
A,
I couldn't say.
As a matter of fact, if it was calm ninety
percent of the time, the prevailing winds
couldn't be any more than ten percent, could
they?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
Simons Cross
A. Well, that would be a logical assumption.
¢ Did you take into account the amount of calm?
�. Well, I took into.account the amount of calm
when I said that the possibility existed when
the winds were blowing in that direction.
I didn't say that it would be -- it could
be a continuous process.
Q. What is the prevailing calm there? Do you
know?
N o r
Ll What velocity of wind would it take to move
blasting dust away from the pit area, itself?
(No response)
You don't know, do you?
I don't know. It would only be a layman's
opinion.
All right. You don't know what the velocity of
the prevailing winds are there, do you?
No,.I assume that's variable, too,
So, you don't know what the weight of the duet
particulate matter that is produced by the blast,
itself, is, do you?
No, but I have -m I know m- I have witnessed dust
being carried from blasts.

u
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
Simons Cross
How far would it -- would dust be carried from
a blast with a wind of , say, four miles per
hour, if you know?
I don't know. Possibly, several hundred feet.
Several hundred feet. That would be across
open land, wouldn't it?
L Well, it would certainly carry further across
open land.
No more than several hundred feet across open
land?
That would be that would be my opinion., yes.
4
y©u did not take into account the screening
effect on the dust of the trees, did you?
A. yes, we have certainly seen blasting and dust
in wooded condition and open field condition,
also.
Q. If it would carry several hundred feet across
open land, how far, to your knowledge, would
it carry across heavily dense vegetation?
A. It would depend on, you know, how the elevation''
of the quarry, or when it -- you know, when the
blast was taking place. Was it on top of the
hill? Was it in the bottom? The reduction from
the trees would be limited when the A- to the

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
487
Simons. Cross
effect of when the blasting dust had settled
low enough to be caught by the trees.
It is true, isn't it, that most blasting you've
witnessed blasting dust is confined to the
pit area?
L Under calm conditions, yes.
Yet, sir. And that your pit wall--
(Interposing) Or to the property to the a
qu rry
the quarry proper.
Beyond that, it's confined to the pit area.
Usually there's a pit wall that you're blasting
off the side of it, isn't it?
L As far as weight, if you weighed all the dust
that -- that was moved by the blast, I'm sure
that the greater percentage of the weight would
settle within a fairly short radius under calm
conditions.
Finer particulates would certainly be
carried further, and this -- even visible, but
as far as weight -wise, the largest amount of the
dust, weight -wise, would settle in a relatively
short area.
Butt really, as to the possibility of blasting —40
of blasting dust, which is the only visible

l�v
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
concern -m air quality concern you expressed,
you can't tell us how far it would go, what
the velocity of the winds necessary to carry
it, or what the velocity of the winds out there
are, or really can't tell us whether or not
it would get over the quarry walls, but you just
think that in your layman's terms there's a
possibility cif that occurring, is that right?
A. Yes, based on I have seen blasting dust carried
distances sufficiently a sufficient distance
to cross over into the parka
Qi But you don't know what velocity the winds
carry that, do you?
L No, I -- I didn't measure it.
QL So, you couldn't tell this Commission whether
this blasting dust would ever be carried there,
or not, can you?
A. (No response)
OL It's a possibility, but that's the only thing
you can tell about its,
As, That's what I testified to.
Yes, sir. Now, moving on to blasting aspects,
I believe you're fairly satisfied that the
blasting will be well controlled within state

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
�. 489
Simons Cross
standards, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Do you know what .the state standards are
that the application addresses itself to?
A. Well, it's actually guidelines. one inch per
second peak particle velocity, a certain -- about,
a hundred and twenty-eight :M . linear, and then
maintaining the fly rock to the operator's
property, itself.
And you heard Nor. Berger testify that Wake
Stone's operation would be somewhere from ten
percent to thirty or forty percent of those
standards, never exceeding fifty percent of any
of those standards.
�. I heard that testimony.
OL You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?
L I'd say that's reasonable, yes.
¢ You don't have any concern about fly rock, do
you?
L We have a concern about it, but based on the
operator's other operations and the technology
available, we feel it can be controlled.
Q► You feel it would be controlled--
L (Interposing) Yes.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.W, 4 0
Simons Cross
Q. --by the permit and by Wake Stone?
A. Yes.
Isn't it true that you really don't have any
concern with blasting insofar as state controls,..
other'than the possible noise of the blasting?
That's correct.
¢ Now, the--
�, (Interposing) And om and dust as we previously
mentioned*
But so far as the blasting, itself, you don't
have concern with the vibration, the pressure,
the size of the blast, the rock, debris, that
type thing?
�. Well, the air pressure is related to the noise,
of course.
Q, Well, you are aware, are you not, that on the
A scale for the human ear that if you had a
forty --six (46) total level at the park, that a
blast may not even register on a register or
have any effect at fifteen hundred to two thousand_
feet on an A scale? Isn't that true?
At what distances?
Q, Fifteen hundred to two thousand feet.
�, I feel it would be audible, but it it may not

O
N
f
O
N
O
O
n
O
z
Ui
Z
Z
0
0
0
Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
move, the sound level meter.
You have a lower frequency of noise of the
blast than is measured by the general A scale
which is supposed to be attuned to the human
ear.
�. Right,
4 You also testified as to traffic and noise.
First as to traffic, you are certainly in
agreement with the State Department of Trans=
portation's letter, are you not, that there will
be no safety hazard produced by the traffic
that would be by the proposed site -- the traffic?
A. That there be no m- no hazard?
No safety hazard.
A. I agree that that has been stipulated. I have
my own personal concern.
And you also agree, do you not, that the present
roads are fully feasible in their design to
carry this traffic without the necessity of any
.redesign as Mr. Rhudy stated to Mr. Eakes in
his letter?
L That's -® I really couldn't say. I don't—
D. (Interposing) You don't have any opinion in the
contrary to that,do you?

1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
Right.
And you don't have an opinion contrary to Mr.
Rhudy's advice that the -4 there be no anticipation
of any control devices, or any need for any
control devices at any of those intersections,
do you?
I have no opinion.
You have no opinion contrary to Ira Rhudy's
opinion?
L (Shakes head negatively)
4 Traffic -- are you aware that these traffic nb
these opinions on traffics were given based on
the traffic counts provided by Mr. Bakes of some
two thousand present to four thousand projected
vehicles using this entranCe?
I understand that to be the case.
! Are you aware that the average daily use is
down in the eighties to a hundred during the
week, and, maybe, two hundred or three hundred
during the weekend, rather than two thousand to
four thousand as reviewed?
I have have heard the testimony to that
effect. I haven't counted the traffic.
You haven't taken time, then, to review
the traffic

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4a3
Simons Cross
count sheet data which is available from the
park?
I have seen the figures from Mr. Bakes that
were given to my Rhudy?
Q. Yes.
A Right.
But you did not look at the traffic count data
from which Mr. Eakes got his figuressss, is my
question?
L That's correct.
OL Assuming that the testimony you heard is true,
that the average daY during the week are a hundred
or less, and the average day on the weekend
two to three hundred, that would be -- wouldn't
you say that the traffic responses given to the
Department of Transportation based on two thousand
to four thousand vehicles would be extremely
conservative in terms of the average use of the
park?
A. obviously so if the park use is lessM-
Q (Interposing) All right, sir. Let's go to noise,
now, Mr. Simons. You are not a noise analysis
expert, is that correct?
A. That is correct.

a
0
N
F
O
0
s
z
z
Z
O
}
a
m
0
V
O
4
93
2
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
As a matter of fact, this is the first time,
as I understand your testimony, that you have
been.;engaged in the measurement of noise levels,
is that correct?
A. That is correct.
And -the purport of your testimony was that you
used a noise meter, and took some measurements
at various places in order to acquaint yourself,
personally, generally, with noise levels, but
you were not testifying as to -a as an expert
as to the imposition of certain noise levels at
a particular site and what those noises might
be projected at certain distances with the
various screenings, such as topographic and
vegetation screenings between the source and the
site, were you?
That is correct.
As a matter of fact, you were in the hearing
rooms when Mr, IsbFonard testified concerning his
studies as reflected on exhibit 12.
These projected figures of noise levels
around the border of the park and the border of
the property, were you -- did you hear those?
A. I did.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
iL And those are based on a forty-five ambient
level in the park, which is what you found to
be true down in this corner when you made a
noise measurement, isn't that true? (Indicating
on map)
L Yes.
OL And you are not you didn'ttestify that any
that you disagreed with any of these recor m4
these sound levels at those particular areas,
did you?
A. Those particular levels have been developed
since the initial investigation to take into
consideration topographic barriers, and both
my initial investigation and the consultants
review of my initial investigation only considered
distance and vegetation.
It did not consider topographic, So, I have
not had a chance to review those particular
numbers.
But, the answer to any question is, you would
not now disagree with these numbers if you did
take into account the fact of topographic dampening
would you?
L I couldn't say because I you know, I'd have to

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 496
Simons Cross
to see how it was reduced for topographic-o
(Interposing) Well, let's pursue that a little
further. At point B, here, at point A, you
reached the measurement that was not adjusted
for topographic vegetation, did you not?
�. Yes. (books at exhibit)
OL And at point B which was straight down -- to
illustrate on the chart behind you which may be
a little more convenient -- point B which was a
straight shot from the plant without any adjustment
for topographic dampening,: you found Comm you
agreed with lair. Leonard's conclusions that the
sound level there would be in the .-range of
fifty-one and a half dB (A P s . is that correct?
A. No,
OL Well, fifty-two and a half, I might add.
L I think we would agree fifty-four.
Nell, you didn't actually indicate that to Mr,
Leonard at the time. You indicated fifty-two
and a half there, and a fifty-five reading around
here at this little point, did you not? (Indicating
on chart)
L (Witness looks at notes) I would say that's
generally correct. I don't know the exact levels,

0
Z
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4u7*
Simons Cross
but that's certainly give or take a couple.
Q� Give or take a couple of decibels?
�• Right.
So, it may be on the -- you may have been a
little on the high side, but you will agree if
you did adjust these, the topographic variation,
that you mould get some lower level of sound
than that you agreed on with Nor. Leonard when you
had no topograhie consideration, is that correct?
L Yes. When you get behind a ridge, you get a
shadowing effect.
4 So, the only thing you're unwilling to testify
now is the actual numbers produced by Mr. Leonard,
You do agree that you would get a lower sound
there when you do take into acdount the topographic
dampening, than the numbers that you showed 't©
be in the range of fifty-two to fifty-five without
topographic dampening?
I would agree with topographic dampening it would
be lower.
4 And you did not take topographic dampening into
effect. That's a complicated calculation which
You simply did not make, is that correct?
A. We did not because the the quarry or the main 40=0

V
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
if I may address the exhibit?
QL Certainly.
A. Witness goes to exhibit) We did not we €elt
the only place of topographic dampening) would
be applicable is this small area of the park
where there is a sort of a saddle ridge, here*
(Indicating on tiaV) .:
And it's true.-,-, Headings in here -F- if you
got beh in d the ridge, there would be.topographic
dampening. . However, the crusher and other plant
facilities are on this plateau here, and in
a relatively high position in relation to the
park. So, would not consider topographic
dampening through the majority of the park, or
this area of the park, and particularly the
area Of existing
istin facilities and proposed facilities
Well, let me explore that a little bit further.
You're stating, then, that there would be no
topographic dampening in an area which is well
off of the parr border up here where the existing
facilities are, is that correct?
A. Till you get to the next ridge.
yes. You heard Mr. Leonard's testimony that he
Q�
agreed with that insofar as topographic dampening,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
but'that the distance, then, has increased
from the edge, is that not correct?
�. I would agree with that. I would tend to dis-
agree with topographic dampening in this par-
ticular area of the boundary where the distance
we've used similar distances, and he has conm
sidered -- apparently considered topographic
dampening in this area where you do not have the
ridge. (Indicating on *ap)�-'L
4 I'll get back to that, but please answer my
question as to where the existing facilities in
the park. Even though there's no topographic
dampening, you do have increasing distance which
would decrease, again, the noise level, wouldn't
it?
L Yes.
0. So,that the noise level would not be as great
at those points which are further distance than CMCM
than they would be without topographic variation
at the border.
L Yes, sir, it's a dampening effect with increased
distance.
Q. In other words, the noise gets dimmer the farther
you get away from it, doesn't it?

1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons
A.
L
9
A
Cross
That is correct.
Now, let me explore one more time your last
statement that you disagree with the topographic
dampening right in this area, (Indicating on
Can you read me the level -® what the height
of this area is at the border?
The most convenient contour reads two -sixty,
And isn't ®m isn't there a knob betwieen that
two -,sixty and the plant site right here? (Indicating
on map o.
I'm reading variation in four hundred to three -
ninety.
Yes.
There is a knob at elevation three -seventy,
Yes, and that knob ®m when you go down a hill,
if there's a knob sticking up, it will block
off the view even though the point m® the source
is higher, won't it, because you'll have 4=40 the
sound will come down and angle up over it, isn't
that correct?
Yes, there would be some shadowing effect,
All.right.
For this shot here. Assuming the plant is there,;

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
the knob is here, of course, there would be a
shadowing effect.
So, you now change your testimony and say you
would agree there would be some dampening by
topographic in this area, rather than disagreeing
entirely, is that correct?
L Yes, you're getting into a degree of topographic
dampening that I have already testified I'm not
qualified to m® tommou
4 (Interposing) But you -were disagreeing from a
layman's standpoint that there would be any,
and now you agree there would be some.
A I would say for that one shot there could be
some, yes.
And, again, you would not have any quarrel with
the figures developed here. You know they would
be lower because of that topographic dampening.
A. I would agree that they could be lower. I can't
say one way or the other on the figures given.
Does the state have any standards of noise
which would apply to this proposed site, Mr.
Simons?
L There are no standards of noise for recreation
areas, state or federal, that we've been able to

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cross
502
find.
4 Are you aware of the federal standards of noise
for recreation areas that have been adopted by
the Department of Transportation at a fifty-
seven decibel level as testified to by Pair. Leonard
yesterday?
A. Yes, I've seen that figure.
Have you in your experience as a mining inspector
and in -your general regulation of mines ever
imposed any noise standards on -a in mines, other
than this one?
p, We have not.
Well, then, I guess my next question will be
obvious. You certainly have never imposed any
noise standards at levels any less than fifty
seven decibels at the border line of any miIIes,
since you've imposed none at all.
L obviously not.
4 You explained, briefly, what they fiftymfive
decibel level came from as a measurement which
had been used at the park concerning aircraft
noise, is that correct?
L That is correct.
OL That is not necessarily a standard which you think

a
0
N
f
O
U.
N
O
O
n
O
-i
z
Li
Z
Z
0
m
0
u
a
4
U'
Z
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
should be imposed on training operations, but
simply one level that was used in your lay
calculations of getting familiar with noise,
is that correct?
L We had to start it at some point, and that was
the starting point.
OL So, you used that as the starting point.
L Right
But it's not necessarily a standard which must
be obtained, or adhered to?
L No, it's not a standard as far as we're concerned.
Now, to clarify your testimony, you testified
that in using the noise meter -- the sound meter
that you recorded some -plant site noises and
pit site noises at the eighty --five to eighty-
seven decibel level.
A. Yes, at fifty feet from that.
t Well, you mentioned that fifty feet, but I want
to be sure that the Mining Commission understands
where those recordings were taken.
In order to obtain those noise levels, you
were fifty feet from the actual equipment. You
weren't taking any simulated condition out in
the field fifteen hundred or two thousand feet.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
These measurements in the eighty levels were
right at the source of the noise, isn't that
correct --- fifty feet from the source of the.'
noise?
L That is correct.
And you were taking those measurements not to
testify that there would be any similar noise
down encroaching on the park at those levels at
all, but to try to discern in your general
familiarity with these sounds what levels you
had at the source, isn't that correct?
�. That is correct.
$ Those decibel levels, as has been previously
testified to by Mr. Leonard, will be greatly
reduced the farther away from them you get, isn't
that true?
L Yes.
OL They'll be also further reduced by the amount
of vegetation between them and the listening
point as you get away from it.
A. Yes, generally, no more than ten decibels is
used.
4 Well, you know ten decibels is simply the maximum
that would be dampened in a two hundred foot area,

2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q. You would agree with me that if you had a
thousand feet of woods, even though from standard
engineering practice, you would only use the
dampening for two hundred feet, but you would
have additional dampening beyond the tan decibels
for the other eight hundred feet of woods, wouldn't
you, as a practical matter in your general
familiarity with noise levels?
L Yes.
OL So, when you're talking'about adjustments for
vegetation of the noises noise levels from
their source to a point you're only really
talking about a minute fraction if you have over
two hundred feet -- whatever that two hundred
feet bears in relation to the total vegetation,
isn't that true?
L It depends on if you're shooting straight through
the trees, or if you're shooting from hilltop
to hilltop.
Q. What's true.
A. If you're shooting from hilltop to hilltop, you
only have the canopy immediately adjacent on either

a
0
N
f
0
N
0
0
0
z
W
z
z
0
,•
al
u
0
a
u
z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
hilltop with an open area in between.
¢ You would still, though, be increasing the
distance at this particular site as you go from
hilltop to hilltop, wouldn't you?
�. Yeah.
.And the vegetation would still be at least
two hundred feet -- that is, a hundred feet on
each side 4- so, you'd still have your maximum
dampening for vegetation, and increased dampening
because of distance, wouldn't you?
A. Yes.
Now, you did state that you made one measurement
after the denial of the application at the
Crabtree quarry some fifteen hundred feet away
for a fifty*five decibel reading, is that correct?
�. That is correct.
Q� Now, do you know what the topographic situation
was between the origin and the sound at Crabtree,
and that fifteen hundred feet?
A The main noise source being heard or measured
was at the plant area, which at Crabtree is
near the creek.
I. in turn, was across the road and on the
side of a .MM of a hills

0
N
f
0
N
O
O
n
O
z
Lj
Z
0
CO
0
0
Q
U'
Z
IL
1 S f MOMS
2 OL
3 A
4 a
5 JL
6 Q
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A.
19
20
21
22
23 Q�
24
25
Cross
Side of a hill -- you had a straight shot in?
Yeso
Did you-00
(Interposing) vegetated straight shot.
Vegetated straight shot, okay, You would not
be able, then, to -- since you're not testifying
as an expert, you would not be able to say
that that recorded sound at Crabtree at that
location had any relation to the recorded sound,
or to the proposed sound with the imposition
of the plant at the proposed area, would you?
That's simply one of the things that you
did, but you're not here testifying that that's
relevant to the proposed site.
I feel it mould be similar, but -- well, I feel
it would be similar,being vegetated the two
sites do not correlate exactly, obviously, because
the measurements from a valley to a hill and
whereas at the proposed site, it would be from
a hilltop to a valley, and possibly to another
hilltop, but --
(Interposing) If you went from a hilltop to
across the -valley at the proposed site, you'd be
much farther than fifteen hundred feet since the

1�
0
N
f
0
N
O
O
n
O
W
Z
Z
O
m
0
V
O
Z
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
valley, itself, is fifteen hundred feet, wouldn't
you?
A. A hilltop in the park area?
Q Yesq such as you measured from at Crabtree,
A Yes.
So, it cannot be correlated because your
distance was only fifteen hundred feet there, and
if you were measuring a straight shot into
the proposed site, you'd be twenty five hundred
or three thousand feet in order to get the
elevation to shoot straight in there, wouldn't
you?
A We have made an effort to try to correlate it,
at least for ca r own stbJective, non -expert opinion,
but you can't duplicate -- you know, you dan't
duplicate any -- the proposed site.
My point is for your own subjective, non -expert.
opinion cannot be transposed to the proposed
site because conditions aren't the same, can
you? You do recognize that, don't you?
A I feel orders of magnitude can. Exact readings
cannot, obviously.
OL Then, you would agree with me that the magnitude
would be less at the proposed site because you'd

JA
a
O
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
either be taking the fifteen hundred feet with
some intervening topographic vegetation variation,
or you'd be at a much greater distance, and,
therefore, the magnitude of the sound bvel would
be much less if you transferred it to the proposed
site?
A. I feel -- based on the measurements we have
taken at Crabtree and at Moncure and,the point
source noise and empirical reduction, I feel
that our estimation of noise level at the
boundary -- well, that our estimation as given,
is -- is reasonable.
And your estimation is that there'll, be some
increase of the ambient noise levels, but.you
don't really know how high it will go, but it'll
stay under fifty-five even without adjustment for
topographic. Isn't that what your testimony is?
A Yes.
All right. Now, did you check the accuracy of
your meter at any time?
L I did calibrate it prior to -- to any of the
measurements. '
OL Each time you used it?
& Each time I used it, yes.
19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons cross
Q How did you calibrate it?
�. Nell, as has been previously testified, there
is a calibration instrument there that reads
at a certain reading.
Right offhand, I don't remember it, and the
calibration instrument is supposedly traceable
to the U. S. Bureau of Standards, and it did
reade-
r (Interposing) So, you did the best job you could
to find out if it was accurate?
L Yes.
Q. And you figure it must have been fairly accurate
since Kimley-Horn Engineers fairly well agreed
with your analysis of those sound recordings
without topographic variation, is that true?
A. That's true.
OL Mr. Simons, I believe you testified that you
took your forty-five ambient level down in the
park area, and in relation to the proposed site.
In this area here, is that not correct? (Pointing
on chart)
L I'm not sure where the parking lot is in relation
to that,_but it was in the parking lot — existing
parking lot, and-a-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
(Interposing) Would you orient yourself as to
where the parking lot is in relation to that
particular intersection, so, you can kind of
point that out hypothetically to themp
(Witness looks at chart) Yes, I'd say that's
about right. (Indicating on chart)
Okay. That ambient noise level there of forty.
five, which the Wake Stone used as an ambient
generally, and you used, was up at -- being at
the parking lot, took into account vehicle noises
that were recorded on the roads and in that
parking lot,did it not?
It did.
As you get further down into the park toward
Crabtree creek, those noises would subside, would
they not?
They would.
And the ambient, then, would get lower.?
A. Lower than forty-five?
Yes.
L I -- I would ,say so , but due to the — the lower
limit of the reading ability of our instrument,
we would not be able to determine that, really,
I believe you stated that the ambient may be lower
ow®r
el

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
than forty-five, anyhow, since your instrument
did not register below forty. If you had a
reading below forty, you simply recorded it as
forty which may have been higher than the actual
reading, thereby, raising the average which
the average was to a forty-five level, isn't
that correct?
A. That is correct.
And, so, when Mr. Leonard's testimony uses a
forty-five ambient level to impose additional
noises, only to come up with the figures that
he had, those noises may very well total out to
be less than Mr. Leonard's testimony because the
ambient may be less down there deeply in the
park, and may be less if you use an actual measure=
meat which took into account the lowest measure-
ment, isn't that true?
A. Well, all along we've been talking about Leq's,
which is an average. The average of the natural
park condition is — I would say that aircraft
adds to the ambient, and could bring it up to
forty-five. In between the aircraft, it may,
in fact, be much quieter than forty --five.
And when you use that average, of course, if any

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
aircraft was in the air at the time you took
those measurements over the average, they're
averaged in there.
L That is correct.
Q. So, they take into account those aircraft noises
at some time.
L Right.
My point simply being that the Leg being an
average, and using that Leg of forty-five at
the park border may -- together with imposed
noises to obtain sound levels from forty-six to
fifty-one after adjustment.
L Right.
Q Those sound levels from forty-six to fifty one
of necessity would be Lower if you had a lower
ambient level at those levels.
If you're using one factor of the equation
would be lower than forty-five, then the total
result would be lower, is that correct?
L Well, in the rules of adding noise levels, you
add to the higher to higher noise level.
So, if you're adding a thirty to a fifty-five,
it's simply --s at that range, say, it would be
fifty-five, but you don't add to the lower. You

0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
add to the higher reading.
¢ But if you have a lower level to add, that
would result in a smaller total figure, doesn't
it?
A Not a smaller total figure than the upper figure
that is being added with it. For example, in
this -- well --.
But if you have -- are you saying that if the
ambient level at the park border at the Crabtree
C-reek instead of forty-five -- if the ambient
level is actually thirty-five, that you wouldn't
have a total ..d a lower total combined on this
k6 jested plant it the ambient ..., simply because
that ambient level is lower?
A No, I'm not saying that at all. If you get
fifty --
(Interposing) (Interposing) That's what I thought. It would
be lower, wouldn't it -- the total?
A The total noise level considering noise attenuated
noise source attenuated with distance from the
proposed operation added to a lower ambient would.
not result in lowering the noise level from the --a
from the quarry source.
4 No, but it would result in a lower decibel heard

A
O
N
E
0
N
O
O
N
O
z
W
z
Z
O
a
m
0
u
0
a
u
z
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MLP
Simons cross
at a point removed from the quarry site, becaase thi
you have the imposition of the two noises, the
ambient and the remote source noisee
so, therefore, if the ambient is lower
when you add on the imposed noise..you would have
a lower combine& noise at that point.
Under the rules of adding noise sources, if the
two sources are within ten decibels of each
other, you would add 'em -- add to the higher
figure. If it's more than ten, then you simply.
use the higher figure.
So, if it's within ten if it's forty-five
and you're adding to;-get,a forty-six -- if it's
thirty-five instead of forty-five, to get a
forty-six level at that particular point, that
would make the material difference in that forty-
six level, wouldn't it?
Yes, you would not add.
You are familiar, are you not, with Afro Ron
Bailey's measurements of sound that he's done
for the state?
A, somewhat familiar with it.
well, are you familiar that fir. Bailey found a
lower ambient noise level in the quality than the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cross
forty-five that you and Mr. Leonard usede
A Yes, I believe that.
4 Do you know what his ambient noise level was?
�. I ..o no, sir, I don't remember right offhand.
It was lower than forty-five, though, right?
�. I believe I recall that, yes.
I believe you mentioned that some noises were
imposing on your meter when you were doing your m�
how did you refer to it -.. non -expert, self -
educating noise levels. You mentioned a katydid.
A katydid will push that thing up past a hundred,
won't it?
�. No, not past a hundred, but certainly push it
up to fifty-five.
Push it way above fifty-five, wouldn't it?
�. I think sixty is the highest I have seen it.
That's the highest you saw it. You don't know
how close you were to that katydid, do you?
A. Tell, I know that it was more than one. No,
I have no idea. They WSM all around me.
The final factor you testified about, fir. Simons,
was erosion control, the sedimentation concerns
of the state. You did testify that you were
concerned about the initial construction because

