Wake Stone transcript Vol 4

r,.
yamic P. eariN aNd Assoctatcs
A
GENERAL COURT REPORTING SERVICES
RALEIGH • DURHAM • 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
VOLUME IV
Before: The North Carolina Mining Commission:
Dr. Henry B. Smith, Chairman;
Dr. 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, member.
A P P E A R A N C E
For the Commission: Ms. Becky French, Department Hearing
Officer, appearing as counsel to Commiss
For the Department: Daniel C. Oakley, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
P. 0. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
David Rester, Esquire
Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs
Department of NRCD
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
For the Petitioner: James M. Kimzey, Esquire
Kimzey, Smith and McMillan
Attorneys at Law
P. 0. Box 150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
At Raleigh, North Carolina.
Tuesday and Wednesday, December 16 and 17, 1980.1_.
P. O. BOX 30112
RALEIGH, N. C. 27622
[phone]
201 N. ROXBORO ST.
DURHAM, N. C. 27701
[phone]
203 MAIN ST.
OXFORD, N. C. 27565
[phone]

LA
B
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
T A B L E
OF CONTENTS
E X A
M I N A T I O N S
Witness
Examination
By Whom
Page
Hazard,
Direct
Mr. Oakley
759
Richard
Cross
Mr. Kimzey
779
Commission
800
Connors,
Direct
Mr. Oakley
806
John
Cross
Mr. Kimzey
821
Commission
824
Colloquy
826
Gardner,
Direct
Mr. Oakley
828
Charles
Cross
Mr. Kimzey
853
Redirect
Mr. Oakley
878
Re -cross
Mr. kKimzey
879
Conrad,
Direct
Mr. Oakley
882
Stephen
Cross
Mr. Kimzey
889
Commission
903
Re -cross
Mr. Kimzey
914
Redirect
Mr. Oakley
93.8
Further
Mr. Kimzey
919
Re -cross
Adams,
Rebuttal
Mr. Kimzey
921
Thomas
Cross Rebuttal
Mr. Oakley
927
Bratton,
Rebuttal
Mr. Kimzey
931
John
Cross
Mr. Oakley
942
Rebuttal
—i—

1-4
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
Table of Contents(Continued)
witness
Bratton
Examination
Further
Rebuttal
Argument
Argument
By Whom
Mr. Kimzey
Commission
Colloquy
Mr. Oakley
Mr. Kimzey
-ii-
PP 2 e
948
951
955
956
974
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
E X H I B I T S
Exhibit Description Page
Department's 2T Aerial photo of proposed site 734
with overlays
Defendant's 28 Schematic diagram of expansion 734
Wake Stone's 31 Core sample of stone 827
Commission's 1 Area map of Cary and Raleigh 956
and 2

14-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
21
24
2E
-734-
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, Court
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of North
Carolina in the Governor's Press Conference Room,
Administrative Building, Jones Street, Raleigh, North
Carolina, on Tuesday December 16, 1980, continuing at
9:00 a. m.
The hearing was reconvened, and the following
proceedings were had to wit:
(DEPARTMENT EXHIBITS 27 and 28
MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)
-CHAIRMAN SMITH: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. I want to call this meeting of the
Mining Commission to hear the appeal of Wake
Stone against the State of North Carolina to
order.
We are a little cozy up here. I hope you
are comfortable. Becky'is not sitting on a book
today, and I feel much better about that. (Laughter
It is my understanding that the Wake Stone's

0
N
f
Cr
0
0
0
Z
W
_
a
NJ
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
21
2
2
2
2
Colloquy -735-
and the State's attorneys have an issue they
wish to set before us which is a modification
of the original permit request.
I don't have any preference as to who goes
first.
MR. KIMZEY: I have none either. Mr.
Oakley, do you want me to start off.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey. .
MR. KIMZEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
not sure that -- I'm concerned about your
characterization of a modification of the permit
request, because I'm not sure that we would
think that we had a modification.
MR. SMITH: Would you please explain, sir?
MR. KIMZEY: And what we would do is just
simply set forth our position. There has been
one additional fact to occur since the continued
9 hearing was recessed last time.
0 And that is, that Wake Stone Corporation,
as we will put into evidence on rebuttal, has
2 acquired at the site an additional -- an option
3 on an additional twenty-five (25) acres.
4 If you will recall, the exhibits which I
5 could point out to you, but which are not displayed

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
rx;
23
24
25
Colloquy -736-
now, there was a square of about twenty-five
acres in the -- let me point it out to you here,
if we can lift up the overlays.
This is the map that was in use quite
often, if you recall, and as several exhibit
numbers. And the area that I'm pointing to in
the bottom right-hand corner outlined by this
rectangle where there's a couple of residences
here, and some rental property here was not at
the time under control of Wake Stone Corporation.
(Indicating on map)
And Wake Stone has, since the date of the
last hearing, obtained an option to acquire that
property.
Now, Wake Stone's position on that is, that
that is a fact -- of course, I think the commissio e
are entitled to all of the facts.
It's also our position that our original
application, our original plan is solid, is
viable, and should gain this commissions' approval
and that's what we're seeking.
Now, one of the factors that the statutes
and the rules set forth is that the commission
can put conditions on the granting of any applicat'o
rs
Ff�

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
Colloquy -737-
And I think if you'll read the rules, you'll
find that to be true.
And we would present this evidence only
in this light. That we feel that we have an
excellent protective plan for the park, which
is a consideration here.
We would put on evidence of this additional
acreage which is now available which would be --
it would be possible, for instance, to move
the plant site to that, and that would be a
lower elevation, and possible better screening
from a visual and noise standpoint.
We're not proposing that you -- we're not
making a modification in our plans to require
that, or to request that, but if the commission
in its discretion, for instance, wanted to grant
the proposal with the condition that the applicant
Wake,Stone, work with the state -- Air. Conrad's
department in considering relocation of the
plant site, if that's an advantage from both
parties' standpoint, then they could attach
that condition to the grant of the proposal.
We are not trying to change horses in mid-
stream, but we are trying to offer all of the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
f 18
a
ti
19
O
0
20
W
Z
0 21
m
S 22
O
4
V
W 23
a
24
25
Colloquy -738-
facts which are available, and this is a new
fact which is now available.
And we think that that could be, for
instance, handled by the commission granting
the application with the condition that you
either build the plant as it is outlined before
you now, or if Mr. Conrad's department felt
there was some advantages to the utilization of
,this property, then that -- be permitted to work
along the directions that the state wants in that
area.
And I think that from all the testimony
so far, and we'll certainly hear from Mr. Conrad,
I would say that the parties are able to work
under those types of conditions.
But, we don't think that we are altering
our permit. We understand that we're here on
a permit application. We feel that all the
evidence about the permit -- the permit application
is applicable.
This is an additional factor which has come
about. We think the commission is entitled to
know that, and if the commission desires to use
that information in any way conditioning a permit,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Colloquy -739-
then I think that's the commission's prerogative.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, point of clarificatio
MR. KIMZEY: (Interposing) Yes, sir.
MR. SMITH: Could you go back to your map --
it's a little hard to see from here --T and trace
on that, first, I-40 -- Highway I-40. Just
point to it with your finger.
MR. KIMZEY: Interstate 40 is right -- the
only place it's drawn on the map is right here.
(Indicating on map) It comes right down on --
MR. SMITH: (Interposing) And the entrance
to the park, please, sir.
MR. KIMZEY: The entrance to the park is
right here. (Indicating on map) Well, actually,
the entrance to the park is not shown on this
map, but the road that leads to the entrance
to the park is right here.
,MR. SMITH: Now, the road that goes in
front of the houses that you just mentioned,
where is that?
MR. KIMZEY: This existing gravel road right
here.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
MR. KIMZEY: Which leads up to the plant site

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
F
O 18
0
19
s
2 20
W
Z
Z 21
0
m
u 22
0
4
V
y 23
a
24
25
Colloquy -740-
MR. SMITH: Okay, now, I've got you.
Now, would you, again, show --
MR. KIMZEY: (Interposing) It runs parallel
more or less to I-40.
MR. SMITH: --approximately where the
twenty-five acres additional is located?
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, sir. The twenty-five
acres -- Mr. Bratton, do you want to be sure
-that I'm not--. My understanding is that we
begin at this point and follow this line. (In-
dicating on map)
MR. BRATTON: Correct.
MR. KIMZEY: Then, it comes right along this
line back straight to here, or does it come --
straight to the road. That's the additional
twenty-five acre tract.
MR. BRATTON: With the exception of the
corner.
MR. KIP'IZEY; With the exception of this
right here, which you already control, don't
you?
MR. BRATTON: No.
MR. KIMZEY: You do not control that. So,
it would be this piece of property right here.

f
O
N
f
d'
0
N
O
O
n
0
z
W
Z
0
4
m
0
u
0
a
0
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
Colloquy -741-
MR. SMITH: And that does not go up to the
roadway leading into the park parking lot?
MR. KIMZEY: No, sir. The -- this is under
the control -- the line between the park, of
course -- the park property doesn't go up the
roadway, either.
There is a road which we would propose that
you ride down when you visit the site which
parallels the newly acquired property and goes
down to what is an old -- I'd say a cabin on the
existing land which is controlled by Wake Stone.
But, you will see on the plant site visit,
if you choose to visit these places , we would
propose that you come up I-40 entrance -- exit,
come to the gravel road, and then drive out to
approximately this location to view the present
site.
'And we would also propose that you ride
down this road to give you a perception of what
type of vegetation and terrain is in here, and
also you would then parallel the newly acquired
site.
MR. SMITH: Would you outline in general on
there what part of this property shown on that

X-
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
Colloquy --742-
map is now under the control of Wake Stone?
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, sir. We had testimony
about that. If I -- again, Mr. Bratton, be sure
that you correct me if I make any mistakes.
The Wake Stone presently controls -- counting
this piece of property?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MR. KIMZEY: Or excluding that --
MR. SMITH: (Interposing) Counting the new
piece.
MR. KIMZEY: All right. It controls all the
property -- this is the park line. It controls all
of this property -- all of the property that way
and over to and including up to Crabtree Creek
and around here, all down through here to -- where,
Mr. Bratton?
MR. BRATTON: All the way down the creek --
the creak and I-40.
MR. KIMZEY: All right. This -- this map
does not show all of it.
MR. SMITH: Virtually the entire section --
MR. BRATTON: With the exception of this
corner and this little triangle, we have an option
on all the property bounded by the park line and

1 Colloquy
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-743-
Crabtree Creek and I-40..
MR. KIMZEY: So, the very west point shown
on this map at the creek, and the very far area
of this triangle right here is the only property
that is not controlled by Wake Stone.
MR. SMITH: Anyone else have any questions?
COMMITTEE: No, sir.
MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Kimzey. Ready,
Mr. Oakley?
MR. OAKLEY: Well, the Department doesn't
feel that land acquired since the application
was put in, and whatever effect it has upon the
application and the park is relevant at this
particular time.
We do feel that if it is of necessity a
modification of the permit, if it has any relevancy
at all as to the issues of the relationship with
regard. to the park, it is not a part of the
application. The Department would need some
time to review the significance of that additional
land, if there is any significance.
If it is to be considered, I think the
Department should have the first -- the first
opportunity to look at it to provide its position

a
0
N
f
cc
L6
0
0
s
Z
W
Z
Z
0
r
4
m
0
u
0
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
Colloquy -744-
to you. We don't have any objection to sitting
down with Wake Stone and going over that, but
it would take -- it will take some time, and we
don't feel that it -- at this point, we feel like
it's an interjection into the permit process
that's really not relevant, because you could
have -- it could have some impact upon the issues
and the position that we've taken so far.
MR. KIMZEY: Mr. Smith, in response to that,
Mr. Oakley will agree. I called him the day that
was acquired and asked that the Department sit
down with us to see if it interjected anything
new, and I was refused that opportunity. Is that
right, Mr. Oakley?
MR. OAKLEY: What we said at that time was
that we would -- we would be glad to look at it,
but it would take a while to review that particular
significance of that particular land.
I don't think anybody could look at it and
say, here's the land, and find out what effect
that might have on the purposes of the park.
MR. KIMZEY: My understanding is that the
State will not sit down and look at that piece
as far as the present application is concerned.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A
O
N
18
0
19
0
Z
20
W
21
a
m
22
0
4
W 23
a
24
25
Colloquy
-745-
And we have invested the time and money and
the energy of all of you, as well as Wake Stone's
and the State's money at this point, and we
feel that for you to say that you would ignore
that, would be kind of like taking a position
of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
monkey.
It is a fact. We're not trying to alter
or modify our plan, but we're perfectly willing
for the State to take all the time they want to
look at it. `
If you condition a grant of application
upon either going the way it is now, which means
they can reject it, or if it's an advantage,
the public deserves to have that advantage taken
into account. That's all we're saying.
MR. OAKLEY: What we would be saying is
that ,if it's not an alteration of the permit
application, then it's not relevant at all.
MR. KIMZEY : We would think that it is a
fact that you are entitled to know and to consider,
and whether it's relevant or not under those
considerations, I would respectfully disagree,
Mr. Oakley. If you are required to make a decision

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
Colloquy -746-
in the face of existing facts, and you just
have to ignore them because of the point in
time, I think that would be absolutely absurd,
and not in the public interest, and not the
reason this commission was created.
MR.. SMITH: Well, we are holding a hearing
on a permit which has been filed and rejected
by the State -- by the Department.
And this -- the question that we really
have is, we've listened to a great many of your
witnesses and your testimony. We observed from
Mr. Oakley that the State does regard this as
a significant variation, or may be a significant
variation.
And the question that is before the commission
is, what is it that we're hearing. And I'll
have to talk with counsel here.
'JConfers off record with Mr. French)
MR. SMITH: I have some questions. I'd
like the members of the commission, if they have
any questions, to ask them.
MS. FRENCH: Would it suit you if they just
asked you some questions?
MR. KIMZEY: Absolutely, certainly. Trying

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
Colloquy -747-
to get information to them, that's what we'd
appreciate.'
MR. JOHNSON: Dr. Smith, I would like to
hear somebody on the State's staff to reply to
this.
We are here to consider the effect on the
park. So, this twenty acres -- I'm not really
concerned about the twenty acres. I'm enormously
concerned if the acquisition of this twenty
acres will affect the plant site.
Because if we're holding a hearing on a
plant site that is not going to be the final
plant site, then we have wasted a lot of time.
Now, I'd like somebody on the State to say
that they have considered the possibility of
changing the plant site.
MR. OAKLEY: Well, Your Honor, that's the
whole;reason for our objection -- is that we
don't know the significance of that twenty-five
acres that they plan -- it depends on what they
do with it, what effect it will have on the park,
and what position the Department will have in
regards to it.
We have -- we have discussed with them, briefl

il
[AJ
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
N_
Colloquy «-74 8-
the fact that they have that twenty-five acres.
And twenty-five acres standing alone would not
have any significance, as far as we can determine,
on the decision the State makes.
If they want to use that particular portion
for some aspect of their operation that will
affect the purposes of the park, or their re-
lationship to the park, then the Department
needs time to look at that and find out what
they're -- what they're asking about.
And if they would like to do that, then,
I agree with you. If they're going to change
their application, then, we have wasted a great
deal of time so far.
MR. SALISBURY: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
you a question?
MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Salisbury.
AMR. SALISBURY: One place I'm not quite
clear, Mr. Oakley, is with the addition of this
twenty-five acres, does that mean that the -- the
request for a permit includes that twenty-five
acres, or does the request for the permit still
stand as it originally did?
it -- well as far
MR. •AKLEY : I would think ,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Colloquy -749-
as the Department, it would stand as it originall
did. I agree with.Mr. Kimzey that the facts --
relevant facts to the permit application can be
brought up at this time, but the twenty-five
acres standing alone doesn't have any effect
on the permit.
I mean the land is there whether it's under
their ownership or not. If they're planning
to convert the ownership of that land into
something that affects the operation, then it
will require a difference in the permit.
MR. SALISBURY: Well, it would seem to me
that if that's the case, that we really could not
consider that twenty-five acres at this point.
And if that was to be considered, it would
have to be a new permit including that twenty-
five acres. Is that true?
MR. OAKLEY; That would be the State's
position. We feel that if -- if it has any
significance at all, it relates to how they plan
to locate their site structures and operate their
quarry, and we don't know what they're planning
to do.
And if we have evidence to that effect, then

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
0
N
0
18
19
0
0
z
20
W
Z
21
4
m
O 22
V
O
4
J
W 23
a
24
25
N
Colloquy -750-
we change the whole structure of the hearing,
and the whole function of the hearing.
And the Department hasn't had a chance to
make a decision on that.
MR. SMTTH: May I ask --
MR. KIMZEY: May I respond to Mr. Oakley's
question?
MR. SMITH: Just a moment. I'll ask one
more question. Mr. Oakley, Mr. Kimzey stated
that he made an effort to confer `Tith you about
this issue. Was there a reason why the State
did not wish to talk with him about it previously?
MR. OAKLEY: We told Mr. Kimzey that an
initial review of it -- the land as it stands --
would not have had a significant impact upon the
decision that we reached.
The -- if they were going to make some
operational changes, we would be glad to look
at those, but it would take us some time to look
at those.
And if they wanted to submit something in
writing to us, or resubmit their application, or
postpone the hearing, then, we would go along with
that.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Colloquy -751-
MR. KIMZEY: With all due respect --
MR. SMITH: (Interposing) Is it your position
then, that the only thing you're willing to deal
with today is the original permit request?
MR. OAKLEY: I'm not -- I'm not sure if
we're really talking in the same language as
far as the original permit request.
The commission can certainly review the
facts as they stand today. The -- the relevancy
of the ownership of that particular piece of
land is not pertinent to this particular review,
we don't think.
They could just as easily own some land
across the road, because we don't know what that -
what difference that has to the permit operation -
to the quarry operation.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Kimzey?
,14R. KIMZEY: I think there are three question
Going to Mr. Johnson's question, first, as to the
location of the plant site, we have made an
application which locates the plant site, and we
think it is a viable, excellent plant site.
We think that's what is before the commission.
We do not seek to change the location of the plant

I.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r,
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
f
18
19
0
20
2
W
Z
21
Q
n
22
0
K
V
W 23
a
24
25
Colloquy -752-
site without the State's permission. It was
brought out when this application was being
processed -- and I'm sure Mr. Conrad will agree
with Mr. Bratton's rebuttal testimony -- that
the acquisition of that particular twenty-five
acres was something that was desirable and that
they were attempting to do, and had been unable
to do at that time, and it may be done in the
future.
And at that time, it was the impression of
Mr. Bratton, as he will testify, that moving the
plant site to that location may be more desirable
from the State's standpoint -- not from Wake Stone'
standpoint, but from the State's standpoint.
And we're not seeking to alter or amend,
Dr. Salisbury, our application at all. We are
here -- if we could have gotten with the State
and said, we'll incorporate that, we would have
loved to have done that.
They said, no. I didn't understand that
they said give any delay for modification. My
understanding was, you withdraw -- you cancel this
application and start all over, again.
We didn't feel that was necessary at all, becau
e

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
Colloquy
-753-
we think we have a viable plan before you, and
you can just eliminate that twenty-five acres,
grant the application, and we think that would
be fine, but we also think that would be, again,
rather narrow minded, rather against the public
interest in the light of the facts as they exist
when the hearing is going on, which we can't
change, that did not occur prior to that time.
Now, if the State, as Mr. Conrad and Mr.
Brattdn have tentatively discussed before this
was acquired, would feel that it would be an
advantage to move that plant site, Mr. Johnson,
from the present location down the hill to this
new acreage, we would say -- we would ask the
commission to consider whether or not it would
say, either build the plant exactly as presented
to you in application, or as a condition, if
Mr. Conrad and his department feels it's an
advantage to the State -- not to Wake Stone --
to move that site.
Then, the State have all the time it wants
to study , just as Mr. Oakley says, make any
conditions they want to make about that movement,
and say, here's a better way. Go ahead and do it

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
Colloquy -754
that way. But, if the State doesn't want to
do that, we'll build it right where it is, and
we'll begin operation just as an example -- just
as all the evidence is before you now.
We do not necessarily want to move that,
but if the State feels, and if the Mining
Commission grants an application conditioned
upon the State's decision as to whether this
should be moved -- the plant site should be
moved, we're perfectly willing to work with them
on it.
Mr. Brat ton has worked'-- it "s all tho testimony,,
he's worked with these folks on everything. He
wants to do it. We don't want to ignore a fact
that exists. We also don't want to fold our
tents, start all over again, and have y'all down
here for another four days sometimes later on,
and have to process another application.
We really don't want to do that. We think
that would be -- I hesitate to use adjectives
that come to mind, but I think it would be wasteful
I think it would be unnecessary.
We don't ask that you make these twenty-five
acres a part of any decision that you make. We

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Colloquy -755-
simply say it now exists. It would not be in
the public interest to ignore it.
I agree with Mr. Oakley. If we owned the
section across the road that had some effect
on it, that would be something you should consider,
too.
And we are not seeking to bypass. We don't
have any operational plan for that twenty-five
acres, but we're willing to develop one if the
State says that would be an advantage, and the
Mining Commission has told them to let us mine
there. We'll work with the State to get the
best plan out of it.
MR. SMITH: Questions, gentlemen?
MR. JOHNSON: Dr. Smith, I would like to
be sure -- I don't think this commission wants to
issue a conditional permit. I mean we give you
a permit, or we don't give you a permit.
Now, you suggest that we go along on the
original thing ignoring the twenty-five acres.
MR. KIMZEY: If that's the commission's
wish.
PAIR. JOHNSON: Mr. Oakley, is that your
suggestion?

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
18
0
19
h
0
Z
20
W
Y
21
a
0
22
L 23
a
24
25
Colloquy -756-
MR. OAKLEY: No, sir, that wouldn't be our
suggestion. I think the permit should be denied.
What --what we're saying --
MR. JOHNSON: (Interposing) I'm talking about
the hearing, not the --
MR. OAKLEY: (Interposing) What we're saying
about the twenty-five acres is that it's not
relevant at this particular hearing.
We'll stipulate that they acquired an option
to it if that would make the record more complete.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, you will be happy if we
go ahead with the hearing just forgetting the
twenty-five acres.
MR. OAKLEY: We're prepared to do that. We're
not prepared to address whether the twenty-five
acres has any significance.
MR. SMITH: That's my understanding of what
Mr. Kimzey just said.
MR. KIMZEY: Well, I don't think I just said
that at all. I said that we are willing for the
commission to consider that original application
just as it is. I mean, there's no use trying to
put words in my mouth, Dr. Smith. I said it very
plainly, but we think you ought to have these facts

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
Colloquy -757-
before you, and if you want to make a condition
that that be considered, then, you are free to
do so. If you don't, that's fine.
I have said, if you don't, that's fine, but
I haven't said -- which is the words you're
trying to put in -- if you don't, let's don't
even talk about it. Let's don't bring into
evidence. Let's don't give you the opportunity
to.
I think it's your gentlemen's decision to
have that opportunity.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, if I've ever slipped
up trying to put words in your mouth, please
forgive me. (Laughter) I don" t think you need a bit
of help.
MR. KIMZEY: I would say that's not my
position, and that's not what I said. I think
you ought to have the opportunity.
And if Mr. Johnson is right, you don't
want to attach conditions, I understand that,
and that's fine.
(Commission confers off record)
MR. OAKLEY: Dr. Smith, can I address the j
commission?

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
Colloquy -758-
MR. SMITH: Yes.
MR. OA.KLEY: I'm not sure if this will help
the situation, or not, but the Department will
stipulate that they have acquired the twenty-
five acres, and put that in. That will be a
part of the record.
What we're not interested in is having
testimony about the effect or relationship that
would have to the site, because we don't think
that's relevant. We're not prepared to address
that.
MR. KIMZEY: We have no evidence to offer
about that. The only evidence we'd offer is that
we acquired it, and if the State feels that
would.be an advantage, we'd be willing to con-
sider whatever the State feels would be an
advantage.
'AIR. SMITH: Gentlemen, the commission will
hear the case. And I believe, Mr. Oakley, you're
ready to proceed.
MR. OAKLEY: What -- we're ready to proceed
what -- was that a motion for additional evidence,
or was that denied?
MR. KIMZEY: I made no motion. I simply

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Colloquy -759-
responded to the commission's request that we
state our position.
MR. SMITH: It was an inquiry by the
commission -- is what it was, isn't that right?
MR. KIMZEY: I'm sorry?
MR. SMITH: We regarded it as an inquiry by
the commission.
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, that's my understanding.
MR. OAKLEY: All right. The Department is
ready to proceed with its witnesses. We'd like
to call Mr. Rick Hazard.
We will attempt to be as expeditious as
possible considering the two days that we've had
previously.
Whereupon,
RICHARD B. HAZARD,
Having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY:
0. Mr. Hazard, would you state your full name and
address, please?

�J
1
Hazard
Direct -760-
2
A.
My name is Richard B. Hazard. I live at 1102
3
Gorman Street in Raleigh.
4
Q:
What's your present occupation?
5
A.
I'm an Environmental Planning Consultant with
6
the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
7
and Community Development, Division of Parks and
8
Recreation.
9
Q.
How long have you been in that position?
10
A.
I've held that position since May of 1979, and
11
prior to that, I was employed as an Environmental
12
Report Specialist since August of 1975.
13
Q.
What are your present duties and responsibilities
14
in that position?
15
A.
I prepare the environmental documentation for
16
Capital improvement projects per the requirements
17
of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
18
I prepare environmental assessments per
19
the requirements of the U. S. Department of
20
Interior for land acquisition.
21
I handle other miscellaneous environmental
22
jobs for the division.
23
Q.
What is your educational background?
24
A.
I have an Associate of Science Degree in Forestry
25
from Paul Smith's College. I have a Bachelor of

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hazard Direct -761-
Science Degree from N. C. State University in
Natural Resource Recreation Management. I've
got a Master of Recreation Degree from N. C.
State University in Recreation Resources
Administration and in Landscape Architecture.
Q. What are some of the principal works that you
have participated on?
A. Since I've been employed by the State, I've
prepared, approximately, thirty-four environmental
documents.
These range from the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Development to environmental
assessments for land acquisition.
I have also done some contract work for
the North Carolina Wildlife 'resources Commission,
and I have done some contract work for the U. S.
Department of Interior, Blueridge Parkway.
Q. All right, sir. You have worked for the Department
of Interior. What did that involve?
A. I did a recreational analysis and demand and
feasibility study for the proposed extension.
This involved both empirical research and much
computer .research into recreational travel.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Hazard, could you speak up

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
Hazard Direct -762-
a little bit. We're having trouble hearing
you over the ventilation system.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. (Mr. Oakley) Have you also had a chance to attend
seminars in your field?
A. I've attended two pertinent seminars. One was
a visual analysis seminar put on by N. C. State
University, and, also, and environmental impact
statement workshop put on by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Q. "How did you become involved in this particular
matter?
A. In my work with land acquisition for the Division,
I became involved with this piece of land in
January of 1979.
When the Division initially began the
acquisition processes, I did extensive field
work'on this piece of property in order to prepare
an environmental assessment per federal funding
requirements.
Q, When you say "piece of property", what are you
referring to?
A. The proposed quarry site of Wake Stone.
Q. How does your -- how did your particular land

i
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
Hazard Direct -763-
acquisition duties relate to this particular
matter that we are here today for?
A. The Division viewed this property as one of the
highest priority acquisitions within the state.
We became aware of the potential that the land
was to be rezoned.
We were not sure of the purpose for this
rezoning, but we viewed it as a conflicting land u
to William B.- Umstead State Park.
We, then, initiated acquisition procedures
to try and acquire this property.
Q. What was your first involvement with the Land
Quality Section?
A. I believe that was in mid -April or last winter,
and when Land Quality requested the Division to
review the permit application.
Q. And what did you do at that time to acquaint
yourself with the proposed quarry and the park?
A. I worked directly with Mr. Simons in Land
Quality. One of my first pieces of work was to
familiarize myself with the rock quarry.
I visited the Moncure quarry, particularly,
because Mr. Simons suggested that was the type
of operation that would be similar to the proposed

1 Hazard
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M
A.
M
A.
N
A.
Direct -764-
operation. I wanted to see what a crushed
stone operation was, how it worked, how it was
laid out, and the type of impacts that resulted
from a crushed stone operation.
What can you tell us about the park area adjacent
to the quarry? Before you do that, maybe, you
should describe these three exhibits that are
presently on the board?
Okay. I don't know the numbers of the exhibits,
but the one at the top left --
(Interposing) It's -- the first one is an under-
lying map and also an overlay. Would you describe
those , please?
Number 28, I believe, is the revised map for
the Wake Stone operation. It's similar to the
original map that we received for review.
It identifies the different project facility
locati9ns, such as the location of the crusher
and rock pile, et cetera.
And could you tell us a little bit about the
overlay? Did you participate in that?
I assisted in the graphics in preparing that
overlay. The original base.information was
provided by Land Quality.

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
Hazard Direct -765-
Q The other exhibit that appears is number 25,
would you explain that one?
A. Exhibit 25 is a map that was prepared during
the initial master planning for the park. It's
an elevation map for William B. Umstead State'
Park that identified the various topographic
areas of the park.bf particular interest, is
the dark brown linear line on the bottom half
of the park which is the Crabtree Creek water-
shed.
And you will note on both sides of that
there are, essentially, east -west running ridges.
So, what you have is the situation where Crabtree
Creek forms a divide between the two areas of
the park.
0. And the third exhibit is State Exhibit 27.
A. Exhibit 27 is an air photo flown by Landmark
Engineering on November 20th.
It shows I-40 on the bottom, the Wake Stone
site in the lower center area, and William B.
Umstead State Park on the north.
Q. Did you fly when that particular photograph was
made?
A. Yes, I did.

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
Hazard Direct -766-
Q. Would these three exhibits assist you in the
testimony you're about to give?
A. Yes, they would.
Q. I think the original question I asked you is,
what can you tell us about the park adjacent --
park area adjacent to the quarry, and use either
one of these exhibits that you feel would be
pertinent.
A. If I may? (Witness stands and goes to exhibits)
We'll start first with the elevations on maps --
which is exhibit 25.
As you are aware, the Wake Stone site is
generally in this area. (Indicating bottom left
of map)
The existing uses for William B. Umstead
State Park -- there's a park entrance coming
off of I-40 into the parking lot -- into this
area 'right here.
The area right over here in this area of
the park is, perhaps, thq primary day use facility
within William B. Umstead.
It consists of picnicking; access to the
hiking trails. There are several interpretative tr
that run this way, and they also parallel Crabtree
ils

0
too
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
Hazard Direct -767
Creek. On the north side of Crabtree Creek
present uses consist of hiking trails and
general nature appreciation area in this area.
(.Indicating the center of the map)
For the master plan and future development
of the park, we recognize the natural limitations
and uniqueness of this land up here, and propose
to use that as a natural area, and, also, as
a wilderness camping area.
We designed this area as such with the
anticipation that this land down here would
act as a buffer from any development right on
I-40 in order to protect the uniqueness of this
area and the recreational experiences.
Q. Could you describe while you're up there, the
mixture of forest vegetation?
A. As you'll note --
(Interposing) Is there a glare on that picture?
See if you could hold it up.
A. I'll hold it up like this. From our initial
work with air photos and photos, and based, also,
on my field walk over the site, we came to the
realization that the site is mostly hardwood
vegetation. There is, you will note within 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
Hazard Direct -768-
photo, certain areas of pine vegetation, but
as the site as a whole, I believe the percentage
is forty-six percent (46%) hardwood, forty-three
percent (.43%) pine.
This is relatively young vegetation. It's
hard to determine the age without borings, but
an estimate would be thirty to forty years old.
And you'll notice, also, that's it's just
not a mixed vegetation, but there are groups of
soft wood, large groups of hardwood within the
site.
Q. What -- you can have a seat -- what are some
of the uses that are made of the area adjacent
to the -- what are some of the uses that are
made of the park adjacent to the proposed quarry?
MR. KIMZEY: Objection. He just testified
to that. It's repetitive.
AR. SMITH: I didn't hear you.
MR. KIMZEY: Objection. That's repetitive.
He just testified to that when he was pointing
to the map.
MR. OAKLEY: I think he was describing, basica
the natural features. I don't think its repetitive
and won't take but a second.
ly,

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
Hazard Direct -769-
MR. SMITH: Overrule the objection. Please
proceed.
Q (Mr. Oakley) What are some of the uses that are
made of that particular area of the park?
A. The area directly east of the park boundary
is the day use area for Reedy Creek section of
the William B. Umstead State Park.
It is one of the major day use areas --
recreational areas in this area of Wake County.
It's primarily picnicking. Also, it provides
a parking lot for access into the hiking trails
for people to hike and perform other nature
appreciation activities.
Q. Have you had occasion to use the park, yourself?
A. Yes, I have. I've used the park numerous times
all through the year.
Q. For what purposes do you use it?
A. I use -it primarily to get away from Raleigh --
out of the city, to get into a natural area.
I hike along there, do some nature photography.
I've swam in Crabtree Creek. It's just a nice
place to go out and be in.
Q. In your investigation relating to the proposed
quarry to the park, what aspects of 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
Hazard
A.
N
A.
Direct -770.
came of concern to you?
When we were reviewing the initial permit
application, there were many concerns that we
were thinking about, ranging from air impacts,
soil and water impacts -- ranging from that to
the impact to private owners.
During the course of the work, many of these
concerns were taken care of, either through permits
or other ways.
We finally centered -- I finally centered
on three major impacts, the impacts to the
recreational experience, and the user from truck
congestion at the intersection of State Road 1790
and Harrison Avenue.
I also was very concerned about noise impacts,
and visual resource impacts.
Could you describe for us the concerns you.had
with 'truck congestion?
In any given recreational experience, there are
four major categories. There's,first, the an-
ticipation of the experience. Then, there's the
planning of the experience, participation of the
experience, and, then, the recollection.
With the proposed traffice at that intersectio

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
Hazard Direct -771-
of, I believe, eighty trucks per hour during
peak, we felt that there was with the severe
congestion problems, then, other side effects
such as noise, just the visual appearance of the
trucks, fugitive emmissions.
We felt that all these impacts would directly
impact the recreational experience. It would
impact at least three phases of the recreational
experience.
Q. Are you -- did your section have occasion to
discuss the traffic with the Department of
Highways?
A. Yes, we did. My supervisor, Alan Eakes, correspon e
directly with DOT.
Q. What was their response?
A. They responded that the proposed traffic at the
intersection would not produce any unsafe conditions,
yet, they did also indicate that there is clearing
necessary for visual safety.
They also indicated that there would be --
there may be a need in the future for left turn
storage lanes on Harrison Avenue.
They also indicated that some time in the
future that it may be necessary to develop left

�J
1 Hazard
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.
A.
N
A.
Direct
-772-
turn storage lanes on the ramps, and, also,
control devises on the ramps.
Have you also acquainted yourself with the sounds
at the Umstead Park?
Yes, I have, numerous times.
[Mould you comment, generally, on the background
sounds at present?
It depends largely on the time of year, but
generally there are the natural sounds of birds,
insects, leaves rustling, running water, and
these noises are puncuated by intermittent air
craft noise.
In the southern part of the park here, it's
primarily small aircraft noise with just a very
occasional jet or helicopter.
These noises are very short-lived. They
come and go, and the base conditions re-establish
themselves to the natural noise within the park.
Have you also tried to acquaint yourself with
the sounds of a crushed stone quarry?
Yes, I've done that several times, also. My
primary -- my first to the Moncure quarry -- and,
subsequently, I also visited the Crabtree quarry
several times.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hazard Direct -773-
Q. What did you do at the Moncure quarry?
A. I assisted Mr. Simons in Land Quality when he
was taking noise measurements. I was -- I'm not
qualified in noise testing. I was just along to
familiarize myself during that visit.
Q. Would you say that you were more concerned with
the quality of the sound or the level of the
sound?
A. At that time, I was more concerned with the
quality, and what was producing that quality
of noise.
Q. And what did you do when you visited the Crabtree
quarry?
A. At the Crabtree it was more towards the magnitude
of the sound as related to my experience at
Moncure -- to the quality -- trying to put the
different noise aspects into prospective.
Q. When -you visited the Crabtree quarry, did you
remove yourself some distance from the sound?
A. Yes. In both my visits to Crabtree and Moncure,
after detailed map and air photo work, I tried
to find situations where there was similar
vegetative cover, and similar topographic situatio
as to the proposed site, but, then, at Moncure and
s

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
17
0
at
N
18
4
0 19
O
0
2a
W
0 21
m
0 22
V
O
4
J
j 2"
W 1
a
24
2E
Direct
-774-
Crabtree, remove myself different distances
from the operation ranging from twelve hundred
feet to thirty-five hundred feet.
Q. And can you relate to us the concerns you have
as a result of your investigation?
A. I believe the noise impacts, or the noise that
would dmdnat.e from the rock quarry site would
definitely impact the recreational experience
people derive at William B. Umstead State Park.
Q Could you expand upon that, or give us the
significance of how they would be affected?
A. I*think when you put the recreational experience
available at William B. Umstead into prospective,
in that it is one of the very few areas of its
kind within the entire region -- when you impact
a phase of recreation or several phases, it'll
be a very definite impact on the total recreational
opportunity.
This will be, not only impact to the day
use picnickers.but impacts to hikers and other
nature enjoyers. It could be ranging from, let's
say, an impact to myself where if I were confronted
with that noise, I probably would not return,' -to
just mild annoyance on the part of other recreators

0
N
F
0
V
0
s
z
W
Z
0
s
m
0
0
L
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
Hazard Direct _775_
but you will have the whole range of annoyance
due to those noises.
Have you also had occasion to make some visual
observations relating the park to the quarry?
A. Yes, that was my second major area of concern.
Q. If you like, you can use the map.
A. Okay. When I first started my research, I was
not really sure if the operation would be visible.
From my initial site visits, I noticed that the
Wake Stone site was elevated.
I was aware that Crabtree Creek formed the
divide. So, I then did some initial visual
analyses. This work consisted of visiting
the site during different times of the year.
Initially, I walked all through the site to get
a good feel of the terrain.
I next visited the entire day use area.
Thirdly, I visited, essentially, this whole ridge
line running through here. (Indicating on the map.)
In my work in impact analysis, this is a
vital component in where after gaining a firm
knowledge of what a proposed action looks like,
while in the field I placed this visually on the
resource space to estimate the type of impact. I

[AJ
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
Hazard
N
A.
N
A.
Q.
Direct
did that in this case estimating that the
crusher and stock pile would be�approximately
forty feet in height.
I determined that height, approximately, by
the height of the canopy in this immediate area.
Then, by visiting these other areas, I viewed
over to see if I could see the proposed operation.
What were you able to determine from your field
investigation?
During the summertime the operation will be
visible from a few areas within the park, primarily
the day use area, and, perhaps, a few spots in
the wilderness camping area.
During the wintertime the operation becomes
very visible from many areas of the park. From
just about any point in this picnic area, it will
be visible, and from a good area within the
southern half, it will be visible. (Indicating
on map)
Were you present at the earlier hearing when
testimony was given by Mr. Harbison concerning
the canopy in the area?
Yes, I was.
Can you comment on that, please?

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
Hazard Direct -777-
A. I believe Mr. Harbison testified that the
canopy was predominantly softwood as you can
tell by looking at that air photo.
Q. Did you mean softwood or.- pine?
A. Softwood as in pine -- evergreen.
Q. Okay.
A. As you can note by that air photo, it is obviously
not entirely softwood. There are large expanses
of hardwood within the site.
Q. How would -- how would that affect visibility?
A. That would have a tremendous effect during the
wintertime when the hardwoods lose their leaves.
Q. Is there anything else of significance relating
to the pines?
A. In any forest situation, and particularly within
pines, you'll have other events that would affect
visibility. When you visit the site tomorrow,
you'll notice large expanses where there have
been beetle kills and blow downs and some lighteni:
damage. This, essentially, destroys the trees --
kills them, and they fall down, opening gaps
within the canopy. And, also, subjects the rest
of the canopy to similar type damage. They become
more prone to it.
!LN]

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
Hazard Direct -778-
Q, What is the significance of your visual inves-
tigations?
A. When you combine these situations with the
recreational activity that's taking place, I
think there would be a similar impact to the
recreational experience in that, say, you take
a hiker who will not be standing still in any
one spot. He'll be moving along, and will encounter
these holes in the canopy, and will probably view
the proposed site.
Q. What -- what was the significance on your personal
experience -- what would be the significance --
what would be the impact on you, personally?
A. And I would feel, with a large number of recre-
ationists, that they would hear a sound contrary
to the natural sounds -- sound of a site, would
try and find that sound.
When they obtain a view of the proposed
crusher and stockpile, I think it would essentially
destroy the feeling that they had been out in a
natural area far away from the city.
Thus, removing a very important recreational
opportunity to them.
MR. OAKLEY: That's all the questions we have.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hazard Direct
MR. SMITH: Cross, please?
-779-
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. Mr. Hazard, let's go to your last topic, first.
You were describing the -- the portion of hard-
woods and pines on the site referring to the
photograph which has been identified as exhibit
27.
You were actually referring to the photo-
graph without the overlay, is that correct?
A. That's right.
Q. As you described exhibit 27?
A. Right.
Q. As 'I. understand it, you had no -- no testimony
relating to the overlay, is that correct?
A. (Nods affirmatively)
Q, Does the overlay generally locate the location
of the proposed operation?
A. No, it does not generally do it. It does it as
exactly as possible graphically. That illustratio
is derived directly from the applicatior.map.
Q, So, by looking at the overlay which you did not
testify about, you could notice the location of th
pine trees areas by the green as they shield that

a
0
N
0
0
0
W
Z
Z
0
0
0
7
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
Hazard Direct -780-
particular site, could you not?
A. That's correct.
Q. Regardless of your characterization, or Mr.
Harbison's characterization, for that matter,
of the effects of the canopy, that will all be
put in perspective when the commission visits
the site, itself, and notices what the effects
of the canopy is, would it not?
A. It would be if they see the whole site.
Q. And—
A. (Interposing) And not just stop before the
crusher and stockpile area.
Q. Well, we don't expect the commission to walk
into the whole park area, but you do see a pre-
ponderance of pine throughout what you call the
day use and hiking area, do you not?
A. I wouldn't call it preponderance.
Q. You would not call that a preponderance?
A. No, not without vegetative mapping.
Q. I was curious as to -- if you have forty -- was
it forty-three percent (43%) pine and forty-six
percent (46a) hardwood, what's the rest of it?
A. Eleven percent (11%) is disturbed and water.
Q. I'm sorry?

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
Hazard Cross -781-
A. Disturbed and water area, such as field -- small--
Q. (.Interposing) You weren't giving percentage of
the vegetation, but percentage of the land, is
that correct?
A. It's one and the same.
Q. Well, I -- maybe it is, and it's my ignorance that's
causing me this confusion. I would think that
the percentage of the trees -- it would have to
be a hundred percent (100%) of whatever trees
were there.
A. That's correct.
Q. But you're talking about percentage of the entire
land mass, rather than just of the trees, is that
correct?
A. Well, perhaps, I should have added the eleven
percent (11%) which adds up to one hundred percent
trees -- one hundred percent of the land base.
Q. I understand. So, forty-three percent of the land
coverage -- of the land is covered by pines. It's
not forty-three percent of the trees out there are
pines. Is that what you're saying? Is that right?
A. I fail to see the difference.
Q. Well, I would think there's a difference in -- if
all the trees out there are made up of hardwood

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hazard Direct -782-
and pine, and that's all the trees there are,
then pine would be a different percentage of
the total amount of trees, right?
A. Perhaps.
Q. okay. Going back to the visual, in the summer
when you were in the parking area, do you think
you could see the site?
A. At the parking lot, itself?
Q. Yeah.
A. No, you would not be able to see it from the
parking lot.
Q. Now, the picnic area where the tables are and
everything at Reedy Creek, you wouldn't be able
to see it there, either?
A. I think there would be spots where you could
see it.
Q. Did you personally see it, yourself?
A. Yes, -I did.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Harbison's testimony about
the line of sight testimony in his exhibits
concerning that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q, You don't disagree with his line of sight
testimony, except as it concerns the canopy, wherei

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
Hazard Cross -783-
he saw a topographic barrier, without canopy,
you would agree that that was a barrier to the
vision?
A. I wouldn't agree with all of his testimony.
In its limited perspective, it's partially true
in that he concerned himself directly with the
park boundary and Crabtree Creek, wherein,
circumstances there would be topographic
barriers.
Q. My question was, just restricted to the topographic
barriers, you do agree -- you: have no criticism
of his testimony as it refers only to the topo-
graphic barriers, is that right?
A. There are topographic barriers along the park
boundary and Crabtree Creek.
Q. But that doesn't answer my question, does it?
You agree that he correctly measured the topo-
graphic barriers and reflected them on his --
A. ( Interposing) I have not analyzed it.
Q. You have no evidence to the contrary?
A. Not at this time.
Q. I believe you stated in the first of your testimon
Mr. Hazard, that one of your concerns was the
acquisition procedure of the park land?
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
Hazard Cross -784-
A. That wasn't a concern. That was one of my --
one of my job -- one of my duties.
¢ One of your duties? One of the areas that you
worked in, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
0. And then you specifically stated that you had
worked in the studies concerning acquisition
of this and the surrounding property, is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, the park has not acquired any of that
property, has it?
A. That's correct.
4. Did you meet with Mr. Eakes when he met with
Mr. Robert Emmanuel concerning the possible
purchase of his property?
A. No, I did not.
0. Have -you seen what has been identified as
Wake Stone number 18, and already in evidence
before?
A. No, I have not.
Q, You're not aware that Mr. Emmanuel, then, offered
the park his property, which is now in an option,
at a cost less than he was able to get from Wake

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
Hazard
Cross
-785-
Stone?
A. No, I'm not aware of that fact.
Q. And you're not aware that Mr. Emmanuel offered
to swap land which the State now owns across
the highway for that piece of property?
A. No, I'm not aware of that.
Q. And you're only aware that they have not acquired
his property?
A. That's correct.
Q. My understanding of your testimony that when
you were going through the initial part that
you felt that the Division, at the time you
did your acquisition study -- that that property
was what you call, highest priority acquisition
property, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Pmd you're not stating that that's the Department'
present position, are you?
A. I'm not trying to imply that.
Q. What is the present policy?
I
A. Whose?
MR. OAKLEY: I'd like to object to this
line of questioning.
Q. (Mr. Kimzey) The North Carolina Department of

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
Hazard
M
A.
Q.
A.
Cross
-786-
Natural Resources and Community Development.
MR. OAKLEY: He did not testify on direct
as regards to their plans to acquire anything.
He's talked about his general background, and
how he became involved.
MR. KIMZEY: Mr. Smith, I made a note that
when he was testifying he said that this par-
ticular property was the highest priority
acquisition. I think we're entitled to straighten
out what that is.
(Mr. Smith confers with Ms. French)
MR. SMITH: Objection overruled.
(Mr. Kimzey) Do you know what the present position
of the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development is concerning
acquisition of that property?
No. I do not.
I'll'hand you what's been previously identified
as Wake Stone Exhibit number 30, and ask you to'
look at the second paragraph, the last sentence.
Would you read that, please?
"The State will not purchase this property now
or in the foreseeable future regardless of whether
it is rezoned."

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
Hazard
Cross
-787-
Q.
And that's written by whom?
A.
Dr. E. Walter Jones.
Q.
And what is Dr. Jones' capacity in the
Department?
A.
He's Deputy Secretary.
Q.
And that was dated when?
A.
February 27th, 1980.
Q.
And that was subsequent to your study concerning
acquisition -- possible acquisition of
that site,
is that not correct?
A.
That's correct.
Q.
Do you have any information that would
lead you
not to agree with Dr. Jones' statement
that the
State would not purchase this property
now or
in the foreseeable future regardless of
how it's
rezoned?
A.
I do not have any information contrary,
but as
was testified earlier, I would question
the
meaning of the word "foreseeable".
Q.
But so far as you know, that is the State
policy
and that's the Department's policy? ,
A.
That was the policy.
0.
And it still is, isn't it?
A.
I don't know if it's been changed or not.
Q.
So far as you know, it still is?