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
of the sophistication of that plan being
necessitated by the topography of the plant
site, isn't that true?
�. Well, primarily the quarry site, rather than
the plant site.
4► Oh, the quarry site,
A. Right.
4 A -- I used the plant as a generic term. I
guess the operational site would be a better
word, wouldn't it?
A Yes, sire
4 Even though that's a sophisticated plan you' don't
have any doubt, do:..you, that Mr. Edwards'
supervising Wake Stone's construction of that
will result in that plan being followed?
L Mould you restate that question, please?
4 Well, let me break it down in two parts. Your
knowledge of the Wake Stone operation indicated
to you that they'd be capable of following that
plan, does it not?
L Yes,
Q, Do you know Mr. Edwards' work as a consulting
and advising engineer?
A. Well, yeah, we know know him to be a very reputab e

0
u
0
CL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
engineer.
4L He's a competent engineer?
A. Yes*
You don't have any doubt that he could properly
supervise the initial construction to assure
that it was built according to this plan, would
you?
We have no doubt that he could properly supervise
it.
You have no doubt that Wake Stone would carry it
out?
A. No, we have not doubt that they could carry out
the plan under supervision.
And would you say it would true to say that your
basic feeling is that Wake Stone would carry it
out?
I think they would make a conscientious effort
to carry out the plan.
I believe you were the man who wrote the sedimentatJ
control measures for this state as they apply
to mining, are you not?
I wrote a booklet outlining typical measures.
�► This booklet, which has been previously identified
Erosion Control Min m- Tem orM Mechanical. Erosion

0
E
0
L6
0
0
0
Z
W
Z
Z
0
m
0
u
0
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
s
Simons Cross
Control for Surface Mining Operations was
prepared by you, wasn't it?
x It was.
4 By you?
L Yes.
¢ And in reviewing the erosion control measures
which are set forth in the operation, and in
the -- I'm sorry -- in the application, and in
the subsequent drawings and plans and designs.,.
submitted by Mr. Edwards, you measured theca
against what you felt was a correct erosion
control device as outlined -- as recorded in
this booklet, is that correct?
L Well, not just as recorded in this book. The
book was published, I think, in 174, which was
just at the -- kind of the birth of the 0=m the
recent concern, the sedimentation law, and reg-
ulations.
The book was -- is certainly by today's ma*
the information available today ®a the book is
fairly elementary. There are more detailed
references certainly available now.
So, you were using standards which were probably
more detailed and more .stringent than standards

0
O
N
O
N
O
O
n
O
z
W
O
}
m
0
u
0
a
Z
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Direct
that are set forth in this book?
A. Yes, we were using what we would normally require
for construction or mining.
Q► Current design criteria, and current design
standards are what you used in reviewing these
plans?
�. Yes.
4� These plans met all that criteria, didn't they?
L Pretty much so, yes. You could -- you could find
a couple of things, but it pretty much met the
standards, right.
MR. VAN HORN: Excuse me, Mr. Kimzey.
Mr. Chairman, the witness needs to speak up just
a little.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Can you just speak louder,
please? we're having trouble hearing you,
A. Yes, I can.
(Mr. Kimzey) Mr. Simons, you testified, for
example, that in a letter of April 10th, paragraph.
6, you made certain inquiries of wake Stone
concerning their initial application as it
concerned erosion control, did you not?
L I did, yes.
0 You did not testify on direct, but it is true, isn't

0
W
C
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
it not, that you received a response to that
inquiry?
R. To the April loth letter?
Yes.
L Yes, we did.
Q. And that response indicated that they would carry
out all the suggestions you made in your inquiry,
isn't that true?
L That is correct.
They changed and revised the erosion control
plan to include a different location of a fresh
water pond, did they not?
�. Yes.
To include a request of a review of erosion
control by your division as the mining operation
develops both initially and operationally, did
they not?
A. They did.
4 And they also included a revision in the plans
which would include some of those smaller erosion
control ponds upstream or up ground from the
main lakes, did they not?
A. They did.
a And all of those met with your suggestions and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
45
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
design criteria.
A. Yes.
And still do.
�. Yes, the design up there does meet our criteria.
4 There are no other standards except for your
design criteria for this plan to meet, No other
state standards at all concerning erosion control,
except those that they've already met, are there?
L That's correct.
OL I may have restricted this question. I don't
mean to be repetitive when I ask you about the
initial construction phase, and the initial
construction and maintenance of the erosion
control by Wake Stone, but I haven't asked you
over the ten year period.
Do you have any doubt whether hake Stone
can properly maintain these erosion control
devices over the period of time after initial
construction?
A. I feel reasonably sure that as long as Mr,
Bratton -_ the mine is under the direction of
Mr. Bratton that these things can be done, yes,
And will be done.
�. Yes.

V
Z
W
R
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
4� I notice in your erosion control testimony you
had some criticism of bush barriers that I
wrote down, because bush barriers are not going
to be around for a long period of time,
That is, they're going to eventually decay,
and be --- settle into the land, I guess. Is
that right?
A. Yes.
Q► However, your primary concern is during the
initial construction phase, as you discussed,
is that correct?
L That is correct.
¢ And that's the amount maximum amount of time
for effectiveness for these bush barriers, and
the primary purpose of their use is for that
initial construction, isn't that true?
A. Yes.
a And they are effective during that initial phase?
A. Yes.
The final topic you testified to was concerning
mine declamations You -- the application
contains a rogla�nation plan for this site,
does it not?
L It does, yes.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
4 And that's in all accordance with your
department's and your division`a criteria?
A Yes, the reclamation opportunities for a mine
of this nature are by necessity somewhat limited,
Q. Yes, but you have reviewed those plans and
they are satisfactory reclamation plans for this
activity?
A. It is a workable plan, yes.
I don't guess I can change your personal opinion,
but would you agree with me that the donation
of a quarry site, of a clear lake, some seventy-
five acres or a fifty acre lake with some seventy-
five --co donation to the nark could conceivably be
an advantage to the park?
A. I would agree that it could be made very scenic.
A deep excavation in rock has certain inherent
dangers associated with it, and, you know,
regardless -- there's high walls that economically
can't be sloped down to a grade. There are steep
drop-offs. There are certain inherent dangers.
I would agree that it can be made attractive
as your previous photographs have showed -- clear
water lakes.
Qt Even if there are high walls, they can be adequately

f
1
u
Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Cross
protected by barriers or by fences. Those all
can be made very
attractive can't they?
A. Can be made attractive, but any barrier is --
it's use is pretty much confined to alerting
someone that -- that they shouldn't go beyond
that point. There is no barrier that would keep
people out.
Q. Well, there's no ultimate safety barrier for
any lake, is there? Anyway, everybody in water �-
someone may be drowned.
A No, but most lakes -- generally, you can walk
out a few feet without being in over your head.
4 But y+ou. can make adequate warnings and adequate
notices and protection for deep water, can't
you?
L you can make warnings for deep water, certainly.
OL As a matter of fact, isn't the amount of free board
or high level -- isn't that a matter of personal
opinion. I might happen to like the looks of
the lake with a cliff on one side. Whereas,
you might feel that's an inherent disadvantage.
A. We're talking about two different things. As
far as attractive appearance, yes, I like a rock
wall, too, and a clear lake. an the other hand,

0
N
f
O
U.
0
0
0
ti
Z
Z
O
r
m
0
V
O
a
u
Z
W
n
4
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
Simons Cross
it's certainly a hazard.
Or it can be.
X It can be a hazard, yes.
MR. KIMZEY: Would you grant me just about
a minute or two to review my notes to see if
I have anything further, Mr. Chairman? I'd
appreciate that. (kooks through notes)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Have you reviewed your
notes adequately?
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, sir. I've got only one
other real minor point that I'll close with.
4 (Mr. Kimzey) Mr. Simons, it's true, isn't it,
that part of your maybe education of your
staff, or demonstration of good practices that
you might frequently take them to some of the
Knightdale quarries or Moncure as examples of
good practices? Is that true?
A. That is true.
MR. KIMZEY : No further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Redirect, please.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY :
OL You talked on cross-examination about Wake Stones's
general ability to operate a quarry. Did you

V
Z
W
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Redirect
consider this in your review of the application?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q: What is your general impression of Wake Stone's
operations?
A. Well, as I previously said, they make a conscientiou
effort to try to keep their quarry in good order
as far as our concerns.
Q. How did -- how did your overall impression of
Wake Stone's ability to operate a quarry enter
into the decision to not grant--
L (Interposing) Well, I can only speak to myself
as far as my evaluation was. I certainly gave
them the benefit of every doubt as to whether
or not a mine operator could -- could do certain
features.
Do you have -- you are aware of the "-- - of the
denial of the permit?
A. Yes.
�► The reasons that went into that. Do you have
an opinion, yourself, as to the appropriateness
of that denial?
A. I feel that the proposed operation and the scale
of the operation is such that there are adverse
effects beyond the control of the operator if he

a
0
N
f
0
0
0
0
z
W
O
a
In
0
u
0
a
v
Z
W
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Redirect
is to economically operate his quarry that
would have a significantly adverse effect on
the park.
OL You do not -- my understanding of your testimony
is that, generally speaking, Wake Stone would
be able to comply with standards that you have
asked them to comply with, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Are there standards in every area of the operation?
A. Well, there are no noise standards. There are
certainly blasting standards or guidelines.
The Division of Environmental Management
has standards as far as the dust control over
the plant, and waste water processing.
I mentioned blasting. I guess that's the
standards.
4 would you say your review -- your general review
of this application would be in accordance with
how you have reviewed other applications?
L General procedure -wise, yes, except we did get
into noise on this one, but, certainly, much
more thorough, exhaustive study made due to the -4-
the uniqueness of the site being next to a state
park.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Redirect
Do you have an opinion about the possibility
of the issuance of a permit taking-- the park
considerations out of your considerations?
L You mean do I have an opinion whether or not
the permit could be issued if there were no
park on the other side?
¢ (Nods affirmatively)
L I feel, yes, a permit could be issued if the
park wasn't there.
�. You have taken steps to acquaint yourself with
various noise levels, meanings of noise, dB(A),
Leq, is that right?
A. Yes.
Before this particular permit came to you, did
you have occasion to do much with noise?
A. I did not monitor any noise. Of course, we have
investigated complaints, and a lot of the
complaints relating to quarries -o I'm not
speaking of the Wake Stone operation, but just
quarries in general in the staterelMsd to noise.
We've certainly been aware of quarry
noises, but I did not go about a scientific
study of how much noise a crusher makes, et cetera,
prior to this.

V
W
CL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Redirect
Q. Were you able to make any personal observations
of what various levels of noise meant to you
in the course of this investigation?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Could you relate would you relate to us
tliere's been there's been a lot of talk about
the ambient level being, say, forty-five or
thirty-five, forty, adding in equipment sounds
from the park, maybe.
It may be forty-five. Again, it may be
fifty. It may be fifty-five. Can you relate
to us what the levels -- those number levels
mean to you in your personal observations?
A. Well, certainly, an average level of forty-
five is less than fifty-five° However, as I
mentioned before, it became obvious that -- that
the average noise level did not a-- you knew, did
not correlate with - with the quality of the
noise.
For example, you could ®- you could have a
forty-five, and you'd hear many different sources
of noise, and some -a we're getting into the
realm of subjectiveness, but you could hear
certainly hear a quarry at forty-five. You could

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_Y 4i Li
Simons Redirect
hear individual trucks, et cetera, at forty-
five. You could hear birds and airplanes.
You'd hear a whole lot of different noises
at forty-five. At fifty-five, you know, it's
the same effect, except, you know, things would
be, obviously, louder.
Are there any -- are there any noise standards
placed upon a permit by the state -- an objective
noise standard?
A. We have not used a noise standard, no. We have
no -- there is no regulation or state standard
for noise relating to quarries.
I*take --outside of the Department of Labor,
mine and quarries employees safety, but as far
as off site effective noise, there are no
standards.
4 So, if you measure _- you take an individual
reading, and you measure it fifty decibels or
fifty-five decibels, or sixty decibels -- how
does that relate to your permit -- to your
consideration of the permit?
�f. In this particular case, it would relate only
to whether or not we thought that that noise
would have an adverse impact upon the purposes

i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
F
0 18
L&
~ 190
0
s
20
ki
Z 21
a
'a
m
V
22
O
4
V
Z 23
IL
24
25
542
Simons Redirect
of a publicly owned park.
Have you -- have you had occasion to attempt
to make some relationship between those levels
and the quality of sounds from a quarry?
A. I have, and I -- I mentioned earlier I feel that
a -- whereas airplane noise is intermittent --
it's quiet, and then it's loud.-- it goes down,
again. The quarry noise from a distance is a
fairly regular noise.
Of course, within the quarry, itself, the
noise comes and goes, but from a distance, it
is pretty much a steady noise, and at the at
the level of fifty-five or even fifty, if I
were in a park, or if I was in an area seeking
to enjoy the outdoors, that would -- would I
would think it would be an annoyance to me at
those levels.
4 And did what produced -- would you explain
to us, again, what your actual concerns with
dust are with regard to this project?
Well, dust is just one of,several factors, you
know. It's difficult to take it out of content,
but dust, itself our concern is that it would
blow over into the park, or could hamper the

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 533
Redirect
enjoyment.
Q And this concern is based on what?
A. Based on what I've observed at other quarries.
OL Have you had occasion to determine how you
would expect future expansion to take place
at the quarry with regard to the pit area?
Well, knowing the that there is a -- well,
an immediate, or almost immediate demand for
a high volume of rock there, and that there
probably will be a regularly m- a regular demand
for rock there, and knowing that the proposed
site, according to air quality permits for
three hundred ton per hour, or a half Million
tons per year capacity, it will probably be
expanding.
We have played around with some figures
of how this expansion would probably go.
Could you approach the map and explain to me
where v_ where you would expect future expansion
to go?
A. (witness indicates pit area) Well, there, again,
assuming the operator would try to do a con-
scientious job of limiting the impact to the park,.
assume that his first expansion would be away

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons
Redirect 534
from the park into this area. (Indicates towards
bottom of map) And I don't know how far he
could go before he could get into overburden.
He has indicated it would grind on around
at a half million or a million tons per year.
We feel that could very well be ten years
within ten years, and that could be pretty much
expanded as far this way as it could go without
moving some plant facilities, or whatever.
(Indicating towards bottom of map)
And did you have -- how did you relate your
concerns with regard to the .future expansion
to the park?
Well, you can't stick your head in the sand,
and say we're only looking at ten years. once
this was done, he'd really have no where to
expand except in the general direction of the
park. Of course, that would move the noise
source closer to the nark, blasting dust source,
visibility, possibly additional problems with
erosion control. It's difficult to say,
With regard to sedimentation, I believe you said
that you had some respect for John Edwards and
the plan, is that correct?

O
2
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Redirect
dell, he's known to be knowledgeable in
sedimentation engineering, yes.
And as I understand erosion control, if you
start out with your basic plan, and as you �-
as you got into implementing that plan, would
you have some sort of maintenance -type activities
to undergo, or would you let me restate
that.
Would you expect as the plan is developed
and the site is developed for a process of
problems to be encountered, and solutions to
those? Mould you expect that to occur?
A. Yes, it has to be continued. Naturally, once
they're large if I may approach the exhibit CMCM
naturally this basin would continue to be useful
as long as the drainage was in this area (Indica�
on the map)
If the quarry expanded along this stay, it
would be a continuing concern to a►- to control
the off site sedimentation from going into the
creek in this direction.
If. the quarry expanded over the divide into
the other areas, of course, you know, that would
be a concern. The basin, itself, would have to be

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Redirect
dipped out on a regular basis.
And how did that -- how did your impressions
Of of the --.of the future expansion -- with
regard to .sedimentation, how did that impact
upon your concern for the effect on Umstead
Park?
A. Well, there -- there are some unknowns. I think
the operator has given his honest estimate of
you know, of where the quarry would go.
I don't know if., perhaps, he has done enough
exploring out there to know exactly how the
quarry would expand, but as far as we know, there
are still some unknowns as to how gar, how fast
the quarry will expand.
And we do feel that it with the quarry
expansion, if not within the initial ten year
period, certainly within the life of the quarry
ry m-
will expand significantly towards the park, and
that was -- that was certainly one of the con--
siderations.
MR. OAKLEY: I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Are you ready for re -cross?
MR. KIMZEY: I just have two questions on
re -cross.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simone ate -Cross
1RB-CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY :
0. As I understand your last testimony on redirect,
_you're stating that part of the consideration
to deny the permit was based on considerations
beyond ten years from now.
That you felt that the quarry must progress
towards the Dark some time in the future unknown ..�
I believe you used the word "unknown". You
couldn't really tell, but some consideration of
that, is that correct?
A. It would be very shortsighted of us not to
consider that.
4 So, your answer is, yes, you did consider it?
�. Yes.
And you agree with me, do you not, that this your department and this Mining Commission -
each ten years has not only the right, but the
duty to review this permit, and to determine
whether or not there'll be differences for the
next ten years whatever those differences are
even if it moved away from the park which Mr.
Bratton explained? Isn't that correct?
Yes, but certainly decisions become more difficult,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Re -Cross
and in fairness to the operator, the decisions
become more difficult once there is an invest-
ment out there to say, this is your cutoff point.
Ll My question is, the statute -- the regulatory
scheme is designed for _you to make consideration
based on the application on a ten year basis,
and for this Commission to make considerations
based on the ten year basis --
A. ( Interposing) I don't think--
OL --yet you have gone to the period of time from
ten years to forty years -- fifty years to make
this decision, isn't that true?
A. I don't recall anything in the statute that says
that our look at the mine should be limited to
only *ghat it would do in ten years.
It just says the length of the per --- maximum
length of the permit before it's subject to re
review is ten years..
But the point is, that the statutory scheme
does envision a renewal each ten years without
the operator being able to do further unless he
does that, isn't that true?
A. That is correct.
Q. As a matter of fact, the statutory and regulatory

f, {
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Re -Cross
scheme as set forth in the Department's own
rules and regulations, both in the Administrative
Code and your informal rules envision a review
on a continuing basis during that ten years, as
well as the necessity for a renewal at ten years,
isn't that true?
x Yes, that's true.
You gave a personal observation on the noise.
Is it not true, Mr Simons, that you ----you are
aware that in the application and their practices
that Wake Stone would only operate during the week-
days? Is that right?
A. Yes. They've indicated that, right.
Q: And you are aware that the primary use of the
park -- that is, the majority -- as far as heavy
usage is during the weekend?
A. Understand in summertime there is heavy use during
the week, also.
I understand there's use during the week, but
the primary, heavy usage is during the weekend
even during the summertime.
A, I would imagine that to be the case. I can't
testify one way or the other.
4 Well, the only point I'm making is, there would be

f
O
N
f
0
N
0
0
0
z
a
Z
Z
a
m
0
V
V
Z
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Re -Cross
no -- no opportunity for any encroachment on
a person's personal annoyance level during the
weekend since the plant would not be operational
during that time.
A. Yeah, assuming the plant was not in operation,
other than visual.
4 There would be no visual if you couldn't see
it, either, whether it was in operation, or
not, would it?
A. No, that's, of course, true.
MR. RIMZEY: All right, no further questions,
MR. OAKLEY: I have one question.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR, OAKLEY:
Q. Are you aware of the expected life of the quarry?
�. I certainly am now. During the review period,
I assumed it was well beyond ten years, but I
didn't know if it was forty or fifty or whatever,
but I -- I'm certainly aware that it's been
projected, say, at fifty during this hearing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do we have any questions
from the Commissioners?
MR. VAN HORN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Commissioner Van Horn?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Committee
. VAN HORN: Mr. Simons, is it your
opinion that within your permit structure in
your section and department =-= is it proper
to withhold an initial permit because of potential
conditions that might not cotmencge until after
the first or second renewal of such a permit?
A. Did you say, is it our • policy, or is it in our
regulations, or you may restate the question?
. VAN HORN% -Yeah, let me restate it,
and if you still have trouble with it, 1011
change it.
Is it proper within your permit structure ---
proper insofar as your own rules and regulations
as you interpret them within your permit structure
to withhold an initial permit because of potential
conditions that might not comAence until after
the first or second renewal of the permit?
I would say it's within � properly within our
interpretation of the law to look at the ®40 the
long range impacts as well as the ivmdiate
impacts, and the long range impacts may fall beyond
the initial permit area
Ito VAN HORN: In spite of the: fact that the

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'2
Simons Comittee
petitioner presumably takes into consideration
that the permit within the structure could be
denied after the first term.
Yes, sir, in ®spite of that fact.
MR. VAN RORN a Okay. Another point -- a
different point -- I understand that in substance
in your denial of the permit,you believe that
there were deleterious project implications
beyond the control of the operators, is that
correct?
�. Yes, sir. I would say in m- inherent to this
type operation of this magnitude.
BAR. VAN HORN: Okay. A step farther than
that, was your denial based altogether on the
items that you considered beyond the control
of the operator? Was it limited to those?
L We're going to have to further define "beyond
the control of the operators. I would say as m�
you know, we're basing it on our experience
with quarries. You could conceivably dig a
hole and put the crusher in it, and cover up
their -a you know, there's certainly m- if you've
got the money, there's certainly measures that
could be taken, but what we felt we could reasonabl

f
01
O
N
I
0
L6
0
0
0
z
W
Z
Z
0
m
0
u
0
u
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Committee
require the operator to do., and still give
him a chance to economically make m- to
economically operate the quarry, r would say
there — there are ©- that it's primarily based
on things that was beyond what, we felt he
could reasonably control,
MR, VAN HORN: You mentioned one, the
location of the crusher within or without the
quarry •
Would you itemize the points that you believe
were beyond the control of the operator that
lead to the denial of the permit?
A We feel to a large extent noise is — is beyond
the control of the operators. Certainly, things
can be done to quiet it, but based on existing
mines, it's inherent, and you have to use a
certain amount of energy to crush the rock and
move it around.
Noise is certainly one. They certainly
have to blast the rock, and there's no way to
wet down the surface of the rock -- that internal
to the rock, that a blast � certainly dust will
be created.
Certainly, the efficiency of any erosion

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
544
Simons Committee
control plan is not one hundred percent, as
well as the possibilities of off site sedimentatio
before an erosion contr
ol plan can be in process,
Hither weather conditions or whatever that would
preclude the Operator being able to finish his
plan before a slug of sediment, or whatever
went into the stream.
Certainly, the operator has to clear areas
to operate, and the proposed site is on a -- where
the plant site is on a relatively high elevation,
and so we feel there could be visual impacts.
MR. VAN ROM s Your remark about clearing
is in the same context -as your remark about
sedimentation and control, is it net?
L Yes, the clearing would relate to both.
Aft. VAN HORN; Okay, you've listed are
there any other items that you considered beyond
the control of the operator that lead to the
denial?
L Let me see what 1 °-ve listed,
MR. VAN H©RN a You've listed- noise, blasting
dust, erosion control,
L Well, visual.
MR, VAN HORN Any others that were used in

O
O
W
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons
Committee
•
the denial?
L Well, traffic. This would relate to noise and
dust somewhat, Certainly, I'm sure the
operator hopes that there's going to ba - a .Aot
of trucks going in and out of its operations. .
So, there will -m there will be a lot of
truck traffic, and as the existing roads are
set up, truck traffic does funnel through the
one intersection within three hundred feet of
the park entrance.
t a VAN HORN: Any other?
No, I believe that is pretty much it.
MR* VAN Howl: okay, you've listed the ones
which you felt were beyond the control of the
operator.
Mould you add to that a list of those things
leading to the denial that were within the
control of the operator, rather than outside his
control -m in your opinion?
L At present, I feel these - - the conditions beyond
the control of the operator were responsible
for the -- the permit denial,
At this moment, I can't recall any instancethat's — you know, other than the ones I've just

W
a
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simone Coittee
mentioned.
XRo VAN BORN: I have no further questions.
XR. SALISBURY: I have a couple of
questions.
o
CMIRKM SMITH: Mr, Salisbury,
MR. SA,LISBURY % Mr. Simmns, I don't under
stand a whole lot about this forty-five and
fiftymfive and fifty decibels, and all that,
Could you kind of tell me if I was standing
outside here, and some cars were going by, what
kind of decibels would I be getting?
A In our investigation we had fairly limited
experience with just cars going by. I would
say if you stood out there fifteen minutes, it
Mould probably average -- well, I don't know,
I couldn't say what the noise level out on the...
street would bev
I think that this room, for example, when
no one is talking, but just everyone is in and
miscellaneous noise would probably fall somewhat
over forty-five o Z %derstand that a tape may be
played later that can give you a better idea,
MR., SALISBURYZ I'll be glad to got that
I know the gentleman yesterday said it sounded

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
Simons committee
likes a storm, and then I asked him again, and
he said it didn't sound like a storm, Then,
I'm having troubles today understanding exactly
what it is.
Lot m ask you one other question* Mr.
Bratton testified last night in terms of some
new equipment and things of this kind that are
designed to help cut down noise.
Have you had an opportunity to see any of
this type of equipmnt in operation?
No, I. have not o I am, ba6idally, familiar
With some of the technology of some of itb Z
understand --= I don't know if the technology
Of all of it is proven or not, but I have not
been to a quarry where this equipment was in
operation.
And I know of mo I don ° t believe I know of
a quarry in the state where this equipment is
in operation, or totally in operation.
They may have a — one compressor, one
quiet compressor here and there that I've never
seen, but I've never seen an operation where it
was noise oriented with this equipment,
MR. SALSIBURY: Assuming that the claims made

0
N
O
N
O
0
s
z
W
Z
Z
O
}
d
m
O
u
c
d
V
Z
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ssmons Committee
for it are accurate, would that in any way
change your feeling about the noise problem
in the pare
L Well, the noise levels of this equipment have
not been given. It was implied they were greatly -
reduced from you know, from the existing, or
from the older equipment,
I'm not sure it was addressed how it would
quiet down the actual crushing of the rock. it
was explained that rubberized screens can
certainly quiet down the sorting and sizing of
the aggregate,
I don't see how you can out down on the
noise of the crusher unless you encase the
crusher, which is an additional expense and
inconvenience to the operator.
Certainly, quieter equipment would have a
bearing on the case, I can't — I'm not prepared
to say how much, because I don't know how much
quieter it could get.
e SALS IBURYj I guess what I ' m asking
is, the noise that disturbs you, you feel would
disturb someone in the park, is it primarily
from this type of equipment that has been described

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
si.mons Committee
or is the noise coming from other sources
besides these that would not be in any way
changed by this equipment?
A. I feel the most disturbing noises would come
from the crusher -- both secondar
y and primary
crushers -- the air drills, the heavy pit haul
trucks, both engine noise and gear noise, and
backup warning signals which are, by design, sort
of piercing and carrying.
So, yes, I'd say the noise that would have
the impact would be the noise that's been -- these
sources that have been previously described.
MR. SALISBURY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions? Mr.
Tysinger -- Commissioner Tysinger?
MR. TYSINGER: Mr. Simons, what is the
purpose of a buffer zone as the Department
visualizes it?
�. The purpose of a buffer zone?
MR. TYSINGER: Yes. I mean in this instance.
A. In this instance would be to -- to shield the
operation from public view, in this case from
park view, or filter any miscellaneous sedimentatic
that was not channeled into another measure, or a