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
Hazard Direct -788-
A. I would have to believe that, yes.
Q, When you visited -- you visited the Moncure
site?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you see those wild turkeys that were down
there?
A. No, I did not.
Q, You didn't see that. You stated that your three
major concerns in investigation,the park was --
the first was truck congestion, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q, You are aware of the response of the State
Department of Transportation to Mr. Eakes' request
for assistance concerning traffic, are you not?
A. Yes, I am.
Q, Were you aware that this request for information
was made based on traffic conditions of a peak
day, which was some ten to twenty times the
average day of traffic there?
A. I know they were made of a peak day., What
percentage above normal, I do not know.
Q, Were you aware of the number of cars used in the
peak day count?
A. I believe it was somewhere around two thousand.

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
Hazard Cross -789-
Q. Unh-hunh (yes). Have you ever seen the daily
car count from the cable out there?
A. I've seen the car count, but I do not recall
seeing the two thousand, or the peak. I did not
look specifically for a peak day.
Q. Do you recall that the normal days were in the
area of one hundred or two hundred cars on the
average?
A. I could not testify without doing :it`' for -a year
or several year analysis.
Q. You wouldn't disagree with that, though?
A. I couldn't do anything until I studied the data.
Q. And even based on that two thousand cars, you are
aware that the Department of Transportation replie
that the volume of traffic would not create any
unsafe condition at the park entrance, or at the
intersection of the road, is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And you are aware that they said that they're not
envisioning any control devices or recommend
any at this time, are you not?
A. At this time, that's correct.
Q. I believe that you testified that you thought that
there was some testimony about future concerns of

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hazard Cross -790-
a lane there?
A. Unh-hunk (yes).
Q. The exact recommendation by the North Carolina
Department of Engineering was that -- was con-
tained in Wake Stone,'s Exhibit number 6, was it
not? (Hands exhibit to witness)
A. That's correct.
Q. And would you read question number 2, and the
full answer to question number 2.
A. "Can this intersection be made safe by use of
control devices? If so, what devices would be
recommended?" "We do not anticipate any serious
problems at the SR 1790, SR 1654 intersection.
At some time in the future there may be a need
for a left turn storage lane on SR 1654. When
this is needed, the left turn lane can be pro-
vided by uniform widening along both sides of
SR 1654. However, any construction of this type
would depend on the availability of funds at the
time it was needed."
Q. And would you read section 3 in its entirety .'and
the full answer?
A. "Is it feasible to redesign the SR 1790, SR 1654
intersection, and the SR 1654, I-40 interchange

�J
C-'�
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
Hazard Cross -791-
to create a safe condition? if so, how would
this be accomplished?"
"We do not anticipate the need to redesign
the SR 1790, SR 1654 intersection except as
mentioned above. Also, we do not anticipate a
major redesign of I-401 SR 1654 interchange. At
some time in the future, there may be a need to
provide left turn storage lanes and a traffic
signal control at the ramp terminals. As mentioned
above, this would depend on the availability of
funds at the time of the need."
Q. So, those two references to possible future
left turn lanes is what you're referring to,
is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's the only information you have concerning
that subject -- it came from this letter.
A. That's correct.
Q, And that was based on an unspecified future time
use using the two thousand vehicle peak load
that Mr. Eakes provided for you?
A. That's correct.
0. You stated that you went to the Crabtree quarry
to evaluate the quarry sounds, 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
Hazard Direct -792-
A. To assist me in my evaluation of quarry sounds
in combination with the sounds at Moncure.
Q. All right. And you visited the Moncure quarry
for that same purpose, as well as visual, is that
right?
A. That's right.
Q. Now, at the Crabtree quarry, do you know how many
jaw crushers are in operation there?
A. I don't know specifically what a jaw crusher
is, but no.
Q. Are you aware that there are two primary crushers
named jaw crushers in operation there?
A. I would guess.
Q. Do you know whether there are?
A. I don't know for certain.
Q. You didn't make any determination of what
equipment was there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Are you aware of what the applicant proposes to
put in the way of primary or jaw crushers on the
proposed site?
A. Not the technicalities, no.
0. You don't know?
A. N 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
Hazard Cross -793-
Q. Are you aware that there are four, maybe, more
cone crushers at the Crabtree quarry site?
A. I do not know what a cone crusher is.
0 So, you.' -re not aware of that, is that right?
A. (Nods affirmatively)
Q. Do you know how many cone crushers the applicant
proposes to put on the proposed site?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Are you aware of how many screens are --
A. (Interposing) I do not know what a screen is.
Q. How about trucks -- quarry trucks taking the rock
from the pit to the crusher do you know how
many they use at Crabtree?
A. Not specifically, no. I didn't sit there and
count 'em up.
Q. All right, and you don't know how many would be
used at the proposed site, either, would you?
A. No, I ,do not.
Q. Mr. Hazard, in your duties and responsibilities
as an environmental planning consultant for the
Division of Parks and Recreation, you are aware
I
that there are other possible uses of this location
I
zoned industrial, is that correct?
A. It could 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
Hazard Direct -794-
MR. OAKLEY: Objection.
MR. SMITH: Would you repeat the question?
MR. KIMZEY: I was just.asking was he aware
that there were other possible uses than the quarry
at the proposed site?
MR. OAKLEY: We feel the other possible uses
are not relevant.
MR. SMITH: Objection is sustained.
MR. KIMZEY: I'd like to get his answer in the
record.
MR. SMITH: I think it's irrelevant.
MR. KIMZEY: Right. I'd like to get it in the
record for the record.
MR. SMITH: He may answer for the record
purposes only.
Q. (Mr. Kimzey) What is your answer?
A. What is the question,please?
MR. KIMZEY: Would you repeat the question,
please, ma'am? (Addressing court reporter)
(Court Reporter starts t.o° read b.d.ck "question)
0. (Mr. Kimzey) I'll rephrase the question. You are
aware that there are other uses than the quarry
that can be made of this property under its in-
dustrial classification zone, is that correct?

a
0
N
f
0
0
0
a
z
W
Z
Z
0
m
0
a
z
a
11 Hazard
2 A.
3
41 Q.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cross
-795-
On any given piece of land, there are many uses
that could take place.
Well, do you know whether or not there are any
controls over the environmental impacts that
other industrial uses would have?
MR. OAKLEY: Objection.
MR. KIMZEY: This man is an environmental
planning consultant. I think he's entitled to
answer that.
MR. SMITH: The commission doesn't feel this
is relevant for the record, either, Mr. Kimzey.
MR. KIMZEY: Mr. Smith, I respect -- you know,
I respect your decision and disagree with it. I
think this man is entitled, but I won't argue
with you. I'd like to get it in the record for
record purposes -- not to delay the thing, but
to move on.
SIR. OAKLEY: If we could note a general line
of objections to these particular questions. I
don't know how many he's going to have.
MR. KIPIZEY : Very few.
MR. OAKLEY: This specific objection to that
question is that it's so broad I don't see how
the witness can answer it.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hazard Cross -796-
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, I agree. Would you
please continue with your examination, sir?
MR. KIMZEY: Well, I'd like to get his answer
to that in the record, and then I will continue,
yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: How many more questions do
you have?
MR. KIMZEY: I have three or four.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: That are not relevant?
MR. KIMZEY: Along this line o-f whether or
not there would be an appropriate body such as
yourself to regulate any other industrial use.
We think that there would not be, and that that
shows the significance, which is the word used
in the statute of this particular use.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, why don't you ask
him that question?
MR. KIMZEY: I plan to. I was asking a coupl
of foundation questions first.
CHAIRP-'IAN SMITH: You may proceed for the
record.
0. (Mr. Kimzey) What controls over other industrial
uses exist as to the site?
A. I'm not -- I do not know of any other controls.

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
Hazard Cross -797-
I assessed the rock quarry.
Q So, if there were industrial use, say, of a
plant there, you know of no other controls that
would go into effect to control what happened in
the way of noise and visibility?
A. I'm not aware of any controls. I would hope
there are some.
Q. If there was a truck terminal, for instance, you
would have no -- there are none as far as you
know there, right?
A. No controls that I'm aware of.
Q. or even if there was a shopping center, or some
residences as far as you know?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. I want to clear up one thing I was, maybe, a
little confused on in your testimony. You testif
that the area adjacent to the park at the present
use was for day use, primarily, and hiking --
picnicking and hiking.
A. That's correct.
Q. And you characterized that as a high use for the
park. Now, my question relates -- did you mean
in the Reedy Creek section, or high use all over
the highest use all over? I believe you used the
id

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
Hazard Cross -798-
word, "highest", and I'm trying to determine
what you were characterizing?
A. I'm not -- I don't recall using the word, high,
but it's one of the most used activities, or one
of the predominant activities in both Reedy
Creek and in the park.
Q. Would you characterize the day use in the Reedy
Creek section which is more or less adjacent to
the facilities off of what I call the Highway
70 entrance -- in that general area up in there
where there are facilities so much larger -- much
greater.
A. The only real similarity is in picnicking.
Q. Well, I was thinking, in terms of amount of usage.
Is it greater up in the Highway 70 area?
A. Well, there is different type of uses up at U.S.
70, such as boating and camping.
Q. Well;_I was thinking about the picnicking. Is
there a much larger picnicking facility up in
that area, too?
A. That's correct.
0. And, consequently, there's a much larger day use
for picnicking purposes?
A. There could be. I haven't examined the Crabtree

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
Hazard Cross -799-
section day use figures for picnicking.
Q. I see. So, when you say it was a higher use,
you haven't compared it to the use of the northern
end?
A. I just know, generally, the use patterns within
William B. Umstead.
Q. How about the hiking -- do you know whether there'
more hiking adjacent to this than there is, say,
north of Crabtree Creek?
A. We do not have figures that differentiate that.
Q. So, you were just testifying generally that it
was your observation it was a high use area, but
not compared to some other areas, is that right?
A. It's an important use within the entire park.
Q. Yes, but specifically comparing it to the northern
section and the facilities there, you weren't
comparing it to that?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Mr. Hazard, are you aware of whether or not the --
what point of time a development of the quarry,
if it were developed, would be the highest time
of either visibility or noise impact, if there is
any?
A. I would feel that the last possible moment would be

[AJ
0
N
f
CL
a
0
0
z
W
Z
Z
O
a
m
0
0
4
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
Hazard Cross 800-
�. Would be the highest? You don't think that the
initial stages of the construction of the quarry
would be the highest from the point ok vidibility
or noise?
A, No, not the very first initial development.
Q. And that it would decrease as the quarry developed
A. The impacts would increase.
Q. You think they would increase?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. KIMZEY: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Redirect?
MR. OAKLEY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do the members of the
commission have any questions they wish to ask
the witness?
COMMISSION DEFERS: (shake " heads negatively)
EXAMINATION BY COMMISSION:
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Hazard, I realize that
this subject has been discussed before, but I'm
not quite clear in my mind, yet.
You stated that this land which is under
discussion is the highest priority acquisition
land.

8
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
Hazard Commission -801-
A. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Did you mean with respect
to development of Umstead Park, or with respect
to park lands of the state?
A. Last February it was within lands within the
state.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: It is the highest priority?
A. Was one of the highest.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: One of the highest?
A. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: And this is established by
whom?
A. This is first established by planning staff, and
then it goes through different state agencies for
review. We go on long-term planning sites.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you.
MR. RIGGS: Why didn't the state acquire this?
Why did they change their attitude?
A. I believe later on towards the middle of February
the Office of State Property did some estimates
on the property.
MR. RIGGS: Did some what?
A. Did some property value estimates to determine what
it was worth. With the threat of rezoning or 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
Hazard Commission -802-
potential for rezoning, the land price escalated
to the point where we no longer had the funds
to acquire it.
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, you did say
that you considered this high priority. Did you
say last February?
A. Yes, sir. \
MR. JOHNSON: Was this before or after Dr.
Jones wrote that letter of his?
A. It was before.
MR. JOHNSON: So, Dr. Jones wrote the letter
after you did this saying that the Department was
not interested?
A. He did after I did it, and also after the property
value had escalated.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I mean I'm just trying
to get the time frame there. That's all.
A. Yes, sir.
MR. SALISBURY: Excuse me, a question along
that same line. It's your understanding that if
this property were not zoned industrial, if it
were zoned residential -- is that what it was
l
previously?
A. Unh-hunh (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
Hazard Direct -803-
MR. SALISBURY: That the Department would
still be interested in purchasing?
A. Probably so, yes. It would also be dependent
on available funds, but if it were -- if it re-
mained residential, it still would be high
priority.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Are you through?
MR. SALISBURY: (Nods affirmatively)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: In previous testimony,
I believe it was Mr. Eakes who indicated that
there were properties across the I-40 planned
for redisposition. Is that the term he used?
A. Disposition, yes.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Disposition. And some
other testimony indicated that owners offered
to trade that land, disposition land versus that we
have under discussion. Can you shed any light
as to_why the state did not allow that?
A. I'm not aware of the issues. I just became aware
of that one thing this morning, but I do know
for that one tract south of I-40 there are both
deed restrictions and land and water conservation
fund restrictions on that piece of land that state
that we have to clear it through the Department of

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
N
s 18
19
0
20
Z
W
Z
Z 21
a
m
22
a
4
W 23
a
24
25
Hazard Commission -804-
Interior before we can dispose of it. And if
we do dispose of it, we have to acquire land of
equal recreational value and monetary value.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions.
MR. VAN HORN: I have a question. As a
professional dealing with reactions to environmental
conditions, and if you have an opinion, what is
your evaluation of the difference in the reaction
of persons, on one hand, a professional going in
and studying and concentrating on effects of
noise, and on the other hand, a person who is
casually going into a property and has no pre-
conceptions while he's using that property?
Would there not be a difference in reaction
of those two persons?
A. Yes, there definitely would be some difference.
I think a major point here is, William B. Umstead
is a natural area. People expect a natural area.
If they're confronted with these different im-
pacts, the noise, the visual, the truck congestion,
there will be a range of reaction from just mild
irritation to leaving the site and going home.
MR. VAN HORN: I have nothing further.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, I probably should

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
114
Hazard Commission -805-
know this, but I don't. Can you tell me how
many primary crushers, how many cone crushers,
if you're going to use cone crushers, and how
many screens are anticipated for the Wake Stone
operation on this site?
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, sir, and I plan to offer
Mr. Bratton on rebuttal. He can testify to that
personally, but there'll be one primary crusher,
two cone crushers, three screens. That's -- that'
the major equipment.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you. Any other
questions? You may step down, Mr. Hazard, thank
you very much.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I'd like to declare a ten
minute recess, please.
SHORT RECESS
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I'd like to call the commiss'
meeting to order, please. Mr. Oakley, are you
ready with your next witness, sir?
i
MR. OAKLEY: We'd like to call Mr. John
Conners.
on
11

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Connons Direct -806-
Whereupon,
JOHN CONNORS,
Having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY:
MR. VAN HORN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Oakley, your witnesses have a strong tendency
to speak very softly.
A. I'll speak up. I do have a loud voice.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Please do. We're having
trouble competing with the ventilation system.
A. okay.
Q. (Mr. Oakley) Would you state your full name and
address for the record?
A. My name is John Connors, and I live at 310 Perry
Street in Raleigh.
Q. What is your present position, Mr. Connors?
A. I work with the City of Raleigh as a Naturalist
and Director of Camp Durant.
Q. How long have you been in that present position?
A. Since October.of 1979.
Q. What are your duties and responsibilities?

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
Connors Direct 11-807-
A. Well, with the City of Raleigh, I lead a number
of nature hikes, do interpretative work. a8.
a naturalist to teach people about nature. That's
essentially what that role is.
As Director of Camp Durant in north Raleigh,
I direct the operations of that camp, and do
programing for it. I am not here representing
the City of Raleigh, however.
Q What -- what are some of your previous professiona
experiences?
A. I have worked -- after I finished my undergraduate
degrees, I worked with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission as a wildlife management
technician.
I came back to graduate school, and during
summers at graduate school, I worked as a
naturalist for the State Parks of North Carolina
at Uimstead Park.
0. And what is your educational background?
A. I have a B. S. Degree in Forestry from N. C.
State, a B. S. Degree in Wildlife Biology from
N. C. State, and will complete my Master of
Science Degree this spring from N. C. State in
Wildlife Biology.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Connonrs Direct 1 -808-
Q. Are you familiar with the Umstead Park area
that is adjacent to the proposed quarry?
A. Yes, I am. I've worked there two summers, in
the summer of '76 and '78, I believe, as a
naturalist during the summer. Leading nature
hikes, doing slide presentations at night to
campers, working with group camps. Just anybody
who came in, I would do programing for them.
I helped develop nature trails and maintain
the nature trails. I worked at both the Crabtree
side off Route 70 and the Reedy Creek side.
Q. Can you briefly describe for us the area of
the park that is adjacent to the quarry?
A. Well, the Reedy Creek section of Umstead, of
course, has a picnic ground, has nature trails
from that picnic ground. Leading down the hill,
we have a self -guided nature trail which doesn't
necessarily need a naturalist to be there.
We have signs on plaques along the nature
trail, and groups that picnic there can just
walk along the trail and interpret -- it's in-
terpreted for them. So, that was part of my job
to maintain that.
That particular area is -- runs -- well, if

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
Connors Direct -809-
I can just walk up there and show you. (Walks
to map) I think other people have addressed it
already, but it essentially -- the picnic ground
being in here. That trail runs down here along
the little creek here, and loops around.
So, it's in the vicinity of -- of the area
we've been talking about. That's a self -
guided trail.
Now, I -- I have lead a number of hikes
there. That was a particularly useful meeting
place at the picnic area during the summers I
worked as a naturalist.
School groups would come in through June,
and I would take them out. The -- the campers --
there is a group camp also located at the Reedy
Creek section, and they would come over to that
area and we would hike through that section of the
park
Q. Why would you use that particular area of the
park as opposed to others?
A. Well, one reason is that I'm very familiar with
that particular section having worked on the trail
and such, but the Needy Creek section of the park,
in itself, from my perspective, that of a naturalis'I
I
t ,
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
Connors Direct -810-
has things to offer that, say, the Crabtree
Section with the high density use doesn't have.
And these things being, it's -- it's more
natural, kept more in its natural state. There
are plant and animal species there that are more
readily observable because there.'s less dense
use there.
So, in that sense, in the interpreter's
sense, I can take people and show them a bird,
and not be disturbed by people boating and shouting
and that sort of thing.
Q. What -- you may have testified to this, but what
are the conditions that you feel need to be
present for the natural area purposes to be met?
A. That's not an easy question. It's -- it's
subjective to some degree, but in order for a
natural area -- for you to maintain a natural
area; -you have to have some management of numbers
of people, of what uses go in there, and you try
and enhance people's experience in that area with
the nature and the management that you use.
That -- that would mean you would route your
trails in such a way that they wouldn't disturb
certain plant species, or you would route your

M_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Connors Direct -811-
trails so that they would be near a creek so
people could see what a creek is like -- that
sort of thing.
I mean, you gear your use towards nature
and interpreting nature.
Q Have you observed other uses in that area of the
park other than the ones you've taken there?
A. Sure. I've seen a number of hikers. I've seen
picnickers, of course, and on occasion, horse-
back riders.
Q. Are you familiar with the issues in this matter?
A. Yes, I am. I -- I'm also President of the Wake
Audubon Society, and when this initial -- when a
quarry was initially proposed, we became familiar
with that issue, and, in fact, have attempted --
well, we were against the rezoning, and did, you
know, participate in the hearings up to this
point:
Q. What would you say would be your primary concern
with regards to the proposed quarry?
A. Well, speaking as a professional -- as a professio
naturalist, it's my job to try and sensitize
people -- sensitize people who would -use:~ this
park, for instance, to the natural things around
al

�J
0
N
C
O
a
0
0
2i
W
Z
Z
O
M
m
0
u
0
4
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
Connors Direct -812-
them. On a given nature hike, I would take
people out. Fifteen or twenty people will hike
a little bit. I'll be talking about what's going
on in the environment around them.
And I'll say -- for instance, I'll talk
about birds, and then I'll have . em sit down and
listen, and be totally quiet, and we'll listen.
And I'll ask them what they hear after a
time. I'll ask them what they hear, what it
means to them -- that sort of thing, and then
I'll try to identify the sounds to them so that
it means something to them.
People on a hike may hear a few birds, may
hear a few animal sounds, and they're not familiar
with what they are. Once you introduce them to
what they are, it becomes much more meaningful
and it adds a whole new dimension to most people's
expetience in the park.
So, I'm concerned mostly with the noise
aspect of this issue.
Q. Have you had occasion to acquaint yourself with
the -- specifically, just the sounds associated
with the Umstead Park -- the area that we've been
talking about?

[�J
�J
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
Connors Direct -813-
A. On many occasions. One of the things I do --
first, just working as a naturalist, I've -- it's
part of my job to become familiar with what is
there.
You can't interpret to someone what's there
unless you know what's there. My training, my
background is especially strong in wildlife --
birds in particular.
I can pretty much identify most any species
of bird just by hearing it. You know, I don't
have to see it, but also insects.
You know, people hear -- I heard earlier in
testimony about katydids. Somebody taping them
and they read a certain thing on some decibel
scale, or something, but if it was during the
daytime, I can almost guarantee you it wasn't
a katydid. It was a cicada.
'I mean it was -- you know, that was something
that caught my ear. Most people wouldn't know
that, you know, but that's my job.
So, I am familiar with the sounds, and with
what is at this particular site, what species
of birds I could find there, and that sort of
thing.

M-
V
N
f
C
O
V
0
0
0
z
W
Z
Z
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
Connors Direct -814-
Q Well, other than birds and insects, what -- what
background sounds would be generally present?
A. Well, certainly you'd hear wind. You'd hear
leaves rustling. You'd hear occasional aircraft
going over. From some spots near I-40, you
might hear the traffic on I-40. You might hear
kids playing, or'anything like that.
Q. Have you also tried to become acquainted with the
sounds that would be associated with the stone
quarry?
A. I've been to stone quarries a number of times.
I used to live in the North Carolina mountains,
and visited a number of them there.
I have, while working, been up to the Nello
Teer Quarry at Wake Forest, and I've also -- during
the -- as this issue developed, I went to the
Nello Teer Quarry at Crabtree -- along Crabtree
Creek.,
Q. What can you tell us about your investigations
with regard to the sounds?
A. Well, when I -- at Crabtree Creek quarry -- the
Nello Teer Quarry there -- I listened from the t
Ebenezer Church Road -- the bridge that goes across
Crabtree Creek, and I -- from measuring 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
Connors Direct -815-
distance, it's approximately three thousand feet
from the quarry site. The quarry site being
downstream. And I listened there just trying
to get a feel of what a quarry would sound like
through woods three thousand feet from the quarry
site, and at that point I could hear it. There
was a low droning sound. I assume this was the
crusher.
I'm not -- I haven't gone into a quarry
and actually identified those sounds, you know,
to associate them with -- you know, the interesting
thing--
Q. (Interposing) What would you say was your purpose,
then, in making these sound investigations?
A. To see how -- how it would affect me being in
the woods, and my experience, and if I was in
the role of an interpreter working there, I would
like to know how it would affect my ability to
interpret.
Now, one of the things that I heard there --
I kept hearing a -- it was sort of a higher
pitched noise. I couldn't identify it. It sounded
to me almost like a flute or something. I thought
somebody might be up on a hill -- there was a hous4

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
Connors Direct -816-
not far from there, and I thought, gee, somebody
is playing a flute or a recorder or something.
And I let it go as that. It was a sound
I couldn't identify. After a while -- after about
five or ten minutes at that spot, I hiked down
the creek towards the quarry to see as I got
closer what other effect.
And as I went down, probably, not two or
three hundred feet, I was able to identify it
as a beeping. One of those backup for a truck --
a backup sound or something, and I'm familiar
with them working with the city parks where their
dump trucks have that beeping sound.
So, that was the noise that I was hearing.
Now, it was something I wasn't able to identify.
It made me curious in it, but when I found out
what it was, I was a little distressed, you know,
that . -I had actually been attracted to it, and it
was -- when I'm in the woods and I hear something
unfamiliar, I'm compelled to find out what it
is, especially, if it's a natural sound. I want
to know what it is.
Q. Can you relate to us your observations in relating
comparing, contrasting the quarry sounds to 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
Connors Direct -817-
park sounds?
A. My subjective feeling on this is that there is
sound and there is noise, and I differentiate
between the two.
People go to a park to hear the natural
sounds. That's why you go. You don't want to
be -- especially in a park like Umstead which
is -- is large. It is a place where people belie
they can get away.
I consider the sounds of a quarry to be
noise. I think quarries have an appropriate
place, but in Umstead Park if I was to hear
quarry noise, then, I would lose a lot of what
I go to Umstead to find.
Q. Would that affect your work, also?
A. It very well could. If I had been leading a hike
towards the Crabtree Creek quarry, and started
hearing that beeping sound, I would have taken
my group and said, listen, what's that. We'd
start hiking towards it, and when I find out, I
mean, it would be a let down.
One thing, I was confused by it -- something
I didn't recognize. They would be looking at me
for guidance, and what is this, and then as we

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
Connors Direct -818-
would approach it -- I mean, I would show that --
yikes, you know, it's a truck.
Q. Can you think of anything else of significance
about the investigations that you have made'
relating them specifically to park usage?
A. Repeat that, again.
¢ I was just summing up -- if there's anything else
of significance that you could relate to us about
the sounds of a quarry and the effect upon your
use of the park.
A. Well, one of the things about Umstead being a
large expansive woodlands. There are things
that you can go there for to hear, or to see, or
to smell, or to touch that you can't -- there
isn't any other place readily available here in
the Triangle area.
I can mention specific species of birds
which only are found there -- say, an oven bird.
It would be something I would -- I would go --
I would bring a group there, and say, look, we're
going to go listen for oven birds, and we'll try
to find their nest today.
And, believe it or not, there are a lot of
people that are interested in doing that. Umsteadl

R
Y
O�
O
N
E
0
0
0
Z
W
Z
0
m
0
u
0
4
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
Connors Direct -819-
is really the only public land that's big
enough and remote enough that I could do that
at. I expect to be able to find that when I go
there.
I would be very shaken if I couldn't, and
the people that I work for, I think, would also
be a little bit upset if I couldn't do that.
Now, I -- there are things about -- I'm not
saying that the quarry would necessarily drive
these things away.
The way it will affect me is that it will
'interfere with my ability -to locate these things.
It could drown them out for me. It could drive
me to have to find another place.
I think the -- one thing that people haven't
addressed here too much is the difference between
summer.sounds, say, and winter sounds.
Now, in the summer you're going to have
birds singing because they're mating. That's
what they do when they mate. You're going to
have insects singing. You'll have frogs singing.
It's summertime. It's the mating season.
Well, in the wintertime you're not going to
have all that sound -- those animal sounds. Your

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
Connors Direct -820-
going to have, essentially, just warm-blooded
animals about, and, specifically, birds. The
only thing -- the only sounds birds really make
in the winter is -- is little peeps and cheeps,
you know. And you have a one call note, and
I'll hear a peep there and a chirp over there.
I can still identify them. Each specific
species sounds different from the others, but
it's much harder to hear them. It's just one
note. Well, there isn't very much else going
on in the background. There isn't much other
sounds during the winter,,but if there was a
quarry there, you'd be hearing that. I mean,
that would be right with you the whole time.
You would be able to hear that, because
there's nothing to focus your attention to --
nothing else. Like, if you were in a concert
hall'and sitting next to the violinist right here,
well, you might focus in on the violinist and
not hear the rest of the symphony, but if you're
sitting in the background, you're going to hear
the whole thing, and not be able to focus your
attention on any one thing.
And I think in the wintertime is when a

8
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
Connors Direct -821-
background noise that was constant is going to --
you'll feel it more, and in my specific case it
might interfere with my leading bird hikes and
things in the fall, winter and early spring.
MR. OAKLEY: That's all the questions we
have.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Would the attorneys approach
the bench, please?
(DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, are you ready
for cross-examination?
MR. KIMZEY : Yes, I , am.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
0. Mr. Connors, it's my understanding that you're
here representing yourself and not the City of
Raleigh, is that correct, in your remark you
made?
A. That's true. I think I'm representing user
groups -- a specific type of user group.
Q When you talked about the people you were working
for, you meant the people you were leading on
the hikes and the nature things --
A. (Interposing) That's true.

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
Connors Direct -822-
Q. --not the City of Raleigh?
A. That's right.
Q. You visited Nello Teer's quarry at Wake Forest
and at Crabtree to acquaint yourself with the
quarry noise, is that correct?
A. To reacquaint myself, and familiarize myself
with how it relates to distance, vegetation --
things that I hadn't really addressed before.
Q. Did you bother to visit Wake Stone's quarry at
Knightdale or Moncure?
A. No, I didn't, sir.
Q. Do you know the equipment.that is in use at the
two Nello Teer quarries that you visited?
A. No, I don't.
Q. You don't know how many jaw crushers or cone
crushers, or screens or trucks, do you, sir?
A. I don't.
Q. And you don't know how that would relate to the
proposed operation at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you had the opportunity to camp out at
William B. Umstead Park?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. I have to. Would you characterize to the commissi
Few

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
Connors Direct -823-
what you consider the airplane noise to be in
that experience?
A. At the -- you're talking about the day use
camp area on the Crabtree side?
Q I'm just talking about the overnight camping
area up there --
A. (Interposing) Well, there's a number of overnight
camping areas.
Q I'm talking about Crabtree.
A. Okay. Because on the Reedy Creek side in the
camp area, it's very intermittent. If you're
camping at the camp site on the Crabtree Creek
side, you do hear the plans taking off and landing
Q. You hear them quite loudly, don't you?
A. I would say so, yes.
Q You realize that I-40 parallels the proposed
quarry site, is that correct?
A. Yes. ' ..
Q. To that extent, then, the quarry site acts as
a buffer to the I-40 noise to the quarry, is
that not correct?
A. Yeah, to some degree I suppose it does.
Q. Particularly if it's not in operation as it would
' not be on Saturday and Sunday. It would provide

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Connors Cross -824-
a buffer to the I-40 noise during the weekend,
wouldn't it?
A. And during the weekdays.
Q. Yes, and do you still hear some I-40 noise
at the location of Reedy Creek?
A. In some parts of it near the border that --
closest to the I-40.
Q. That would be up near the entrance to the
parking area -- picnic area, is that correct?
A. Correct. From the picnic area, you rarely can
hear anything.
Q. Right, but the parking lot, or the road up there,
you could hear something?
A. Yeah, you could hear a little bit more.
11R. KIMZEY : No further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Oakley, do you have
any redirect?
'MR. OAKLEY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do the commission members
have any questions?
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, just one question
Mr. Connors testified all about noise. Do you
er the noise from the airport significant?
consider 1_
A. In certain locations as an intermittent noise.

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
Connors Commission -825-
I wouldn't consider it significant in all
places in the park, and in the Reedy Creek
section where we're talking, I wouldn't consider
it significant. I recently read a book called
the Snow Leopard and it was about an expedition
into the Himalayas, and even there they heard
planes go over, but I would consider that a
wilderness experience.
It's like an intermittent intrusion, but
it's not an ever present -- there's a big differen
MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Connors, this was not
an idle question. This case is being tried on
the significance to Umstead Park.
A. I realize that.
MR. JOHNSON: And I was trying to get your
feel for how serious you considered the airport
noise. That was all.
MR. VAN HORN: I would like to clarify a
point. The entrance to the park area from I-40,
is that considered a part of the Reedy Creek
area according to the definitions we're using
as Reedy Creek as opposed to Crabtree?
A. The -- I'm -- the Reedy Creek section I -- I refer
to from Interstate 40. The Crabtree section 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
Connors
Commission
the 70.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Other questions?
COMMISSION: (All shake heads negatively)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Connors.
Step down.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Oakley.
MR. OAKLEY: May we approach the bench?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes, please do.
(DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: For the benefit of the
audience, the commission wishes to go off the
record for some housekeeping matters with the
attorneys, and we'll go back on to the record
this afternoon at 1:30. Is that all right?
COT111MISSION: (All nod affirmatively)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Let's say 1:00, and there
are two state witnesses this afternoon, and I
believe you have two recalls.
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. So, we will be
discussing details of site visits and one thing
and another for the rest of the time till lunch
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
—V27—
MR. KIMZEY: That's fine.
(CONFERENCE OFF RECORD)
MS. FRENCH: Could we please go back on the
record and summarize what we have decided in
these proceedings.
We've decided that we will meet tomorrow
morning at nine o'clock (9:00). The commission
members will go to the following sites: The
Knightdale quarry, the Crabtree quarry, the park
and the proposed site visit, or the proposed site.
Dr. Warren's testimony will be taken by
written examination. Following the site visit
tomorrow, we will reconvene in the hearing room
in the Archdale Building, and the attorneys will
present oral argument and have waived written
briefs.
At this time we're going to recess until
one o'clock (1:00).
LUNCH BREAK
(WAKE STONE EXHIBIT 31,
MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Gentlemen, we will call the

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
18
N 19
a
o
20
W
21
T
Q
0
22
O
4
W 23
a
24
25
B
Colloquy -828-
meeting of the commission to order, and I
believe, Mr. Oakley, you're first with the
witness.
MR. OAKLEY: The Department would like to
call Mr. Charles Gardner.
WHEREUPON,
CHARLES HARWOOD GARDNER,
Having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY:
Q. Would you state your full name and address for
the commission, please?
A. My name is Charles Harwood Gardner. I live at
312 Oakwood Avenue in Raleigh.
Q. And what is your present occupation?
A. I'm a professional geologist and a professional
engineer currently responsible, and have been
for the past four years for the Land Quality
Section in the Department of Natural Resources.
4. What are your responsibilities in that position? l
A. I'm responsible for the implementation of the

�J
14,
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
Gardner Direct -829-
Mining Act, the States Dam Safety Act and
the Erosion Sediment Control Act.
Q. And in the structure of state government to
whom do you report?
A. I report to the Director of Division of Land
Resources, Mr. Steve Conrad.
Q. Do you have supervisory authority, yourself?
A. Yes, I do. I supervise a staff -- the Land
Quality Section staff of about thirty-two engineer
and technicians involved in those three programs
that I mentioned, including Mr. Simons, who
works under my supervision.
0. And what was your previous employment prior to
coming with the State?
A. I worked for several years as a consultant in
the geotechnical engineering field for Law
Engineering Testing Company in Atlanta and
Ra 1 e i-gh . i
I also worked as chief geologist and geo- ,
technical engineering supervisor and technical
services supervisor for International Minerals
and Chemical Company in Florida in phosphate
mining -- about a ten million ton per year
production facility.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
0
18
^' 19
o.
20
W
_
0 21
K
m
O 22
0
K
W 23
24
25
Gardner
Q•
A.
Q.
A.
Direct
And what is your general educational background,
Mr. Gardner?
Let me mention one thing that I failed to mention,
that when I first got out of school, I worked
for two years with the Georgia Highway Department.
And one of my responsibilities there was inspecting
operating quarries, and also exploration for
quarry sites.
With regard to the educational background,
I have a Master's Degree in Geology from Emory
University. I've done graduate studies at
Georgia Tech in Soil Mechanics. I've had graduate
courses, or a graduate course in Engineering
Management at the University of South Florida,
and short courses in Mining Engineering at the
University of Pennsylvania -- I'm sorry --
Pennsylvania State University. I
Do you belong to any professional associations?
Yes, sir. I'm a member of the Society of Mining
Engineers. I'm a Fellow of the Geological Society
of America, member of the American Institute of
Professional Geologists, a member of the American
Society of Civil Engineers. That's the main ones
that I belong to. j

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
Gardner Direct -831-
Q. And what licenses do you hold?
A. Well, I'm a Certified Professional Geologist in
a national certification program, and I'm also
a registered Professional Engineer in the State
of North Carolina.
Q. Have you had any publications?
A. I've had about nine publications -- mostly papers
that were delivered and published as abstracts.
Some of them have been published as the full
papers in the general area of mining, slope
stability, hazardous waste disposal siting, and
things in those general application areas.
Q. In your duties as Land Quality Section Chief,
have you visited sites of stone quarries?
A. Yes, in this position, I've inspected on the order
of ten to -- or visited on the order of ten to
twenty quarries in North Carolina.
0. How many sites would you say you've visited overall
A. Overall I think I've seen over a hundred quarry
sites in the southeast, or quarries in the south-
eastern U. S.
Q I believe you stated that part of your duties was
to review mining applications.
i
A. That's correct.

8
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
Gardner Direct -832-
Q. About how many applications have you reviewed?
A. I think in the mining field, in general, it's
been several score of mining applications reviewed
since the time that I've been in this position.
¢ Could you briefly tell us what that review process
would entail?
A. Well, primarily, Mr. Simons is responsible for
the initial detailed review of the mining
applications, and he consults with me during that
review process.
He reaches his final conclusions, and passes
those recommendations to me. I review those and
make recommendations to Mr. Conrad, who makes
the final decision,concerning permits.
Q. Are you familiar with the application of the
Wake Stone Corporation?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Could.you briefly describe your involvement in
it?
A. Well, I've been involved with the application
consideration from the beginning. I've met with
Air. Simons and Mr. Bratton on two or three occasion
I reviewed the progress of Mr. Simons' work as
it developed, and the park's people, and other

' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
N
cc
cc 18
O
14
19
s.
Z
20
W
Z
0 21
4
0
O 22
0
W 23
d
24
25
Gardner Direct -833-
people that were involved, in addition to in-
specting the proposed quarry site and the adjacent
areas.
Q. What concerns did you come to have of the issuance
of the permit?
A. Our initial look at the permit was more from the
broad prospective. We kind of -- the thing evolve
from the general to the particular. We were
responsible for looking at all site effects,
including the park, but, also, including the
areas other than the park.
Things that we normally look at closely are
sedimentation, and the potential effects of
blasting. As we got deeper into our study, we
became satisfied that the applicant could properly
protect the off -site areas from ground vibrations
aspect of blasting. Particularly, we were concern
about the Triangle Engineering Company's sensitive
I'm sorry -- Landmark Engineering Company's sensit'
equipment across I-40.
We came to believe that the blasting levels
i
could be controlled to three hundred to four
hundred pounds per delay, and properly protect
that area. And, so, we stipulated that we concur,
IN
ve

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
21
22
2.
24
2E
Gardner Direct -834-
or agree that those concerns could be properly
protected.
Q. Were there any other aspects of the operation,
that you felt were satisfactory -- satisfactorily
addressed?
A. Yes, sir. I think the -- from our knowledge,
and my own previous experience with other quarries
we don't believe that a quarry site here would
have an adverse effect on wildlife, per se.
We think it would affect people's enjoyment
of wildlife. We don't -- I don't anticipate a --
that a detrimental effect on ground water would
occur if a quarry were developed here.
I think wildlife and ground water are very
general areas of basic reclamation concept. Even
though the opportunities are limited, I think
the basic reclamation idea is acceptable to us.
Q, Were'there some aspects of the operation that
you think were not satisfactorily addressed?
A. Yes, Mr. Oakley, I'd like to say that I think
that the application that we received and the
additional information that we received from
Wake Stone Company and Mr. Bratton received an
unusual amount of effort on the applicant's part.

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
Gardner Direct -835-
And that if there were anyone who could control
things adequately, that it would be Wake Stone
and Mr. Bratton.
At the same time, we feel that there are
some items that are beyond the applicant's
control, and that's the crux of the issue.
Q. At some point in your process, did you come to
focus on the park?
A. Absolutely. As our review evolved, the focus
became strictly on the park. We were satisfied
about things outside of the park area.
Q. What s.teps did you take to acquaint. yourself
with the Umstead Park?
A. Well, I walked over -- several times I walked
over park areas that are contiguous with or near
the proposed quarry site.
I've also walked on the quarry site, itself,
several times. Would you like me to show where
I walked, or--
Q. (Interposing) If you'd like.
A. Okay. (Witness goes to exhibits) Generally
speaking, I walked from the parking area down alon
the park boundary on the east side of the proposed
quarry site and over into this lake area, onto

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
Gardner
N
A.
N
A.
Direct -836-
this hillside. Further, I've gone down near
the property line to the creek and across the
creek. I walked this proposed wilderness area
over here across from the proposed quarry site.
I think the issues that are involved have been
pretty well set out by witnesses prior to you.
I'd like to go through some of the concerns that
you have personally with this application, and
I'll just start with blasting.
Could you tell us what concerns you have
with regard to the possible impact of blasting?
Yes, sir. The -- actually the concerns we have
with blasting overlap or in a sense, are somewhat
redundant with the concerns that we have concernin
dust and noise, and those are also mentioned.
Those are the two main items that we are
concerned about with blasting. Do you want me
to elaborate on that?
Do you feel that the design of the blast can
be controlled by Wake Stone?
I believe the design of the blast can be controlle
to the extent of protecting off -site structures
both from the ground vibration standpoint, and
from the fly rock standpoint.
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
Gardner Direct -837-
Q. Have you ever indicated any concern to Wake
Stone along those lines?
A. Well, we had discussions with Wake Stone con-
cerning ground vibrations. We did studies and
they did studies. So, we had several discussions
along those lines, but, finally, that issue has
been settled.
Q. What -- I think you mentioned blasting in with
dust. What concerns do you have with regard
to the impact of fugitive dust?
A. Well, from general quarry experience at other
sites over the southeast, and having witnessed
many quarry blasts, it's inevitable that there
is a plume of dust of short duration that rises
up during a quarry blast.
I think that depending on the exact location
of the blast in the quarry and the degree of
screening, I do think at times there would be --
this plume of dust would be visible from the
park side. I think that it's quite likely that
on occasion that dust could be blown over into
the park area.
Q. You are aware that Wake Stone has received a air

[AJ
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Direct -838-
quality permit relating to dust?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Would you comment on how that entered into your
consideration?
A. Well, I think the air quality permit is not
designed -- and I'm not fairly familiar with all
the details of air quality permitting, but I
think that a point of general philosophy that
those permits are not designed for this kind of
situation of a quarry -- proposed quarry adjacent
to a proposed recreation area.
I think that Wake Stone with its track record,
and my impressions of them, that they would
comply with the air quality permit.
Q. Okay. What concerns do you have with regard to
the visual aspect of Wake Stone's operation, and
if you would relate it just to the park -- if
you would?
A. Well, having been on the proposed quarry site
and in .the park areas across Crabtree Creek
from the quarry site, there's no doubt in my
mind that the proposed quarry would be visible j
from certain areas in the park area -- particularly
the areas on the hillside across 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
Gardner Direct -839-
from the proposed quarry. Much of that area
is hardwood vegetation.
Q. Could you point to those areas?
A. Sure.
Q. On either of those exhibits.
A. (Witness goes to map) Well, this is the larger
one. I think it would do just as well. I think
this general hillside area over here. I note
that this hilltop area is clearly visible.
I think, also, from the property line in
the hardwoods over here, this hillside is also
visible -- the hilltop area at this time of: year.
Q. Have you made any estimates of the growth of
the quarry operation within the ten year permit
period?
A. I've made some very generalized and schematic -
type estimates.
Q. And did you participate in the schematics that
are on the two exhibits?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Those are number 27 and 28?
A. Right.
Q. Could you briefly explain your involvement in j
those schematics?

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
Gardner Direct -840-
A. Yes, sir. I'd like to go up and explain this.
Q. (Nods affirmatively)
A. I want to first introduce this with a very
important qualification. From testimony on
this, this is strictly schematic. It's not
intended to represent an actual proposed outline
for the quarry, or proposed quarry.
What we were trying to demonstrate here is
that if -- three points -- one, is if the pro-
posed quarry were to open up in this block that's
shown on the application, and considering the
size of the block here, we're talking something
on the order of two hundred thousand tons.
Depending on what production rate you want
to use, we're talking about two to four months,
or even with start-up problems, six months at
the most that this area represents.
•So, I want to emphasize that point. Using
some very simplified assumptions concerning
topography and overburden depths, specifically,
assuming a level area for the simplicity of gross
standard computation, which this was, further
refinement wouldn't be justified.
Further, using the average overburden depth

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r;
13
14
15
16
17
cc I 18
0
0
19
0
20
2
W
Z
Z 21
0
a
CO
0 22
0
v
W 23
d
24
25
C.,
Gardner Direct -841-
of thirty feet, Mr. Bratton has said that the
overburden depth in this area is about twenty
feet, or so.
We know that the road cutout here is thirty
to forty feet deep -- thirty or thirty-five, at
least with no sound rock showing in that road
cut.
Mr. Bratton has mentioned that some places
on the site, I think, have eighty feet of over-
burden. I don't know where that is, but the
generalized assumption is thirty feet of overburde
in a two to one side slopes in the overburden,
which I think is the absolute steepest that one
would want to use.
And one half to one average slopes in the
rocks, actually, would be vertical or near vertica
faces benches and going down to a depth of two
hundred feet.
That from those simplified assumptions,
that this area up to this line, assuming that
the quarry would want to begin in this area,
and work away from the park, would represent
about six million tons.
If these benches were quarried out on retreat

2
3
4
5
6
7
8-
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Direct -842-
th at would be increased by two to three million
tons, perhaps, but if the quarry had to go deeper
at a future time, then those benches might
'still be there, until the
operator decided to retreat
final retreat for the quarry. So, this represents
six million tons, and at the production rate
Mr. Bratton has discussed with me, a million
tons a year in roughly six years -- maybe a little
longer considering the start-up -- slower pro-
duction rates during start-up.
The red area outlines one alternative.
Again, I want to emphasize my qualification on
this. This one alternative is to have the quarry
period progress, and the red outline would indicate
about ten years production, or about ten million
tons. I
.If this alternative were not used, and we
think it would necessitate.either a relocation
in plant site, the plant would have to -- the
quarry would have to go into this area necessitati
relocating the plant, or if the overburden would
permit it, the quarry could go into this area,
and that would necessitate a relocation of the
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
Gardner Direct -843-
access road. Relocation of the access road,
which is the road the loaded trucks would be
using -- the forty to eighty trucks per hour
would be using to go to the market, would probably
have to be closer to the park -- to the park
N
A.
entrance area.
So, the twenty year figure -- which I
don't want to belabor, because we're looking
at a ten year permit period -- this represents
about fifty-five acres, and about -- roughly
with the benches, about twenty million tons.
As the benches are removed, that would be
increased, perhaps, twenty percent to go to
fifty million tons for fifty years, I think you'd
have to go deeper, or either spread out more.
Again, I don't want to belabor that point.
How does your particular estimate of growth
affect your concern with visibility?
Well, I think there's a point after the first
few years of operation where something is going
to have to be moved. Either the quarry is going I
I
to have to go closer to the park, or the plant
is going to have to be moved, or the access roads
are going to have to be moved. I think, ultimatelyl,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Direct -844-
to get the tonnage that Mr. Bratton has cited
from the site, in the long-range plan the quarry
would definitely have to progress towards the
park.
I think this obviously has implications
in terms of noise and the other concerns that
we have, except -- and I want to qualify that --
I think as time goes on, the sedimentation
problem -- potential problem would become less of
a potential, because the operator could turn
some of the drainage into the pit area.
Normally, operators don't like to do that,
but they could sacrifice part of the quarry area
for sediment control.
Q. What concerns do you have with regard to the
traffic flow from and into the quarry?
A. The same concerns that have been pretty well
elabd.rated on in previous testimony. My concern
is with the irritating quality -- subjective
irritating quality that I believe it would produce
with park users entering and leaving the park
area.
Q. What concerns do you have with regard to the
possible noise impact on the quarry as it relates