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Committee
minor, or temporary source, And noise _A visual,
noises and se3dimentation.
MR. TYS INGRR: I believes it's been mentioned
yesterday thatdom
L (Interposing) Excuses =a 40=
MR. TYSINGER s ( Interposing) =- there might
be a► possibility of putting a dike on the eastern
boundary. Would this help in the noise area
in your opinion?
Could possibly help -smog but as you leave
I A vt­meftioned the quarry ­= I mean, the noise
force Of they plant area is on the highest axes d
It you build the dike, and build it far
enough to be out of the operator's way, you have
to put it down in the hill =- downhill somewhat.
You know, it would take a rather high
dike to -- to be of no benefit or very limited
benefit for screening visual screening,,
Of course, it would naturally help in
sedimentation, It could possibly be of some
benefit for noise, but not a complete noise
screen because as I see it, it would be virtually
impossible to get down =4 go very far down the
hill, and build up a dike that would be, you know,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
S i=ns committee
even with the crusher, or the plant site
MR* TYS INGRR a Your primary concern, then,
is that the height of the plant site would make
it difficult to shield the noise?
A. dell, the natural -m certainly the ©rusher is
elevated, or the jaws of the crusher are elevated
from the ground.
The other noise sources are pretty close
to the ground -- the trucks, or whatever, but
even at ground level, if you had to go downhill
and build a dike, it would be difficult to screen
that noise with the dike.
You couldn't build the dike high enough
to completely screen it,
CMURNAN SMITH: lira Riggs?
MR, RIGGS : Mr. Simons, several times you've
talked about topographic profiles that you made,
various studies of wind directions, noise levels,
et cetera.
Where are the reports of the data on this
on these various studies that you've done?
L W011, mostly in written notes.
MR. RIGGSs You haven't got any reports
or anything that could be delivered as exhibits

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Committee
to the®
J6 Well, no, I don't think any of this has been
delivered as exhibits,
MR* RIGGS: You made reference to looking
at the wind patterns in the area, You mentioned
that they're from the southwest. Is this a
seasonal thing? Are they always from the south=
west sixty percent of the time, ten percent of
the time?
L If I can refer to my weather sheet. As I
recall, it was greater than sixty percent of
the time.
I don't know if it,°: s appropriate for me
to refer to my weather sheet, but it was a large
percentage of the time o
I'm not prepared to say --
MR. RIGGS : (interposing) My reasons for
asking that question Jar if there are some
definite weather patterns mere that are potential
problems with respect to creating dust, is it
possible to schedule or set up a blasting scheme
that would be dependent =-= weather dependence that
would minimise or eliminate potential of dust
movement in a given direction? And, of course,

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Committee
in order to do that, one has to know the
weather patterns, and my question deals with
hoes well do we know the weather patterns in
that area?
JL An operator could certainly schedule ,or
probably schedule his blasting, or not blast
on a windy day where the wind was blowing to
the park.
I don't think you could set up a long range
schedule. I don't think the weather is that
consistent to say that on certain dates the
winds -- prevailing winds wouldn't be from that
direction, but they could refrain from blasting
on days when the wind direction was unfavorable,
Mo. RIGS: In your opinion., are there
alternate sites that could be used for the
stockpile in the plant that might be more dm
might minimize the impacts that you envision?
This particular site, if I may refer to the
exhibit?
MR. RIGGS : Please.
L ror an operation of, say, half a million tons
per year which is conservatively proposed would
require a crusher, stockpile areas, a plant to

0
N
f
O
N
O
O
O
z
Ui
Z
Z
a
Co
0
u
0
a
u
Z
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
544
Simons Committee
wash the stone, processing waste water ponds,
naturally, stockpile areas, which considering
the large amount of stone may be needed at any
given time from the airport or from highway
construction anticipated in this area. It
certainly would require some large stockpile
areas to get these areas.
This is the only large flat site available.
Over here is a ridge, but it's fairly narrow
across the ridge. (Indicating on exhibit)
You know,you could movec*fm
MR. RIGGS: (Interposing) What about down
here over closer to the access road which would
put it at the farthest extreme from the park?
�. It could be -- well, you could move it straight
back along the ridge somewhat, There's some
limitation there.
I think the land zoned along Interstate 40
five hundred .feet, but there's still Considerable
room to make it. It can be Moved back somewhat,
straight back.
It would take some some fill, and leveling
to move over in this direction, or this direction,
(Indicating on the map)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons
L
L
Co.ttee
MR, RIGGS But it's feasible to consider
as a. possible site in your opinion?
With -the filling, yes$ it isA
e RIGGSSE With modification?
It's possible, I don't know if it's economically
how GeonoMiCally Feasible it is o
MR, RIGGS a Is there in your opinion a- again
is there a possibility that a separate access
road could be developed into the site that
would eliminate any problems with multiple use
of the existing road?
NO* unless I don't see howo If you
go in the opposite direction -- well, the i.nter,►
state is bound here with limited access
If you go in this direction, you have to
cross Crabtree Creek, and build a road a mile
or so. If you go toward the int®rsection from
the interstate to the park entrance, it's only
five or six hundred feet to play around with,
So, I don't sae, reallyp how you could
change that,
• RIGGSs If you come off the interstate
ramp there and just develop a road that runs
parallel to the interstate -far enough to get away

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Committee
from the -4 and have a separate access road
so that you -- the only co -existent part would
be the interstate exit, itself.
Is that not a feasible-?
L I don't know enough about traffic engineering
to know how you could arrange that. You don't
have very much ground to work with.
14R. RIGGS: One last question, and this
may have come up before I got here, but I'd
like to O.IM from your experience with the mine
Permits with Fake Stone Quarry, have you ever
had any major complaints of any sort from Wake
Stone's operation?
Do they just meet the standards, or do they
go way beyond the minimums?
L To my knowledge, we have not received a citizen
complaint, or any complaint with relation to
the two stake Stone quarries,
I would say they make a conscientious effort
to go above and beyond the minimum requirements.
MR. RIGGS: That's all.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Johnson,
MR. JOHNS4N: Commissioner Van Born when
he was talking to you about the prime reasons

0
IL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 c9 b
Simons Cor.►mittee
for turning this -- refusing this permit
raised the question in my mind really, it
was rather shocking. I want to pursue this
j ust ' a little bit further about what's the
prime reason for refusing the permit in this
respect was, how much of it was involved in
the~ ' crusher versus the pit.
This sounds a little fantastic, but I
can show you mines where the crusher and the
pit are not on the same site.
.It's not a common thing, but they do exist,
and what I -- what I'm trying to get a 'feel
I got the impression that you objected
more to the crusher than you did to the pit,
is that correct?
A. From the visibility and noise point of view,
the crusher is sitting on a -► the higher elevat
less my not shielded from the park.
The quarry, if I may address the exhibit mm
the park being here. The quarry the proposed
quarry Brea being in this vicinity. (Indicating
on map)
There is an intervening hill here where the
plant site will be. Sol from that point of view
Y

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P
Simons Committee
too, you've got over in this area assuming
no trees at all, but just direct vier o- visibilit
of they quarry, itself, as long as the quarry
was in this area would not be a concern as much
as the plant and stockpile here.
From erosion control on the other hando the
quarry area is a prime concern because it's on
this steeper land. Well, it's on a narrow ridge
fairly steep for this part of the country, a
small stream flowing i diately downhill from
the quarry on one side, a steep hill and Crabtree
Crook on the other side.
So, for erosion control, the quarry, itself,,'
on noise -- it's been mentioned before one of
the noisest things at a quarry is the air drill.,
Air drills would be at the quarry, and of course
that was considered -- that was added to these
noise levels.
We did not consider Just what the noise
would be solely from the air drill without the
crusher.
So, that visibility and noise concerns centers
around the plant site location.
FAR. JOHNSON: It gave sae a little shock, and
r
S

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Committee
I want to pursue: this just a little bit. sit
back down. I mean, it's,-- let me give you
this hypothetical case.
If the pit was across U.S. 74, and the
company chose to put the crusher in the same
place, and the pit was on some other piece of
property, would they even need a mining permit
to build that crusher?
�. Yes, eir. Alining is defined under the Act
as the extraction and processing of the minerals,,
So, it would include both sites.
MR. JOHNSON s Well, now, I'm not trying
to start an agrument. I'm trying to understand.
This property is zoned industrial.
Would you be inclined to refuse to let
them put a crusher in there if there was no
pit?
Crusher related to a mining activity that fell
under the Xining Act, I would we'd have to
go back and re-examine, you know, the total "n
the total impact noise, and then sedimentation,
but, you know, without the pit, I'm not sure
I — I can give you an answer right now.
But, it would be -- definitely be covered under

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 560
S imon sss Committee
the Yining Act if just the crusher was there,
and the pit was across the road.
MR. JORNSONt Commissioner van ]horn gage
me a real shock: here. I think was have to
distinguish between the objections to the
crusher and the objections to the pit.
Now, an. I right that you object more to
the crusher than you do to the pit?
L I'm not prepared to make that statement, because
I haven't thought about it. We considered it
as a package in our evaluationco4m
MR. JOHNSOM i ( Interposing) Bar. Chairman,
I won't pursue this. I haven't given it a
thought until Earl brought this thing up, but
to me, now, it has changed the picture since
this property is industrial property.
I think we have to make the distinction
of whether or not industrial noise is related
to mining, and I won't spay any store.
We can't decide this right now, but
it does worry me.
He . VAN RORN t Per. Chairman, may I clarify
a point here?
CRAI RKM SMITH: Yes,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Simons Committee
MR, VAN HORNS It is correct, then, that
the crushing plant with its design --4 as it
is presently designed, would have required a
mining permit under the present regulations
separate from the quairry.
It still has its criteria that would require
a -mining permit due to acreage disturbed, and
the fact that it processes.
Yeas, sir, it would tall under the definition
of mining.
MR. VAN MORN: And the quarry, if isolated
with its parameters, would require a mining
permit.
L That is corrects
MR. VAN HORN: Thank you,
CHAIRKM SKITH: One point of clarification,
you have indicated in your testimony, and the
testimony of Mr. Berger -- excuse me -® I forget
which witness it was — that the type of measurem
ment m— noise measurements which you made were.
average noises
And you later indicated that the noise
from a rock quarry operation at these distances
would be more of a constant noise, is that correct4

%3
2
W
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
562
Simons Committee
A. That is correct,
CHAIPMAN SMITH: Thank you, sire Any
other questions? You may step down, Jim.
(WITNESS EXCUSED,)
CHAIRMAN SMITH- fir. Oakley, it's about
seventeen minutes to twelve, Do you want to
-start your witness now, or do you prefer to
wait until after lunch?
I.R. OAY s I'd prefer to start,
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right, sir.
hereupon,
HARL ON X_, _-B tlTT s
Having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY s
Would you state your full name and address?
Harlon X, Britt, I live at 1006B Village Green.
'y in Cary, North Carolina.
4 And what is your present occupation?
A I'm employed as the State's Sedimentation Control
Specialist in "a Land Quality Section,

V
Z
W
a
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a Q i
Britt Direct
a Have long have you held that position?
L For a little over six years, now,
OL And what duties and responsibilities do you
have in that position?
L I work as the specialist in reviewing con-
struction projects around the state for erosion
sediment control. a
I work in the — assistanq, the regional
engineers,in.the approval of erosion control
plans,
I also work as an advisor and assistant
to the mining program and dam safety program
on erosion sedimentation control projects which
they have concerns with.
[ghat is your educational background?
L I have a Bachelor of science Degree in Civil.
Engineering from North Carolina state University,
'A Do you hold any professional degrees?
A Year air, Ism a Registered professional Engineer
in the state of North Carolina and a Registered
Land surveyor.
Q Have you attended any other courses or seminars
with regard to erosion control?
L Year I've attended seminars, and programs, wore.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5 0A
Britt
Direct
shops, and so forth put on by the Uo Se Department
of Agriculture, Soil. and Conservation Society,
and Erosion Controls
I attend the International Erosion Control
conferences located at various points throughout
the country,
I also have attended st©rm water manage- : .
went workshops, put on training programs, myself,,
in the fields of erosion and sediment control,
hydrology and hydraulics,
Are you familiar with the proposed Wake Stone
quarry site?
L
Yes, I arm.
¢
Dow are you io familiar?
A.
I have reviewed the erosion control plans, and
site development plans submitted in the permit
application.
I have also visited the site in the field,
and walked over a good portion of the sited in
general*
Without being particularly repetitive, I think
a lot of people have heard most of they talk
about sedimentation so fare Could you generally
describe the basics approach that Wake Stone

f
O
N
0
0
O
s
z
W
Z
O
a
m
0
u
0
4
V
2
Ld
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Direct
intends for the site with regard to sedimentation
control?
Well, I'll use the exhibit. I believe in
reviewing the plans that wake Stone Corporation
has submitted that they are proposing to cony
struct an access road down -- from the proposed
plant site loam to this area to allow equipment
to get in, and to construct a -- what they call
a fresh water Pond -located in this in this par-
ticular area -- also, one in this area. (Indicating
on map)
They're also proposing to use a series
of brush barriers along these roadways and
all locations around the bar pit -- the pit here
in the stockpile area.
They're proposing a series of diversions.
They had a number of, quote, "sediment pits"
that are located at various points to catch
runoff from the cleared areas. One will be located
here, and one located here. (Indicating on map)
They are proposing a brush barrier to be
constructed around their pit as indicated on the
drawing here, They also indicate the use of a
burlap salt fence below the dam in this location

1 Britt
2
3
4
5 A`
6 OL
7 L
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 A.
17 4
18 L
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DUD
Direct
and in this location.
I
Would you have an opinion on the adequacy of
the preparation of the plant?
i
I have an opinion, yes, sir.
Wh t is that?
I }believe they have -taken a reasonable first
approach to controlling the sediment, and if
e rything went exactly according to their
schedule with no alterations having occurred
either by their part, or by nature, I think it
cou d conceivably be put in without too much
d ge to the Crabtree Creek,
I
Do you still have some concerns with sedimentation —
with the sedimentation of the site, nonetheless?
I ; ;ure do.
Al right, ghat is your primary concern?
Pr marily, I'm concerned with the construction
of this dam on a live dry weather flowing
stream.
The construction in this area will have to
take place across the drainage way, and if we
were to get a rainfall during the construction
of 'this darn, we could have the entire embankment
blown out, and the silt fence below it -- there's

0
1 1 Britt
Direct
607
2
this re I s no way a s i it Fence could catch the
3
unt of sediment which would be lost with
4
co struction of this embankment here, if we got
5
a evere storm. Let's say, a one or two
6
at M16
7
We have some other concerns, and that is
8
wi�h the haul roads, and the amount of material.
9
wh�ch will be leaving the haul roads.
10
These will be graded roads with rock put
11
on it according to the information I've seen.
12
Th�y're purposing the use of a brush barrier
13
al�ng hers. (Indicating on map)
14
And only on this plan, they call this a
15
pe�manent brush barrier. Brush barriers in my
16
opinion can be utilized in the.�
short term, but
17
in�the period of, let's say, a year to fifteen
18
or eighteen months, you're going to get — these
19
b h barriers will be deteriorating. Material
20
is f going to rot out. It'ss going to create voids
21
in,the bush barrier which will tend to
22
channelize the water to these voids, concentrating
23
th flow, and, therefore, you will began to get
24
re 7oval of the sediment Collected behind the
25
through the brush barriers. We have a live stream

0
N
f
0
4
N
0
0
0
z
W
Z
0
a
m
0
V
0
Z
IL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Direct
flowing here, and based upon a scale of one
inch to a hundred, it looks like we're somewhere
in the neighborhood of twenty-five, maybe,
thirty feet from this stream with the cons
struction of the road.
And this will be a long term road. It must
be maintained so that we can get in, and if
necessary, clean out this basin.
So, I think we would have some problems
there. I think we'd alto have a problem with
the type of soil out here. we have some clay
content in it.
And let's say that a good portion of it
is caught by this particular lake here. (Indicating
on map)
It is a live stream flowing through here,
So, you're going to have continuous suspension
of materials passing through the riser which
is proposed, and into Crabtree Creek.
Do you have any other concerns relating to the
Pitt itself?
A okay. The pit is ..m 1 believe if you doom 119M
heard the statement made earlier in scaling
this off, it looks like about two acres will be

r/ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- 569
Britt Direct
cleared. The ridge line runs basically through
the middle of the pit. So, ghat we have me= we
have about half of this pit that is on the
down s2cpe side of the ridge line -► exposed
area,,
We have a very steep terrain from this
portion of the pit down to the creek. It looks
life, just guessing on the scale here, maybe
a hundred feet horizontally from the edge of
the pit down to Crabtree Creek.
If we get debris or material in here, due
to the steepness of the terrain, then I believe
it would be almost impossible to keep this
material from reaching down into the creek,
If any material gets outside if we clear
the entire site, itself m- and, of course, we
have this approximately one acre in here that
is left subject to erosion -- the brush barriers
in this area simply are not going to prevent
material from washing on through, They're g'o*in;'
to deteriorate out. (Indicating pit area)
Have you had other experience at similar sites,
or similar erosion control methods that would
indicate to you the pr6bability of your problem

2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Direct
occurring at this particular site?
I've visited over the last six years, I guess,
maybe, half of the mining operations in the
state, and in all locations where we have a
rock quarry or mine adjacent to a live stream,
we have experienced from one source or another
connected with the operation of that those
mines some siltation being given to the adjacent
stream.
Those locations where we do not have a
stream adjacent to it, and we don't have the
terrain problems, then we don't have the problem,
but where we have similar situations, I've
never seen a case where we didn't get some
sediments and silts derived into the stream,
itself.
QL Do you have an opinion based upon your view of
the plan and your background in dealing with
similar situations concerning the impact of the
run-off on the site?
I really -- I'm not in a position to to give
an opinion on what the impact might be. There
are too many variables in that.
Would you say -- have you discussed your ._-review

1
Britt
Direct
2
with other people in your division or your
3
section?
4
A.
Yes, I have.
5
would you say there's general agreement among
6
you?
7
A.
Yes, I would.
g
MR. OAKLEY : No further questions.
9
CBAIRMAH SMITHi All right* Mrs Kimsey?
10
MR. KIMEEY c I have a few questions,
11
CROSS -OM MINAiTIUN BY MR- KXMZEY:
12
13
First of all, did you hear the testimony of
14
Mr. Simons here this morning?
g
15
L
I heard a portion of it, sir, not all of its
16
Did you hear his testimony that based on his
0
N
17
experience with the operator, and his experience
0
18
with the engineer, that he had no doubt that
N
0
0
0
19
they could and would fellow these plans, specsifical
z
20
L
I heard something in that statement that there
a
0
'a
m
21
may be conditions which they can't alter, either.
0
0
22
well, you stated, I believe, in your initial
W
a
23
presentation that this was a viable plan, and if
24
it was followed, and it was followed correctly
25
that it would do the work. And your only concern

0
N
F
O
U.
N
O
O
O
W
_
O
m
0
u
0
u
_
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Cross
was a one or two year flood during the initial
phases, isn't that correct?
A If it were followed, and we had no imposition
of weather conditions which would override that
plan, yes.
All right. Well, let's just do this one time,
Now, you heard his testimony about this operator
and this engineer. You don't have any infor,
nation that would contradict that, whatsoever,
do you?
A. No, sir, I do not.
As a matter of fact, you believe Mr. Simons'
testimony that this operator, with his reputation,
would do these things, isn't that true?
�. That's correct.
Q► Now, isn't it possible, Mc. Britt, to predict
within four or 'five days when you're going to
have a one or two year storm?
A. No, sir, not in my opinion, it isn't.
You don't think it is. You think the weather
cannot perdict when there will be, say, the lack
of a major storm for four or five days?
L I think it's possible. I also think that you can
have a system move in and stall on yours lf, which

IN
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Cross
may have looked like a very minor situation,
but if • it. stalls, you get a rainfall of about
four inches in twenty-four hours, that is the
according to the Soil Conservation Service
figures, that is a two year rainfall.
But it's possible to avoid that simply by being
taking great care with the weather predictions,
and not constructing during those periods of
time, isn't it?
�. It would be possible,
�► Sure,. And you heard Mr. m- did you hear Mr.
Edwards testify it would take about four or
five working days to construct those and making
those dams to --- what I would call stablize
that bottom end of that erosion control plan?
Year sir, I heard his statement.
So, if you, then, were careful with the weather,
and you went ahead and constructed those in that
manner, you would not have any concern of a
one or two year storm --- having a wash -out that
you described which you're concerned about, would
you?
�. If it were done *ith no rain storm, I would have
no concern.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Cross
That's right. Now, you also -- that was your
primary concern, as I understand.
Your secondary concert had to do with the
pit area, and ghat Y call the backside of that
map, the area adjacent or coming down towards
Crabtree Creek on the slope.
Did ;you also hear Mr. Edwards testify about
how that pit would be developed by undercutting
from one side and leaving a barrier so that
there would not be any cleared area above that
slope,on the downhill side, but it would come
out and leave a wall there?
L 3 heard him -- as far as 1 can recall his state=
went, that he thought that was the way it was
going to be done -- the operation Q= but as far
as the clearing of the site, itself, Z don,t
think he was able to give an opinion on that.
Well, did you also -- are you familiar with
the application which talks in terms, not only
of brush barriers around the edge of that pit,
but of large boulders and rip --rap lining
those boulders along the edge of that pit?
L No, sir, I have seen no information on that. it's
not shown on the plans.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
p f, 4/
Britt Cross
That's in the application, but you're not
familiar with it?
�. I haven't read that part, no, sir.
g1 That would correct that problem, wouldn't it?""
If you had both an undercutting so that you had;
the natural drainage was not disturbed, and
then you had the borders there, either protected
by the berm or boulders or rip-xap
that would probably prevent that concern from
conning about, wouldn't it?
If the boulders constituted an iperv.rausaph®re,
it would prevent it.
¢ Now, you also stated that one of your secondary
concerns was the haul roads, and what you called
the bush barriers insofar as their permanency
is concerned.
Did you review these plans with Mr. Sims
then they were developed, or when the state
was first reviewing them?
A. I believe that's correct.
Mr. Simons made several recommendations to the
state* Dial you assist him in those recommendatio ?
L I gage my comments to Mr. Simons, and I assure
they were passed on.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt
0
Ll
L
L
11
Cross
Were you aware that the company respon86d pos i. tive y
and affirmatively to each and every suggestion
that Mr. Simons made, and even offered plans
to include some more drainage -- xmaller drainage
basins?
It's gay understanding they did make some changes'
on their first initials plans. As to whether
or not they went with all the recommendations,
I'm not aware.
Did you make any suggestions to alter the brush
barriers which you have been critical of here
for the long term?
I don't recall that I dido
If you made suggestions to create either boulder
or rip -rams barriers rather than brush barriers,
do you have any idea that those would not be
followed?
I do.not recollect any recommendation for use
of boulders around the pit area*
Says, if you wade some alternative suggestions
to the brush barriers along the road, not the
pit area, but if you made alternative suggestions
to the brush barriers which you think will deteriorate
over time,, do you have any idea they would not be

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Direct
followed?
L I surd don't have any idea. I that they would
according to their past operating record.
OL And that would correct that secondary concern,
wouldn't it?
L It would diminish the concern, that's for sure
It would certainly stop the velocity of that
dater coming across the road, or coming to the
road to make it atop the velocity so that it
would not have the erosion effect.,
That ' s correct.
Which the brush barriers serves that purpose.
A• That's correct.
g► With your primary concerns being able to be
avoided by simply carsful planning around the
weather, and your secondary concerns being able
to be oontrol,led by the operator with su e
�� stitlnS
from the state's review, you wave, really, no
testimony to say that this plan mould not
provide sedimentation control in accordance
with your guidelines, your design criteria, and
be effective to provide erosion control, then,,
would you?
L If it was put in in perfect weather conditions,

`;'
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt
a
I I.
A.
' 0
Cross
and installed according to designs, it would
diminish the sediment. It would not prevent
entirely any sedimentation reaching Crabtree
Creek.
All those m- and your testimony is that you
believe Mr. Simons that it would be done by this
operator and these engineers because that's the
kind of operators they are. You don't have
any contrary information or testimony, do you?
Not to their operation how they would do it.
MR. KIMZEY: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Redirect.
MR. OAKLEY: No further questions.
CRA-TRM.AN SMITH: Commissioner Van Horn and
I have some questions.
MR. VVI HORN: Mr. Britt,, in accord with
good, reasonable and common state of the art
practice, are brush barriers effective?
In my opinion, no, sir, they are not.
MR. VAN. HORN; Okay, Whether or not they
are effective, according to the same standards,
is the replacement of brush barriers upon
deterioration or approaching deterioration standard
good practice?

0
Z
W
CL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Com. - ittee
A No, sir, it would not be in my opinion.
PIR. VAIN HORN i Did you, or to your knowledge o
did some North Carolina State agency express
your concerns to the petitioner•regarding the
problems during construction of the initial
pond?
L outside of the Land Quality Section, I don't
know of anyone else who did. Sir. Simons could
have included that in his recommendations, thougho
MR, VAN HORN: Another point -- different
point w- you stated that you've probably seen
half the mining operations in North Carolina,
roughtly, and that those which were operating
near live streams have extensive sedimentation
problems. That is your feeling, is it not?
L I would not say "extensive". I would say they
do deliver sediment to the contributing stream,
That's a judgment call.
MR. VAN HOTM : Okay. Are they, then, in
your judgment, in fact, in violation of their
permit standards because of those conditions
commonly?
L The ones that I have seen, sir, that are m0a I
would say they are, in my opinion, which is un-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Committee
knowledgeable about the particulars of their
permit, but if there's any off site: damage
occuring from it, I'd say it would be based
upon some one standard. It may be a violation.
I don't know particular standards, though.
MR, VAN HORN: Are you not involved in
servicing the permit?
X Nor air, I'm not
MR. VAN HORN: Okay. Turing the period of
time with which you have concern, during the
initial construction period of the ponds, over
what life, terms of numbers, or days, or other
units, are they particularly vulnerable to the
damage over which you're concerned?
�. They're vulnerable from the first day that the
site or road is _graded into the pond location
below the pit, until the time which there is ma
in my opinion, there's a complete vegetative
cover both on the embankment and the emergency
spillway, itself, has been stablixed.
We also have continuing vulnerability, and
as with the discharge of the water frm the
basin, itself, there is, according to their
calculations, approximately a hundred and eighty

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
cc
N
18
N 19 O
O
0
O
z
20
W
Z
0 21
4
O
0 22
0
0
Z 23
a
24
25
�# J.
SrAt$ ODitee
cubic feet per second of water that will flow
through their pipe to this darn from a twentyt;
five year frequency storm.
And if you run that out, you're going to
got about eight or nine feet per second velocity
based upon th® slopes which they indicated
they'd lay the pipe on.
And i did a few rough calculations, and so
we've got a problem with a discharges of a hundred
and eighty-five cubic feet per second going
through a natural channel, which at the present
time is carrying substantially lower amounts of
water, so, we would have vulnerability of that
channel below the dam, itself, eroding due to
the increase velocity of the water to be discharged
from these basins.
AIR. VAN HORN: It's my understanding that
amounts of rainfall and the flow of runeoff has `
b®mn stipulated in the pretrial conference.
Do you have any information to that effect?
It's my understanding it's been stipulated that
the increased flooding from this particular
site is no major consequences to the project.
I don't think it has been stipulated about the

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8rztt Coa®mitte®
erosion that could occur from the increase
of velocity,
MR. VAN HORN s; Okay. So, it's only the
addition of runoff that has been stipulated?
Might, not necessarily the rate, but I may be
wrong,about that, but I think that's the way
it is.
MR. VAN R4RN = i have no further questions.
CH IRNAN SKIM Any further questions?
Mr. Riggs?
iM RIGSs A point of clarification
somSone yesterday testified there was going
to be some ditches d- a ditch system around
that pit and along the road to send the water
down to those ponds. Is that correct, or in--
co rept?
MR, KUM : Right . That's shown on there,
. RIGGS: So, in addition, there's not
just the brush ditch there, is that correct?
According to the plan -- I saw no details an the
plan which indicated around the pit, itself,*
that there was any call for diversion.
It just says a brush barrier. I dontt goo
any detail indicating it -- a diversion ditch

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
! So
Britt COMIttee
on the pit.
MR. RIGGS s May I ask somebody else for
clarification on this?
CHAIRMAN SMITHY Clarification?
MR* RIGGS: Yeah. My understanding of
somebody's testimony yesterday was that there
was to be a complete drainage ditch system along
the roads and around the pit there which would
deliver that water to the ponds.
And, now, it appears as though there's
just a brush Puck there.
MR. KIMZRY: May i just address myself
to that briefly? There is drainage ditches
shown on the road.
My understanding is, the roads, themselves,
have brush barriers and ditches. The pit, itself,
only shows a brush barrier, and Mr. Edwards'
testimony was that as you move along, some
minor adjustments may needed to .be made ..- for
example, ditches or berr, along the upper
aide of that pit.
He did describe the manner of going in
from the aides so that you would not cause
erosion on that side, and said, you could in

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt committee
addition put ditches to connect with the
others, but the map does not show ditches on
the pit Mr. Edwards testified to. The map does
show ditches on the road,
KR. RIGM s One other point of clatification
I'm a little confused on yesterday I tried
to find out the amount of increased drainage
off of there, and I was told it was negligible,
and I wasn't to worry about it.
You tell M just now, if I understood you
right, that there's significant water coming
off there at significant velocity which could
cause extensive erosion. could you clarify,
and/or straighten me out with respect to that?
L Okay. The conditions that exist there now are. --
except from the access goad going in from what
I have seen from the photographs and visits
are what I'd call good Moods with heavy leaf
matter.
We're going to be clearing x number acres
of land, and that's going to increase the amount
of run-off. If you're clearing -- I've heard`
the figures used one point in time with the pit
area, the road, themselves, with the stockpile

a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ri
Britt Committee
areas, plant processing areas, and so forth
somewhere in the neighborhood of ten to fifteen
acres is what shown on the pit right now.
Of course, if you substantially increase
the size of that pit, the, of course, you're
going to increase the amount of run-off simply
because it's an impervious rock material.
Now, what you're doing is you're catching
all this water behind ,your dam. you're limiting
its ability to flow out of there. you're goring
to be storing more temporarily. Sol -when you're
storing it in that volume, it's going to go up —
from what it is now. The volume of run-off will
increase,
And, so, when you put it through the pipes
you're constricting the flow down to a small a�
to whatever size pipe they. determine.
Then, you're going to be having an orifice -
type situation at the outlet pipe.
MR. RIGGS: So, you're talking about a
point erosion that's immediately opposite that
pipe. You're not talking about the whole stream
bank for ten miles down stream.
A. I'm talking about the ° Q point between the dam and

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Britt Coennittee
Crabtree Creek which is approximately two hundred
feet B r+~
MR. RIGGS: And which is on their property
L Yea, sir, I believe that's on their property.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any others? Thank yoga.
You may step down.
(WITNESS EXCUSRD. )
(DISCUSSION AMONG CO SSIONERS)
CHAIRMAN SKITH: Mould you like to review
the schedule, Mr. Oakley.
MR. OAKLEYt we have seven more witnesses,
I think.
MR. XIMZHYs Mr. Chairman, it's increased
by one since this morning, I guess. It doesn't
look to me that we're going to have time to --
being realistic, if he puts on seven more
witnesses, there's not going to be any time for --
between now and dark for any views.
CHAT SHITH s Shall we hear the witness
in preference to they site visit?
(DISCUSSION AMONG COMMISSIONERS)
CHA1W4AN MITHs Okay, we'll go ahead with
the witnesses after ranch, then, One hour for lun
r,UNCH RMMSS, 12:10 - 1:10

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
587
Bailey Direct
(Counsel approaches bench for conference)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I declare the hearing
reconvened. ?fir. Oakley, would you call your
next witness, please?
MR. OAKLEY: We'd like to call Ron Bailey.
Whereupon,
JAMES RONA LD BAILEY
Having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY:
$ Would you state your full name and address,
please?
A. James Ronald Bailey, 110 Duncan street Court,
Cary, North Carolina.
What is your present occupation.
A. I ant a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at
North Carolina State University.
And you are appearing here today as a consultant?
A. I am here today as a consultant to the Department
of Natural Resources, and let me add that the
opinions I might give are my own, and in no way

A
O
O
0
O
s
z
W
Z
Z
0
m
0
V
O
V
Z
W
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
intended to represent the university on matters
we might talk about today.
4 What is your educational background?
A. I received a Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering
Degree from North Carolina State University in
1966.
I did a Master's Degree in Engineering at
State. I did a Ph.D. in Sound and Vibrations
at the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research,
the University of Southampton in England.
Q. And what do you consider your major professional
interest?
A. Noise and vibration control acoustics.
Q. Have you had occasion to work on particular
projects in connection with your professional
background?
A. Yes, I have- Since joining the faculty of N. Co
State about ten years ago, I have been principal
investigator for seven or eight research projects.
These were all in the area of noise control a -
machinery noise control for textile equipment,
punchpress noise control, noise analysis of
lighting systems and other acoustically related
research projects.

m
0
Z
O
N
O
O
n
O
W
Z
Z
O
}
m
u
0
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey
4
L
0
L
SL
L
OL
L
M
Direct
Could you tell us a little bit about your
work experience?
I have worked as an engineer for Corning Mass
Works. I have worked as a staff engineer for
the IBM Corporation. I've been an active con-
sultant for a number of years in the field of
acoustics and machine design.
Mould you tell us some of the companies and
organizations that you have provided consulting
to?
I've consulted with IBM Corporation, Dupont
Corporation, Burlington Industries, stational
Spituiing Company, the U. S . Environmental
Protection Agency, the United States Depas'tment
of Labor, and probably about thirty or forty
other companies and organizations.
.And do you belong to any professional societies?
I'm a member of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, the Acoustical Society of America,
the Institute of Noise Control Engineers,
And do you hold any professional licensers?
I'm a. Registered Professional Engineer in the
State of North Carolina.
Within your teaching experience, do you have

2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
occasion to supervise graduate students?
�. Yea, I do.
All right, how many do you have under current
supervision?
A I don't have a ready number on that, but it
would be three or four working towards toaster's
degrees, and about the same number working towards
Ph. Da . degrees.
OL Have you had occasion to publish any professional
reports or studies?
L Yes.. I. have
Could you give us an approximate number of how
many, and, maybe, tell us about a fear of them?
I've published thirty-five to fifty technical
papers, and I suppose Y should know the exact
number, but i don't, in Pub ®v in journals such
as the -- as Transactions of the American Societ
of Mechanical Engines, the Acoustical Society
of America, The Journal of Noise Control14in�exin
You may .3ave answered this earlier. Can you
describe generally your engineering specialty?
A. Engineering noise con° rol.
Are you familiar with the issues in this matter's
I'm familiar with the noise issue.

01
N
E
O
0
a
0
z
tj
Z
Z
O
}
m
0
O
0
Z
CL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
¢ Now did you first become involved with the noise
impacts in this particularm®
X (interposing) I was contacted by Mr. Gardner
of the Department of Natural Resources. Be
asked sae if I would review some information
which they had gathered with regard to the
request for a permit to operate a quarry.
I met with him, looked at some of the data
in the file, and generally familiarised myself
with the location of the proposed quarry, and
some . other factors,
What type of analysis chid you determine which
could be necessary to acquaint yourself with
the problem involved?
L I felt that the -0 the best approach would be
to work with the personnel in the Department of
Natural Resources to visit a representative
quarry site, take noise measurements that would
characterize the sound that you could expect
from a typical quarry.
OL Before getting into your analysis, I would like
to ask you just a couple of questions concerning
sound measurement, and, maybe, for the edification
of the commission. When you speak of a sound,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
N
18
LL
N 19 0
o .
0
z
20
Z
0 21
m
22
O
Q
W 23
6
24
25
Bailey Direct
ghat do you mean?
�. A sound is a wave motion that's carried through
the air. That's the most general definition
of sound,
4 Is this a -- would this be contrasted with noise
as far as your profession is concerned?
�. The basic distinction between sound and noise
is that noise is simply unwanted sound,
Is it possible to actually measure levels of
sound?
L Yes, it is.
OL Now would you do that?
L A sound level meter is the standard technique
for measuring sound pressure levels.
OL would you tall us — correlate the meaning of
frequency to sound pressure level?
A Where are two characteristics of sound that are
particularly important, The amplitude of the
sound, that is, the magnitude of the sound, which
you generally refer to as the sound pressure
level.,
A second characteristic is the -toxv&i
quality of the sound, which is characterized
by frequency, and normally we talk about sound in

0
N
E
O
4
N
O
O
O
z
Ld
Z
Z
O
m
0
u
0
a
u
Z
W
d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Salley. Direct
octave band frequencies, for example, to
frequency is a measure of the number of
oscillations per second which occur in the air,
To give you a feel of some of the numbers,
the lowest note on a piano has a fundamental
tone of twenty-seven and a half.herts, or
cycles per second..
The highest note is about -- something
over four thousand cycles per second. So, that
covers the range of ghat we normally think
about as audible sound.
GL We have heard earlier testimony relating to
decibels, Leg., Ldn. Could you explain to us
those particular terms within your profession?
A. The m- the decibel is the unit of measure for
sound pressure levels. It's a logarithmic
function -- Pressure. Almost all sound level
meters will measure sound in decibels,
Leg. is a m- is an averaging technique. When
we speak of the sound level Leq., we are averaging
sound over a specified period of time.
!� And Ldn. i
�. Ldn a refers to a day -night type of average where
there is a penalty applied for nighttime operations.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
4� What would the Leq, most generally be used
as an appropriate measure for?
L As far as subjective response to noise is
concerned, Leq. is quite often used for assessing
the impact of transportation noise.
Would you characterize the Lech. as appropriate
for industrial noise -- continuous industrial.
noise?
A. No, 1 mould not. I think there's a much better
way to assess anticipated response to industrials
type noise
And your particular analysis did not use the
Lego, is that correct?
�. no, it did not,
What criteria did you use?
L I have used what's known as the Community xoise
Rank Technique. It's a procedure that's been
developed over the last ten to fifteen years
by Rosenblith-Stevens, and some other members..,
of the staff Of BoMpBoranick and Newman.
It's a straightforward technique for
assessing community response to noise.
What was your first approac"n to this particular
vrob lem?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hailer Direct
L My first approach was to review the data which
had been used by the Department of Natural
Resources in their review of the request for
a permit.
most of their measurements were A weighted
type measurements, They had done some calculations
of Leq.
These measurements were sufficient to suggest
that there may vary well be a noise problem, or
a noise impact on the Umstead Park,
So, having reviewed those fig%xres, I felt
that I sh©uld get some independent data, and 1**k
at it in a manner other than a single number,
A single dB(A) number is not a good descriptor:
for the kind of problem that you have with
industrial noise,
#� Did you generally become familiar with the
quarry site and the nark site?
�. yes, I did*
Did you did you have occasion to discuss
your particular method with another colleague?
A. Yes p I did.
Is he here today?
�. ales

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
0. Would you point him out to the members?
L Mr o M. B o Stewart, who is holding his hand up
in the -® in the room.
Let me explain the reason for this. since
getting Guam between the time T first got involved
with this ease, and today•s hearing, T sustained
an injury to spy knee which required surgery, and
because of that, i was not able to do all of the
measurements that 2 wanted to do.
For that reason, Z engaged my colleague,
Mr Stewart, to take the measurements according
to the directions that Y laid down for him.
These were measurements that were necessary
to do the community noise ranking -type analysise
And Mr. Stewart will be assisting you later
this afternoon?
L Yes. I also asked him to prepare a tape recording
so that we can play back for you representative
quarry noise.
And he will be -m he prepared the tape,, and
he will be playing it back so that you can .hear
something of the sound that you would expect from
a quarry.
In your initial review of the "- of this material,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey
x
OL
x
Direct
dial your have occasion to look at the nley
Horn reports in the file?
Yes, I did.
What did you observe about the analysis report?
3Basically, the technique was similar, perhaps,
identical to the Department of Natural Resources,
technique,
It's -m it's an Lea. calculation based on
point source theory, first of allf and, secondly,
measurements that are Made relatively close to
operating equipment.
And what significance do those two aspects have?
The most significant problem that I have with
the techniques that have been used is with
regard to the point source description of the
sound that is used here.
And let rye see if I can clarify that for
you. The @- the theory that leads to these
numbers that have been venerated for attenuation
with distance, vegetative effects, topographical
effects, and so on, assume that the source of
sound is small and compact.
That is* an appropriate assumption for
something like an automobile for exataple where

O
Z
W
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
the sound is emitted close to the around, and
it comes from either the tires, and a wellm
defined patch close to the road, or the exhaust.
noise,
When you have an industrial, complex, eu�_
as a rock crushing plant, you no longer have a
squall sound source* You have a very large
source of sound,
And the manner in which that sound propagates
is greatly influenced by the size of the planto
If you wanted these -- this theory to hold on
attenuation, you might have good correlation if
have, for example, a loudspeaker on the ground,
If you went fifty feet away from that
loudspeaker and measured eighty-seven dB (A) ,
then you might expect to read numbers corresponding
to Mr. Leonard's calculations at further distance,
But, 1 &m certain in my own mind that a
stone crushing plant in no way represents a
point source. Therefore, the technique of Measuring
at an arbitrary fifty feet from a stone crushing
plant is not an adequate or accurate techn quO _
in this case,
Were you able to fog a tentative opinion after

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
your initial review satisfactory to yourself
concerning the noise impact to be expected in
the park from the quarry'
A. Not really. I granted to get some additional
measurements. I felt there was a reason for
concern, but nothing that -- the Leq. criteria
is not sufficient,, and the numbers that were
generated and used in that really didn't give
me much other than a first order indication that
there might be a probler. ,
You did determine that you should look Further
into this'
L yes, sir.
What was the newt thing that you did?
L The next thing I did was to visit the quarry
to listen to the noise —
MR. RIMZM'! (Interposing) Objection, unless
he specifies what quarry.
L Right, the Crabtree quarry on Blueridge Road.
I listened to the sound at a distance of about
a thousand feet from the plant.
The level alas obviously in the fiftymfive
to seventy-five dS (A) range. That is, higher
than conversational speech. It was at this time

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct`
that I could by looking at the aquipmment,
listening to it, formulate a plan for more
detailed measurements, and that's what we did
at that point,
Did you discuss your plan with Mr. Stewart?
L Yes, I did.
I'd like to hand you what's been marked
Department's Exhibit number 19.
Before I get to that exhibit, did you and
Mr. Stewart discuss the taking of the physical
measurements?
R. Yes, we did.
0. Who actually made those notes?
L Hr. Stewart,
Q, You discussed the technique with hire?
L Yes.
Q. And he provided the information to you?
L Yes.
Q. Do you recognize what has been marked as Department
Exhibit number 19?
L Yes, I do.
Q. I'd like to ask the commission Members to take
exhibit 19, and have that before them as we go
through that exhibit. Can you describe its
ss

0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
Preparation to us?
I. This is a very busy exhibit, if you will,
because there's several bits of information on
here
Let me explain the information one point
at a time. First of all, the -- the graph that
you are looking at, up the vertical axis, you
see numbers, 20, 30, 407 50 and so on. These
are the decibel sound levels as measured in
octave hands. So, the vertical axis is a measure
of the amplitude of sound.
The horizontal axis labeled 63, 125, 250
and so on -- these, the horizontal axis correspoA4
to frequency, the other primary characteristic
of Mound.
90, if you -® if you were to put your *-- put
this piece of paper in front of you and think
about a piano scale lying on the page, then the
lowest note would be just off the horizontal
axis, and your little finger of your right hand
might be about four kilohertz which would be
the upper and of than 'revboard
Okay, the data plotted a- first of all, the
very lowest c urve that you see -® it's labeled

a
O
0
0
0
0
W
Z
Z
0
m
0
v
0
<
0
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Direct
Current park m- these are the octave band
noise levels measured in the reedy Creek section
of Umstead Park.
The octave band levels range from fifty �•.
almost fifty -v- at sixty-three hertz down to
about twenty-five decibels at two thousand hertza
on an A weighted scale, this is about
thirty-five to thirty-eight dB (A) if we had
measured in that manner.
stow, let me refer you to arm to a series
of curves which do not have the circle, diamond,
rectangular symbols attached to them, If you
look on the right-hand margin, you see some
curves labeled, a, b, skippinq up to e, f and
he
These curves are taken from the technique
developed by Rosenblith and Stevens, The Community
Noise Response Analysis. The curves are intended
to rank community noise and to enabler planning
bodies to anticipate the response of the community
to that sound°
There are, of course, some c and d curves
and other curves that fill in, but I left those
off for clarity. So, basically, we can interpret

0
O
U.
N
O
O
O
z
W
Z
Z
O
to
0
u
0
s
Z
W
d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Halley Direct
this data, if you will, by looking first of
all at the current park. It does intersect
the a curve, but if you go to the insert, now,
in the upper center oast of the graph, where we
have Community Response to woise, the horizontal
axis is. community noise .rank.
If I have an intrudinq noise, I simply
Plot its octave hands, determine which of these
curves it intercepts. I then come to the insert,
move along the horizontal axis until I find
the noise rank, then,. move vertically till it
intercepts the range of expected responses,
Then, I go horizontally back to the left,
and I can read from the Community Response to
Noise chart what one would expect fcom a subjective
rating of this sound.
SO, let's now look_ at the data measured at
the indicated distances from the Crabtree quarry.
There is a curve second from the bottom indicated
with the triangular symbols and labeled nineteen
hundred feet isouth of crushers.
This line of data, you can see, would interm
cept the a commu.01ity noise ranks So, if we cow
to the insert., you car. see that if were the noise

a
0
O
0
s
Z
W
Z
Z
O
}
m
0
G
4
u
Z
9L
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
_ 604
Direct
that you superimpose on a normal community,
you would expect response as indicated frm -�
if we take the average expected aom average
expected response for an a rank, that would
correspond to an anticipated reaction of widen
spread i complaints.
Let's move closer to the crusher at fifteen
hundred feet. You see the curve that is indicated
by the circles that goes beyond the f criteria,
or the f community noise rank at a thousand
hertz.' It's well above the f.
come up to the invert, again, move over
to the f community noise rank, go vertically
until you intercept the average expected response,
and over to the left you see threats of unity
action mCM is what you can expect.
There's one other data line here that
measured one thousand feat from the crusher.
That line is above the h community noise rank,
and at this point, one could expect vigorous
community action.
I might also relate some A weighted levels
to these curves. The ,A weighted is a number, or
a technique that's been mentioned before.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
I've already told you that the current park
A weighted levels were. At nineteen hundred
feet, the measurements were fifty-three to
fifty-five dB (A) o
At fifteen hundred feet, sixty dB(A), and
at a thousand feet, seventy dB (A) .
Would you describe: the general use, then, that
you make of this particular graph mm the Community
Response to Noise graph?
L This is a technique for estimating the subjectivea
response to industrial -type noise. it's "m it
has been designed for rating community noise,
primarily,
Is this a. generally accepted technique?
L Yes, it is
Are you of the opinion that the graph is applicablol
to the Umstead Pars situation?
L It's the most nearly applicable technique that
I could define. It is not exactly applicable,
because this technique was developed for residential
communities e
And there is some difference, between a
recreational park where.the activity is primarily
out of doors and a community. --- a residential.
y' 1•

0
N
O
U.
N
O
O
n
O
z
Ui
Z
Z
O
a
m
0
V
O
Q
z
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
community where it ° s a mint' ure of inside and
outside activity. The -- one difference bei 119
"
when you're inside a residence, you have approxw
imately twenty decibels of attenuation associated
with the dwelling, and that would lead me to
believe that this technique world be conservative
for estimating the impact on a rec -- an outdco
recreational facility,
Did you consider using a graph relating to -
park -residential activity, if you could have
found one?
L If I had . found . one , ,I certainly would have used
it, but to my knowledge, no such standard exists,
It's a very Iunusual situation to have an ins
dustrial noise problem adjoining a park, and.l
suprose it's so unusual that standards simply
haven't been developed.
OL What.-- you may have already gone through this,
but what would you consider to be the relationship
of community response in a residential setting
to a park setting?
L I believe that the subjective response would be
more vigorous in a -- an outdoor recreational
facility than it would be in a residential

13
z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
neighborhoodo That is..
(Interposing) Do you -© excuse me.
�. That is, i believe, you would .expect lower
levels of noise to be annoying to some people.
C Using information you gathered from the Crabtree
quarry, assuming, if yogi will, that the Crabtree
quarry operation is sufficiently similar to
the proposed quarry operation in tome of type
of equipment, have you been able to farm an
opinion satisfactory to yourself concerning they
noise impact to he expected in the park?
HRo KIMZEy: Objection.
MS. FPM1CH :. Grounds r Mr. Kimsey?
MR. KIMZEY x There's absolutely no
foundation in evidence at all to assume that
the Crabtree quarry is similar to the proposed
site. No evidence of what, the Crabtree quarry
is.
MR. oA.4EY: I'd like to point out that
Mr. Simons has testified to that, and we have
other witnesses that wi11 testify to that.
. FRBNCS : We're going to sustain Mr.
Kimzey' s objection.. and wottJ4 like for you to
rephrase the .question.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Direct
SIR. OAKLEY: All we're asking him to do
is to assume that.
(Mr. Oakley) using the information that you
have gathered that went into the preparation
of this particular exhibit -- I'm sorry.
MR. OAKLEY: He's going to. have to assume
that the quarries are similar.
MR. KIMZPY t I object to that.
fit. O LEO': I think as an expert that he
can express an opinion based upon that assumption.,
MS. FRENCH,: Mr. Oakley, we're going to
allow you to assume that hypothetical.
MR. KIMZFX: mote an exception, please,
on that.
Ms. TRENCH: Exception noted for the record..
A. Could you repeat the. question, please?
i (Mr. Oakley) Using the information that has
done into the preparation of this graph, and
assuming: -if you will, that the Crabtree quart
operation is sufficiently similar to the proposed.
quarry operation . in terms. of the types of equipuient
have - you beon able to form an opinion sati9*fa+cto
to yourself concerning the noise impact to be
expected .wf thin- that Urntead Park?

1
Bailey Direct
2
MR, RIMZBY: I object for an additional
3
reason in that not only dry they assume that
4
Crabtree quarry is similar to the proposed
5
site which has not been put into evidence*
6
and there's no factual foundation, but this
7
would assume the same topographical condition
8
bet%pmen the two as were at his measurements,
9
And I think the question should be broken
10
down to determine what differences exist between
11
the distances from the point source at Crabtree,
12
and the differences of the point source at the
13
proposed site if his opinion is to have any
14
meaning, whatsoever,
15
MR. OAKLEY a I think that can simply be
16
brought out on.cross-examination. I think he's
17
entitled to express his opinion.
18
MS. FRENCH: Mr. Kimzey, , we're going to
19
allow hurt to answer it., and you may note your
20
objection for the record..
21
MR.. KIMZEY: I think I have.
22
MS . FRENCH : Do you want to note it, again?
23
MR. KIMZEY: NO.. V ve objected.
24
0 (fir. Oakley) Do you have such an opinion?
25
L Yes p I do.

a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
Bailey Direct
What is that opinion?
MR. RTMZEY s Objection, saute grounds,
MS. FRENCH: If you want to note your
objection —o do you want to make a blanket one
so that he can answer the question?
MR. RIMZEYs I'm objecting to the next
question which is, what is that opinion.
MS. FRENCH: Why don't we just make a
blanket objection to thi..s line of questioning,
and allow him to answer the question.
MR. 0AKLEYi This will be the last question.
. FRENCH: no ahead and answer, please.
A In my opinion, the quarry, if it is similar to
the Crabtree quarry, and I have looked at the
;topographical description of the spaces ao there
has been an attempt to -- to make some adjustment
for that in my thinking.
I have looked at attenuation due to vegetation
and done my own calculations of ghat to expect
with distance, Based on those independent
calculations and these measurements, and the
assumption that the quarry machinery would be
similar, I believe that the quarry would be
clearly audible in the Reedy Creek sections of

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Direct
Umstead Park.
Q Have you -- before we get into the demonstration,
I'd like to ask you a couple of questions that
might clear up some of the questions that the
commissioners have with regard to other sound
information presented,
Would you say - - what would y=opinion be
about the attenuation of noise level mm you're
familiar with the topographical aspect of the
site. It goes down to the Crabtree Creek and
then up to the Umstead Park.
What would be your opinion about the
attenuation -of the noise level as you go up the
hill within the park?
L As you move up the hill on the park side moving
away from the quarry, I believe that you Mould
expect at most locations for
the noise level to
go up for a considerable distance, because you
are reducing the effect of the vegetation and
the tomography.
And ,you must go to extreme distances in
order to get a change in noise level with distance,,
When we are at a-- for example, at fifteen hundred
feet away from the plant, you -- in order to get

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6. i2
Bailey Direct:
a six decibel reduction in noise in a straight
line manner, you Mould 'need to double that:
distance. That is, coo to about three thousand
feet.
Now, if you are allaaing, for example, ten
decibels of attenuation for topography# as
you lose that ten decibels of.attenuation by
moving up to the point that you have line of
sightr you would not have to go thousands of
feet for that to occur.
go, the noise level. *,qould go up as you
move up the hill and reach the point where you
have line of sight.
CL Could you also comment on the -- the aspects
of the low ambient leve1.when a quarry noise
is imposed upon them.
A. One of the characteristics of sound is that in
order to distinguish one sound from another, it
must be significantly louder.
Now, when you have a very quiet background
noise, as you do in Umstead Park, it is much
easier to hear sounds such as a quarry noise.
It can be hoard at a l.ovrer..le�.ml than it could
be if the back- ound noa .s.e were higher. So, an

tj
Z
W
d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
613
Direct
exceptionally low background noise simply means
that any intrusive noise is more clearly heard,
There's also been some testimony relating to
the vegetation that will be present on the
site -- vegetation in the park area.
T-Iould you comment on. the -- some aspects
of the vegetative attenuation, if you would?
Basically, the techniques that Inc. Suns and
Mr. Leonard used to account for vegetation --
these techniques are quite correct for trans-
portation noise where you have a reasonably wellm
defined Point source, and it is close to the
ground.
A good part of that attenuation is dine to
ground effect. Now, if you have a sound sources
which is large in size and is.elevated from the
ground,,then you woi.zld anticipate a much reduced
effect From vegetation --- really, ground effects
more so than vegetation.
Do you have a demonstration prepared for us
today?
Yes, I do.
'could you tell us what you plan to do?
I have before you a tagtisi� recorder with a -- which

h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey
Direct
has a recording of sound that we measured
at a thousand feet from the plant and at
Crabtree quarry,
are prepared to play that sound back
to you at a reduced level. Namely, I have
during the lunch recess, Set up the equipment
so we Can play it back to you at an A► weighted
level of Fifty-tw© I to fiftyweight dB (A),
NOws, on the =- the chart, exhibit 19, this
cOrrOaponds to locations that would lie between,
let Us Say, fifteen hundred feet and two thousand
feet* Fifty three to fifty eight da (A) Mould
be further away than fifteen hundred ranging
to what you might expect it at# say, tWO thousand
feet d
What equipment do you plan to vise?
We have a tape recorder, an amplifier, a loud-&
speaker. I also have a Type 1 Precision Sound
Level Meter, which i would like to use to monitor
that playback so i can be Certain that we play
it back at the level we intend to,
Will Mro Leonard have an opportunity to put a
sound meter on ft, also?
�+
Certainly.

i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
I 0 18
4
0
19
s
20
2
W
2
21
m
22
0
W 23
d
24
25
615
Bailey Direct
4L Will the tape be helpful in illustrating to
the Commission your opinion in portions of the
testimony?
L I've heard people say, one picture is worth
a thousand words. I'm not sure what the tape
is worth, but I think it will be heipfulo
MR* OAKLEYs with the Commission's permission,
we'd like to play the tape for you, and have it
adjusted at the dB(A) levels indicated.
14rd RimzOy and I will approach the bench
so that we can observe the levels at they are
taken, and ire Leonard, also,
CRAIRKM SKIS t Yes
I'm going to ask Mr, Stewart to help me with
this, if he will.
You can expect the level directly in front
of the speaker to be at fifty-two to fiftymeight4
Along the sides it's going to be somewhat lees
than that.
. (The tape was played for the Commission)
The level which I monitored during that test
range from fifty-one to fifty six dB(A). The
mean, I would say, would have been fifty-ofour
dB (A) .