[AJ
N_
C��
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
Gardner Direct -845-
to the park?
A. Well, my major concern is with potential noise
impact -- is with noise impact that I think
would occur if the quarry were permitted.
The other concerns that we have, I think,
are in combination. The potential for problems
with all of those are significant, but I think
noise stands out as a very major concern.
Q. Have -you tried to familiarize yourself with
the noise situation?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you had occasion to visit the park?
A. Well, yes, as I mentioned, I have traversed
areas in the park closest to the -- or in the
vicinity of the proposed site.
Q. And have you had the occasion to visit other
quarries to familiarize yourself with the noise
aspect?
A. Yes. In addition to my general experience with
quarries I've visited, with respect to this
particular application, the Stoneville quarry --
Vulcan Material Stoneville quarry, and also the
Crabtree quarry.
Q, okay. Taking the Crabtree quarry first, what

a
0
N
O
0
O
s
z
W
Z
Z
O
m
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
Gardner Direct -846-
actually did you do there?
A. I went to the Crabtree quarry several times,
both down into the quarry and in the perimeter
areas. I accompanied Mr. Stewart, Dr. Bailey's
assistant, in his noise measurements, and I
listened to the noise and looked at the noise
meter, and witnessed his recordings.
Q. To clear up one point,that you gave Mr. Stewart
the measurements that went into the computation
on the noise graph, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were those distances?
A. As I recall, we had appointed -- well, we had
appointed a thousand feet,.which was right at
the edge of the quarry. The more significant
points were at fifteen hundred feet and nineteen
hundred feet in a vegetative area across from
Crabtree Creek from the existing quarry.
Q. Did you have an occasion to notice the general
topographic features, also?
A. Yes, I did. i
I
0. Would you describe that for us?
A. Well, the Crabtree quarry is right adjacent to
Crabtree Creek, and not very far, relatively, above

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
Gardner Direct -847-
Crabtree Creek at the natural ground levels
out there. The site where -- the points at
fifteen hundred feet and nineteen hundred feet
where we measured the noise that were used --
measurements that were used on Dr. Bailey's
graphs are on a hillside across Crabtree Creek
from the quarry.
Q. Could you tell us the -- tell us a little bit
about the Crabtree quarry in terms of its
production?
A. Well, the Crabtree quarry has two plants operating
I don't know what their exact production is,
and if I did, I think it would have to be con-
sidered confidential, but I think it's perfectly
safe to say that it approaches a million tons
per year.
It's in the range of a half a million to
a million. It's probably nearer a million.
Q. Do you know how many quarries in the state have
a production of a million tons per year?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Could you relate for us the two experiences
between the quarry and the park as it relates
to this -- the sound aspects?
ti

8
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
Gardner Direct -848-
A. Well, it's very important to me. It is -- I
think that at the decibel levels that. I think
are comparable, or would be heard in perimeter
areas of the park nearest the proposed quarry
site -- that those levels would be definitely
irritating to most people trying to use the
quarry site -- trying to use the park area -- I'm
sorry.
Q. As far as the Stoneville quarry, what actually
did you do there?
A. Mr. Conrad and I went to the Stoneville quarry
area, and we took a noise meter -- the same noise
meter that Mr. Simons used in his measurements.
We listened to the Stoneville quarry operatiori
at varying distances from the quarry operation,
and looking at the sound meter to develop a
picture of what we were hearing and how that
look$ in terms of decibels.
Q Can you tell us what distances were involved?
A. Yes. We were at about eighteen hundred feet
down to, roughly, about a thousand feet from
the quarry.
¢ And what was the general topographic features?
A. The Stoneville quarry is on a hilltop -- hillside

1 Gardner
2
3
4 Q,
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Q,
14
15
16 A.
17 Q.
18
19 A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Direct
-849-
area. We were across a creek in a wooded area
from that on an adjacent hillside area.
And can you relate the noise aspects of that
quarry and the park situation?
That's a reasonably comparable situation. Even
at eighteen hundred feet where we were measuring
roughly, forty-five decibels, the quality of the
noise -- the constancy of the noise and the quality
of it, I feel, even at forty-five decibels would
be irritating, subjectively, to me if I were in
a park situation.
Do you feel that you've gone to significant
lengths to familiarize yourself with the noise
issues in this matter?
Yes, I do.
What -- can you summarize, then, your concerns
about the noise impact?
I thih]c there's no question in my mind that in
the park area across Crabtree Creek on the
property line nearest the east side of the proposed
site that the noise levels that would be produced
by a quarry operation, and the production plant
would be definitely very irritating to people in
those portions of the park. I think particularly

1 Gardner
2
3
4 Q.
5
6 A.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Q
18
19
A.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Direct
-850-
in the wilderness area across the creek from
the proposed quarry site.
Would the ten year expansion figures as you
have projected affect that opinion?
Well, I think over time the impact of the noise
on the park would vary. I think as the quarry
expanded vertically, you might say, or got
deeper, some of the noise impact from the
equipment in the quarry, itself, would be reduced.
At other times as the equipment was working
higher up on the bench, or working into new
areas expanding the quarry horizontally, I think
the noise impact would be worse.
I think the general trend would be that
the noise impact would get worse in time.
What concerns do you have with regard to possible
sedimentation impacts?
My main concern with sedimentation is in the
initial operation site preparation. Again, I
think the applicant did an unusually good job of
trying to address this problem having retained
Mr. Edwards, a private engineer, for a design.
Still, and yet, it would take time to build
the dam or the dike in the downstream area to -- a

�J
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
Gardner Direct -851-
the bottom at a very -- for this part of the
country -- a very steep hollow.
There is, I think, a reasonable likelihood
that a storm could develop and come through the
area during these initial site construction and
site development stages that could produce off -
site sedimentation.
I think that sediment would get into -- if
that developed, would get into Crabtree Creek
downstream from the proposed sediment basin --
well, in the immediate are of Crabtree Creek
near the sediment basin the creek is relatively
deep.
Downstream from there -- if I might point
it out? (Witness goes to map) In this general
area here, the creek goes into shoals. I think,
in fact, that's where I personally walked across
the cxeek to get into the wilderness area.
I think that would be an unsightly kind of
thing for park users, as well as creating some
damage in terms of the aquatic life in the creek.
Q. Were you present at the hearing in November
when Wake Stone's witnesses testified with regard
to the economic aspects associated with a 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
Gardner Direct -852-
location at the site?
A. Yes, sir, I was.
Q. You were?
A. I was.
Q, Would you tell us, now, how economics entered
into your permit review?
A. Well, we did not consider economics in our permit
review.
Q. Do you have any other general comment on the
economics of a quarry at this location?
A. There are some comments I can make if it were
a pertinent issue. We -- there's one question
as to providing the market in Wake County or
in the western part of Wake County that's -- that'
needed.
As a general figure, the combined production
of crushed stone in Wake County is about -- in
1979' yeas about three million tons per year based
on information provided by the U. S. Bureau of
Mines.
We know that we're considering an application
right now -- an active application for another
quarry site in Wake County -- the south side of
Raleigh.

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
Gardner Direct -853-
Q To repeat your testimony, then,you did -- did
you make economic considerations to the permit?
A. Not specifically. We, of course, realize the
value of mining and quarrying, and we like to
permit quarries and mines, and we realize the
economic value and that's part of our motivation,
but there's nothing in the law concerning the
significant adverse impact on a state park that
addresses economics.
MR. OAKLEY: Thank you. That's all the
questions we have.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, cross-examination
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q, Mr. Gardner, you made it quite clear that you
didn't take into account any economic consideratio
in making this determination.
,Did you consider it not significant as to
whether or not there was a balancing of both
pros and cons concerning any impact on the park,
or did you just take the impact on the park. -'.in
the abstract -- is that correct?
A. I think we took it in the abstract.
Q. Okay. Mr. Gardner, my hearing of your testimony
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
Gardner
A.
Q.
A.
N
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Direct
—854—
on the concerns -- and I'm trying to shorten
my cross-examination somewhat by this -- according
to some comments. the commission made.
You have repeated some of the same concerns
as Mr. Simons.
Yes, sir.
And your testimony, essentially, is cumulative
of Mr. Simons' as to the various points that
you mentioned, is that right?
I don't quite understand the "cumulative"
aspect as to --
(Interposing) Cumulative as to, or repetitive
as to the particular concerns that you mentioned,
other than expansion which was new testimony.
Yes, sir, I think that's correct.
All right. Let me see, then, if I can shorten
my cross-examination by this way. You heard
Mr.'Simons' cross-examination, didn't you?
Yes, sir.
And your testimony -- you heard the questions
I asked him concerning, for example, Wake Stone's
ability as an operator, Mr. Bratton's operation,
generally, and as far as the excellence of their
operation, and their abiliyy to carry out the

O
U
O
4
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
Gardner Direct -855-
proposed plan. You would have -- you would
agree with Mr. Simons' positive comments con-
cerning those abilities, I think?
A. Absolutely. In fact, I think I've availed myself
of the opportunity with Mr. Oakley to make a point
of that.
¢ Yes. You did and I appreciate that. It's not
any need to go through each individual point
since you would agree with the individual points
I made with Mr. Simons on those?
A. Yes, sir, right.
Q. It is also my understanding that you have visited
several quarries, but you haven't actually visited
Mr. -- Wake Stone, Mr. Bratton's operation, at
Knightdale or Moncure?
A. I have been to the Knightdale quarry.
0. You have been there.
A. In fact, I've been to the perimeter of the
Knightdale quarry since these proceedings started,
or at least since we've had the application.
I've not been to the Moncure quarry since
it was opened up as an operating facility.
. Okay. You didn't visit those particularly as
to your investigations into the proposed site when

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Cross -856-
you were comparing the noise?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Such as you did at Crabtree and Stoneville quarry,
did you?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you observe what equipment was operating at
the Crabtree quarry when you were there? You
said you visited it several times and went down
in the pit.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. There were two jaw crushers, were there not?
A. There were two jaw crushers, two separate screenin
plants in the quarry, itself. I think there were
three air drills. There was a power shovel, and
there were -- I don't know exactly how many, but
there were several trucks moving the stone up
to the :plants.
Q, The tyao jaw crushers would contrast if one
jaw crusher proposed at the present operation if i
were granted, is that correct?
A. I don't have any specific information as to how
many jaw crushers are proposed. That was not
filed with the application.
Q, Did you notice that there were four or five cone

�J
a
a
N
f
0
w
a
0
s
_
W
_
0
m
0
u
0
0
_
u
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Cross -857-
crushers out there?
A. I don't know. I think the thing that I'm most
interested in is the total production figures,
and the amount of energy that has to go into
crushing stone.
Q. All right. Did you notice whether there were
five or more screens there at the Crabtree quarry?
A. No, sir. There were two screening towers.
Q. Did you notice that that's quite a long haul
from the bottom of that pit up to those crushers,
and there's a lot of truck involvement there
at the Crabtree quarry? That it may be more than
at the normal quarry.
A. I wouldn't say it's more than the normal quarry.
I think it depends on the production rate.
Q. Would it be more than you would expect to have
with the proximity of the proposed plant in the
pit and the stockpile area there on the proposed
site?
A. No, sir, not at a million tons per year production.
I think it would have to be comparable.
Q. You don't think that haul up there at that Crabtree
quarry would really be more than what you've got
there?

N-
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
Gardner Cross -858-
A. I thought you were referring to the number of
trucks.
Q. I am referring to that. Doesn't it take more
trucks to move more stone along the same -- the
same amount of stone a longer distance?
A. Well, basically, yes.
Q. Yes, and more trucks in operation. You mentioned
getting on to the specifics that you mentioned,
one of these specifics -- the only criticism you
had of blasting was the occasional dust plume
situation that you mentioned.
A. And the noise, yes, sir.
Q. And I'll ask you, have you done any studies as
to the prevailing wind patterns there, and how
much period of time there is calm?
A. I'm aware of the investigation that Mr. Simons
did. I'm not too concerned about the specific
prevafiling winds. What we're concerned about
is that at times there could be winds blowing
from the quarry to the park area.
Q. Your information would be the same -- would be to
come from Mr. Simons as to that, then. You made
no independent investigation, is that right?
A. That's right.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1-4
Gardner Cross -859-
Q. And I take it you have no information concerning
a particular weight of the blasting dust to
determine how far that would travel, and what the,
what mile per hour winds, do you ?
A. Well, I've got some general information from
an. EPA study that was published in 1979 that
states that -- and this is based on a survey of
over a hundred quarries -- I think a hundred and
fifty quarries -- that concluded that about seventy
four percent of the particulate emissions from
quarries -- from granite -type quarries --
rock quarries -- seventy-four percent of the
particulate emissions is from blasting, and that's
an uncontrollable aspect of the particulate
emissions.
That report does not give grain size data,
and I'm:not aware of grain size data that could
be used for quantitatively projecting the
blasting dust into the park area. So, my con-
clusions on that are really based on general
experience and not on specific quantified numbers.
Q. No, sir. And, of course, it is true that when
you blast down in the pit, and you generate the
dust from the blast down in the pit, it has more

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Cross -860-
of an opportunity to settle while within the
pit, than it would if you were blasting -- moving
blasting up on top of the area?
A. Certainly.
Q. And of necessity you have a bunch of overburden
that requires you to go down.
A. Certainly, that's correct.
0. I would like to get to your schematics just a
minute, Mr. Gardner, and see if I can understand
who did what to develop the schematic, itself,
not what it represents.
A. Unh-hunk (yes).
0. Did you design or draw and develop the overlay
shown on the top exhibit, which I'll have to
refer to as exhibit number 28? I'm referring
to the overlay which shows a ten and a twenty
year possible growth, as you explained.
A. Mr. Kimzey, I developed on some tracing paper
an outline that was similar, and as far as I'm
concerned for all practical purposes identical
with the outline that you see there.
other people -- draftspersons took that
information and transferred it onto the mylar
that you see, and I checked that to make sure
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
i
Gardner Cross -861-
that it was a reasonable representation of
what I had drawn.
Q. And you were satisfied that is a reasonable
representation of what you had drawn, even though,
you, yourself, did not produce that work, is that
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. I took note and appreciate your
careful qualifications that this is only a
possible expansion. You don't represent that
this is what will occur in either a ten or a
twenty year period, but one of the options that
might occur, is that right?
A. Yes, sir, that's right.
Q And as I understood your testimony, you also
stated that in order to carry out the fifty year
life of the quarry using the proposed million
tons`a year, that that varied area outlined in
gray may very well be enough to carry out the
fifty years if you go to three hundred foot or
more depth, rather than just stopping where you
have.
A. I didn't compute what area or depth would be
required to go to fifty million tons. I think

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
18
N 19
0
0
0
Z
20
W
x
Z 21
0
a
m
22
O
Q
W 23
d
24
25
Gardner Cross -862-
it would be mighty close to get fifty million
tons out of that, or out of a hole of that basic
acreage, even going to -- even going to much
greater depths, because you get crowded as you
go deeper, but I won't -- I'm just not in a
position to contest the testimony that fifty
million tons could come out of there, but I do
think it would be very close if that's true.
Q. I guess the point that I picked up in your
testimony is from your careful qualifications was that you were not trying to show this as
a representative growth that would be multiplied
five times over fifty years.
That we're not talking about that type of
expansion occurring third, fourth and fifth
years territory -wise.
A. No, that's correct.
Q And,'so, your representation is merely, not only
one of the possible ways, but it is a representati
which may very well encompass a large surface
area which would then be mined to very close to
capacity, in any event?
A. That's right, but I would like to draw attention
to -- there is a basic acreage that's involved.
n

X_
NN F
0
N
O
n
0
z
W
_
O
O
U
O
4
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
Gardner Cross -863-
With twenty years, it would increase only
slightly, if any, according to Mr. Bratton's
territory, to go to fifty years, but somehow
you've got to fit that kind of acreage onto that
site, and it's hard for me to see how that can
be done without having a worse effect on the
park.
Q Well, in fact, you have fifty or fifty-five acres
within that colored area there, is that not
right?
A. Yes, sir, that's correct.
Q. And I believe the application mentioned mining
around that fifty or fifty-five acres and a
donation of the seventy-five acre at exhaustion
which would encompass some of the area next to
the park to donate to the park, isn't that right?
A. I don't recall -- I do recall fifty acres being
mentioned in the testimony here. The numbers
I recall -- you mentioned the application -- the
numbers I recall in the application had to deal
more with the block that was outlined over on
the small block over on the west side of the
site, which as I was saying, is something on the
order of two hundred thousand tons.

�J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Cross -864-
Q. You don't recall --
A. (Interposing) Would you like for me to look at
the application, because I need to refresh my
memory on that.
Q Well, I was just asking if you recall on the
reclamation that there was a mention of a do-
nation of seventy-five acres to the park at the
reclamation point?
A. Yes, sir, right.
That is correct,
Q At the completion of the quarry, that would be
for reclamation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, concerning your concern about the dust,
are there any unpaved roads in the park now ---
in the park, itself, over here?
A. Unpaved roads?
0. Yes.
A. There are some unpaved roads. I'm not aware
of any unpaved roads that are open to traffic to general traffic.
Q. But they're open to the state vehicles?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Maintenance as well as supervisor personnel, I

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
Gardner Cross -865-
take it?
A. I think that's right.
Q And there's dust plume when those -- in dry
conditions when those are traveled on?
A. Sure.
Q. And that dust plume, would you quantify that --
can you quantify that in terms of what you might
expect from one blast over -- off the park site?
A. Well, Mr. Kimzey, we haven't received an
application for those folks, and,I -- I don't
know-- (laughs)
Q. (Interposing) You can't quantify it anyhow,
because you can't quantify ours, can you?
A. That's right.
Q. You received an application from us, but you
can't quantify that.
A. That's what I said. That's correct.
Q. But you can't quantify either one.
A. I think it could be quantified. We have not
quantified it.
0. But you can not do it in your testimony today.
A. That's right.
Q. I was interested, Mr. Gardner, in your testimony
that you felt the encroachment would be greater

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Cross -866-
as time progressed. Wss that because of the
area you show in your projection there, or the
representative areas shown in your projection?
A. Representative area.
Q. You did mention that you thought from a standpoint
of, I believe, one of your concerns that the
concern would be greater in the*initial construction
period. That had to do with possible sedimentation.
A. In terms of sedimentation.
Q. Don-':t you agree that as you develop the pit,
even -if it comes within your possible representative
area, that you're go,ln.g to be going down.
We're looking at this as if from a bird's
eye or aerial view, isn't that right?
A. Correct.
Q. If you were to look at the site rather than with
your bird's eye area view -- if you looked at
it like that, you don't notice that as much, do
you? (indicating horizontal plane)
And as that goes down beneath the surface
here, your visual aspects would decrease rather
than increase, wouldn't they?
A. As long as you're going down, but you have to go
out in order to go down.

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
Gardner
M
A.
Q.
A.
Q•
Cross
Yes, sir, but I say it would be going down,
wouldn't it. Don't these represent steps down
to a hundred and fifty feet?
It would be going down and out.
Yes. And as it goes down, the visual aspects
would decrease even though as it's going out
that would cause an increase?
Yes, sir, that's right.
And isn't that also true of the noise aspect?
You build up a natural barrier to sound, par-
ticularly in the pit area, as to any blasting
noise, and as you are able to put your jaw
crushers down in that area below level, you
also would reduce the noise level, isn't that
true?
A. Well, I don't have any specific information about
putting jaw crushers down there, but if that
were'done, it would reduce the noise.
And that was my testimony that as the quarry
expanded vertically, that the noise impact from
the equipment in the quarry would be reduced
even though it wouldn't affect the plant area
if that weren't moved, but, also, as the quarry
goes down, the quarry will expand horizontally,

-6
Z
Cr
O
a
0
s
Z
W
Z
Z
O
a
m
0
A
a
Z
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
Gardner Cross -868-
and there will be time periods, or would be
time periods in that horizontal expansion with
dozers clearing, pans or scrapers removing over-
burdens_, and the initial drilling and shooting
of those horizontal expansions would create more
noise.
Q. So, you agree initially with me: From that, I
take it that when you're initially expanding,
you have the greatest amount of impact, and as
the development occurs you decrease the noise
from this?
A. Yes, sir, that's correct until there is further
horizontal expansion.
Q, Horizontal?
A. Yes, sir.
Q, Now, did you notice that the jaw crushers at
Wake Stone's Wendell site were below the level
of the pit when you were there?
A. Yes, I think I do recall that.
Q, And you agree with me that the commission will
observe that as they go there tomorrow?
A. Yes.
0. Isn't it also true that by proper management
and with a good operator you can, in addition to

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
N
18
0
19
0
Z
20
W
Z
0 21
m
u
22
0
a
u
W 23
s
24
25
Gardner Cross -869-
the decrease diminishing effects of the lowering
of the pit, that by a timely development of this
area with planting of pines and the development
of berming and blocking areas that you can
also decrease the visual and noise impact on
any surrounding area as you develop the quarry?
MR. OAKLEY: Objection. I don't think
we've received any testimony about the planting
of trees or the berming in that area.
I don't mind him answering the question,
but I don't think it is.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Is this in the permit?
MR. OAKLEY: I'm not sure.
MR. KIMZEY: I think it's a proper question.
It's in the permit. We're willing to go with your ruli
It certainly is in the permit.
MR. OAKLEY: If it's in the permit, I don't
have'any objection to his answering it.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Objection overruled.
Q (Mr. Kimzey) Go ahead.
A. Well, generally speaking, certainly berms and
vegetation can be used to help this kind of
situation. There are topographic problems with
this site making that more difficult and more

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
Gardner Cross -870-
expensive, and, maybe, in some cases impossible.
Q. When it is possible, you would agree that
those events can occur in an increased protective
manner as time goes by, rather than increasing
the impact, they would decrease the impact --
as time occurs. That's my point.
A. Those can be done as the quarry grows, yes.
Q. So, that even though you have an outward
expansion over a representative area in your
diagram there that can well be counteracted, and
I won't say offset exactly, or not, but it could
be counteracted by both the lowering of the pit,
and the proper development of the surrounding
area for protection, could it not?
A. I think something like that could mitigate or
"counteract" as you use to some degree. I'm
not satisfied that it would be to an adequate
degree as far as the park is concerned.
Q You are satisfied, however, that Wake Stone --
Mr. Bratton's operation, Wake Stone Corporation,
would be as good an operator as you could get
to work with the state in developing any protecti,
devices along those areas?
A. Absolutely.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
N
K
18
0
0
19
0
Z
20
W
Z
21
m
22
0
4
u
W 23
a
24
25
Gardner Cross -871-
Q. What would you say is the biggest noise maker
at a quarry from your observations?
A. I think that the -- that's a tough question to
answer. We generally looked at the combined
noise. As Dr. Bailey pointed out, you have a
spread out source of noise. I think if you listen
to a quarry, you can identify some of the major
sources. One of those is the drills, another is
the trucks. I think the trucks are overall,
probably -- maybe greater than any other single
factor, and, of course, the crushers and the
screening operation.
Q. Certainly where you have your trucks coming
loaded up a steep incline you have a larger noise
impact from the truck factor alone than you would
where you have a downhill grade on the loaded
capacity, isn't that true?
A. That' s -correct .
Q. Wouldn't that be one of the factors which would
differeniate this proposed site materially from
the Crabtree site which is in a hole, and this
was kind of on a ridge, and the trucks are not
going to be taking that long pull loaded?
A. The -- it depends on the design and layout of the

�J
�J
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
Gardner
Cross
-872-
quarry.
¢ As it's proposed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your testimony as to traffic flow was brief,
and I'll try to be brief. You don't really
object to any of the factors listed in the De-
partment of Transportation letters concerning
their analysis of the traffic situation, do
you?
A. No, sir. I'm not a professional in that area.
I'm not qualified to go beyond that other than
just a layman's type opinion.
Q. You accept their findings as set forth in that
letter?
A. As specifically set forth including the qualificat'
they have in that letter.
Q. I would -like to ask you, Mr. Gardner, to recall --
you were here when Dr. Bailey, the noise engineer
for the State testified?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In recalling his testimony, it was my impression
at the time -- although we didn't clear.it up,
and I think you're the proper person to do that
with. You nor your staff had the use or the
ons

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
Gardner Cross -873-
advantage of using Dr. Bailey's analysis at
the time you made your decision concerning Mr.
Conrad's letter denying the permit, did you?
A. That's correct. Dr. Bailey's confirmed the
kind of information we developed.
Q. To b-m a little more specific, the August 22nd
letter which was over Mr. Conrad's signature
denying the permit was not based at all on any
of Dr. Bailey's studies?
A. No.
Q. And Dr. Bailey was hired as an engineer subsequent
to the appeal and the development of the case --
A. (Interposing) Yes, sir.
Q. --to add whatever testimony he had?
A. Correct.
Q. And at the time of the decision, you were dealing
with the decibel levels that had been developed
by N1 Simons, Mr. Gard --yourself, to the extent
you were using it, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that decision was made, did you believ
that there was a standard as to noise levels, or
decibel level which was acceptable and others
which were not acceptable?