V
0
N
f
0
{t
0
0
0
W
Z
Z
0
y
Co
0
V
0
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MM1WVj
Direct
�► (Mr o Oakley) In your opinion , than , would this
sound we just heard be representative of no e
at those dB (A) levels?
�. Yes*
4 I'd just like to ask one final question referring
to truer noises. We've had some testimony about
truck noise given by , r a Leonard and Mro S ►ns ,.
Mould you comment on the dB (A) level
assoaliated With heavy trucks?
�. All right., i was somwhatt confused by Mr.
Leonard's testimony in that it doesn't correspond
very well with my own experience.
And let me explain the difference. Typically
a heavily loaded truck would produce a noise
level of at least ninety dB (A) measured fifty
feet from the center line of the highway# and
that's a number that you could use for planning
purposeso
The experiments which were conducted by
Mr o . Leonard, or at his direction produced a measur+
noize of -- a peak of seventywfour dB (A) o
So. perhaps, that explains why it was not
clearly audible at five hundred feet. normally,
l think you.would certainly expect to be able to

u
z
W
LL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61.7
Dailey Direct
hear clearly a heavily loaded truck at a
distance of, say, five hundred feet under any
c0nditiOns Of topography or vegetation,
QARLEY s dank you. I have no further
question8 s
* KINZEY, I have a few questions
CRoSSwOEXA 1ATION BY MR.
I'd like to discuss a few factors concerning
sound in Iayman's terms rather than your expert
tear. tO sec if my understanding is correct,
First of all,, I was interested in your
definition of noise as unwanted sound, That's
a purely subJ ective-type definition as to what
one person may want to hear versus another,
I know me and ay Sixteen year old children
BOOM to disagree about that. Would you agree
that when you're talking about noise that that's
a subjective --type definition?
really have never heard another definition
of noise Other than unwanted sound, and whether
you want to call that subjective, or what have
you, I think it's the best definition that I know
ofo

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
E
0
18
" 190
0
s
Z 20
4i
z
a
21
m
22
0
a
u
z 23 W
6
24
25
Bailey
Cross
0.
I'm not quarreling with that, but you would
agree it is subjective rather than a type of
objective, It can vary from individual to
individual depending on how you view the noise
you're hearing, is that right?
L
Weld., certainly, One man's music is another
man's noise if that's what you mean.
And in that vein, as Y understand the entire
tenor of your testimony, you have tern various
noise levels which you recorded at the Crabtree
quarry -m- at various locations at the Crabtree
quarry►, and imposed them on a subjective scale,
Vather than aWiyin'g them -" trying to apply
objective decibel stat levels to that, is that
correct?
Well, any time you want to measure amething
like annoyance, then you must cross over from
the objective a-m that ie,the measured data -w" to
the subjective,,
Weil., don't mind explaining why you did it, but
the answer to my question is, yes, that's what
you did, right?
L
The data is givens and the insert allows anyone
to interpret that data as they see fit, so-�

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
17
0
N
0
18
0
19
0
z 20
W
Z
0 21
a
m
22
O
Q
V
W 23
24
25
619
Bailey. Direct
Q. But the tenor of your testimony is, that you
feel like this subjective graph using subjective
Comments, such as, threats of community activity,
widespreak coWlaints, no observe, reaction,
is a better measure of the noise duality of
the. sound than applying objective decibel
numbers to that, isn't that what you're say#.ng?
A. Yes r I do a
S� All -right, And you would agree that when you
are talking about, say, widespread complaints,
thetr+e, again # you may get widespread complaints
from one group of people which would be quite
different from the widespread complaints irons -. w'..
another group of people.
L Quite tr" o
And this graph was designed to measure the
subjective responses of some typical residential
Community, is that what you're testifying about?
That's the primary intent of than counity
noise rank is to enable planning bodies to
know in advance ghat to expect in the way of
community reaction
And my Question to you was,, that the graph which
you used is designed to measure some subjective

0
N
f
0
N
O
O
n
O
ti
_
O
r
a
m
0
0
dz
z
W
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Gross
reSponse along the lines of the words given •�.
that is, what type Of comity action would be
observed from a typical residential comnunity,
That's correct,,
That's correct,, so, this is not only subjective,
but is designed for a type of camunity other
than that which is ad j accent to the proposed s i to ,
isn't that correct?
L it -aa it's -"'- could you just ask that, again,,
please?
You don't have a residential co unity vent
to the proposed quarry to which you could apply
these responses, do you?
A. It is not residential, no.
QL In spite of your graphing these on the subject
curve, you have m- as 1 understand your testimony
throughout your testimony# you later on applied
some dD (A) measurements that would be decibel
measurements in the A scale to those noise levels
that you have imposed on the curves, isn't that
correct?
L7. Yes,
And if you will take those decibel dB(A) measure-&
ments and do a study over a period of time with

1
2
3
4
Bailey .
5
6
7 �
8
9 �
10
11
12
13
14
15 A
16
17
18
19 L
20
21
22
23
24
25
Direct
appropriate calculations, you could develop a
d measurement using that an one of the
new rs to imPut into your period of time
measurements, Mould you not?
Yens x could.
You could also do that for the day*°night evalnatf
Year I could,
You would agree with the State's contentions
that the dayspnight, although that is used in
measuring the airport noise impact on the park,
is not appropriate for this activity since its
activity does not occur at night? Isn't that
true?
I agree,
Because the clay -night measuremmnt has a ten
percent penalty for nighttime activity, isn't
that Correct?
Right, but lot me mm let aye be sure I'm not
mi$leading you here, because I don't agree that
Leg or Ldn in appropriate at all for industrial
noise, period.
I understood that, but you would agree that at
.least if you were using other measurements than
thQ onto you've re C OMMOnded in your testimony, that

W
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
622
Bailey. Cross
Ldn would not be appropriate since there's no
nighttime activity, and that would penalize
unfairly towards an activity that's not taking
pi aae?
�. Correct.
Now, my concept Of noise is just a layman' s
concept 4d is the further away you get frogs the,..
sourer of the noise, the better it +guts, is that
right?
L if distance is the only parameter controlling
that sound, yes.
Q. Okay• 1 accept that, and you stated that it is
one of your criticise of wring standards other
than your community response curved standard
was that you Belt that plant was at broader source
of noise - than was designed for Fie$ or tdn type
of evaluations, is that correct?
�. (No response)
That is, 2 believe I understood your testimony
to say that when you use an &eg measurement
you're usually per. that is assigned to produce
measurements from a smaller source, and you used
a typical example of a loudspeaker sitting scow.
where rather than.a broad source, like# maybe., a

0')
V
0
N
f
0
0
0
0
z
W
Z
Z
O
a
m
u
IL
a
Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
623
Bailey. Cross
plant.
L No, there is a very sharp distinction,* and I
obviously didn't make it very clear. The «..* my
reason for suggesting that Laq is not appropriate
is that Leq is an average over a period of time,
for erwVle, transportion noise, aircraft fly
over, Which is a high noises level for a short
period of time e
The Leq which results is a number typically,
let's say, fifty-oftve► dB (A) , which was produced
by two minutes of aircraft noise at ninetymfive
dB (A)o
Nowr, . that'- s a big difference-bietween Leq.
used for that purpose for transportation noLee,
and a community noise ranking based on virtually
continuous sound.
gc a that's one difference between Leq
criteria and the community noise ranking criteria.
Nov, the ,second point was with regard to the
size of the plant*
This relates to the manner in which sound
carries with distance. And my point here is that
your have a very large plant taus that is, a plant
that is longer than an acoustic wave length, then
f

.ti
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
O
N
f
K
0 18
" 190
0
s
z 20
Lj
z
0 21
m
g 22
0
a
z 23 W
d
24
25
6�4
Bailey Direct
the sound that you generate from that is very
different from the around that comes from a point
sou "'ce e
So* when you try to calculate the drop
in sound level with distance, you cannot use
point source theory for something like this o
We didn't try it* 1 would never have
attempted to characterize the wweable of sound
that you get from all these various machines
by -tak ing close -in measurements and extrapolating
them out half a mile or more
My point is r that you do criticize the point
of origin source based on your feeling that it
cannot be determined how that will carry on
a larger source than a smaller- source, is that
correct?
That's one of the two problems 1 have, yea*
Q� My failure to understand that criticism stems
froM my layman's knowledge of what is generated
in transportation situations,
• Take 1-40 a Have you ever been on I«-4o?
�► Yes, air.
Are you saying that's a Wall point source .,of
sound --- smaller than the plant would be?

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey. Cross
No, I'm saying an individual automobile moving
down that highway is a =- can be characterized
aocurate ly as a point somve .
S� But your transportation sounds that come from
Xm 44 are not generated by an individual automobile
they are a combination of sounds just like the
Plant sound ,, isn't that correct?
L If you have a continuous strews of traffic,
you can characterize it as a line sources That
line source is still Wellmdefi.ned and compact
in one dimension, and that's the operative word,
It is COMpact in one dimension,,
It may be infinitely long,* but it does not
extend twenty, or thirty or forty feet into the
air,
�► It depends on hew high the stags on those diesels
are, isn't it?
L W01.1, to some extent, except if it is a legally
muffled trucko above thirty -*five mileg per hour,
the predominant sound is from the tires. so,
it's predominantly tire noised
Could you give me an idea of what you might
experience in a measurement that 1-can understand,
because I've dealt with it, not because I'm

Z
La
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey
Cross
criticizing your community response, but give
me a dB(A) noise you might experience, say,
fifteen hundred feet from 1-*40 �w- from the io*40
noise?
Well* that's going to depend on time of day
and a lot of other factors, and I do not specialiZ13
in transportation noise.
And I really would have to do some analysis
to give you a number on that
"hat, are some of the other factors it ° s going
to depend on besides time of day?
L It's going to depend on topography, ground
cover, the distribution of the traffic that is,
the traffic mix. Some of these. factors atmosOA
pheric conditions to some extent, although not
very much of an extent at fifteen hundred feet.
Q► Similarly, when you are measuring fifteen hundred
feet from the Crabtree quarry, hose that is going
to be used to form an opinion as to whether or
not you'd have noises fifteen hundred feet from
the 'proposed plant, is going to depend on those
same factors, isn't it?
L Yeffi P sir.
QAnd didn't I understand that your measurmen't

a
0
N
f
0
L6
N
O
O
O
-i
i
�i
z
z
0
d
m
0
u
0
d
z
W
IL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Cross
at a thousand feet, which this recording was
taken, was taken at the pit edge away from the
plant?
A. Yea, sire
�► Andthat's a direct line of sight to the plant..
is it not?
�o Yes$ Biro
And there's no vegetation attenuation in that
recording at all, is there?
A. That a -a correct.
And there's no topographic attenuation in that
recording at all, is there?
L That's true.
And that recording was recorded at a level
higher than the fifty four d8 (A) average that
you said resulted from the recording playing
here, is that true?
L That recording was made at seventy dB (A.)
And reduced down to what these gentlemen heard e
L And reduced to f i ty- f our s
And if you had heard fifty --one to fifty --four
or fifty-four dB(A) at a point fifteen hundred
feet rather than a thousand feet from a plant
which had both topographic screening and vegetatio

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-28
Bailey. Cross
scrasexting, evetn though the level -- that is ,
the decibel level Might be the very same, the
noise, the sound because of the different
frequency that would be shielded out,, might be
different, is that not true?
L It might not be, but I can speak more specifically
to that by referring to the date on the sheet.
The data measured at fifteen hundred feet
has "-a Dace Gardner of the Department of Natural
Resources chose these sites to be as representativ
il
of .gym as was possible in that t3met allowed, at
cetera,
That particular point has from two hundred
to a thousand feet of vegetation.
It has .from two hundredw=
(Interposing) From two hundred to a thousand
and I reason I-*-
(Interposing) It's either two hundred or a thousan
feet, isn't it?
�. I say two hundred to a thousand because the map
used to determine that is rather old, it is at
least two hundred, and it may bey
(Interposing) What did your observation show?
How many feet do you think it is?

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
O
19
O
O
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dailey Cross
L Mra Stewart made this measurement,
OL So, you don't know, do you?
I don't know,,
Go ahead,
But I can say from the data on this sheet.. you
can clearly see that the spetral content is almos t
the same. That is, we have an almost equal
drop in sound level in every octave band except
a hundred and tw6ntYa-five hertz, and Sixty* -three
hertz,
And here you sag the sound carries as you
'would expect low frequency sound to carry,, 80,,
"there's virtually no difference bOtween a thousand
feet and fifteen hundred feet for those two
frequencies, but based on just looking at this
data, I would suggest that it would sound virtually
the same except it would be low in level,
Do you know whether there Wa I a any topography'
attenutation at the one -- at the Point that you've
Just described?
A. I m- X can't speak to that from firsthand knowledge,,
I've looked at the map,, but Mr, Gardner will be
on, and he can tell you about that later,
I gather that since you know that --there was

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
- era
Bailey Cross
from two hundred to a thousand feet of vegetation,
if there had been topographic attenuation, you
would have noticed that, wouldn't you?
Well., I'll be glad to look at the map, and
see if I can describe that for you.
Well, you cans That'll be fine.
L (Witness looks at snap) Okay. I'm looking at a
topographical snap dated 1968.
+� Can Z see what you're referring to, please?
L All right, air, the paints are located on this
map o . You can see the Crabtree quarry. The
point marked with number 2 and number 3 correspond
to fifteen hundrdd feet, and nineteen hundred
Feet, respectively.
Thera is --b as we look towards the quarry.
there would be no kind of topographical barrier
between the =- either of these sites and the
plant, itself # because much of the equipment is
down in the pit, and that pit would represent a
natural barrier to propagate the sound radially,
there would be some topographicaal, attenuation
due to operation of any of the equipment down in
the hole'
But there's not any topographical attenuation with

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Cross
contour of the ground other than the pit gall
that you mentioned?
L other than the pit wall, that's correct,,
OL And the plant is on which side of that pit, =W?
L The plant is on the far side of the pit as
viewed from -- no, I'm sorry. The plant is on
the near side of the pit*
4 so, the Pit gall if it's up on top of the "- it's
up on tap of the pit wall on the near side of
those points, isn't it?
The plant the pit would not be emoted to
influence sound From the plant,, It would be
expected to provide a natural barrier to sound
from equiyment 'Operating down in the hole,
But I believe you just said, and you're correcting
yourself now, that it would not have any
attenuation to the plant noise?
That's correct, it would not.
You were mistaken when you said that before,
because you thought it was on the other side of
the pit, and there was a wall there.
Well# I didn't intend to say -a- it doesn't matter
Whether it's on the near side oar the far side,
just was not in the hole.

}� 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
w T 2-
Bailey Cross
All right. Now* certainly with the factors
which were not in effect here as-w that is., the
difference in the plant equip nt, difference
in the topography attenuation, possible diffeereInee
in the vegetation a- you're not saying that
these would be the readings that would be taken
at the proposed site. These were the readings
that were taken at the Crabtree site with
different variables imposed, isn't that true?
L The topography is different from some points -
within the park„ It also Is representative of
other points,
Ifyou m►a- why 4id you take readings::at eight
frequency levels on sane of your readinga, and
on those that you recorded on this graph, only
taken at seven frequencies?
A Which ones are you referring to?
Well o you ° v►'e recorded frequency measurements
with your line at -w-w current at nineteen h=dred
feet, fifteen hundred feet and a thousand feet,
haven't your
L Yes, air,
Are you familiar with the Mork paper that Mr.
Stewart developed there? Do you have those in

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Cross
front of you?
Moo. Y don't.
Would you got those please? You have
fifteen hundred feet and nineteen hundrd feet,
as i understand that, correspond to measurements
eight, nine and ten shown on your first work
sheet. Would you see if you could agree with
me about that?
Yes.
S And you will notice that at measurements at
other points, mr, Stewart'sg taken frequencies
at the first measurement of nine co -a nine
frequencies, then eight frequencies, but dropped
down.to seven for those you put on your graph,
What's the difference, or why is that?
A Eight thousand hertz is such a high frequency
it's beyond the highest note on the piano, In
fact, it would be an octave above the highest
note on the piano, and quite often, it's just
not considered,
4 So, if you had used that, it would have been,
probably, a zero value in your measurementwo ►
L (Interposing) Oh, no.
—because it would not have shown,

E
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
isaziey Cross
'- L It would not have been a zero value. It would
3 have been -am
4 (Interpol in j Mould
+� your measurI.ng device have
measured it?
It would have measured it for sure,
Can your device?
A. yes*
But, nevertheless, he did not use it, and you
don ° t know thy?
Other than it's of no particular interest to
anybody.
# All right, I also noticed that looking at Mr.
Stewart°s notes, do you agree, that when a measurea
lent was made. From thirty-five hundred feet away
from the quarry — this is Crabtree quarry that
he did not notice any quarry noise?
Which sheet are you referring to?
QL Number 11. It's measurement number 11,
�. What ° s correct o That ° s at, thirty-five hundred l
feet from the quarry,
That's correct, Have you visited, the proposed
site?
A. No, I have not,
Have you visited the park near the proposed site?

Q
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey
Cross
A Yes, i have,
Is that where you took your park level noises?
L Mr, Stewart took these measurements.
I thought you took them before your injury. Mr.
Stewart also took those?
L He took these, as well.
Do you know where those were taken?
L Yea, r do,
Could you inform me of that?
They were taken ..- well lent me just + � get Stewart
to explain that, ice's here,
Is he going to testify► I don't mind you telling
liAg
Wif you know where they were. I'm trying to
save time putting on another witness.
�► They were taken in the Medy Creek Section down
near the creek which -separates the quarry fromt.
the Mead parks
OL And I believe you stated in your testimony.,
although it does not show on the graph, that
that particular sound reading would translate
to approximately thirty three to thirty-wfiv►e
dB (A) + is that correct?
That's in the right range,
Well, that's ghat you testified, isn't it?

E
9
1a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey
Cross
2 A.
I don't recallo but I believe that's right.
3
1 had some notes with me.
1 "
•
That's what I had 4
Okays, well, if that's what. I said picnic
'
area ai4q
here it is -" thirty-eight dBJA)'so
Sot that's thirty-five to thirtymseven �a* thirt►
eights These are the numbers that you will
find.
That would be equivalent to the ambient in the
park in terms of Mrs Simons' language, is that
right?.
A.
Yes, ai.r.
And I believe that the ambient used by Mr. S imons
and Mr o ' r-4onard was considerably higher than, that
being forty-afive a
Yes, sir#, and there's a good reason for that 2
think might be worth explaining. When you use
a Type 2 meter, I'll be very surprised if you
can measure below forty decibels,
Did you hear Mr. Leonard's testimon es
x yesterday
•
that he could pleasure down to thirty-five de x c$,1s?
I heard what he said, but
. my tzomIftnt stands,
Would you give me just a moment, please?
CHAIR T SUITE: Mr. Kimsey, I'm wondering

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1�
1'
1;
1;
1�
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L
L
a
Dailey C
about the relGvancy of this line of questioning,
° KINZEY: I'm through with that line of
g wSe s t i.on i ng
CRAIRMW SMITH: All. right.
(fir. ximzey) I have one or two further est
YOU have experienced o,= obviously, yoij ° one intr
o
ducted a graph that has community response -=-
said
Coma►unity being residential community,
Do you --* what type of noise wouldyou expect
to be generated in a residential community?
You would expect a mixture of "- of noise from
c0mercGr from traffic, from --w in marry cities
the Predominant source of noise is air conditioni
units which are quit8 often Placed on the top
o of
buildings,
There, again, a residential communit
y wo uld produc
a broad source,,rather than a narrow source gs
f
that correct?
It would have distributed sources of noise.
So, that would be loss acceptable to attenuation,
If there were a residential community on th
pro40.
posed sitef n a plant, you Might - rather than g t have
more noise encroachment than you would from a
plant, right?