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Cross -874-
A. No, sir, I didn't.
Q. You did not at that time?
A. No.
Q. If you only -- if you made no consideration as
to the economic impact, but only considered the
adverse effect in the abstract on the park, is
that the procedure that you use in all your
mining applications that may affect the park, or
have an effect on a park?
A. I think we've been consistent in,that, yes.
Q You are familiar with the mining of melibdium
at the Medoc State Park in'Halifax County, aren't
you -- in the park, itself?
A. I'm not familiar with that in detail.
Q You're familiar that the permit has been issued?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How could the permit be issued to mine in the
park 'a tself if there weren't some consideration
other than the abstract adverse effect on that
park?
MR. OAKLEY: Objection. I don't think there's
any testimony about a permit being issued.
PIR. KIDIZEY: He just testified he was familiar
with 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
Gardner Cross -875-
A. No.
MR. OAKELY: He said he was not familiar --
A. (Interposing) I'm not familiar with the details
of that. I'm vaguely familiar that a permit
has been granted.
Q. (Mr. Kimzey) Has been -.issued, yes.
A. I know some very general details. That's all.
Q. That's a foundation.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Would you repeat your
question, again?
Q. How could a permit be issued at any state park,
or Medoc State Park in Halifax County con-
sistent with this testimony that the only con-
sideration was any damage to the park in abstract
without considering any other thing, such as
benefit?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I don't understand that
question, myself.
MR. KIMZEY: Let me rephrase the question.)
I accept that, thank you.
Q, (Mr. Kimzey) If as you say here that you denied
this application purely because of the adverse
effects -- whatever they might be -- on the park --
any abstract -- not balancing those adverse effect
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
Gardner Cross -876-
however minor they might have been, against,
say, a tremendous public benefit -- you didn't
do any balancing at all, isn't that correct?
How could the Department use that standard
uniformly as you said you think they have, and
grant a permit in a park to mine in that park?
A. Well, maybe I can tell you what I -- what I do
know, and --
CHAIRMAN SMITH: (Interposing) There's
nothing in the law that requires,him to make an
economic evaluation.
MR. KIMZEY: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: There's nothing in the
law that requires him to make an economic evaluati
MR. KIMZEY: To make a what?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: A economic evaluation of
the permit.
'.k1R. KIMZEY: Well, I think the law requires --
where there's a significant impact, the law does
require that there be some balance of interest
in these factors every time, and I believe that
that is relevant. I'd like that in the record for
record purposes. I won't belabor the point, and
I'll move on, but I believe I'm entitled to get
n.

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
Gardner Cross -877-
that in the record.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We'll put it in for record
purposes.
Q. (Mr. Kimzey) Would you answer that question,
please.
A. My knowledge of that operation or proposed operati
is very limited, but what knowledge -- what in-
formation or impressions I do have, Mr. Kimzey,
is that that would be an underground mining
operation. The Department does not believe it
would have any adverse impact on the park. I
don't know of any economic considerations in the
question.
Q, You're stating that the Department does not
believe that that mining operation would have
any adverse effects on the park, even though the
mining.is taking place in the park?
A. I would say a significant adverse impact on it.
Q. "Significant", and what is that significant
measured, again? You don't know do'you?
A. I'm not familiar enough to further discuss any
details on that.
Q, That's what I thought.
MR. KIMZEY: Thank you, Mr. Smith, no furthe
n

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Redirect -878-
questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: The commission has a
question it wants to check out for itself in
just a minute.
Do you have a copy of the law handy?
(Addressing counsel)
Are you through, Mr. Kimzey?
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Oakley, are you ready
for redirect?
MR. OAKLEY: I just have a few questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY:
Q Did the application mention the possibility of
placing the crusher, et cetera, down into the
pit?
A. No, sir...
Q. If it;were placed in the pit, would the trucks
have to climb a steep incline from the quarry
site up to the proposed plant site to get out of
the pit?
A. The rock would have to be gotten out of the pit,
yes.
0. So, you feel there would be a possibility of a ste
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
Gardner
Redirect -879-
incline at
the site,
is that correct?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
You've been
present
throughout the entire
testimony,
is that correct?
A.
Yes, I have.
Q.
Would your
response
today be to recommend or grant
or deny the
permit?
A.
It would be
to deny
the permit.
Q.
And what --
what is
-- what would you base that
on?
MR. KIMZEY: I'm going to move to strike
his last answer. That's exactly the issue to be
decided by the commission.. It's merely an opinion
I think that -- they've already given their per-
mit. It's encroaching on the prerogative of the
commission.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Objection sustained.
MR. OAKLEY: That's all we have.
MR. KIMZEY: I have one question on re -cross.
RE -CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. He mentioned that the -- Mr. Oakley in his re-
direct mentioned that the application did not
mention the possibility of putting the jaw crushers

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
Gardner Re -Cross -880-
in the pit, did he not? That was his question
to you, isn't that right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. My understanding of the application and the
permit -- and my question comes from my under-
standing -- this application is a schematic
device used to apply for a permit to develop a
quarry operation there which is flexible, isn't
it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you expect this operator to work with the
state -- with yourself, Mr. Conrad, with Mr.
Simons during the ten years,making alterations
that you think are in the public interest all the
while, don't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This isn't written in stone, and when the Mining
commission approves this application, it doesn't
mean that that crusher has to stay in one identica
spot. That's not the nature of the operation,
is it?
A. Would you repeat that last question.)
Q, If the Mining Commission approves the permit,
that permit would not have -- the equipment

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Gardner Re -Cross -881-
authorized under that permit would not have to
stay in an identical spot over the ten years,
but you expect both parties to work with common
sense, and move it to the best location?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. KIMZEY: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any questions from the
commission?
COMMISSION: (All shake their heads negatively
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Charles, I think that I
find.your testimony in general consistent with
the letter to Mr. Bratton from Steve Conrad.
There are one or two questions about this.
Should I reserve these questions for Mr. Conrad,
or may I ask you? Which would be more appropriate
A. I don't know how to advise you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd be happy to try to address them, or you may
ask him and recall me, if you like.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right. I think I'll
reserve them for Mr. Conrad.
A. All right, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions?
Thank you, Mr. Gardner, you may step down. The
commission would like to take a ten minute break

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
Conrad Direct -882-
at this time.
(WITNESS EXCUSED.)
SHORT BREAK
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We will bring the hearing
to order. Mr. Oakley, do you have another witness:
MR. OAKLEY: Yes, sir. We would like to call
Mr. Steve Conrad.
Whereupon,
STEPHEN G. CONRAD
Having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKELY:
4. will -you state your name and address for hte
record, please?
A. My name is Stephen G. Conrad, and I reside on
Mount Vernon Church Road in northern Wake County.
4. Before we get into some other portions of your
testimony, there was something mentioned on the
cross-examination of Mr. Gardner relating to a

r4_
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
Conrad Direct -883-
melibdium mine. Could you shed some light
for the commission on that?
A. I will attempt to. Medoc Mountain State Park
was acquired several years ago -- a large part
of it by condemnation procedures. A parcel of
that property was owned by a Mr. Southgate Jones
in Durham, North Carolina. And Mr. Jones owned
the mineral rights to a significant amount of
acreage in Medoc Mountain State Park.
And the value of those mineral rights were
never resolved in the condemnation procedure. As
an accomodation for the State to proceed with the
development of the park, and at the same time
provide Mr. Jones some equity in his mineral right
an accommodation.was reached whereby the State
would agree to allow Mr. Jones,a ten year period
in which to remove the melibdium through under-
ground mining methods under very strict environ-
mental controls and conditions to be imposed by
the State Parks.
A mining permit from the Department would not
be required in that instance because this would
be an underground:mine, and our law provides only
for surface mines that disturb more than one acre
r

a
0
N
F
O
LL
0
0
s
z
W
Z
Z
O
a
m
0
0
a
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conrad Direct -884-
of land. So, the two situations are entirely
different and not comparable as far as the rock
quarry at Cary is concerned.
Q. Thank you. What is your present occupation?
A. I'm the Director of the Division of Land Resources
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
Q. And how long have you held that position?
A. In effect, since 1971 when we got into the re-
organization of state government -- under various
titles.
Q. What do your duties include?
A. I'm responsible for the administration of several
programs in the Department. These include the
Geological Survey, the Geodetic Survey, the Land
Quality Section, and our Planning and Inventory
Section..
Q. How many people do you supervise?
A. There are approximately a hundred and twenty
people in the Division, and I have direct super-
vision of the -- my administrative staff and the
section chiefs.
Q What was your previous professional experience
before joining the state?

�J
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
Conrad Direct -885-
A. I came with employment in the state in 1956.
Prior to that time, I was a research assistant
in the Department of Geology at the University
of Tennessee.
Q. What's your general educational background?
A. I have a B. S. Degree in Geological Engineering
from N. C. State University.
Q. And what professional associations do you belong
to?
A. I'm a Fellow of the Geological Society of North
American, a member of the Association of American
State Geologists, former member of AIME.
Q. Have you participated in any publications in
your field?
A. Over a period of years, I have been the author
or co-author of a number of.publications dealing
primarily with the geology and mineral resources
of North Carolina.
Q. In your position with the state, do you also have
any other assignments or responsibilities?
A. There are a number of advisory committees that
I have been assigned to including the Governor's
representative to the Interstate Mining Compact
Commission, the Outer Continental Shelf Program,
I

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
Conrad Direct -886-
Oil and Gas Program in the Department of the
Interior. I also serve on the Task Force on
Hazardous Waste Management. There are a number
of assignments like that that I function in.
Q. In your duties as Director of the Land Resources
Division, have you had occasion to visit quarries
quarry sites?
A. Yes, I have.
Approximately how many, would you say?
A. Over a period of thirty years, I've probably
visited most every active mine or quarry in the
state.
Q. Are you familiar with the application of the
Wake Stone Corporation?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is your particular involvement?
A. As the Director of the Division, it is my respons-
ibility to administer the Mining Act which include
the issuing, or denying or revocation or modificat
of mining permits, approve reclamation plans,
the setting of hearings regarding appeals. Those
are the general things that I am responsible for
as far as the Mining Act is concerned. So, throug
that capacity, I have been directly and continualli
on

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conrad Direct -887-
involved in the application process.
Q, What initial concerns did you come to have with
the issuance of a permit for this particular
operation?
A. As. the permit was processed through our regular
procedures in the Division, a number of issues
began to emerge that we felt were of particular
concern.
The Mining Act specifically indicates that
one of the basis on which a permit can be denied
is if it would have a significant adverse effect
on a publicly owned park, forest or recreation
area.
It became apparent that certain aspects of
the proposed quarrying operation might have such
impacts, and these have been alluded to previously
through testimony by Mr. Simons and Mr. Gardner,
and all the points that they have brought up,
I concur with in their conclusions.
Q. Did -- would the function that you serve, then,
be to lend overall direction to the application
process?
A. That's correct.
Q. Could you, without belaboring the point -- I beliE

a
0
N
f
O
LL
0
P.
Z
W
Z
Z
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
Conrad Direct -888-
everyone is familiar with the issues. They have
been discussed briefly by the other witnesses.
Could you tell us your particular slant on this
permit application?
A. Well, as has been indicated by previous testimony
from the members of the staff of the Division of
Land Resources, and also the Division of Parks
and Recreation, there were certain impacts that
were being given very careful consideration.
These were primarily the impacts created
by..noise, the visual impact. Secondarily, sed-
imentation, traffic and dust have been mentioned.
And all of these points were.examined very care-
fully. We tried to develop as much objective in-
formation as possible so that we could look at
all these impacts.
Coming to a conclusion, at some point in
time 'a decision has to be made, at. this particular
time and place, that responsibility happens to
fall on me.
We looked at all of the information available
I, personally, made site investigations to
familiarize myself as the best I could with the
onsite conditions. And in conclusion, it became

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C.,
Conrad Direct -889-
apparent to me that when you consider all these
impacts together -- and I don't think you can
separate them, and look at them as single issues,
because they all accumulate and do have a --
what I would judge to be a significant adverse
impact on the park.
Q. Would you say, then, that your testimony is
essentially an accumulation of what your division
has done in this matter?
A. That's correct. It was a careful look and
assimilation of all the information that was put
together by the staff.
0 One other point -- I'm not sure if this has been
made clear, or -.not. Did the permit denial -- was
that based upon the ten year permit application?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. OAKLEY: We don't have any further
questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr..Kimzey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. Mr. Conrad, my understanding of your testimony
would indicate that it was also your understanding
that Wake Stone had met or exceeded every possible

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
Conrad Cross -890-
standard which your department has as guidelines
and controls for this type of operation, isn't
that true?
MR. OAKLEY: Objection. I think that questio
could be narrowed a little more.
MR. KIMZEY: I'll be glad to go into every
one if you want me to. I was trying to save some
time.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I'm going to sustain the
objection. Would you please proceed.
MR. KIMZEY: Well, okay, sir.
MR. OAKLEY: My specific objection is that
if the standards that he was questioning involves
are listed, I don't have any objection. Some of
them, we would contend, are not standards.
MR. KIMZEY: Well, every know standard by
which you make any measurement in your department
were met by Wake Stone.
A. Yes.
Q. (Mr. Kimzey) Is that true?
A. All the known standards.
Q. And the only reason for your denial, as I underst
your testimony, was an accumulation of what you
say is an adverse impact from various different

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conrad Cross -891-
factors, even though those individual factors
may have met the standards -- such as sedimentatio
standards, or the traffic standards, or the
blasting standards? It was an accumulation of
those things, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you say you concur with Mr. Simons and Mr.
Gardner's testimony concerning those individual
points that they have covered?
A. Yes, I do.
Q I take it, then, you also concur with their
agreement on cross-examination with the Wake
Stone Corporation's operational ability and
character of that company in terms of carrying -out
a first-class operation and establishment of this
quarry if it were permitted?
A. I would agree with that.
Q. Mr. Conrad, would you also agree with Mr. Gardner'
recent testimony when he said the decision -- as
I understand his testimony -- was made based
solely on the impact on the park -- the negative
impact on the park as he saw it in the abstract
without considering whether that negative impact
was balanced against any economic benefit, for

1 Conrad
2
3 A.
4
5
6
7 Q.
8
9
10
11 A.
12
13
14
15 Q.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A.
Cross
instance?
I think it would be fair to say that the decision
was based, primarily, on the -- our conclusion
that the proposed operation would have a significa
impact on the park -- Umstead State Park.
My question was, was that decision considered in
the abstract, or was that a balancing of interest
of the positive good to the public versus whatever
the amount of impact was to the park?
I think I stated very clearly that the decision
was based primarily on our conclusion that the
proposed quarry operation would have a significant
adverse effect on the park.
Yes, sir, and I understand that answer, but I
really think it doesn't answer the question I'm
asking. It's a good answer, but I'd like the
answer to my question if I could get it.
-Did that take into account a balancing of
that adverse interest on the park, which you're
talking about, against the possible public good,
or did it not as Mr. Gardner has already testified.
Well, it depends on your definition of "public
good". We feel like that the public has an
interest in the park, and that interest has 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
Conrad Cross -893-
protected. So, from that point of view, I would
say, yes, we did. We did not consider the cost
of transporting the stone a different x number
of miles.
Q. You didn't consider those economic benefits
which our witnesses, such as. Mr. Brown and Mr.
Turner -- I'm sorry -- Stevens testified to, is
that right?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Conrad, you certainly would have no problem,
personally, or with your staff working with Mr.
Bratton in developing the quarry at the site
should this Mining Commission deem that that was
an appropriate permit, and should be granted,
would you?
A. I would not want to be presumptuous in assuming
that that, you know, would happen, but based on
our previous experience with Mr. Bratton, I
would say that he's a very conscientious operator
and we've never had any problems working with him
in the past.
Q. And you expect that to happen in the future?
A. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Q. And, really, the point I was making is, is that

�J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conrad Cross -894-
you would expect, as the statutes and rules of
your division are set up, to work with these
operators, specifically, Wake Stone, over the
ten year period to continually adapt that operation
in both the public and the company's good, wouldn't
you?
A. I think I could agree to that.
Q. And that, as a matter of fact, is what happens:.
on a day-to-day basis under the presently operatin
quarries that you are working with, isn't it?
A. Yeah,- we have a good working relationship with
our quarry operators.
Q. Do you recall a conversation with Mr. Bratton
immediately after -- concerning the possible
appeal of this matter immediately after your
decision in your August 22nd letter?
A. Generally.
Q. Isn't -it true that you expressed a sentiment
that you were pleased that he was appealing
because there was some uncertainty on your part
about the decision?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Conrad, you are aware that Wake Stone Corporat
has acquired the option, not only to the mineral

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
a
N
w
18
N 19 0
0
s
20
W
_
21
d
m
22
V
O
4
V
W 23
a
24
25
Conrad Cross -895-
rights, but to the fee simple land -- all of the
interest in this land, are you not?
A. I have heard indirectly to that effect. I have
no documentation.
Q. You wouldn't distinguish between someone just
owning the mineral rights and owning the entire
property, though? That's my question.
A. I'm not quite sure I understand what your question
is.
Q. Would you think that if someone owned only the
mineral rights to the property -- that they should
be treated in a more advantageous manner con-
cerning mineral permits, than if they owned the
mineral rights and the fee simple?
MR. OAKLEY: Objection.
A. I don't understand the question.
MS. FRENCH: What is it?
'MR. OAKLEY: I don't think that particular
question is relevant to this hearing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I don't understand your
line of questioning, Mr. Kimzey.
MR. KIMZEY: He's the one who brought up
the Medoc Mountain mineral situation. I'm just
trying -- I think I'm entitled to probe into that.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
18
N 19
0
20
W
Z
21
4
m
u 22
0
Q
V
Z 23
a
24
25
Conrad Cross -896-
MR. OAKLEY: They brought up the Medoc
mineral —
CHAIRMAN SMITH: (Interposing) I believe
that's right. They did.
MR. KIMZEY: Certainly. We brought it up
in a prior witness, and he brought it up in this
witness.
MR. OAKLEY: I believe his testimony was
that a mining permit was not presently before
them and would not be required.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: That's correct. A mining
permit was not required.
MR. KIMZEY: I understand that. My question
related as to whether or not he feels that they
should treat someone with just the mineral rights
in a more advantageous way than someone who owns
the entire --
,-CHAIRMAN SMITH: (Interposing) Well, that's
a very venturesome question, because we have
many companies with just mineral rights, and
many companies who own the property fee simple,
but what is the purpose of the question?
MR. KIMZEY: The purpose of my question is
test whether or not -- what his division's policy

u
Z
CL
1 Gardner
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
N
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Cross
is on that.
MR. OAKLEY: I don't think that has any
relevancy to this hearing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I'm going to sustain the
objection.
(Mr. Kimzey) Did you say that the State condemned
the property at Medoc Mountain and acquired it?
Parts of it.
And, of course, that procedure is available here,
isn't it?
Available where?
At the surrounding property surrounding the
Umstead Park?
I presume so. I don't know.
Are you -- strike that.
Your Department has control, or has controls
over land quality -- that is, the use of land
in certain areas, I think. And I'm trying to
get a hand -- I'm not trying to put words in your
mouth. Maybe I'd just better ask you. What
areas do you control as far as the use of land --
does your Department control?
We don't control the use of land. We have some
regulatory programs that have some effect on the u
e

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
Conrad
N
A.
A.
Q.
A.
N
NM
Cross
of land.
Yes. Well, specifically, in mining -- surface
mining, you certainly have some controls over
whether or not that will occur, and how that will
occur. What other areas do you have of similar
requirements?
In our land quality sections, we have responsibili
for three programs which have been mentioned.
One is the Dam Safety Act. The other is the
Mining Act, and the third is the Sediment Pollution
Control Act.
Sed--
(Interposing) Sedimentation Pollution Control.
Now, would any of those three acts include, say,
industrial development?
The Sediment Pollution Control Act requires that
any land disturbing -Activity . greater than one
acre'in size, exclusive of farming and forestry,
must file an erosion control plan prior to the
time construction starts.
And your department has issued sedimentation
control permits to Wake Stone for this very
application?
We do not issue permits. We approve the -- or
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
�J
Conrad Cross -899-
disapprove the plans.
Q. Well, who issued the permits identified as
exhibit number 4 and number 5, and air permit
and a wash water recycle permit for the Division
of Environmental Management of the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development? Is that not a -permit?
A. That is not a permit issued by this division.
That's a permit issued by the Division of Environ-
mental Management.
Q Separate division, okay. That clears me up.
If there were a proposed industrial development
of heavy industry there, other than the initial
construction phase, your department would have
no control over what went on, is that right?
MR. OAKLEY: Could I have that question
repeated?
Q. (Mr. `Kimzey) If there were proposed heavy industri
use at this site, other than as the initial
construction requirements meet the Sedimentation
and Pollution Control permit, you department
would have no control over what went on at that
site, is that correct?
MR. OAKLEY: 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
Conrad Cross -900-
CHAIRMAN SMITH: What's your basis of it?
MR. OAKLEY: This is similar to the other
one, that another industrial use at that particular
site is not at issue.
MR. KIMZEY: Well, again, there's no way
to determine significance unless he's determined
what the other effects might be.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We're going to overrule
the objection.
Q. (Mr. Kimzey) What's your answer, Mr. Conrad?
A. It would depend entirely on the nature of the
industry. It's quite possible, depending on
whether it was manufacturing or processing -- in
addition to a sediment pollution control plan --
which, by the way, would have to be approved by
Wake County, and not our department.
There might be industrial waste that would
have to be permitted. There might be air emmissio
that would have to be permitted.
So, it's quite possible that depending on
what was put there that they would be subjected
to a number of permitting processes.
Q, But if that industrial process met the individual
permitting processes -- individual permitting re-
s

u
_
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
Conrad Cross -901-
quirements that Wake Stone has met individually
in this case, you would have no way to deny
them the right to continue, would you?
A. Well, most of those permits wouldn't come under
my purview so I wouldn't know how to answer that.
Q. My point is your department, then, would have
no jurisdiction to regulate them or deny them
continued operation, isn't that -true? That's
the only point I'm trying to make.
A. Well, it would depend on the permit.
Q. If they obtained all the permits, then, you
department would have no right to keep them
from going forward.
A. I wouldn't know on which basis they would.
Q. All right. In other words, you're not aware of
any way they could keep them from going forward.
And that would also be true of, say, commerical
shopping center developments, or even a residential
plan, isn't that true?
A. I don't believe a residential could go in there.
It's zoned industrial, I believe.
Q. You're talking about the zoning now, right?
A. Unh-hunh (yes) .
Q. We have a witness on zoning, but if it was permitt�
M

0
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
Gardner Cross -902-
to put residence in there, you would have no
control on how they were put in there.
A. Other than erosion and sediment control.
Q. You don't know whether those -- you would have
no control over, say, whether heavy industry met
visual and noise considerations or not, then,
right?
A. I don't know of any standards.
Q. You know of no controls if they do exceed any
unknown standards, isn't that right?
A. No.
Q. okay.
MR. KIMZEY: No further questions. Just
a minute. Let me consult just a minute. (Confers
with Mr. Bratton and Mr. Adams)
Thank you, Dr. Smith, no further questions.
MR. OAKLEY: We have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Steve, could you stay with
us a minute. We've got a question we've got to
unravel up here.
(COMMISSION DISCUSSION OFF RECORD)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Sorry for this delay. I
hope we're straightened out. Do the members of
the commission have any -- I believe you were

1-4
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
Conrad Commission -903-
through with redirect. Do the members of the
commission have any questions?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. I would like to
ask Steve one question. Steve, it seems that
the key thing of this is significant impact.
I mean, it's key in my mind. I gather it was
key in your mind. And I know Mr. Oakley is going
to object to this, but did you consider that this
is industrial property and something is going in
there if it's not a mine?
A. No, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: You based-your's entirely on
the impact of -- that the mine would go in and
nothing else would go in?
A. Yes, sir.
MR. JOHNSON: That's all I'want.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions, Mr.
Riggs"
MR. RIGGS: Mr. Conrad, it's obvious that we
have a valuable resource in the middle of a very
actively developing area. Has your department -or
any part of your division undertaken the question
with respect to other sources of aggregate --
alternate sources of aggregates to supply the very

i.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
M-
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conrad Commission -904-
extensive growth rate in this area that would
possibly take the pressure off a piece of property
such as this?
A. As I mentioned previously, we have responsibility
for in our division the geological survey section,
and one of the primary functions of that program
is to provide basic resource information that woul
enhance the conservation development of our
mineral resources. This program is carried out
through such things as geologic mapping, the study
of individual mineral commodities on a regional or
statewide basis -- primarily a data gathering
process. Through that program, we have recently
published a geologic map on the geology of Wake
County, which is the mineral resources.
We have done a study in Orange County. So,
we have an ongoing program that'address the problem
of the conservation development of our mineral
resources. We do not get down to site specific
investigations.
Our function is to gather the data on a county-
wide or regional basis, and make this available to
the people who do exploration. There are, in my
judgment, ample sources of aggregate in the Wake,

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
X�
Conrad Commission -905-
Durham, Orange County area to meet any projected
or foreseen demands whether this quarry is
developed or not.
MR. RIGGS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions.
(No response from the commission)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: In your letter addressed
to Mr. Bratton, which is part of the evidence,
you state that the sediment -- you stated that
the combined effects of noise and sedimentation,
dust, traffic and blasting vibration associated
with the proposed quarry operation would produce
primary impacts on William B. Umstead State Park
in the form of noise intrusion, and deterioration
of visual resources. In your_testimony -- at
least, Mr. Gardner's testimony, I gathered that
he was speaking primarily to noise intrusion
and deterioration of visual values, is that
correct?
A. Those were the primary considerations, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: The sedimentation and dust,
other than the point made about blasting dust,
is not a matter that you feel cannot be controlled,
is that right? That they are controllable factors,

N-,
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
Conrad
Commission
•D=
is that correct?
A. Which -- are you talking about dust, now, is contra
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Is the
...combined effects of noise, sedimentation,
dust, traffic and blasting vibration -- but, then,
you go on to say that it's in the form of noise
and deterioration of visual resources that --
visual resources is the real reason why you
turned this warrant down -- the permit down, isn't
that true?
A. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay. And we were troubled
by the issue of substantive degrees of things,
and I'm sure the Department had the same trouble.
Perhaps, you can help us a little bit.
In another document in evidence here submitte(
to you -- a letter directed to you by James S.
Stephens, Director of the Division of Recreation
application, Departmental item number 18. That
letter states, "in addition the State of North
Carolina will protect the purposes of the park
against potential reversion of the park to the
U. S. Government that could result from adjacent
urban development impacting park land, and,thus,
le.

[AJ
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conrad Commission -907-
converting the land to other than recreational
uses". Now, it is -- I think the testimony thus
far indicates that it would not destroy the park
for recreational uses, but would in the opinion
of the State's evidence mitigate adversely
against its use, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Did you take this into
account when you were considering this case?
A. Status of the park lands?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah.
A. Generally, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: And the substantive wording
that you used that's in the mining law really
refers to the impact of users of the park -- their
ability to enjoy the park, is that correct?
A. Well, in my judgment, it would be the significant
adverse impact on the purposes of the park, and
some of the purposes of the park include the peopl
who use the park. So, also we felt that there was
some justification that there may be physical im-
pacts on the park in the form of dust and sed-
imentation potential.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
N
0
18
0
19
0
• 20
z
W
b 21
a
m
u
22
0
4
W 23
6
24
25
Commission
CHAIRMAN SMITH: The plan, as I understand
it, for the operation of the site as a quarry,
does provide a buff er zone.
Now, it is our understanding that the
contention of the State that buffer zone is in-
adequate, is that correct?
A. Well, Dr. Smith, there has been -a lot of discussiol
about a buffer zone. To my knowledge there has
never been any specific commitment either on the
part of the applicant or the part of the staff
as to what would constitute the buffer zone. So
that's, you know, really not tied down.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: These distances that have
appeared in the evidence vary between twelve
hundred and fifteen hundred feet to the park from
the processing site,'is -- which as far as I've
been able to determine is not part of the operatin
area, the distrube d area, so to speak.
-A. The -- if I understand your statement, the -- you'
saying that there's twelve to fifteen hundred
feet between the quarry operation and the park, is
that what you're saying?
CHAIRRI'AN SMITH: Right, right.
Twelve hundred to fifteen hundred 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
0
tog
Conrad Commission
A. What did I say?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I think I said twelve to
fifteen hundred, should have said twelve hundred
to fifteen hundred.
A. Okay. That would vary, you know, I think the --
some of the measurements from the general area
of the plant are those distances.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right.
A. So, you'd have to go to the map and scale off the
you know, the distances from whatever particular
facility you're discussing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I guess I'm belaboring a
point here that seems to me to be critical. If
this were a half a mile away, would you have any
objec -- any problems with this permit request?
A. If the quarry was a half a mile from the boundary
of the park?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes.
A. No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any other questions, gentle
men?
MR. JOHNSON : I've -- just one, back again
I'm still worried about this "significant", Steve.
I don't know exactly how to word this, but,

3
1
Conrad
Commission .4ft 910
2
did you or your staff have a feeling that if
3
this quarry went in there that any less people
4
would use the park?
5
A.
Mr. Johnson, I -- I think the only way that I
6
can answer that is that, if the quarry was there
7
I think it would have a significant effect on the
8
use of the park and probably people who go there
9
now for certain recreational experiences would
10
probably have to go elsewhere in the future to
11
replace that experience.
12
MR. JOHNSON: Are you implying another park
13
or elsewhere in this same park?
14
Now, I'm not -- Steve, I'm not -- I'm just
15
trying to understand.
16
A.
Well, I --
A
O
17
MR. JOHNSON : ( Interposing) I'm worried
N
0
18
about this word, "significant".
0
0
19
A,
Well, I worried about it too, Mr. Johnson.
0
Z
20
(Laughter)
Z
a
21
MR. JOHNSON : It's got me all confused,
4
m
0
22
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We're all worried about it,
0
4
W
d
23
too.
24
A.
I think in that particular part of the park it
25
does have some unique natural features that's not

4 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
0 18
LL
0
19
0
20
w
z
21
a
m
22
0
a
Z a 23
24
25
Commission
duplicated anywhere else in the park.
So, to -- to duplicate that particular
setting or come close to it, you would have to
go elsewhere.
MR. JOHNSOL : I don't know the answer, I
was just groping like the rest of the folks.up
here, I think.
A. Unh-hunh (yes) .
MR. ' .JOHNSON : But to find -- get some
evaluation on why -- not the English verbage of
what significant is, but did the Department feel
like that the park would be ruined, would be
ten percent impaired, fifty percent impaired or
are we just -- am I just talking?
A. Well, at the risk of things that probably don't
necessarily need to be said, Ind like to share
with you some of the thought process --
MR. JOHNSON : ( interposing) That's what
I'm trying to get at.
A. -- that I subjected myself to.
Significant adverse effect is a term that
is frequently run across in various environmental
laws. I made a concerted effort to find out if
there was any court precedent or any regulations

5
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
V i 2
Conrad Commission
or any documentation as to what "significant
adverse effect" means in light of its use,
current usage.
I was not able to find anything to pin
that down.
I -- you have to go back to Webster and
that's what I did.
Significant is defined as important.
Adverse is opposed to, and the effect
is cause or relationship.
So, those are the things you have to consider
and putting all -- all things together, I think
if the quarry is located at that proposed site
that it will have a significant adverse impact
on the purposes of Um -- William B. Umstead State
Park and the purposes of those -- of that park
is to preserve natural resources, to make them
available for recreational opportunities and
to interpret the wildlife and natural setting,
and make that available to the public to enjoy.
And, in my judgment, those purposes would
be significantly affected by the proximity of
a rock quarry -to the park. And that basically
is the thought process that I followed.

CILW'�'
6 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
0
18
N 19
0
0
0
z 20
W
Z
21
r
4
m
22
0
a
Z 23
a
24
25
Conrad Commission
MR. JOHNSON: But, did you tell Dr. Smith
that it would not be if it was a half mile away?
A. I said if the park -- if the proposed rock
quarry was a half a mile from the park boundary
it would be permitted, provided, you know, all
the provisions of the act could be met. But,
it's not a half a mile from the park.
MR. JOHNSON: No, I understand that.
A. It's adjacent to the park.
MR. JOHNSON: I understand that.
I think you've helped me, Steve, I appre-
ciate it, because you've told me what -- how you
arrived at your decision, which, I mean, I said,
I thank you.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Anymore questions?
MR. KIMZEY: Mr. Smith, I have a question
on Mr. Riggs' question from the bench, from the
panel.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: (Looks at counsel question-
ingly)
MR. KI14ZEY: I have a question on his
question.— a question to Mr. Conrad on the
line of question Mr. Riggs asked.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Please proceed.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Conrad Re -cross
RE —CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. You recall that Commissioner Riggs asked you
concerning other sites for aggregate and I
understood you -- your answer was that essentially
in your opinion, based on your Department's
geological analysis that there was sufficient
aggregate in Durham and Wake Counties?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I have no quarrel with that, but you were
not, by that testimony, were you, contradicting
Mr. Reid's testimony as supported by Mr. Henry
Btown and Mr. Bratton, that of their personal
knowledge due to the triassic basin and the
road factor -- road load factor in the commercial
zone of this particular quarry that there was
no alternative site available commerically within
that commercial zone.
A. What�do you define as commercial zone?
¢ Well, I believe that Mr. Stevens used a zone with
a radius of eight miles -- eight miles, fifteen
miles across.
A. I can't testify that there are specific quarry
sites in that .zone.
What I indicated in my statement was that

a
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
bl5
Conrad Commission
I'm confident that within the Durham, Wake
and Orange County area that there are ample
reserves of aggregate resources available to
be developed.
Q. But, you do -- you do agree that they are not
economically available near this site because
this is right on the edge of the Triassic Basin
and let's take everything to the northwest end
of the basin, there are no sites available in
that, are there?
MR. OAKLEY: I'd like to object, I think
he's going past the import of the question of
Mr. Riggs.
A. I _ _
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Overrule the objection.
MR. KIMZEY: Go ahead.
A. I don't think you can limit to an eight radius because
that doesn't necessarily define -an economic
zone.
You can ship aggregate two hundred miles
if the economics are right. So, I think to now
define economic zone as an eight mile radius
around that quarry is not a proper.. -consideration.
Q, (Mr. Kimzey)Well, you don't quarrel with the test

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
Conrad Recross
previous testimony about ten cents'per ton mile
additional mileage every mile you make to
transport that aggregate,, do you?
A. Well, I -- I don't have any facts or figures
to -- to either confirm or deny it.
Q. Well, if you're more than, say, thirty miles
away and you add ten cents per ton mile for each
ton, then you would not argue those economic facto
You may have stone available but it is
going to be more expensive the more -- the further
you have to transport it?
A. Not necessarily. At some point in time it may
be more economical to transfer it by train
than truck and there are numerous instances in
which aggregate is transported several hundred
miles by train to the market.
Q. Do any of those apply to this particular market in
western Wake County?
A. I'm not -- don't know specifically but --
Q. (Interposing) You think not?
A. ---I think not, but I do -- I can cite you
instances where that does occur, if you're
interested in knowing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: The point is that Mr.

10 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
T 7
Conrad Re -cross
Conrad has testified that he did not take
economic considerations into the issue and he didn't
have to.
MR. KIMZEY: I'm not asking him to, but he
did state to Mr. Riggs that there was plenty of
other aggregate and I think I'm entitled to tie
down that ---
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Right, that's the only reaso
I sustained the objection.
MR. KIMZEY: --what that answer was. I
believe we have that right:
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Okay.
Anything else, gentlemen? (to commission)
COMMISSION MEMBERS: {Shake heads mnegatively
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We're still a little bit
concerned here, Mr. Conrad, that you do not -- do
you or do you not .feel that a quarry in this
location would imperil the park by reacquisition,
re -- reversion to the state -- to the federal
government -- U. S. government?
A. You mean that if the park -- if the quarry should
be located there that that might cause reversion
to go into effect?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes. We're concerned about

11 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
0
18
N 19
0
a
Z
20
W
21
a
m
22
0
a
W 23
a
24
25
Conrad Commission
this document in the record here.
A. I don't feel qualified to testify to that, Dr.
Smith.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Did you take it into
consideration in your deliberations?
A. We took it into the consideration to the extent
that it was pointed out to us as*a -- as something
that might have some effect on the park, but I --
that was not a --
CHAIRMAN SMITH: (Interposing) Primary
consideration.
A. -= of primary consideration. '
MR. OAKLEY: May I ask just one question?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes, Dan.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY YR. OAKLEY :
QL Mr. Conrad, within that fifteen mile that you
discussed do you feel like that there is a
possibility that there are undisclosed or un-
discovered sources of aggregate stone?
A. I would say that the,potential is there.
MR. OAKLEY% All right, that's all.
MR. KIMZEY: I'll certainly have to ask
him another question on that and I think I am

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
0
18
N 19
0
a
0
Z
20
W
Z
21
¢
m
22
4
Z 23
a
24
25
Conrad Further Re -cross
entitled to.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: You may ask it, Mr.
Kimzey.
MR. KIMZEY: Thank you.
FURTHER RE -CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. Even if there may be other deposits they may
not be developable, for instance, if they are
under the Town of Cary, there would be no way
to develop them would it?
A. Well, there are certain limitations that would
have to be recognized.
0. And you would agree that under the Town of
Cary would be one of the limitations, wouldn't
it?
A. That probably would preclude it.
Q. And you would agree that if they are to the south,
with,the road limits on the road would preclude
trucks carrying that, that would preclude
development of that, wouldn't it?
A. Well, I don't know the road limits there.
Q. I'm asking you to assume Mr. Reid's testimony
that he made a study and found the road limits
were less than the tonnage necessary to carry 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
Lon race Further Re -cross
twenty ton truck, now that's true, assuming
that's true that would preclude development,
wouldn't it?
A. If the load limits stay the same, yes.
Q. In other words, you could build a new highway
system?
A. Unh-hunk or upgrade the roads.
Q And if -- if there is a Triassic Basin right
to the west and north of that then there would
probably be no undisclosed deposits under that
even if they could be commercially --
A. (Interposing) I don't agree with that statement.
Q. You don't?
A. No, sir.
MR. KIMZEY : I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: What's that?
MR. OAKLEY: WE have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Thank you very much,
Steve, please step down.,
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Oakley, as far as I know,
you don't have any recall witnesses, is that
correct?
MR. OAKLEY: No, sir, the -- the Department

(I
�.', 14
X
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
Colloquy
does have Mr. --Dr. Warren's testimony that
we've agreed to handle outside of this hearing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah.
MR. OAKLEY: At this point, we would
move the admission of our exhibits 1 through
28 and that concludes our case.
MS. FRENCH: Let the record show that
they will be accepted.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, you do have
some recall witnesses?
MR. KIMZEY: We have two rebuttal witnesses,
both of those will be fairly brief, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right, would you
please proceed.
MR. KIMZEY: Yes, sir. Mr. Adams would
you come around.
Whereupon,
MR. THOMAS F. ADANIS, JR. ,
having been duly sworn,
was examined and testified
as follows:
REBUTTAL EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. State your name, please, sir.

15
1
Adams
Rebuttal
2
A.
My name is Thomas F. Adams, Jr.
3
Q.
And Mr. Adams what's your occupation?
4
A.
I practice law.
5
Q
Mr. Adams, you've been in this hearing
through-
6
out, have you not?
7
A.
Yes, sir.
8
Q.
Did you hear at the earlier portion of
the hearing
9
the inquiry of one of the commissioners
concerning
10
what the zoning of that site is?
11
A.
Yes, sir.
12
Q
Would you just explain briefly what you
had to
..........
13
do'with the zoning of this area?
14
A.
Well, I --
15
MR. OAKLEY: (Interposing) Object.
16
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Would you please explain.
a 17
0
N
MR. OAKLEY: This is going to be for rebuttal
cc
16
testimony, I don't think the State has put on
0 19
a
any evidence relating to the zoning.
20
Z
MR. KIMZEY: This is in response to an
W
z
0 21
a
m
inquiry of the Commission. I hope that we are
s 22
0
entitled to answer the Commission's inquiry, if
4
V
23
not, we think that would be an obvious error.
24
CHAIRI,4AN SMITH: Mr. Oakley, during the
25
course of the hearings it was -- there was some que:

16
0
C.,
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
Adams
Rebuttal
in the minds of the Commission as to the status
of the zoning of the land for use as a quarry
in -- I did raise that question and I think Mr.
Kimzey is trying to respond to it.
Is that agreeable to you?
MR. OAKLEY: (Nods head affirmatively)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right, sir.
Q.
(Mr. Kimzey) Proceed, Mr. Adams, briefly, what
did you have to do with it?
A.
Well, in the fall of 1979, Mr. Bratton employed me
as an attorney to represent him in the rezoning
of this property before the Wake County Planning
Board and Wake County Commissioners.
Q.
And, what is the present zoning of that property?
A.
The present zoning is Industrial-1.
Q.
And would you just briefly, again, explain how
it became Industrial-1 through that process?
A.
Well,,the original zoning was R-30 and we held
a hearing on November the 21st of 179 before the
Wake County Planning Board requesting Industrial-1
zoning.
At that time we had to justify all uses
which are allowable in an Industrial-1 category,
and on January --

cllv'�
17 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
= 18
0
N 19 0
0
0
20
W
_
= 21
0
Q
CO
O 22
0
4
= 23
d
24
25
�J
- ri
Adams Rebuttal V
Q. (Interposing) What are some of those uses?
A. Well, the -- the Industrial-1 zoning allows
all uses except junkyards, any kind of manufacturin
processing, chemicals operations and various
things.
The county does have some limitations on
odors and noise and vibration and things of this
kind, for any zoning. But, Industrial-1 zoning
allows any use except junkyards.
Q. Does that include rock quarries?
A. It includes quarrying, includes sawmilling,
steel fabrication, whatever.
The matter came before the Wake County
Commissioners for public hearing on January the
7th and at that time again we had to justify
all uses in the industrial category, and we
undertook to do so.
And they continued the hearing to March
loth, and during that time there was a great
deal of newspaper publicity concerning the fact
that there would be a quarry here.
We had not at any time discussed quarrying
per se as its use for the simple reason that under
the law of our state, if you -- if you obtain

0
0
u
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
Rebuttal
zoning in reliance upon a promised use, that is
deemed to be contract zoning, according to our
Supreme Court, and this prohibited us from
stating our intended purpose.
Because of the substantial publicity then
we bega -- we found ourselves on the defensive
in this matter and in March when'the public hearing
was continued we considered at that time that we
had a right to defend the quarry because that's whe
we were getting some attack on from some of our
environmental friends, we refer to them. And,
we -did, in fact, defend the quarry in toto at
that time, pointing out the various factors
that you've heard here in this hearing.
Q. And that was before the County Commissioners?
A. That was before the County Commissioners.
One of the persuasive things to the County
Commissioners was the fact that the -- Mr. Bratton' s
quarry at Knightdale was a -- a good operation.
The neighbors, one neighbor in particular, a
member of the Planning Board, testified she
found the traffic , she lived fifteen hundred
feet from the quarry pit, she found the traffic
on Highway 64 to be more objectionable than she 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
V 4 0
Adams
Rebuttal
the
quarry operation. And this was the -- this
was
generally the type of response that they had
from that neighborhood. The need for stone in
western Wake County and one of the large elements
was
the conservation of f uel --
MR. OAKLEY: (Interposing) May I inquire of
the
Commission whether he is, indeed, answering
the
question that you asked about zoning?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, I think we --
the
testimony is going far beyond the facts of
what is the zoning --
MR. KIMZEY: (interposing) I'll be glad to
ask
him more specific.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right.
MR. KIMZEY: Was the zoning approved by the
Wake
County --?
A.
Yes,
sir..
Q.
(Mr.
Kimzey) And is it now permissible for
use
under Indistrial-1 classification? `
A.
Yes,
sir.
Q
And
that would be under all the uses including
rock
quarrying or heavy industry?
A.
That's
correct.
Q.
That
you described.

(1� 20
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
'� ra
Adams Rebuttal
A. Wake County has since adopted an ordinance
called a Special Use Permit however, for
mining and under that it has a right to approve
any mining that is done in the Industrial-1
classification or -for that matter anyother, except
Industrial-2.
Q. And if the Mining Commission, in its wisdom,
sees fit to grant the permit for the mine -- for
the mining operation, then, the applicant would
go back for a special use permit from Wake County?
A. That's correct, that's correct.
MR. KIMZEY: No further questions.
MR. OAKLEY: I .would .just like to ask a
couple.
CROSS REBUTTAL EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY:
Q. In regard to the special use permit, do you have
any kpowledge as to the frequency for which that
is applied in Wake County?
A. Frequency --?
Q The special use permit, how frequent does Wake
County consider use under that?
A. For each use?
I'm not sure I understand your question,

(�111�
21
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
Adams Cross Rebuttal
,. but, as far as I can recall, I have a code
over- here and we can .'look at it, but as far
as I recall they give you one permit.. They
can attach conditions to that permit that
you must comply with. And you have to meet the
various standards that they have for vibration,
noise, dust and various factors.'
Q Do you have any knowledge on their rate of
approval or denial?
A. Well, they only adopted it last spring, so, there
have been none up to now?
Q. They have not used it at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. I believe you stated that Wake County would have
control -- would have the ability to control uses i
Industrial-1. with regard to noise vibrations?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that if they A. (Interposing) On your point, though, the Soil
Conservation Service has indicated that the -- the
use of this property for industrial purposes would
not impact the structure 23 of the Crabtree Creek.
Q. Where is that?
A. Well, that is one of the -- that's one of your

(��
22
z
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
Adams
Cross Rebuttal �►
sedimentation structures or flood control
structures that is --
Q.
(Interposing) Do you know where it is located?
A.
Yes, it is at the eastern end of the park.
Q.
You were defending the quarry before the Wake
County Commissioners, did you tell them that
you would obtain a mining permit?
A.
Well, at -- they -- well, I can't recall if I
had to say it or not, everybody knew that we
did have to get one.
Q.
Did you make any representation to them about --
to'the effect that it might as well be rezoned,
we have to get a mining permit anyway?
A.
No, sir, we had to justify all uses for
Industrial-1 classification.
Q
Just to clarify a point, did you say the
special use permit had not been used? ,
A.
No, sir, not within my knowledgeand I'm quite
sure it has not.
Q.
For any use?
A.
I'm talking about -- no, I'm talking about
with relation to mining, now.
They have a highway district special use
permit, that's a totally different thing.