E
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey
Cross
Zv m afraid I don't follow that
question at all.
You would have -a
You would eXPect to have a
higher background noise
level in the community
for sure,
MR* KINSEY: No further questions,
CRAIRMU SHIM Redirect? Xre Oakley,
Flo you have any questions?
MR* LEY : %t me have just One second o
I have no further questions.
CHAIRKM SMITH: The committee?
Me VAN HORNa Yes,
EXA NATION BY COMITTERs
M
ffAC9 HORN: Dr. Bai lGY , is it could
you give
me a fueling of Percentage difference
bstveQ
forty -,five dB (A) + s and fi ftYla f i is dB (A) ' a
in carder
I of difference?
That's a
difficult thing to do, because you do
not measure loudness with the same scale,, it
would be
stab jnctively rated at, I would say„ two
to three
times lea der a
MR*
VAN UoMq t That ° s in order of two or
three timOs betWeen forty. -five and fifty.*five?
L Yes, afro

Z
W
a
639
1
Bailey Committee
2
MR, VAT HaRNt .How common is the use of
3
your CNR parameters?
' 4
A. I believe it's the most commonly used technique
5
for planning purposes,
6
. VAN HORN: How common is the distinction
between large and small cross-section origins?
s
A The main distinction here comes between trans►
9
portation,=type source noises versus industrialow
10
type machinery, and really you can seldom
11
look at a large piece of industrial machinery
12
as a •point source,
13
MR. VAN HORN: Does your profession commonly
14
recognize the need to distinguish between largos
15
and small arosamseotions?
16
Sir,
17
AMR, VAN HORN: Dr. Bailey, did you measure
18
the sound levels generated by the other quarrieg
19
in the area, other than-�
20
�. (interposing) No, i did not.
21
MR, VAN HARM: The level of sound changes,
22
I believe, with the inverse square of the disstame
23
on straight line implications.
24
L Straight line when you get to several source
25
dimensions away. That is, if you have a large so
ce ,

1
1
1
t
14
V
11
V
1f
1�
2(
21
2I
2"
24
25
1 ailey committee
2 that rule will not hold until you get to, perhaps,
3 a thousand feet away,
4 MR, VAN g0 : But in line __ i f we could
5 assume for a moment that is a generality, comma
6 parably, what would be the order of ratio of
7 change because of vegetation?
a�. Normally, the maximum value that you would ever
s use for vegetation is about teen decibels. it
D would range from much less than that for loan
frequency sounds up to ten decibels at they midi
ranges,
3 MR, VAN RdRN$ I understand that's used as
a design factor# but could you give me a feel
for the ratio along which sounds travel, orm-
(Interposing) With distance, basically, you can
describe ---* once you get to, say, a thousand feet
away from something like this, you could expect
about a six decibel drop in sound as you doubled
that distance. That is, going from one thousand.
Feet to two thousand feet you would get at least
six decibels of reduction. If you, then# went to
four thousand feet, you would expect at least six
More,
MR* VAN HORN: If a sound wave travel's along

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fi 'l I
Dailey committees
a straight line, and excluding all other factors r .
and that line passes through a vegetative area
and across an empty space and through a second
vegetative area, does the empty spa*e between the.
vegetative areas contribute refraction and/or
loss of density because of the refraction?
L Not really. You can add these things together*
That i s , if you expect to get five decibels from
the first trip through the vegetation, so many
decibels for the air, and then, maybe, five more
for the vegetation, then you could change the
order change the arrangement and expect it to
still add up to the same total, if that ° e what
you're getting at,
VAN HORNS Yes* i have no further questit
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other members? Ron,
was the noise level that you demonstrated here
what you would expect. ' in ` � the edge of the park 1 f
the equipment located in the site mw in the pro«*
posal was the same as the Crabtree Valley equip
latent?
L i believes it would be representative* You would
expect some differences from one octaves there to
another, but Z think it is a conservative atte ►t

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bailey Committee
tQ get — to represent the sound you would
expect to hear.
CHAIPAM SMITH: Okay. Any other
questions. You may step downR Dr. Bailey,
DR. RAILEYt Could I have a minute to get
MY equiVment mowed out?
(Wrnass EXCUSBD )
Dro, Bailey and his assistant re ved equipment
from room.)
SHORT RECESS
i Reporter ° s Note: Text continues on next
Page without interruption.)

i
U
11
1e
13
14
15
16
17
1s
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Direct
2 MR. n�MLEY s Mr. Hseter will be examining
3 the next set of vjitnesses for the Department
4 S4, I will turn the reins over to him,
5 MR. HrETERs All right, S would like to call
6 Ur, Bakes,
3
Whereupon,
II4 - rA s
hav; ng been duly sworn,
was examined and testified
as follows a
DIRECT V-M?0�11-111AT XO% BY HERB R a
OL State ,Your name and address,
A. My name is Alan Makes. I live at 713 Murray
Road, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Miat is your current occupation and eVloyment7
': ► current Occupation is as a landscape architect,
PAY ti t1Q With the Division of Parks and
Recreation is chief of the Design and Development
Section,
Can You M--
Cyr A1741"-%"T SHXTVzt l r, Hester, we're having

2
1
2

rr 3
E
E
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1akea 6
Direct
2 X (Interposing) Yes, I have •
3 Q� — or in con3 ut ction with existing arras?
'des, I have,
Do you have any idea Of low many acres were involy
A Since 19730approximatoly sixteen new areas with
t
roughly t2zirty-e .ght thousand acres of land,
and Six existing areas at about thi.rtY-six hundred
acres of land,
What is Your educational background?
I have a Bachelor's of Landscape Architecture
from the State University of Ne€qr York,, College
Of Forestry, Syracuse; Bachelor9 s of science from
Syracuse University,
' When when were you first employed in your
professional fiOld?
I was a trainee landscape architect for New Park
State .Parks for a year,
In 1570, 1 began work in Worth Carolina a as
a practicing landscape architect in a private
firm and 1969—I'm sorry,
In 1970, I came to work for the state park
Syst0m as their landacawpe architect and park
planner,
what positions -- all right,

6�16
4 1
Bakes
Direct
2
�Ilat coo -- have you belonged to any professi,
3
orga liZations in your -- your particular field?
4
A.
YOS, Anerican Society of Landscape Architects,
5
I am a east member of the executives committee of
6
10.
the INort2h Carolina Chapter of that organization.
7
Have you published --- written any professional
8
articles or things of that sort outside your
9
work with the state?
10
A.
All the publications I Nave cone have been since
11
coining with that Mate, but I have done so=
12
Publication other than m amter plans,
13
Q�
What -- what were those?
14
X
A dOCUMOnt, 1974, Which was called "North Carolina
15
State Varks - How or lolxever" and a Publication in
16
the North Carolina 'arks and Recreation society
17
magazine.
18
Pal right, since .you completed your formal
19
education have :you participated in any workshops
20
or conferences to update your skills?
21
L
Yea, Z have o
22
I participated in the Kellogg► 10MYcerfor
23
Continuing Education at M«i+chigan State in Park
24
and Recreation DGsign workshop, our environoment
25
impact state workshops ,

1 Eakes
Dl.rect
2
Anything else about yow background or a ployment
3
that is pertinent?
4 A.
lone that I can think of,,
5
.All aright, are you familiar witlx the history of
6,
the devollopmz nt of Umatead Park;?
7 IL
Yea, ,I an.,
8
Do you know when t1he dGvelo pment of what is
9
Umstead Park was � egun?
10
Yes, the park- was actually begun by the federal.
11
goverment in the early 13019, 1934, ' 35 * The
12
hand was assembled by the federal government as
13
one of the public works program, resettlement
14
division, the federal governmento And, they
15
ass bled between those yearn a little over five
16
thousand acres of land and in 1935, 136, 137
17
the natural. --
18
t� R110-MAY p I ° d like to object. I've
19
been lenient on this background material,, but
20
wo have stipulated that, it's a public dark, the qt
21
is whether or not there * s a.. significant adverse
22
effect. I think they're ranging far afield,
23
11 d like to got down to the point,
24
CHAIPIMAW SFUT- $ I sustain that,
25
MR. IMETERs Sustained?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
N
f
0
N
0
0
s
2
Ui
Z
Z
0
a
m
0
V
0
4
W
2
W
a
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes Direct
C1. ,IPI-Val S.'4'%zTH: (Nods -head affirmatively),
(fir. Reater) Can you tall us -_ Z do want to
get this peint in, can YOU tell us when the area
Way first turned over to the state?
g:1.1, X111Z1LY3 Objection.
(jIro Ifeeter) r'rom that federal government?
'"Ro XIVIZEy t Objection.
CHATMIAN �MlT H I Ob Jectian sustained,
"P,o II lIMR s TWE think, the background
material that we are trying to enter into evidence
is necessary to help the Commission understand
the park ° s current role and also understandithe
future plans for that devOlOPRIGnt of the partt
Nowp these - - there's only about six or
seven questions vie want to ask kira Fakes alone
this line a
MM. HIPM Y = Wre l l o I think what's sauce for
tI%0 900sa iS sauce for the dander and being
arguw.ntative in pursuing 3imilar background
material, in addition, when he gets -to asking
about what his iplan for the park, I think that's
clearly beyond the scope of the statutory
criterion that you rust consider,
We're tal.ing but the present park and

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
f49
Fakes Direct
I'll make those objections when he asks his
question, but t think he's going gar afield,
MIS., :METnRt Can --- can we clarify that,
our ponition -- the statute --- the permit has
been denied on the ground that the quarry would
have a substantial adverse effect on Umstead
Part:
Not,', our contention is, It would have
a substantial affect on the park:, not only as
it now exists but that one of the purposes of
the park is to continue to serve the public
of lJorth Carolina. And to bring that in, we
need to look: at the Master Galan for the park
and the uses that are planned for it in the
future,
llow, they have submitted. evidence that
this quarry has an expected life of probably
fifty years
we need to be able to put the park;
into the same tir.� aerspective to resolve this
issue.
MR, KIVIZEy: I ad like to be heard further
if uralro going to argue that much time, I would
like to be heard.

L r
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fakes I)irect
C:UMM-WI c;mi'Mi . We urill he pleased to
have information about the future plan of the
park:, We are not interested in the history
of it,
TIMVER t All rigs t.
Well a is that a ruling on the
future plans lditlzout you hearing my ob jectiont, s
CHAIRMAN SFiITu: I -. we just __
MRa KIMZEY: (Interposing) I would like
to be heard on my oh j ection . as to future plans,
C MAIPMAN -151AI ITI : V re just ruled on the
objection,
DIS, PM -NCH -IF Overruled,
MR. MKIRZEY: I asked to he heard on that,
Will you grant me the ,privilege of being heard
on it before you rule can it?
C 3 RV17-el SMITH: I just did,
MS. rPX,?1C s They want to hear the
explanation of the future expansion of the park.
I� o YINZEY: I would like to ask the
Commission to he heard, I believe Z,m entitled
to do that and I think the Comisg .on could
give zee that right, if they ° d like to.
M'S 0 IMMU t The Chairman did not want to

9
0
z
O
N
O
O
n
O
z
Z
O
m
0
u
c
c
u
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6ai
I Fakes Direct
give you --
Mr.. KIaHZEYa (interposing) I ask the
Chair for that ri0hto
MS, FHHHCHs -W permission to argue on
ite
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Would you please proceed,
air?
Mr. Heater) Fir, Bakes, are you familiat with
this document? (Hands document to witness)
A. Yes, I am,
+ What is it?
A. This is a copy of the deed from the federal
government to the :Mate of North Carolina for
the the park in ruestion o
{� All right, does it deed'the land that constitutes
Umatead Park to the state for any purpose in the
world or are those purposes limited?
MRo X1MZEY a Objection.
CHAIM,= SMITH t what grounds, please?
Mo KIMZEYY Same grounds, He's trying to
go ahead with the questions that you've already
sustained the objection on the history of the
park,
T'R, IMETKE- RH May we approach the bench?

20
0
N
0
N
0
0
0
z
W
Z
0
4
to
0
Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6102
.fakes Direct
Gees. -M S11IT11i Ploase (Io 0
(CONFERENCE AT CQt TMI S S I ON TABLE)
)
(Mro Y3eeter) -xro rakes, with respect to the
document before you, do you know if there is
a provision in there that limits the purposes
for which they par]; land was granted to the
State of North Carolina?
L Yes, the dead expressly states that the area,
the land in question, be used for public park,
recreation, conservation purposes and that if
it should cease to be used for those purposes
for a period of three yearn, it would revert,
t� All right, do you know how mangy* --- do you knovi
how manyacres of land are presently in the park
boundary?
At last count, we had five thousand one hundred
.and forty-three ($,143) c
All right, do you have an opinion on the present
replacement value of the park?
I. Yes, I doe
a What is that figure?
A. The -- the figures that have been worked out by
staff 'Considering all of the land and all of the
improvements on the property is in the range of

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
653
B ak-es
Direct
t1iirty -four million dollars ($34, 000,000, 0Q)o
i
All right, how was that figure arrived at?
A.
It was arrived: at by using comparable land
values at the tine and assessing all the
structures in the park and it was done in con-
junction with the airport study.
Do you know if the state has recently bought,
sold or traded property to expand or consolidate
the boundaries of the , park?
L
Yeso the state has,
a
It has With. -lull --?
L
The last fey: years.
a
The last few years?
L
Yes o
All right, in your opinion, what is the siqnificanca
of Umatead Park to the state' s parks --- parks,
as a whole?
Well j Uinstead Farm is is the second most
visited park in the system. It sits in the
center of a large metropolitan area.
Bstimates in 1974 taken from the 1970 census
showed approximately nine hundred thousand people
in the influence zone, which we consider about ,a
fifty mile driving area around the part, and

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
y 634
Lakes
rirect
that° a approximately a fifth of the state: s
population.
All right, is that -- ghat percentage of the
usage of the state parks, as a whole, noes
Umstead' account for?
L
Umstead Park would be between ten, ten and
eleven percent (10-11t) of the total visitation
of the state°s parka.
What percentage of the area of the state gazks
is within the boundaries of instead Park?
�.
You mean, ghat laud -tl-a what land percentage?
Lane percent, right.
�.
she percentage of the property in Umstead Park
to the rest of the state parks would be five
and a half ,percent (5 1/2%) ,
Q►
rive. and a half percent?
Yes,
�.
What was -- what has been the annual attendance
at Umstead Park over the years, can you contrast
the figures, say of 1965 or 170 as opposed to the
last Year?
L
The last few years, we have reached pretty much
optimum use of the facilities within the spark at
somewhat over four hundred thousand visitations

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes
Direct
annuallye compared to the 19 -- early 1960 data,
that could be about double.
$
All right, of the people who visited Umstead
Park last year, can you tell me the type of
uses they made of the park, and break that
down into any kind of percentages?
�.
Well, it was used for the purposes intende$o
By that I mean v there are certain facilities
in the park to accomodate use.
our major uses is picnicking. Day use
involving other than picnicking would include
rotiboating, swimming at the group camp areas,
hiking, nature study, There is horseback
riding in the park.
Overnight uses, we have the group camps
I mentioned heretofore and family campgrounds.
Aro any of these uses --- coo any of these uses
appear to be increasing or decreasing in
importance?
Well, as I said, the use has samwha,t leveled
off in terms of an optimum use. The increases
we have received, I could say have loon in the
areas of trail usage, nata supports that for
the vfhole park system, And also, associated

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ake-a
nirnrt
environmental education activities, with guided
hikes and special programs.given to park visitors.
for environmental educes. ion and interpretation
of the natural resources.
You would - - would. it be fair to interpret those
uses as natural, environmental or outdoor uses,
the ones that are increasing in importance?
A.
Yes*
Are you familiar -with the co►un ti es that are
included within the Region J Council of Government
Yes, I am,
M.R. Y:I14ZZY r Object.
CHAIM= S&I-11M. Explanation, please,
MR. MM s Well, you knew, I'm trying
to be patient to get to the park, i don't know
what the Region J Cound:d:1 of Cyovernmwbt relevance
is to the issue here,
M.Ro EEBTEF s The next question, I dope,
will clarify that,
CUMMU4 SMITH c Overruled, proeead.
(Mrs Heeter) -All right, is Region J the area.
that ° s primarily served by Unstead Park?
I.
Yes, it's the primary service area,
Urtw to ad sits approximately in the middle

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
657
Fakes
Direct
of that multi -county planning region.
4
Do you have an opinion on whether there is an
excess or scarcity of publicly owned recreational
lands in Region J?
�.
There is definitely a deficiency.
There: is a deficiency?
A.
Yes o
OL
Are you familiar with the system devised by
the U, 5. Heritage Conservation and necreation
Service for identifying recreational areas by
class?
A.
Yes,, I am,
How many classes are there_ an4 ghat are they?
D.
There are six classesv Roman numeral classes.
I Would be hicjl,& .. density recareational.
areas,
Number Il would be general outdoor
recreational areas,
Clan. III would be natural environment
areas,
Class IV would be the outstanding natural
areas,
Class Vp wilderness area. Clans VI would
be historic and cultural sites,

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6a
Lakes
?direct
Applying those c:laseez to the recreational
lands,, publically owned recreation lands in
Region Jo which are the least coon or lacking
altogether?
L
W611 p there is a deficiency in every class
according to the North Carolina State Comprehensi
Outdoor Recreation Plan.
The - - the lands that are most critical,
of course, would be the Cl asc zII B IV and V
and because those -- these lands are irrepl.acable
we re talking snout natural lands, large
open spaces and there is just not much tires left
to assemble this kind of land.
All right, in Umstead ParL, is --- do you know
how it would be classified under this - - this
system?
A.
It would be a Class III area,
CL
Glass III?
�.
Natural environment area.
4
Hots many Class III areas are there In all of
Region J?
L
There are three,
a
Umatead is one of those three
L
Yes,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-9
Bakes Direct
Well, is it the largest of those three?
A. Considerably,
Ia it the most centrally located in terms of
the population?
. Yes,
Of Region J?
All right,, in your -- in your opinion,
what is the future role of Umatead Park?
Welly Umstead park will continue to serve the
Public based on the objectives for which it was
established, and that would be to to protect
outatanding natural resources,
To provide opportunities for outdoor
recreation,
To provide opportunities for esvirommntal
education,, interpretation of the natural resources
and to protect scientific sites,
All four of those would apply and those
are the basic criteria of state parks. of North
Carolina.
is this — will this importance increase or
decrease as the population in Region J grows?
I would have to Bay it will unequivocally
increase in importance.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes Direct 660
Can I turn your.. -attention to the two maps
on they wall behind you? (referrinq to ambits
23 and 24)
These are marked State's Exhibit's 23 and
240
Are you familiar with :.hose maps?
L
Yese I amo
�.
Were they prepared by you or someone under your
direction in ' your impartment?
L
My staff prepared these under nay direction,
�.
What` does those maws illustrate, just generally,,
don't go into detail yet*
A.
23, if I'm reading -it right, the one on the lefts,
I think that says 23, is the existing uses map
as prepared in,1974,
And the other exhibit is the proposed use
plan for the park, in the future,
Before -- lot rye ask you this, right now,
In acquiring land to iWloment master plans,
for the various parks, what alternatives doses
the stato have in terms of acquiring land?
14Ro XIMZPYt Objection as to ..relevancy
of this issueo
CHMRMM SMITH: We're going to sustain the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
i
Bakes Mrect
obJeation®
(Mro Heeter) Are you familiar with the master
plan for Umstead park?
asp I amo
Did you personally play a role in developing .' tha
plan?
Yee p 1 did o
All right, has that plan been endorsed by the
Department of Natural - s~sources and Community
Deve ioyant?
Yea p it has.
Has --eyes it Gu3bMitted to the public in anyway
before -m during its process and preparation w_
or review by the public?
Yes, in developing our master plaw we do
conduct public meetings,
Has the ftneral Assembly used or relied on this
or any of the other park plans in its del.iberations9
The park master plans collectively have --have
becouse the tools that we have utilised in
preparing budget requests and the defense for
those requests aver since we have produced them,
And,, consequently, the requests that have been
approved have been based on these plans.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
U
Direct
Yal right, does the council of States use the
master plans of the parks in any way?
MR- XIMZEy a Objection an to relevancy•
again o
Sae the Council of State used the master plan
for Mwtead Park. in any way?
Me KIM.Eyt Object as to relevancy?
CHAIRKM SMITH s would you explain, please?
o KIEY$ I'd rather Oman I just don't
think it's relevant whether the Council of State
used the plan or not -ass to whather or not the
proposed site will. have an impact on the park,
o KENTER s And our point, as I stated
earlier, is that we should be looking not only
at the existing but the future impact of the
quarry on Umate ad park, including how it's Planned
under the master plan,
. K IMZEy s Ile may can shorten this if
Mr. Chairman® if you please give me a continuing
objection as to anv testimony concerning the
master plan insofar as it relates to plans not
now constituting a publicly owned park.
I'll be glad to take a continuing objection
to that®, and I think the issue as to -- on the

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes Urect
pie of a Pfat$oly awned park on lands not now
currently a publicly owned park, I don't think
this Mining Commission should consider the
effect on other than those lands,
I'll be glad to take a continuing objection,
otherwise, I will object to each quastion as it
cows up,
CHAIMMd SMITH s The Commission heard the
plano for the future of the quarry and I think
we®ra entitled to hear the plans of the feature
of the park.
So, overruled, Mr. fey,
MR. XINZEY s Mould you like to give me a
continuing objection, so I won't have to interrupt
each tima? That is my request and maybe you didn't
understand that.
CMAIRMA14 SMITH s You have a continuing
objection.
Me FREHCH s Hoted for the record,
CHAZZi N SMITH: Noted for the record,
blR. KIP-SrY s Thank you very much,
(Mro Reseter) All rights, has the Council of State
used or relied on the bulater plan for Umatead
Sark to your knaw►ledger?

u
Z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Bakes Pirect
R. Council of State has to approve any land acqui--
sitions for the state with the exception of the
Mpartment of Transportation. Consequently,
we have to defend the reca=endati.ons for land
acquisitions and the plan itself has been th cqut p t a
defense to the Council of State for why to
purchase lands for the state parks system,
All right, has the Department relied on the
master plan for Umstead Park in any way'
L As I mentioned earlier, yes, in terms of
preparing its budget for the expansion of the
whole system and specifically Umatead, in term
of land acquisistion and development proposals.
Q� Pal right, can you describe the basic development
proposals in the master plat: and. if you'd turn
to the map, and also pin the bottoms dots,
L (des to board.. , pi.ns maps) yes o
Q, Can you describe, briefl-v, the existing uses of
land in the areas that are presently in the park
and that are relatively approximate to the
proposed stake Stone plant situ?
L The proposed WaL,6 Stone site is where this large
symbol here is (indicates large black asterisk)
within -►- generally, within the lands right here
(indicates area around asterisk),

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
0
18
19
O
r.
z
20
W
Z
Z 21
O
m
22
O
4
V
Z 23
d
24
25
Uakes Direct
The park itself is the current boundary
is defined by the are®n line all the way 'round.
This point right here (indicating) ie the
144 interchange, the North Harrison Ave, and
this being Cary down here ( indicating) and the
entrance to the park here, and the service road
into the subject property here.
We presently have a -e a large paring
area here. We have picnicking all through this
area and we have numerous trails, short trails
and long trails in this area.
We also have a group camp which has a
number of cabins, a lodge for overnight use
for groupso
We have an office complex, with a warehouse
and maintenance facility and we have a residential
area for the superintendent of the park.
We also have associated trails throughout
this area for hiking and horseback use.
�. Ire you familiar with those lands? Have you
been on them and studied thaw in som way?
�b Yes, 1 have,
g All right, can you toll us the importance of these
lands immediately adjacent to -- to the quarry

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Eakes Direct
site?under the Master plan?for the expansion
and developmnt of the nark?
Can you point those areas out?and describe
the role they play?
�• The currant use areas?
4 Right o
A. W'ello the --
And show us on the other -- on the other map?
Show us on the reap on the right how theyod
be developed.
L (fig to Exhibit 24 ) You want tie to talk about
develop nt plans?
�. Again, this map shows the -- the proposed uses,
but it also shows a new proposed boundary. So,
You would have to superimpose this green line
here (indicating exhibit 23) onto that map,,
and roughly speaking the state park°s boundary
right now is --- comes across here (draws on
Exhibit 24 with pen) o then up bike this and
then acrosse And then, at a point over here,
it comes down and across and then it rigs and
zags down along 40,
So, the line then -- outside the park would

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
0
18
0
O
s
19
z
20
W
Z
0
21
m
22
u
O
u
W
4
23
24
25
w
Bakes Direct
be in here
The pro'nosed clevnlopment for the park
would be eventually to have an access off a
now proposed connector road between the outer
beltline at 140 v there ° s .._ they've already put
this interchange i.n , all the way over to US70 ,
we -- the Division has worked directly
with the repartment of Transportation in developing
the deoian for this road and a ensuing connector
road into Umstead Park: with tie-ins to they «.w
all the total proposed uses.
The proposers uses include a major -day -use
area in this portion of the park, with a short-
term family camping area, major swimming area
with a bath house and associatad parking, a
major interpretiire enter with educational
trails of various sorts, short tenm trails,
trails for the handicapped, et cetera,
And then, on the northern side of the park
t-re would have generally speaking, Overnight
use area with group carsps , tent --trailer camp,
family camping, Adirondack shelters and a cabin
colony,
And also, a day use picnic area, but one that

M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes Direct
would 'be used for groups on a reserved or
unrenervad basis in conjunction with they big
.late o
We also have,a proposal for :some wilderness
camping and for trails throughout the park, taking
the visitor into the -- the more natural areas
of the park.,
The green areas is proposed to be a natural
area within Umstead State: rark,
There i® an pranga site right mere (indicating
this ocarina shape, that is currently classified
by tho National park. Service as a national
natural landmark,
All right, so s , the area immediately adjacent to
the proposed quarry site on the east and southeast
mould be a day use center, is that right?
I. Yes a family picnicking.
And the area immerliatel-,,r north of the Fake
Stone sited across Crabtree Creek would be a
natural area, one of the two natural areas in
the park and would also include hiking trails,
a wilderness camping area, camping canters, some
things like that?
L n1 at o s correct,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
G"N y"N9
Lakes Direct
p is there .another piece of land essentially,
running. off to the northwest of that natural
area, the planned natural area that is currently
under ownership by the airport, is that
correct?
L Where is a Piece of land here (indicating on map) ,
4L Rights is that immediately iatel.y across Crabtree Creek
from the quarry site and runs off to the north-
west?
Yost,
All rights and the plans are to clue Highway 70,
to eventually build a major now access off the
beltline extension, but during that interim
period the sole access to the park will be
through they needy Creek section?
Correct,,
And# the sm basically, what you have just explain
are the development proposals in the master ,plain
which was marked Defendant's rrhibit 20, is that
correct?
I. Correct,
OL And was an environmental impact study done of
those proposals on the park?
As Correct,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fakes Direct
And ifs t%a the document marked 22?
A Yes, it is o
And it was found that those proposals would not
have an adverse environmental impact on the
park?
AL That's correct,
OL All right, sit down, if you will.
Now, can you tall me if any acquisitions
of land would be needed to implement the Master
plan?
L xes
All right,, will any deletions of land currently
in the park be needed to implement the waster
plan?
I well, the deletions would not be directly
associated with implementing the master plan
in that they are deletions, with the exception
that revenues from those deletions would be used
to purchase other land or to develop facilities
Qt Why are thane additions and deletions necessary,
what role do they play?
X Well, the -- the additions are needed to protect
the — the natural resources of Crabtree Creek,
to provide some buffer lands around the park-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes Direct
where we have proposed use areas and also to
provide land for some of these use- areas,
Have any additions or deletions already have been
made, to achieve the objectives?
A. Ye S'O
SQL All right v have any step© been taken -M were those
lands acquired or traded or ghat, do you know?
�• I -- we have acquired -- directly acquired two
tracts of land and we have deleted sold one
tract of land,
And the state does have the power of eminent
domain to acquire lands for park purposes?
�► Yes m
Was the power of eminent domain used in any of
these transactions?
�. It was not,
OL It was noto
Have any steva been taken to link the
two sections of the park:, by that I mean, the
Crabtree section and the Ready Creek section,
preparatory to closing the entrance on 170 and
using the entrance at Reedy Creek as the main
entrance?
L Yes p we have a capital improvement project

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
Akt3� Direct
proposed in the upcoming budget to develop our
main park road abd associated -bridge with that
road that would effectively connect the current
use area on "the . Crabtree Creek side of the park
with the Rester Creek side of the park with the
entrance being off of 14Q,
All right, when will that linkage between the
two sections be completed?
L Y MPCM Y would anticipate that being completed,
if all — if all goes right with construction
seasons, et cetera, within within a year, but
with construction problems it could be a year
and a half
All right
L it is hard to say.
�. And then the entrance from 170 will he closed
and the Reeder Creek entrance will become the
main entrance for an interim period of time?
That is the proposal as outlined in the master
I lan, yes,
Do you know how long that --- the main entrance
to the park will be through the Reedy Creek
entrance, can you give us anv kind of an estimate
on that?

O�
O
N
i
0
U.
0
0
0
z
Ui
0
a
m
0
v
0
US
t!
z
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
673
Fares Direct
A. gall, ewe will have to continue to use that
access until each tir* as the Department of
Transportation is able to complete their
< <conneetor road from i4 © to US70 and that could
be -- it is a proposal we have discussed
together but it could be ten years before that
road is in
All right, are you Familiar with how trucks
will enter and leave, the Wake - - the proposed
Make Stone quarry?
L Yes, I am,
4 stow would they do that?
L They would be entering either directly from
Cary across North Harrison Ave, or over North
'Harrison Ave, or they will be coming from,
generally east or vest and 140 and getting off
at that interchange, the Cary/State Park inter.
change,
All right,
�. Entering State Road 1654,
If they come off I40 , they have to go up a ramp, is
that right?
L Yea, they d o,
4 And then, will they have to stop when they get to

0
N
O
0
0
0
z
W
z
z
O
r
Q
0
0
v
z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I Fakes
Direct
G7 4
Reedy Creek Road?
A Well, I -- they will have to stop when they
reach North Harrison.Ave, or State Road 1654.
There is another Reedy Creek Road,
Qt All right, they will then turn and approach
the entrance to the park, is that right?
A. Yes, coming from the Raleigh area they would —
would turn with the traffic after stopping.
Coming from the other direction, from
Durham, they would stop and cross traffic and
turn left and head down towards the park and
towards the porposed site.
So, they would be coming off the highway, up
the ramps, stg,ng, starting up again and moving
at a relatively low speed towards the entrance
to the park, is that correct?
A. That's correct,
OL Will they have to stop again before they
turned and went down the service road?
A. They would have to cross traffic and turn into
the service road, so, I would hope that they
would stop if traffic was coming.
All right,
A. It would be -- theway the curve is now, I would

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.. G7J
La `es Direct
guess ; they would, have to slow dowrn Considerably
and come close to a atop.
t� All riai:t.
Dave you ever done any visitation projections
for the park during the year 1985, what kind
Of visitation do you expect?
A. Tell, that would depend on the --- the speed
with which we're able to develop portions of the
proposed master plane
If m- if we are able to secure appropria-
tions to continue a building program we could by
that time, 1985, Five yoars, have enough now
facilities in there to increase annual visitation
to half a million
A, half a million?
rL (Nods head affirmatively) .
And in 1985 you . are ---- you Reel that there is
no question tho rmady Creel: entrance will be the
main entrance to do parr?
Me K=!L°ZEY: I object to his continually
leading the witness, the witness can testify.
Wxo Reeter) no you have an opinion on whether
that will be the main entrance in that area?
C:1AIn A24 SPTA: Objection sustained.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.Eakea Direct
Please re�hraso ',,our question.
(Hro theater) In the. year, 1985, where will
the entrance to the park be, in your opinion?
�. in my opinion, in 1985, if --the connector road
would Estill not be Luilt, in my opinion and
we will have to be using the 140 entrance for
access to the total park;
In ,tour opinion will there be any --- that will
be the sole entrance?
I ju3t said that, .yes,
okay,, do --- have you dons any visitation pro-
jections for the park in the year 1990?
A. 19 9 0 , our -- again, it depends on the: -- the
extent, it would be over a '.'calf million based
on the projections we've made.
Tail right, in your opinion in the year 1990,
where will the entrance to the park be?
A. As I stated earlier if --r it may take ten years
to got that connector road in, 1990, if our
plans go as . scheduled or as hoped, we would
beginning -- be beginning to develop a road
from the east side of the park off of the
connector road that the impartment of Transpor-
tation Mould hopefully be building at the time,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes
Direct
Do you kncx.�r what percentage of visitors
to the dark now corn on Yonday through rriday?
A.
Monday through rricay from the date we've
ve been
able to review, approximately fifty percent of
the use occur during those five days.
All right, how many come on Saturday?
L
On Saturday We -- it would be, my estimate
would be, it would be between thirty and thirty-
five percent of the total number of visitations
would occur on Saturday.
So, the visitation rate on Sunday is fifteen to
twenty percent?
A.
That's f t o
Are there peaks on holidays, visitation peaks
on holidays?
A
Yes, there area
And holidays do fall. on Monday through Saturday?
A.
ate s, they do,,
All right, during what months of the year does
the park receive the highest usage?
L
June, July and August$ roughly the middle _
of the summer.
All right, do you, in your opinion, do you feel
that any of these patterns of uses on Monday

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-6_78
Eakes Direct
through Friday and on Saturdays and on holidays
will change within the next, say, ten gears?
L Not unless we go to a four day week
$ Do you know hoer many trucks Wake Stone has
indicated will be entering and leaving its
quarry each hour?
�. The information we received from their consultants
was forty, forty going out with forty going
hack in, eighty, an hour at peak,
Do you have an opinion on whether the entrance
to a park reflects a visitor's Lmage and enjoyment
of a park?
A Yes, I think it establishes a character that
they will keep in their mind as they enter the
park.
Do you have an opinion on whether the existence
of truck traffic of the typo and rate anticipated
in 1980, eighty truck movements potentially per
hour, with trucks approaching that entrance,
slowing down, stopping, turning and so forth,
do you have an opinion on whether that would
affect the image which visitors would form of
the park.?
tell, rwy opinion would be that they would be

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
`aka679
:�
Direct
frustrated by any congestion of traffic
with . trucks turning away from the entrance
and keeping them from n. aking a nice and easy
access into C-10 park
All right, you're f nil.iar with the Reedy
Creek, section of the park, can tyou tell, me
or estimate the distance from the inter8ection
of the 1,eedy Creek. Road and the service road
and the various existing and planned uses in
that section of the park?
L From the 0Md?
4 FroM that intersection,, off the service road.
IL It's about __ I've heard two figures, two hundred
eighty feet to three hundred feet, I would have
to aecOpt those figures, that's ghat it appears to
be visually. I have not •-_ V ve measured them
on maps # so, it would appear that those are
accurate,
The mt:asurements I've made show roughly
tfdelve hundred feet into the picnic area, maybe
two thousand feet into the proposed short-term
camping area from that point.
All right, the picnic area is both an existing
and a proposed picnic area, there is now a pimac

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fru�
ra%;f 9 Ureet
area?
L
Yes* it's an exi rating picnic area that will
continu' a in that usse with some expansion,
g
Hava you ever been within comparable distances
from truck movements in and out of a quarry?
A.
Yes, I have,
a
All right, which -- what quarry was it and when?
A.
The Teer Quarry on a couple of occasions, the
dates - - I don. s t have the dates as to when it
was, but it was in recent months and weeks.
When was that most recently?
Most recent was this past Week.
Last weak,
o
What did you hear, can you describe the
sounds you heard and the distances you -were from
say, the crusher on that quarry site?
A.
Well, one site that I was at was approximately
twelve hundred feet by map measurement and
the noises were highly audible.
I mean, it was obvious that there was a
lot of industrial use there and you could
hear the crusher, you could hear the beeps, you
could hear this trucks.
I ° sin just asking about the trucks right now,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bakes Direct
L I'm sorry.
Yesa, the trucks were --- were very
apparent and changing through the gears, the
roast of the trud»s was a very _- to sag, loud
noise o
Didd you hear those sound, you saidp twelve hundred
feat?
A. Yes o
Did you have the opportunity to observe them
from greater distances?
• I -- at another point approximately twenty-two
hundred feet, again, the noises were very audible
and that wasp t1rough completely through tree
cover that the noises wore heard.
Did you -- could you hear the variation of the
engine and
L (Interposing) All the same sounds that we heard
at twelve hundred feet but reduced aamewhat, but
still very audible,
From your personal knowledge or observation, do
you have an opinion on whether you would hear
the trues on Reedy Creek Road at the intersection
if you used the existing or proposed facilities
you have just described?

06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
aa:c°a Direct
A. If those trucks were the sams types of trucks
that I hard at the quarry at :hello Tear, I
am sure I would hear diem at the picnic area,
and I am quite sure with the distances involved
that they would be heard at the proposed short-
term camping area.
Do you have an opinion on ghat effect those
noises would have on you at say th,a existing
or proposed picnic area?
�. Well, as a park user I would find it objectionable.
OWhat about if you were at the proposed camp
facility? 110u ld you still hear them there or
would they have an affect on you?
L _ 60® I would still hear them there if --_ if the
trucks were the same types of trucks again. I
presume they would be but I I don't )now that
for sure, and I would again, consider that an
objectionable level of noises that --- that I
experi.eneed, c ut at the Teer quarry, Using that
as the comparable, I would find it ob jectionalAe.
Q Have you been ever kme,n in the area of the
park that is closest to the proposed quarry
site, and you have indicated that you have been.
�. Along Crabtree Creek? .

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Da%a s Direct
a Tong Crabtree Creek?
L Yes, I have,
All right, do you know hoc -- coo you have an
estimate -of how close the existing park boundary
is to where Wake Stone would locate the crusher
on its -- its quarry?
L I believe those measurements were about thirteen
hundred feet but --,
All right,
L That°s my recollection,
0' All. right,
L Twelve to thirteen, it was somewhere in that range,
All right,
Have you a- you just testified that you
have been close to the Nello Teer {quarry site
and you heard the sounds of the trucks?
L Yes,
�► Did you also hear the sounds of the other equipmenvp
X Yes, I dick,
flAnd you were last there, was that Wednesday?
�. Yes® this week o
Would you point out on this reap, just hold it up
for the Commission to see (holds up aerial photo-
graph) , can you point out exactly where you were

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
T:ak.aS Direct
and the distances that you astini ate that you
were from the crushero
A. Well, , I v.gas at a point approximately here at
the entrance, twelve hundred lest from the
crusher,, and another point in the woods, at.
this Juncture tiara (indicating on map) ,
P-11. right.
A. About at the nand of these fields, somewhere
back in here.
I would have to say it was in fact, we
walked an old road.,, so, it was probably back
in .ere at that point (indicating point on :map) .
And the estimate I think was two thousand
feet at that point.
4 All right a any -- anywhere else that dray?
That day I was also at the the creek location
which is here (pointing) .
4 Do you knavr how far that is from the crusher?
It's about three thousand feet was the estimate.
All right, and any other points?
L And up - - there s s -- I can't tall on the aerial,
but there is a high ridge up in here that I
stopped at also, (indicating point on map)
May # what tim of the day was this?

IN
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$alk.as Direct
L late morning,
Late morning., Can yPou describe the --- the
weather conditions on that clay?
Clear sky, breeze, I c'on ° t know from what
direction that day, It was a nice day.
4 Can you c?esaribo, in detail, the sounds that
you heard at twelve hundred feet up there by
that entrances?
Well, in detail, at twelve hundred feet, I could
discern and break down all of the noises .from the
truck, The truck noises coming up and down these
hauls and changing the gears, the crusher was
extremely audible and the beeping soured of the
back: -up beep was a very piercing sound and very
audibloo.
Can you describe the sounds you heard at roughly
two thousand, twenty-two hundred feet?
L I heard those sam sounds at twenty --two hundred
feet through the — all, that vegetation.
Were they less audible?
�. yes # they were at that level, , but they were
still they were quill quite ---- quite audible.
$ Did you — could you block them out of your
mind readily or a-?

0
N
Ch
L6
0
0
0
Z
W
Z
Z
O
a
m
0
V
V
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Eakkes Direct
A.
�. "their presence was -- a continued presence at
tha, t �►�
L { lnterr.�os inch) Well, it was a continuous noise
and it was a noise that you just could not
ignore, it was obvious
Did you hear anything when you were at the
Ebenezer Church Road where it crosses Crabtree
Creek# could you hear the sounds of the quarxy
there?
hell, urhan we first arrived there i heard -�
.heard what I thought was the quarry operation,
but o 1 ° m convinced that it shut dorm durinq the
period that I was there. Driving 'back around
thereafter, the quarry operation ,was shut down,
Dut, at first there , sounds of the quarry at
three thousand feet,
At three thousand feet, but what could you hear
at three: thousand feat?
It amounted to more of a collective noise with
a more of a dull roar, if you Willa l don ° t
know how better to describe its
QBut, you couldn°t distinguish individual sounds,
the beepers or t1m trucks or anything like that?

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
687
l:,a ea Direct
A. I could not where I was standing.
Was there much disruption of other noises at
that site?
Laid any trucks or cars go by or airplanes
f2;i over or anythiz-Ag like that?
A. At that site we were closer to the airport and
there was light aircraft going over, rustling
leaves but that would be about it.
Did you know which — which way the wind was
blowing in relationship to the quarry at that
point?
A. I don't rwwmber,
And you finally -e you said you finally went
to a site up on the hill ----
�. (interposing) -Yes.
9� Mom up above Crabtree Creek?
And, did you hoar anything from the quarry
at that timo t
I could not,
�► But, was that the last place you went to?
L That was the last place I gent to before checking
to sea if the quarry eras still in operation
because it was just before noon and when I got
back to the quarry they had shtit down.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Eahas Direct
Do you know the nature of vege �..* of the vagetatl*
between the: points that you heard the quarry
from, be►tweon --- obviously there was no vegetation
between you and the entrance, when you were at
the entrance, was there?
A, That was fair p-- fairly open corridor at the
eantrance o
All right o between where you wore-- at tw6ny--two
hundred feet from the crusher and the open Meld
that you were in p do you know the nature of the
vegetation over that distance?
A. Based — based can the aerial photographic print,
it would appear, that it was mixed, mixed pine-
hardwood all they way,
And you drove by that area coming up the road,
did you not?
L YO S p
+ And you had no reason to believe there were_, any
gaps or break, o major daps or breaks in that
vagetati.on?
ma KIPMBY s 1 object to his leading again,
MR, HEE its Well, I •m trying to save a
little time a
gays the photograph heron does not show any daps,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
NJ
_ 689
Ea%es Direct
from thy: road I saw no penetrations from the road
into that area to give me reason to believe there
w+DulO be either,logging or any other development
in thema
Q ,l right.
A. it does not mean that someone may have come in
from some other location v but, I don't see haw
thw could have
�► All right* air,
Between where Ebenezer Church FAad Crosses
Crabtree Creek and the quarry, do you know any. -
thing of the vagetation in that area?
1L Again, that e s — I would say from the aerial
photograph that therm were - - there is a mixture
of pine and hardwood with probably more hardwood.,
Q All right * , and than finally, up on the top of
the hill, do you grow the nature of the vegetation
between that point?
L Well® there's a large clearcut at the top, so,
that is regenerating nowq and lotor ­ low
vegetation
Beyond that it is mixed pine/hardwood from
the — my interpretation of the aerial photo-
graphy,

a
X
0
N
O
O
cc
z
W
z
z
0
a
m
0
O
O
z
W
6.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fakes Direct
All right, would you go to the map of the the one on the right, the proposed uses of the
park (referring to Exhibit 24).
L (Goes to exhibit) o
All ri gh t o if you ,you have testified that the
distance from the proposed location of the crusher
on Wake Stone °-a property to the nearest* park
boundary northest of the crusher is hoer many
feet?
IMy -- my figure is about tvmlve hundred feet.
Twelve hundred feety and you had an opportunity to
.observe the sounds of the Crabtree quarry at
twelve hundred feet?
L yes
All right, in your opinion, assuming that you
were in the park at a dis -- at that distance
from the crusher and that would be that area
northeast of the crusher, and you were hearing
the sane level and type; of noise that you heard
at twelve hiundred foot from the Nello Tear -�
the Crabtree quarry, and that would have been
in the vicinity of the entrance, and assuming
,� ttl�ao that the sounds from the proposed quarry
and the Mello Seer quarry* would be the sate or

1
Bakers
Direct
2
roughly a qui.valent, do you feel that you would
3
bear the sounds of that quarry from that distance?
4
lr h o "`.�t'�'+.t�,.,� 'd Q J ection o
5
CIAIP. -AN SVIXTIlg Explanation, please.
6
P.R. XIIIA Ey: There is no Foundation for his
7
assumptions and the previous testimony has indicat
8
that there are too many variables for that to be
9
a valid asPssump -- valid comparison to make,
10
particularly by a non -trained sound ;arson o
11
CMIRIMti SMITH: Overruled, he can give
12
an opinion,,. but that Q s a personal opinion.
13
MR, BEETERY Ul right, I am asking for
14
his opinion.
15
(!bra Reeter) no you believe you could hear the
16
sounds of the quarry at that distance?
q
0
N
1
�.
Again o as I testified to a short time ago, the
0
18
twelve hundred foot distance that I observed the
0
0
19
sounds from the Tear quarry
q ry was through a
W
20
corridor -- opon. corridor. So, there ° sa really no
z
0
m
21
way to compare that,
0
22
He wever, at the twenty-two .(hundred)....-f0ot-. di
u
W
4
23
that was completely through the goods, and I
24
testified I would classify that as objectionable
25
and I am sure, because of this being a much

- G+2
1
Eakes
Direct
2
shorter distance, if there vrere con -parable
3
sounds generated by that quarry proposed,
4
comparable to the '."eer quarry r I i m convinced I
5
would sear very audibly at the Crabtree Creek
6
section.
7
May, you changed your distances to the twenty-
8
two hundred location?
9
A.
ye s o
10
N11 right, from, than crusher, Wake Stone proposed
11
what would be the distance to the existing picnic
12
area and the day use area?
13
A.
about two thousand feet,
14
All right, and to the proposed picnic area would.
15
be the same distance, is that right?
17
All right, the uses that are planned --
18
CHATT I; SMITE?s Mr. Reeter,
19
TIR, M3rTE7: Yes, sire
20
CIIAIPM4N SMITIT Y We just don't follow your
21
line of questioning at all,
22
Could you tall us ghat you're trying to do,
23
please?
24
MR. Mr -TER: What we're trying to indicate
25
is that the sounds, if the Wa -.e Stone quarry were

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6u3
Eakes Direct
developed, based on this witness's observation
of the type -_-And level Of sound from the Mello
Teer quarry. -that he feels he would hear those
sounds at the borer of the park which is directly
north of the proposed Wake Stone quarry.
CbAIMA..AN SMMI TH $ - Now, I believe that you
have adequately --s
1Mto HE ": (Interposing) And also, at
the picnic aroa, both the existing and proposed
picnic area which is about two thousand
feet in the m-
CHAMW SP ITH 4 ( Interposing) We heard
all of thato
Is there anymore of this type of testirww
KRO HEETER s On the noise, no,
I do have one more question,, - -
CP..AIMON SMITH t Okay, please proceed, then,
MRo REETERs -- to ask,
(Mro beater) All right, the use -- the uses that
are proposed for the area of the park that is
directly northeast of the proposed -- or north
of the Wake Stone property, ghat, in your opinion,
are the requirements for the pulic's enjoyment of
those uses?

a
0
N
F
0
0
0
s
W
Z
Z
O
I.
0
u
c
c
u
Z
W
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Eake.S Direct
& Well, the uses that we have there for now, area
those uses that we would hope to continue in
the future. Sc, in terms of the . trail usage
along Crabtree Creek, w a won't anticipate changing
that particular use,
And the requirements for utilizing that
trai 1 through a natural area in a very outstanding
and picturesque portion of the park, I would say
the requirement is peaces and quiet, quite simply,
Q► Hoer about the area to the east of the Wake Stone
property, the existing picnic area and also the
proposed picnic area?
What are the basic requirements for the'.
enjoyment of that kind of an area? -- Or those
users?
J. WelX ,. again, we're talking about the use of an
outdoor recreation area in a natural setting.
Soo the requirement would still be one of having
a general -a generally a peaceful condition.
It would not be quite, the same as someone
trying to utilize our trail system for the vary
purposes for which they are used, and that would
he nature studye birdwatching, interpretation of
the various flora and fauna, but it would still,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Baker, Direct
in my estimation rer-,lire a a quiet condition
in terms of not being impacted by ox*ternal
aoisos of Man and his machines
OL Will you go the .windov . in the front of the room,
please?
L (ems to window as r.Qguasted) ,
Will you 100Yout and tQ l l me is you sae any
trees out there?
1�. Yea o I do
01IMPM. S°� VJ Z sr. Reath.— Mr. Reath,.
ns a rrENcK s Reeter.
Could you estimate approximately how many?
CHRIT,",�ftluT SMITH t Mr. Reath, what is your
point here, please? This is --- I Paean, asking
than man to look out the window and see i f he
sees any trees is a little irrelevant.
4 t. M?.ETEP.: We had some testimony yesterday
from one of I -lake Stond s witnesses they exhibited -_
introduced some co lorad photographs of the area
of Bake -- of the * quarry that we contend will be
iMpacted. That e-itness testified that that area
Le t/rimarily pines, we will have sorm direct
testimony from another witness on the nature of
that vegetation ��

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fial: ea Direct
C 1 P IPIV`,N SMITH: (Interposincr) Well,
you already have,
JIB o METER,,, I would like to point out that
h ardWooF g this time of year are also very green,
141R, RIMSEY: I' d like to point out that
the Ckmml ssiOn in gone gra -- vis it the site and
I don't think the relevancy of what he sees out
they window will -make any difference to their
observation of what the wine trees --
CRA11171-4,V1 r3MITFII: (interposing) I really
thin: this is irrelevant, "Mr. Death,
rQRo HEM" ;"U.g All right, it is really no
big point. I -- we're going --
CRA.Ir14.g1r SMITIT 0 (interposing) Please
drop it, it seams totally irrelevant,
11114-te TMETEF 8 Someone owould like to note
that hardvoocl tree --
MR. rIL E`ra (Interposigg) Well, I object
to him testifying now,
tlR• nFETEi? o All right,
�. (Returns to witnoss stand)
11R. DETER That's our last question
direct - -questions.
We would like to reserve the right to

a
0
1 Laker, Crozs
2 call mrm rages for an olainion after we have
3 submitted all of our evidence,
4 CITAIr".N 8 &�.11 riclht
5 I'd like to ask for a ten minute break,
6 Pleasev before cross-examination
7
8 .(smR.T merss)
9
CFMIUMN SMITH
s Mr.. Kam. j, f �
10
V 0. RIMZEys Yeas, air.
11
(WD STOINE I S- EXHIBIT 300
12 b1APi ,D FOR IDEN rIrICATIONr )
13 CHA1P XJ SMITH: Mould You proceed, please?
14
15
16 21r o Bakes , your testimony after some background,
17
dealt with, did it not, a master plan as illu--
18 strated by wa Ilm not�Zr- oen'tsae thanumber on
19 the map (goes to exhibits on board),, that's
20 what I'm looking for, State's Exhibit number 24,
and also as illustrated by State's Exhibit 20,
21
did it riot?
22
�. yaa ,
23
24 Nora would you go to the board and using the
25 pointer, indicate to the Commission the property
that's shown on this master plan that the state

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6,98
sakes
Cross
does not now m-m.
That is, that is not _park property
currently,
(Goes to exhibits on board) The state noes
not own a piece of landin here and down through
here (indicating lower boundary on map)., along
tho' creek, across here, up here (continues up
left side of ?ark boundary on map) and then over.
It does own land up in here, owns a piece
here and it ov ns this apiece, it owns up . through
(continues along houndary,_ of miap shy on a ibit)
hore.
Does not own this corner here, which is
airport Sand
On this lido of t:ie park, it essentially
does not own this line :.in ,there (indicates area
within section 3 of map), this area here, generally
there is a lot of Zigs and zags in there and
it comes hack to the road about at this area and
comes do%m the road, to a point down Mere.
And then it does, not have some land in here,
there's a piece in here that it does not own,
right in here (indicating pWnts an ewe of area 1)
And then, another long piece tizat comes out

u
z
W
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C1;i9
Iea
Cross
into about Cie end of the creek,
And then, it dons not own this land in
here and the lands, you can see the zig and
sack, the Land along 140 (indicating),
lu that good. enough?
CL
yea, gen eral t y span%inq then, it is fair to ffia
that as viewed on Exhibit 23, the state neither
cans the proposed site nor the Land bordering
140 between 140 and the present park to the
northwest and the southeast of the proposed site,
.is that ��
L
(Interposing) What's correct.
Q.
CMGM accurate?
Have a seat,
L
( Returns to wi tneas stand).
i believe you have --- you are aware that the
proposed site is rude up of several property.
Which Wake Stone has options to acquire the
property if it is able to acquire the mining
permit, you are .aware?
L
I am aware of that,
As a matter of fact, you have met with some of
those property owners in the past, didn't you?
Yes.

a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Eake s Cross
OL you you have indicated that one of your
ii is land acquisition for the pars?
�. XeS
You mot with thoso prior O�mers in attempting
to determine wheat the land acquisition passihilit
have been or would be for that particular tract?
A. That's correct.
Now. I believe you had a meeting o say, with Mr.
Steve Conrad of the Department and Bobby -
Finanuel,p one of the vvmers of that property, is
that right?
L That meeting did not involves Mr. Conrad,
4All right p who -eras on that meeting besides you
and Hre rmanuol?
L I met with Mro Emanuel and a land officer from
the Departumnt of Administration,
And what was Agro rmnuel° s purpose in meeting
With you?
�. Mrm Emanuel, was interested in selling a tract
of laud or trading a tract of land,
And did he indicate that he would sail to the
park for less expenaively than he would sell to
other private interests?
�. In all honesty � I don o t recall if he made that

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1:akasa Cross
statement at all. reb did discuss the possibilities
of acquisition.
You did not acquire his tract, did you?
L We did not.
why?
L At the timo we chid not have the the budget that
would allow, Wb had hoped to sell a surplus
tract of land that doom not show on these maps, but
it does s:iow in the plan on the acquisition page,
an eighty-eight acre tract to the south of I40,
generally to the south of the --- the current
North Harrison Ave, it's off of North Harrison
Ave on the south silo of 140,
We were unable to sell that tract of land,,
Had we boon able to, the receipts from that
may have been use d- unable in purchasing Mr.
Emanuel e s property,
OL Did you consider condemning any of these eleven
ot-mer ° s property in this area?
L I believe there was some discussion about whether
we could, in terms of again, having adequate
funds, Now -- you cannot °a the state is just not
able to go out and condemn land, it has to have
authority v of course, from the pro -- from the

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
d 02
Lal.es C.:ror; 3
Council of State and the governor, and, it also
has to have the money to be deposited in the bank.
Q� So# you personally representing the parlta would
like to condo ran, but you have not received any
approval or any authorization to begin condemnation
proceedings in any of this property, is that
correct:?
Well, the I don't believe there is a represen-
tative of the Division of Parks and Recreation
that likes to condemn land.
�. Well, you would like to acquire the land
voluntarily firsto but, if you couldn't, you
would consider condennnation $ is that not right?
L Yes, sir.
Now# the same scenario that developed with Mr.
Emanuel has developed Ath other landowners on
the exact tract that Mr. Bratton alas options
on, hadn°t it?
That is, you have met attempting to make
acquisition and been unable to do spa?
A. I believe ? _r. 1:7.nanuel is the only owner other
than the discussions then with ---- with the ---
with Alr. EZdams that occurred at the director
level(,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Croa s
hell, let's move on to the discussion and you're
speaL ing of Mr. Trtv-, Adams.
�b Yes, sir,,
Who was actino as zoning attorney for ~fake Stone
at that time, is that correct?
Yes, sir,
In those ocmmunications between the Department,
and t;sere I'r. speaking of the Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development,
for which the Parks and ?ecreation Divis�on
is one of the divimionn, is that correct?
A, YeS
Under that Departnment,
It hm it dmv1v_md that the position of
De*j,,)artman. t, which is over your division,
at that time was that the ;Mate will not purchase
the property now or in the foreseeable future,
is it not?
I can n t testify to th&e foreseeable future,
i can testify that it was decided .that the
state would not r�urc'tase the land then and there
at that paint in time,
I shmi you what's been identified as Wake
Stond ass rxhibi t 3 % a letter to Mr. Adams from

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
aices
Cross
Walton Jones, tithe is mr, ;falton Jones?
He is the doputu socretart�r of the Department,
of the Department of iNatural - r?essources and
Communit-y Development,,
Mould that he a position overall over the
Division of larks?
L
Yes
OL
So, would -,-IOU just react paragraph 2 out loud,
please?
"Xt has been our intention to acquire that
tract of haul as an addition to U'mstead Park,
In ;;pursuit of that objective via recently had
a preliminary appraisal made. This appraisal
indicated L:'Iat t1W cost of the property would be
such that its purciase by the Stata lwould not be
feasible. C!ansequently, the state will not
purchase this property now or in the foreseeable
future# regardless of whether it is rezoned,"
And that's still the states position as articula
by ;fro Jones, so far as you know, is it not?
It would x:ave to be unless he has changed or the
secretary has changed his, mind.
Where does that leave tine landowner as to the
use of this property, if you're successful in

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
01
ia;:os
.R
Ctw Zr o.. 3
blocking its use for an%r -hing other than its
current state as natural .and?
If the state does not pnrchase the land, I --
I don ° t knov-y where it leaves the'.
Doean'° t it occur to ;you that constituted a
deprivation of the proporty to them?
Vlt,, . ,-r rr.s Objection, objection.
PdRO KnlZrY c I would like to finish my
question.
Giro Rinzeyr? ?n the sense of the taking of the
property when that' cannot utilize the property for
anything?
MR. HEF,Ti :: Objection, that is a legal
conclusion.
CHAT RWTU SMTTn o Sustained,
(Mr. Kimzey) You have objected to the proposed
mining urge, has the Parks and Pecrestion Division
considered whnts1er or not it would object to a
shopping center being built on that park -- on
that plot?
i -- we have not peen confronted with that
prospect at this point in time.
Youave got an opinion about whether you would
though, don o t you?

a
f
Ch
U.
0
z
W
Z
Z
O
s
m
0
v
0
4
V'
Z
W
IL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
l t) .
Rakes Cross
Weill o again, I can ° t give `vou an opinion an
something that I --- I have not seen a set of
Plans for or any kind of a proposal for.
You can talk about a shoPPinq enter like
Cameron Village or 77"issio' n Valley or 6060 I don't
know What you°re talking about.
You've given : eve'ral opinions based on hypothatical
with your attorney on direct, isn't that correct?
L I've given sorms opinions, yes.
And you refuse to give an opinion to me based on
by pothatic:als that I've given you concerning,
sate, a shonwing center at that location?
L My reluctance is because a shopping center can
be a whole lot of different scales and scopes.
hell, let's just transpose one like you transposed
Crabtree quarry, say, it's Crabtree Valley Shopping
Center at that .1ocationp do you object to that?
It wauld depend, it would depend on how WIG plan
was developed,
Ffr o Fakes, you're ' not being candid, you know
you could ObJect to it, wouldn't *ou?
tell, if -- if there was a facility that was
proposed for that resource that utilized the
topography anal the +existing vegetation ,,appropriatai

Fakes
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Crops
and was not generating a horrendous sounds or
dial not cause to be aevelopea large tracts of
impervious materials with total run off, there
would he some --there would Se some problems
if those conditions we ren•I t
Agair o it's hard -- it's hard for me to
relate to your line of questioning without
seeing the kindz of proposals you're talking
out o
A small sho?ping center in there Guam
4interposi.ngj T Lsaid# aimi.lar to Crabtree Creek,
Oh, Crahtroo o
Crabtree Shopping Center, just as you said,
similar to Crabtree anarryo
I don't think you could put one in there similar
to Crabtree Vallev,
Cartain ly, if you could you would object to
it, wouldn8-t %rou?
Yeas, beeause you vtnAd have to level the si.teo
2f there was a large industrial operation there,
you thinly they Parks and. Recreation Division
would object to it?
What a s a large industrial operation?
Well, similar say to rsTestinc house out here on USl o

A
O
N
i
cc
0
0
0
0
Z
W
Z
Z
0
m
0
V
0
4
V
2
W
d
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Crass
MR. UUM.E1111 Objection. No other -- I don't
brali.eve --le suitabilitY of that land for other
uses is at i usue or neither harp any other use
been aroposed to ray knowleaIzo.
Objection sustained.
:rove on to a different
line, Chairman.
(Mr. Ki iuzuy) Your primary concern as I understand
your t oa tiwony regarding Lhe impact on the park ....
on the existing earlk, is a noise concern, as you
testified, is that correct?
That is a c oncarn.
Well, that' a your primary concern on t1u3 impact
on the exi atfz;g paric, is it not?
TLhere's visual conciarns, too.
k But, the Noise was the printary one, is that
correct?
A.
'10i le: is Cite the concern I testified to.
�+ Yes, that's 'ghat I thought,
Now, ;you state that you want and listened
to tJie quarry -- C:ralatroe quarry and you .ward
some noises.
iiave you norer 11;aen alone Highway ?a here
(indicating poiri t on Ma� ?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
knee Cross
L shat ° s not "ighway 70 a
Well, I guar; I' m mistaken than, cohere is
Fiahway 70 on this board?
L [" on t.io ton
Vn_ here, Okz1v,
'Rave 1rou aver beran along Highway 70 Nora?,'
A. lie s p 7 have
Have You olbse rvaill hoi se levels is along Highway 70?
�. Yes, i have.
+ What coo they sound like to you?
.gain,, without having been there recently and
having sat there T ..w Z really; have observed
noises of the highway at --r alone 70, but to say
2 have current %»nm-?1edae of the noises generated
at ema at the entrance, 1'd have to say 2 don't
really know.
voti' vn been able to testify to the noises
.you observed at C r. a?btree q uarry t umren't you?
J• I've been there recently r yes.
And you're, T'vP forgotten your title, but you're
the design ane r?r-�-veloment chief o+' the park
system and you can't testify as to the noises
you've heard at one of your parks on the highway,
there at the entrance to your park?

W
A.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Eahes
Cross
;.
Z deal twi.th about forty areas across tide state
and T --- ? couldn't tostify to knowing the ' nodee
lovely at every single location around every
3inglo ; ex%.
Q.
I'm juat anking you if 4�ou've of servad the noise,
•ou ; can testify to noise level Later, just what i
,vou ob:: c rvc d ,
Yon d!�saribad the noise, told me how it
was ar_nov; ng to wTeu but you can't do that on
highway 7 0?
L.
IVell, yec, T could standing at tho highway, but,
have not #.ecar 'bacl_ in away from that highway �
in .recant tinay that l can recall there T was
there pumo sly 'Co listen to the stounds,
i� I.:u-siness at the ;park in recent years has r
been to drive to the office.
Standina at the. h ighwa y, wha!: noise did you
observe?
L
Traffic -- traffic noices.
T.at VolUn.e i��G+. �J lChat in relation to -- what �M
did you th.in'. Y,-Ms a laud noise, soft noise?
ft.R.o OAWUV 2 Objection.
CI?.1.1-TU"C"N S7--U F z Oh j ection sustained.
HRo O LY: He's already testified

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ake� Cross
that he eoesn't -<- 'lie ' doesn't have any specific
knowledge of that,
?ono XP ZEY : Nov, I want him to --
CFIAI MM:7�N SMAZTI1: ( Interposing) Objection
sustained,
You°re hadgaring the witno3s
tie KV.,!1ZEY: I ° d like that: in the record,
j•' ve 0:101:cd this 60or and they've had him
,testify as to !-ho lottanens, ro:lative loudness
of noise and I thine I'm entitled to.
'17R. 0AJKTF,1Y1 I think our testimony was
lin- ited to the quarry{ noise.
113R@ �1. r,mY I�. s our testimony was limited to
the sou.M of trucker entering and leaving the
quarry and the sounds of a quarry generally,
We diC not ask ?hire to testify Vim.
traffic noises qanera13.y,
CHATPYM' STITT-11: 140 sustained the objection.
Plo-ase proceed,
Wr, a Kimzoy) P.re there trucks using Righway 70?
X Yen,
o�i -s
And they produce _r _es similar to these you
heard?
L Not similar to the ones I heard coming and going

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Emotes ..�
Cross
from that crua rr- o
Hsve you been on highway 40 over here on the
border of the -- not the border of the park but
the -- say, the border of the 1.roposed site?
A. l e m m orry?
Have ycu boon on M fgrtmy 400 Interstate 40?
vase
A P the border a- s ay v the interechange to the
Reedy Creek Load there?
A. Ye s o Z have .
What noises Chid you observe there?
�► Whining tires, highway sounds that --- 1 could not
chive you a 10vol of noise
When you were there dick you notice, the helicopter
corridor that goes along Highway 40 there dean
there along the highway?
Did I notice the e 1 i copter corridor?
T don ° t know how to respond tol.- :that unless
there in a helicopter flying down,
10r. sorry o that was probably an inarticulate
phrase.
Did you notice the sounds of helicopters
followinn the corridor of Highway 40 there,
overhead?

l�
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lases Cross
x . 011 ° t !:O_Jieve I raid,
NOW about w1le3n 1 ou :,yere on the border of the
Park near near the property on it, have
you heard 1{elic:ontearn going up and dolim?
L I'm Sure I've heart: helicopters. I could not give
you a for insUance of a,d== helicopters or
anvthin like U-tat, flying over,
,iov I can't anvoe:r t12at effectively.
You don't �.-aci �;-� 11�* recall 'hearing helicopters,
is that correct?
X NoW, wlher,� ar!;! _Jou talking W>om, again?
01 TaUking, about. at tyre borders of the park and
the picnic area n ar the -- and -- and along the
cresol: near Cie prn,-posed location,
IL z've heard aircraft while in the park, and over
the yearn I've heard ;'Olicopter aircraft and 1
have 1hear' fixed tiing aircraft.
4�xy� rues :icon �:as, 11ave you beard helicopters at
t:iat particular location --
(interposing) Objection.
Wr. a.inzov) Al ace -at to or near the park?
ObJection. Again, on the
saire. grou-nds. This T7i tneas, we to asked him
to testify with respect to truck noises at a

Z
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ZaKes
Cross
quarry, noises of a quarry generally, I do not
recall --
CHAIRMAN SVJTVa objection sustained,
Please go ahead, faro ni.mxey,
(Mr, Kimzey) You did testify on direct concerning
truck noises at Crabtree quarry?
�.
yes,
i�
YOU said you went to the entrance of Crabtree
quarry and.back about a thousand feet on a pretty
straight open shot to it, is that correct?
Twelve hundred Feet, yes.
What did you observe as how you got in and out
of Crabtree quarry, in terms of hills, incline?
L
I did not go dawn in the quarry, There was a
no trespassing sign, I did not pans that.
Did you observe what an incline the truck had
to make that you were hearing?
t the point I was was standing, I was near
that gate and no, I did not observe the incline.
You don ° t know that that is a vary steep incline?
hell, I have been --p I have been into the quarry.
All right,
I have been in with permission of the quarry
ownera and I have -- I have observed those inclines

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L
Hakes
Cross
4
Would you agree with me that that is a very steep
incline that the loaded trucks must 'makes coming
UP out of that :quarry?
L
Yes, that last one is.
Now# at the proposed site, you come down Harrison
Avenue # loaded truck if it was coming out of the
proposed site, down -tociards the intersection,
of Harrison .avenue and Reedy Creep Toad before
you got three hundred feet from the park, that's
fairly well downhill, isn l,t it?
L
Coming from where?
From the entrance to the proposed site down the
existing dirt road,
L
Yes, as 1 recall, it's fairly level once you
get in there.
Fairly level, starts off downhill and levels out.
R.i.ght, right v
And when they would pull out into Ready Creek
Road that's level?
You mean Harrison Ave,
OL
dell, Harrison Avenue, yes, sir.
Well, yeah, but they're on an incline before
they pull out. There's a grade there coming _..
they come up a grade- -

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
N
18
" 19O
0
s
z
20
W
21
a
m
u 22
0
4
U'
d
23
24
25
Fakes
Cross
(Interposing) Very slight grade.
�.
-- and I'm not sure how much atackroom apace
they'd have there, whether they 1 d be on a level
when they got to that intersection with a big
truck or not right now,
But, that grade woule. be very slight in comparison
with the Crabtree quarry, which you observed
and heard sounds. from.?
�.
Yes # but t1-sosa' were trucks coming out of the pit
Vnd . up v.
When you turn off of Harrison to go onto 140,
of course, it's downhill all the ray, isn't it?
aL
Yes o
QU
So, you would not have trunks coming up the
steep incline to compare noises with that you
have compared out at Crabtree quarry?
MR* HEMRo Well* objection, again.
I believe the witness testified to the
Bounds of the trues entering and leaving an
intersection at the entrance to the Hello Teer
Quarry, and I believe the quegtiOning alone that
line is directed to the sounds of the trucks
coming up to the intersection with DuralWigh
Road or Dura1eigh Roadp at that point and then

a
0
N
E
S
0
N
0
0
s
z
W
z
z
0
a'
m
C
u
c
a
z
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
S Cross
pulling out into the road and entering. I don't
remember him testifying anything about trucks
coming up out of the quarry ....
MR0 KIMEY S (interposing) Mr. Chairman, he
testified he heard trucks from twelve hundred
feet away, he couldn't see them he doesn't know
where -they were, obviously they were coming up
the hill*
C I ' SHMI t Objection overruled.
goo KIM% Ya Go ahead and answer it
Could you ask that again?
(Hro Kimsey) The question was# at the proposed
site you mould have no similarity of trucks coming
up a steep inaline, such as those that you heard
at Crabtree quarry?
If therm is a pit there, I don't know. If they're
coming out of the pit at the proposed site,, there
would be similar sounds.
I might add that I did not see a truck
come out and pass me'and go out onto the road
while I stood there and listened.
So, they somewhere else down below and
did not come out, but, I know that grade exists,
that you are talking about.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 '
21
22
23
24
25
aw Ll
.fakes
Cross
Q
Now did you know how far away you were from the
Crabtree quarry when you heard these* sounds
that you've related to the C mission?
A
Scale map measures,
So, you didn't take any measurements on your
actual visit, but you've looked at a map since
that time?
L
That's right, lookad at maps before that time,
as well, since I' d been therm before.
And you've testified, I believe, that you felt like
the picnic area was some twelve hundred feet
from the entranco to the park, is that right?
I'm — how far is the picnic area from the
entrance to the park?
A.
From the entrance to the park?
At the Reedy Crook area.
I testified that the 1— it was about thirteen
hundred feet, I believe, from the entrance road,
1790 and Harrison Ave. intersection.
Thirteen hundred feat?
That was -- that's a general figure because where
do you goo to the edge of the picnic area, the
center or this -- you know, it would actually �-
there would be some picnics tables closer than

0
z
O
0
0
s
z
W
Z
O
m
0
V
O
4
V
Z
W
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$ Cross
that, too, it is sort of a general average: figure
into the use area.
Is that the --- is that kind of the we®tern border
of the park there at Harrison where you 4 re talking
about at the intersection?
There is a western and northern boundary ----
southern boundary at that point,
In the picnic area about - a thousand feet in the
park from the western border-- thirteen hundred
feet?
well, it about eight or nine hundred, feet in
from the park boundary,
About eight or nine hundred feat in From the
park boundary?
By map measure, again,, I have not --
(Interposing) I understand,
— taped it or anything like that.
Novp you just testified, did you not, that the
picnic areas are eight or nine hundred feet from
this western park boundary here, is that correct?
rrom that boundary?
From this western park boundary, yes. This is
the park and this is the site*
No, not in sight hundred feet from that point,

0
IL
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On
Fakes Cross
Eight hundred -- you were asking mo about the
intersection and the park entrance,
That's hero, right (indicating point on map)?
L yes,
1 thought you said it was about thirteen hundred
feet from there
A. It's thirteen hundred feot from the access road
State Rosa 1790, going into the property here
tinAicates on mapj,
! Well, I'm trying to understand what you're saying,
I thought you said the picnic area was
eight or nine hundred feet from the western park
boundary,
�. No, I mentioned there was a v astern and southern
park boundary and you specifically asked me about
the entrance to the :park and I responded going
into the park from the entrance, it's about eight
or nine hundred feet
4 How far is it from the park boundary along here to
the picnic area, of course, it gets further away
when you get further away from this picnic. but,
say at the closest point?
L Without a asap to relate to, it is a couple of
hundred feet, I would say,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Erakes Cross
A couple --
(Interposing) Or three hundred feet, that's
an estimate.
All rf gilt ,
L If you Q d like ate to get a map to Measure o I
can toll you specifically.
And is that located in this area --- this general
area here? (indicating point on map)
L It° s in that general vicinity and up a little
further.
Okay, up -in here (indicating different point
higher up on map)?
A Ltp a little further,
a Right in here (indicating ';third point on map)
L I told you it is a use area, it is not a pi.npoi.nt.,
we it ® I 9 m not trying to pin f t $ it's in this
area? (pointing to location on neap)
�. P'.ight o
�► Were you here when the . Were you in the hearing
yesterday?
L Yes® I was.
a Did you hear the testimony that the distance
from the proposed plant site alone this area
ranged froM twenty --four hundred feet to about

f
O
V
W
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fakes Cross
eighteen hundred .feet here? Undicating points
on Iimap Y o
�. I'm sure I heard that, Z don't recall. specifically.
Were you in the room when it was testiftod-.1that
this point here was fourteen hundred and seventy-
five ..feet from the ,plant area?
L Fourteen seventy-five? A figure Z had estimated
was thirteen hundred
3 believe you said twelve or thirteen hundred,
L Right
.if this,* say# point was two thousand feet from the
plant area, then v over the picnid :would be an
additional distance to the two thousand feet from
this borderline of some unspecified , , sum that
you're not sure -.about how gar it i®?
;L i believe you said it was eighteen to two thousand
.feet o
OL Yes, it's eighteen up here (pointing to map).
L lI, �-
(Interposing) Around two thouand here, twenty—
four4- hundred feet,
�. Wallp i estimated hbout nineteen to that other
edge of the center and if I said a couple of
hundred feet from the park boundary, western

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lakes CrOSs 723
park boundary, that comes out close enough;
to two thousand, I think, to be accurate
Actually, it would be over two thousand any how,
wouldn't it?
A I would not tostify to that without measuring,
but I would guess it is in the range of two
thousand to twentvIftone hundred feet to the edge
of that use area,
Mr. Fakes, you ° ve heard some remarks prior to
your testimony concerning the traffic count used b
the Department of Transportation giving you advice,
I believe ter. Rhudy responded in a letter to you --
A. (Interposing) Yes,
Concerning the traffic situation?
A. Yes
1 believe he used traffic counts supplied by
you?
l L Yeas o
4 And those traffic counts were based on peak
usage days?
L Yes p they were o
Q. They w+eren ° t an actual count, oof peak usage days
but they approximate that, is that correct?
L Well p they -- they were counts made by a traffic

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
isaxes
Cross
counter by superintendents who have been making
counts for a collection of probably thirty-six
years in .park work.
QL
Well, do you have those counts with you?
JL
I have the -- the letter with me (takes out docu
QL
(pulls out file) 1 have the counts with me.,
could you find --- what is the count that you
supplied Mr,* Rhudy?
L
For what years and what place?
11 o let's see, you wrote an inquiry- to Mr.
Rhudy which he replied too I could quote it to
you in just a minute (looking through files), I
thought you were aware of that, using a peak
traffic count;$, and that's the figure I'm looking
for,
Mr. Rhudy's letter is dated August 15th,
what was the traffic volume you gave him upon
which lie made those calculations, what was your
traffic count used?
A. For where? I gave him several counts.
Well, for peak: day usage at the parka
MR* HPMER S Objection, 13�dlieve
believe Mr. Fakes testified as to visitation rates
and I'm not at all sure that the traffic counts

0
N
f
0
0
0
s
z
W
z
z
O
m
0
u
0
a
u
z
a
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
tiv iv
Eakes Cross
are ane and the sam thing.
H& K EY: Well# this is information he
supplied for an earlier exhibit and I think
I'm entitled to that.
CRAIF SMITH s; Sustain the Objection,
MR, KIMZE Y" i Sustain the —
CHAIMW S141' Il: Visitation is ghat, I thin.,
was used,
(Mr. rAmzey) Are the average daily vehicles'
usage into the park materially lower than your
peak days?
Xesa
KR9 HEHTER: Objection,
AIM= SMITH: Explain, please,
MRo HEETBR$ pardon?
CEMIR M SMITHs Explain your objection,
please,
MRa HHITHR: He didn't testify as to traffic
volute, He testified that the visi.taticsn rates
are the numbers of people entering and leaving
the park in any one day and they could all be in
one big )busy or some other vehicle, plus, we did,
I bseslieve # stipulate to the lettor that you're
referring to (To Mr, Kimzey)

1
r'
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
N
18
0
0
19
s
20
W
Z
O 21
m
V 22
0
u
W 23
6
24
25
ti
is1
Fakes
Cross
Mt. KIMEY : The letter he's referring
to and stipulated to says, "based on the estimated
traffic volume...0 it's to Mr. Fakes and he
supplied the estimated traffic volume.
I don't see how the record could be complete.
I Wiew it would be an error if you left it out
if I don't shots the foundation for this stipulated
letter,
CHAIR SMXTH. overruled,
(Mr. Vim$ey) What estimated traffic did you
suppl.�► to VArm Rhuity, for hitr; to prepare these
opinions?
�.
I gave a figure for -- for Ready Creek?
Yeah,
I gave him a figure of two thousand thirty-three,
OL
would you see if you can find what day that
traffic volume occurs?
I might add. that these figures were given me by
telephone fcom the superintendents :which they
would corroborate, if they were here,
So, the data came from them by telephone.
You know, don't you, that you can't find the
day that that occurs in there because they traffic
count doesn't reflect that number, is that true?

f
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.► 7
Fakes Cross
�. I have since looked at these because I picked
them up at your raguest,
Ye s •
And once I got them I looked through them and
the figure that was given by phone, which I used
as information that the superintendent gave me
and I accepted as a realistic figure.
I have no • question --_
(Interposing) It was not in there, but I can. --
(interposing) Right
--.find a -figure that would would parallel
that,
There's a figure in there that may be a little
larger than that?
'What's right.
And that figure just isn't in there, isn't that
correct?
That particular figure is not, but a larger figure
is.
And the point to be made is that this traffic
count you supplied Mr. Rhudy upon which he wade
his traffic analysis really was in terns of averagac
usage, on a weekend or during the weak is a very hit
traffic count, which is not often achieved, maybe

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
N
18
N 19 0
0
0
20
W
}
21
m
22
O
Q
u
W 23
d
24
25
Eak.ess
Cross
only one day or two days out of the year, 1
think, i.sn o t that true?
L
Well, it couM be more days than that, but it
was a small percentage of the time, but it was
what Y felt that I would have to give. Mr. Phudy
as an optimum use, if we were talking about
safety.
Did you also elevate that figure to project
usage at that level, from two thousand some
odd to four thousand some odd?
L
i d i4 not. The four thousand. figure -- use
figure cane from figurers taken ::right from the
master plan given capacity for parking areas
and turnover rates if all of the facilities were
placedo and it was not from any kind of a traffic
counto
96
That was a projection, though?
That's right,
And that was projected under what time, what
year?
At the time that the park would be Meted, and
as I testified earlier, it depends on appropriati,
as to when we complete the park. it could be
19900

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r 29
Lakes Cross
4All right,
It could be sooner,
When ;you say "coMplote the park", do you mean
acquire all the land that's shown on the master
plan?
To complete the park as it is now, it would
entail acquisition of land,
w®11, ;all the land that is not now owned is shown
on the master, plan?
Well, there are certain lands that would be
considered buffer, but they would be essential
alsoe to implement the plan, yes,
Well, I'm confused as to to how you say they
park will be completed in 1990 if the position
of the state is that the state will not purchase
any property now for in the foreseeable future.
IIo you thin: that does not include 1990?
The future would certainly include 19 -- to 1990,
I would think.
.'ell, then, can you give me a better idea of when
your plan might might be put into affect?
I -- you're responding to one letter and -I can
only respond to the same letter and I would
guess that that is a position currently taken by

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
[Bakes
Cross s
an administration.
Well, it's not really important whether it is
a letter or not, it's whether it is the position
and you've _
11R O OAKLEY a Object,
(Mr. Kimzey) And you've testified it is the
position, have you not?
Pita OAKLEY t Objection,
Eight;, now, yes,
M. OAKLEY: I think the letter is in and
he testified to the letter and it says "foreseeable
future" which could mean innumerable things ---
CWAInM SMITH: ( Interposing) Sustained.
RJR, FRENCH: Sustained.
14P.- OAKELY a -- and he's answered the question
CHAIPIiAN SMITH: Objection sustained.
tiro Kinney) Men - you reviewed those traffic
counts, is it true.,-- what did you find was the
average day -- weekday use of the Reedy Creek
section?
Average weoMay, Ied have to go back through it
again.
It was in the one hundred, less than two hundred,
wasn't it?
I couldn't tell you, fir, Kimaey.

0
N
Z
O
N
O
O
n
O
Z
Z
O
m
u
0
a
u
Z
W
d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ekes Cross
I looked f or peak days, as I mentioned
to you earlier because I was concerned with
safety and I I felt again, that pear days
would be where we would have the greatest
potential for a hazard to the users.
I was asking when you reviewed those after you
got the data, did ;you not make any average
calculations on it?
Again, when I went through there afterwards,
I was looking for the figures that I had been
given over the phone,.and I'll admit that that
figure was wrong but other figures were correct.
So, you made no average calculations, in answer
to my question, is that correct?
I' did not make ; any average calculations other
.than to ascertain when the greatest percentage of
use was in tl a 'park and it appeared about fifty
percent of the tiyme.on the weekdays,
CHAIR ULN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, cohere is this
Fine of questioning leading to?
1 , RIIIZEY $ To the and, I'm right now
through with him.
CHAIRS SMITH: I sure am glad to hear it,
go ahead.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"ed2
(Laughter)
24R9 KINZEY: No further questions,
CHAIPJMH SMITH: Redirect,
14Ro - ,OAKUY s Can we have just one second?
(confers with others at counsel table)
MR, HEETERa We have no further questions.
AS I indicated earlierr we would like to recall
this witness after the state has submitted. ,all
Of its testimony,
CHAZWQN SMITH: Thank you.
You may step downy Xr, Eake s .
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
CIIAIPYD W' SHITH t I think we're going to have
to recess this hearing until some future date.
I think I would appreciate it if the attorneys
would approcah the bench, Tease.
(Conference at Commission table)
MS. P'MUCH 4 The hearing is closed.
iWHEItEUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS DOERE AA700RNED UNTIL
A FUTURE DATA TO HE SPECIB'IED BY THE CQMyIggIpAi,

0
O
U.
N
O
O
O
z
Li
Z
Z
O
}
m
0
V
C
Q
Z
W
IL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
r33
CERTIFICATE
Io :d s Annette P. ZWers, Court Paporter and
otary Public in and for the State of North Carolina, duly
ommissioned, qualified and authorized to takes and certify
earingse do hereby certify that I electronically reported
arbatim, the foregoing proceedings at the time and place
foresaid and then reduced same to typewritten forte that
he record appearing in pages '�(51- 73-CJ is a true and
corgdot transcript of said proceedings to the
ast of gay ability and understandingy that I am not related
* any of the parties to this actions that I am not of
)unsel and that I am not interested in the event of this
`cause O
ni WIT14ESS WHEREOF,, I have hereunto sat my hand
.'affixed my official notarial seal this the 15th day of
tuber, 1980,
commission expires 6-2-82 o