23
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
Adams Cross Rebuttal
Q. Okay, with regard to special use permits generally,
outside of mining are included in that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q Do you have any knowledge of the rate of
approval or denial?
A. No, I do not. I -- I handled one case which
was the very first case that fell under that
ordinance which was adopted about 1978 or 17 --
early part of '79, the special use permit dealing
with the highway district, and that was the
first case in which a special use permit was
granted. But, that's the only one I've had any
dealings with.
Q. You wouldn't disagree with me if I -- if I were
to say that they generally grant special use
permits?
A. Well, yqu know, I really couldn't respond to
it except to say in that one instance they did
grant it in the highway district that I'm -- and
I handled that one.
MR. OAKLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey.
MR. KIMZE Y: I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Any questions from the

24 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
a
0
N
18
19
0
0
Z
20
W
Z
0
21
4
m
O 22
0
4
u
W 23
a
24
25
0
w V �
Bratton Rebuttal
Commission?
(No response)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right, thank you
very much.
MR. KIMZEY: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
MR. KIMZEY: Wb recall Mr. Bratton.
Whereupon,
MR. JOHN BRATTON,
having been recalled.and
duly sworn, was examined and
testified as follows:
REBUTTAL EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. State your name, please.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do we have to go through
this.' -
MR. KIMZEY: We have to get it on the
record.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right, you've already
got it on there once, (laughter) but go ahead.
A. John Bratton, Jr.
Q. Are you the same fir. John Bratton who testified

25
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
b J 2
Bratton Rebuttal
earlier?
A.
The same.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Okay. (laughter)
Q¢
(Mr. Kimzey) You have
been here throughout this
hearing, have you not?
A.
Yes, I have.
Q.
You have heard *an inquiry
.from the Commission
concerning the quality
of the stone that would
make up the aggregate
at the proposed site?
A.
Yes, I have.
Q.
Can you just tell the
Commission what you have
done to determine the
quality of that stone?
A.
Normally the main concern
for test -- for
developing a new quarry is the hardness of the
rock.
That test that is used is the Los Angeles
Abrasion Test and that tests percent of wear or
loss , ,and --
Q. (Interposing) And did you -- excuse me.
I din't mean to interrupt you.
A. -- so we -- this deposit, we ran two tests on
it or had two tests run on it.
Q. I have handed you an item which is marked Wake Ston
Exhibit number 31, can you describe what that is?

26
[l�
[AJ
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
Bratton Rebuttal
A. This is a core that was obtained.from a core
drill that bored into the earth and pulled --
and removed this core sample of rock.
Q. Is that the type of sample that you would have
had tested for hardness with the Los Angeles
Abrasion Test?
A. Yes, yes, it is.
Q. Who performed those tests for you, Mr. Bratton.
A. Froehling and Robertson Lab performed one test
and Martin Marietta, they were interested in
the site and made a test for me also and for
their owm purposes.
Q. What were the results of those tests?
A. Froehling and Robertson Test was thirty-seven
point three percent (37.30) loss and Martin
Marietta's test was thirty-eight point five
percent ( 3 8. 5% ) loss.
Q Can you tell me that that means to me as a layman
not in the aggregate business?
What -- how does that relate to say, Trans --
North Carolina Transportation Department standards
and the use of the stone generally as construction
stone?
A. bell, the Department of Transportation has a limit

(��
27
[�J
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
Bratton Rebuttal
of fifty percent loss on the stone. If it meets
that requirement, then it is satisfactory stone,
if it doesn't exceed fifty percent.
Q. And, is the thirty-seven and thirty-eight percent
well within that?
A. Well within, yes.
Q How would you characterize this stone in your
years of experience as rock quarry, aggregate
man?
Just tell us in terms of purposes --
A. (Interposing) Well, it would make a very
desirable construction stone, crushed construction
stone .for asphalt work, base work, concrete work.
Q. All right, sir.
MR. KIMZEY: I'll ask the commission do
they want to examine this sample, y'all probably
know a lot more about it than I do. (Hands
Exhibit 31 to commission members)
Q, (Mr. Kimzey) Mr. Bratton, you've also heard
the testimony of Mr. Hazard, I believe and --
well, I don't want to attribute testimony'to
someone who did not testify, perhaps Mr. Gardner
earlier, that in their opinion the visual and
noise impact on surrounding property of the

W.
0
N
f
0
0
a
Z
W
z
x
0
a
m
0
U
O
4
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
Bratton Rebuttal
proposed operation would increase as time .
goes on?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you hear that general testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. I'm sure Mr. Hazard testified to that and I'm
not sure of the other witness, 'so I will not try
to attribute it.
Would you state to me as the operator,
experienced operator that you are what your
opinion as to those impacts would be over a
period of time?
A. Well, it is my opinion that it would be just
the reverse, that the most impact would be
initially opening the quarry, actually before
getting into operation, during the initial
clearing, stripping and grading operation.
That is -- that would be -- would have
more impact than the operation of the quarry
itself.
Also, as time goes on you have more and
more opportunity to plant seedlings. We've done
that at Knightdale which they might see tomorrow
on the entrance, either side there, but -- use

29
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
b76
Bratton Rebuttal
of berms, with time you can do an awful lot of
work as far as protecting the surrounding area,
and a berm is very effective. You can get
immediately behind a berm and can't hear an
operation that is immediately on the other side
of it, and this -- as far as rock quarry noise
is concerned.
There's any number of things that can be
done that -- as you -- the operation progresses.
It makes -- I mean it improves your operation,
have a more attractive operation, gives you
time for growth.
Q Does the lowering of the vertical elevation
of the pit area have any effect on the noise
and visual impact:
A. Very much so.
Q. Exp lain. that to us.
A. Welly the walls of the -- well, the overburden,
first, as you grade down to get to the rock, they
serve as a berm or a buffer. And then, naturally,
as you quarry down into the rock the height of the
buffer increases, and so it continually improves
as you go down.
Now, it's true that you do widen out your

30 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
fJ j 7
Rebuttal
pit, but the percentage of work that's done in
widening over the years becomes less and less
a percent of the -- in other words, you can get a
million tons out with a certain amount of movement
of top surface back when you have a thirty foot
lift, but when you have four -- three, four thirty
foot lifts then you would have to move it back
4
much s 1 owe r .
Q. And as you get further down vertically, is it
necessarily so that you will have increased truck
noise to bring the rock up or are there other
methods of bringing the rock up?
A. Well, I think they will see also there at Knightdale.
where we have lowered the jaw crusher and the
jaw crusher is the noisiest machine in the
crushing plant, and so, there we have lowered the
crusher into the pit, the trucks don't have the
steep,inc'line_ to climb out. They dump the load
in the pit, then it goes through the primary
crusher and then it is put on a conveyor which
is -- you can hardly hear or you don't hear a
conveyor, and it comes out by conveyor.
Q So, it's not brought up that hill from the lowered
jaw crusher by trucks --

Ow
O
N
_
O
4
0
0
0
W
z
_
0
a
m
0
V
O
a
u
Z
W
d
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bratton
A.
Q.
A.
IE
A.
Q.
A.
M
A.
Rebuttal
( Interposing) No.
-- it's brought by conveyor?
It's conveyed out.
And that will be very easy for them to
observe at Knightdale tomorrow.
Now, you also testified on direct concerning
some noise abatement procedures that are possible
to be used, have there been -- have you also
thought of some additional noise abatement uses
since then that might come into play?
Yes, we have.
What would that be?
Well, one thing that I feel sure we can do and
would do in this particular case, and that is,
house our screening towers. The screeenj_ngs
are another source of noise and they can be housed
which will reduce the noise a great deal.
Are there any developments in trucks that have
occurred recently?
Well, yeah, trucks are much gOieter than they
used to be. In fact, that backup beeping noise
that you've heard referred to is the noisiest --
is the loudest source of noise as far as the
trucks are concerned, it seems.

((�(�
32 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Cl�
14
15
16
• 17
a
N
F 18
O
U.
0
19
s
20
W
Z
21
m
22
4
4
W 23
6
24
25
U100
Bratton Rebuttal
The -- one thing, they exhaust -- the
exhaust goes into the bed of the truck. The
bed is two layer and it goes into the bed and
so it kills any -- it muffles all the exhaust
noises.
Q. Now, Mr. Bratton, you were alsp here when the
hearing started back this morning. You heard
the discussion concerning the twenty-five acre
tract which has recently been acquired by
Wake Stone. In order to get that on the record,
would you just explain briefly what has occurred
in the acquisition of the twenty-five acres?
A. Well, we desired to have that twenty-five
acres from the start when we started acquiring
other tracts, but we were unable to get an option
on thAt particular tract until, it so happens it
was the :last day of our -- before the recess,
the 7th, I guess of October*, but we were --
we did acquire an option on that tract at that
time.
Actually, during the -- my application for
a permit I explained to Mr. Simons and Mr. Con --
I believe it was Mr. Conrad, I'm sure Mr. Conrad
and Mr. Gardner that we were trying to get an
(* Witness possibly misspoke)

33
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
40
Bratton Rebuttal
option on that tract and that if we got an
option on that tract we may like to alter
this schematic plan that we had used on our
permit application. ,And it's my impression
that that didn't present any problem. That
the permit allows modification as time goes
on.
And that they -- also, I believe I
recall that they thought it would improve the
sedimen -- improve the sedimentation problem.
It would be in one drainage and not distrub --
instead of three drainages, possibly.
Q Now, you are not presenting a different alternate
plan --
A. -(Interposing) No.
Q. -- at this hearing, are you?
A. N o .
Q But,.in your opinion is it possible that the use
of that twenty-five acres might combat and improve
any possible impact on the quarry, if that were
to be ccordinated with the State's engineers?
A. That's right, I think it might be a possibility.
All of the details --- I haven't worked out the
details, know that I could use it, but I think

�J
34 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
Bratton Rebuttal
I could and if I did -- could, I think it would
be an improvement, I think it was an improvement,
they would go along, from what they've indicated
and --
Q (Interposing) Would you -- excuse me.
A. -- what it seems to me it would do, it would
confine all the operation back near the I-40
interchange, which would remove it from the
major portion of the park, and. put it back where
other congestion is.
Q. If the State suggested that?
CHAIRMAN SMITH: (Interposing) We had an
agreement at the start of this that we would.
accept evidence that the twenty-five acre zone
had been acquired, but we would not consider
its imp act on the plan for the mine.
MR. KIMZEY : Well, I believe I'm trying to
get what we -- what we understood as our position
on the record, sir. I think that necessary since
we were not on the record at that time. I'm
about through.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: All right, go ahead.
4. (Mr. Kimzey) If the State, not Wake Stone, if the
State felt that modifications of the plans utilizi

35
8
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
Bratton Rebuttal
that twenty-five acres was in order during the
ten year term, would you be willing to use that
twenty-five acres?
A. Yes, indeed.
MR. KIMZEY: That's all.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Oakley.
CROSS REBUTTAL EXAMINATION BY MR. OAKLEY :
Q Mr. Bratton, I believe you stated that you could
improve the buffer or the visual aspects or the
noise aspects by planting seedlings around the
site?
A. That would be one way you could do it, it would
take a little time.
Q. Where exactly -- where exactly would you propose
to do that?
A. Well, I would -- I think throughout the wooded
area and we wouldn't disturb any of the woods that
didn't have to be disturbed throughout the wooded
area, especially the hardwood area, we would
plant pine seedlings.
Q, Do you know how long it would take to provide
some visual screening?
A. Well, in three years they will provide visual

36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
0
f
18
LL
N 19 0
0
0
20
Z
21
4
m
22
0
a
W 23
a
24
25
D'i 3
Bratton Cross Rebuttal
screening so high (indicating distance from
floor), in eight years it would be on up a little
higher.
But, if you will notice those pines on the
left of the entrance at the Knightdale quarry,
I believe they were planted eight years ago and
they are -- I believe that's right. We've been
there ten years and I believe it was the second
year that we were there, and you'll see how --
I believe they are as tall as this room.
Q. But anyway, it would be some time before you
get the benefit of them?
A. Oh, sure.
Now, a berm is .different, you can make a
berm--
Q, (Interposing) Now, exactly where would you
put the berm on this site?
A. That would be worked out with -- with the State
staff people as to where we thought it would
be most effective and where -- in other words,
it might be some areas that they might say, this
is -- you need to put a buffer here. I would
certainly agree to put one there.
There might be other areas where they could

(�Illj
37 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
£ a 18
0
19
0
Z
20
W
Z
21
a
0 22
V
O
4
V
z 23
a
24
25
4
Bratton Cross Rebuttal
say, when you strip next time, let's use that
dirt for ano -- continuation of the buffer,
Q. If you were using the highest elevation for
part of the plant site, how would a berm affect --
what use could you make of a berm in that particular
situation?
A. Well, I think a berm out on the perimeter of
the property would -- would prevent people from
seeing -- in other words, the tower might be
here (indicating on table), if you put the berm
out here, people down here still couldn't see
the --(indicating another point on table and
holding hand at an angle to the table top).
Q. And that would -- what type of material would
that be?
A. That would be the overburden, the dirt that was
removed:when stripping the quarry.
Q. With regard to planting pine seedlings in under
the hardwood, do you have any opinion about
whether they would grow if they"re-shaded like that?
A. Well, Dan, I'm sure in some areas it might be
too much cover for -them, in other areas where the
beetles have gotten into them, there were pines
there, the bee -- the pines are down now, we'd

38 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
18
0
19
0
20
W
Z
21
a
m
u 22
n
a
0
23
24
25
L(O
64
ratton Cross Rebuttal
plant new pines. And, I think they would grow
there.
You also stated, I believe, some noise abatement
steps. You say that you would take the steps?
Yes, we would, in fact, we would try to really
have a showcase quarry there.
We would be open for suggestions from the
staff people as to anything they may have seen or
know about from their other visits, that they've
seen at other quarries that we haven't incorporated
we'd be glad to accept those suggestions.
Did you include any noise abatement aspects, noise
abatement techniques in your permit application
initially in March?
Ah-h.
Q. Particularly with housing the --
A. (Interposing) No, I did not, I dont' believe there
is a ,place for that on that form.
I would have -- I would have responded if
the opportunity had arisen.
And there are other things that haven't been
mentioned that possibly could be done.
I know that we are participating in an
experiment now using rubber clad screen cloth on

39 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0
N
0 18
LL
0
19
s
z
20
W
z
0 21
a
m
V 22
0
a
v
W 23
a
24
25
Bratton Cross BRebuttal
our screens for strictly noise abatement
purposes. Its' a contract, I believe I've
mentioned this before, a contract with the
Bureau of Mines has let to a consulting firm
to make records prior to the installation of
the rubber cloth and make records afterward and
see what improvement could be made from a noise
standpoint, and we're participating in that.
Q• Would the placement of some of these environmental
controls,, such as you're mentioned, well, all
of the ones you've mentioned, new equipment,
housing the screening towers, planting seedlings,
berms, et cetera, how would that place you in --
with regard to your competition as an economic
factor?
A. The housing of the screening towers would be
some more expensive, but from a percentage stand-
point^not a very large percentage.
A large investment is required for putting
in a quarry, the equipment primarily, and as to
the housing that might go around that equipment
wouldn't be nearly as expensive as the equipment
itself.
And I don't know if you're asking -- let's

CIII'I�
40 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
F 18
a
0
19
0
0
z
20
W
Z
z 21
0
4
m
u 22
0
u
W 23
d
24
25
bratton Cross Rebuttal
see, to answer the other things that we talked
.about; the berms, the cost is removing the
material, not putting`it in the berm. So, that's
a significant item.
I don't feel like it -.would put me at a
disadvantage as far as the competition is con-
cerned.
Q. What would you do with that material if you didn't
make a berm?
A. Well, it would probably be a demand for bar
material in that area, in fact, there is.
we -- people take bar material from Knightdale
quarry, overburden from Knightdale quarry and
haul it the Research Triangle area because material
in the area is not suitable for fill material.
I
So, it would serve that -- actually it would
serve -- that quarry would serve a very good
purpose in that area from an energy conservation
standpoint and other standpoints. As far as
disturbing -- opening new bar pits, that's
disturbing the environment. Whereas, if you
can use that material from the: quarry that's
going to be disturbed, it- reduces the amount
of overall disturbance, land disturbance.

41 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
17
N 18
0
0
19
0
Z 20
W
Z
21
4
m
u 22
0
W 23
a
24
25
Bratton Further Rebuttal
MR. OAKLEY: We have no further questions.
MR. KIMZEY: Mr. Smith, I just simply failed
to ask him one question on rebuttal and I -- one
line of questions that I've been developing on
rebuttal and I need to apk that.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Would you please do that.
FURTHER REBUTTAL EXAMINATION BY MR. KIMZEY:
Q. Mr. Bratton, would you for the Commission, just
please compare the equipment in use at the
Crabtree Quarry, Nello Teer Crabtree Quarry to
the equipment you would propose to install at
the proposed site.
A. Well, I can't be too specific on it but that
quarry was built in' the '30's, and most of the
initial equipment, the plant generally, the layout
of the :plant is the same.
But there's some -- was some modifications
made to the plant in about, I believe, about '58
or 159 or '60, in there, prior to the county
zoning ordinances.
Since the county zoning ordinances, the --
that's a nonconforming operation and they're not
s'posed to make any changes, such as putting the

42
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
Bratton Further Rebuttal
crusher in the hole.
That -- most of that equipment dates
back many years, and that's the only
thing I can say about it, the mobile equip-
ment has been updated.
Q. All right, how many jaw crushers would you
propose to put in the proposed plant site?
A. I would put one jaw crusher.
Q. How many jaw crushers are operating at the
Crabtree Quarry?
A. Well, let me explain that.
There are two plants, whole two plants
out there, and so instead of having one jaw
crusher they have two, instead of maybe two
or three cone crushers they have probably five.
Q You would operate one plant, a new modern plant
at this..proposed site, versus two plants which
I understand have some age on them and are
operating at the Crabtree plant?
A. That's right.
Q. So, it's basically true that production plant
equipment is about double the amount of equipment
in use at Crabtree than you would have at the
new proposed site?

rq .
43
a
0
N
g
O
ti
0
0
a
2i
W
z
z
O
}
m
0
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
b,��
Bratton
Further Rebuttal
A.
Tha would -- that would probably be so, yeah,
because --.
Q.
What about trucks?
A.
Well, see, that's an old quarry, their hauling
roads are very long now. They have to circle out
of the pit because the! pit is very deep.
So, they are at an extreme haul distance
situation, whereas, a new quarry would have a
much shorter haul, much fewer trucks, maybe four
trucks could do the work of eight trucks. And
certainly, in this day and time with fuel cost like
and other expenses, you would put the crusher in the hole
as soon as possible on an economic standpoint.
Q.
Do you think it is a valid comparison for someone
to stand twelve hundred feet from that site as it
might be from the proposed operation?
I don't think so.
MR. KIMZEY: That's it.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: 'Mr. Oakley, do you have any
questions?
MR. OAKUY: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Members of the Commission.
MR. VAN HORN: No, sir.
MR. RIGGS: I would like a clarification.
t is,

4 4
�J
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
Bratton Commission
EXAMINATION BY COMMISSION:
MR. RIGGS: When you talk about fifty
percent loss, what are we losing': with the
crush?
A. Minus T- I believe it's minus -- minus ten mesh,
minus forty mesh, I'm riot sure just what the
grading is.
In other words, the Los Angeles Abrasion
Test consist of grading a sample of stone, A
grading which is grading that they ran is -- they
ran was graded from an inch and a half to an
inch and so many -- so many -- so much weight
per half inch, I mean of one inch, so much of
inch and a quarter, so much inch and -a half.
So, when they put it in this cylinder with
so many steel balls and it turns five hundred
revolutions and then they take it out and they
sha]�e.through a screen, a Neilson screen and
measure the amount that* is lost, then the level
of loss, I'm not sure whether -- just what grading
it is, what mesh. But they, if it's, oh, nothing
is under about twenty percent loss, but if it
is twenty percent that's an indication it is very
durable stone. If it's --- goes on graded up to

C"Ie"ej
45
0
N
E
0
LL
0
0
P.
z
W
Z
Z
0
0
U
G
a
Z
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
w V � 4
Bratton Commission
fifty, it gets to borderline,
MR. RIGGS: This isn't -- doesn't because
of the schistose pattern here, this doesn't
really breakdown very readily?
A. No, I don't think it would, no, no, that didn't
affect the percent loss very much.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Bratton, you have indica e
that -.you would put the primary crusher in the
quarry below grade and hopefully minimize noise
from that.
You've indicated that you would put
screens around your screens A. (Interposing) Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: - - or barrier around your
screens to hopefully minimize noise further.
You've indicated that you are experimenting
with a type of screen as well.
In your previous testimony you referred to
a low noise air hammer, drill.
A. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: To power your drills, have
you reached any conclusion as to whether you would
use the so-called low noise drills?
A. Yes, sir, the compressor is one of the sources of
M

L4
46
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
Bratton
noise.
Commission
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes.
A. It would definitely be a shrouded compressor,
what they refer to as a whisperizer compressor.
As a matter of fact --
CHAIRMAN SMITH: '(Interposing) I hope that's
not like a whisper jet.
A. -- all compressor manufacturers have to -- have
to shroud the compressor now.
So, a new compressor would definitely be
shrouded. The drill -- the down in the hole
drill is quieter than the type drill we are
using, and the first drill -- first time I could
use a down in the hole drill, I would go to that
type of drill. There are some limitations on when
you can use them.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yeah.
Thank you very much, Mr. Bratton.
A. Yes, sir.
(WITNESS EXCUSED)
MR. KIMZEY: Mr. Smith, that concludes
Wake Stone's testimony and with the introduction
of Exhibits 1 through 31, I believe, if that is
the number on that (indicating exhibit on Commissio

47 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
4
19 O
O
O
20
W
_
=
0 21
4
m
22
O
Q
W 23
d
24
25
Colloquy
table)
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Yes.
MR. KIMZEY: That would conclude Wake
Stone's evidence.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We will adjourn the
meeting until tomorrow morning.
MR. KIMZEY: Excuse me, did you let --
MS. FRENCH: Let the record show, yes.
MR. KIMZEY: All right, I just wanted
to check on that.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Now, that we have the
exhibits in we will adjourn the hearing until
tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, and the first
order of business will be a site visit to the
site and to the two quarries.
MR. GARDNER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
clarify and make sure that everybody understands
that,that convening will be in the Archdale
Building where it was before.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: The convening will be in
the Archdale Building.
(Whereupon, the Administrative Hearing was adjourn
until Wednesday, December 17, 1980, at 9:00 a.m.)
: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
Colloquy
F U RTHER PROCEEDINGS
(Whereupon, the Mining Commission members
and representatives for Wake Stone and the
Land Quality Division, Department of Natural
Resources and Conmuhity. Development visited the
designated sites between the hours of 9:00 a.m.
and 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 17, 1980.)
.Whereupon, the Proceedings continued in
the Hearing Room, Archdale Building, Raleigh,
North Carolina on Wednesday, December 17, 1980,
commencing at 2:30 p.m.
The following proceedings were had, to
wit:
CHAIRMAN SMITH: I call this session of
the Mining Commission to order.
We have the summations this afternoon, that's
all we have.
Each of the attorneys has agreed to restrain
his closing remarks to about thirty minutes, and
N
it is my understanding, Mr. Oakley that you
will proceed first, is that correct?
14R. OAKLEY: Yes, sir.

0
0
a
u
z
cL
C.,
Gel
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
Argument
CHAIRMAN SMITH: You may proceed, sir.
MR. KIMZEY: Excuse me, Ms. French, do you
want to get those exhibits in as a matter of
the record before we start?
MS. FRENCH: Sure, bring them on up.
(COMMISSION's EXHIBIT 1 and 21
MINING COMMISSION HEARING,
MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. OAKLEY: Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Commission, I'd like to thank you first of
all for your patience in listening to the two
parties herein, as we've gone through this
particular hearing.
I realize that some of it has gotten
tedious sometimes but I think- that we have
made a great deal of progress in getting the
issues before you.
At the outset of the hearing in my opening
statement, I mentioned to you that the Division
and the Department did not consider themselves
to be anti -mining or anti -quarry in any -- in
any respect.
And, that we had reviewed this application
r
in a routine manner, much as we do all of the

i
'. 50 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Cvliw'� -
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Argument
other mining applications that come before us.
We did come to focus upon the William
B. Umstead Park as the application -was reviewed
and the park emphasis has continued throughout.
As I pointed out to you earlier, G.S. 74-51
( 5 ) is considered by the Department to be a
separate guideline.
It is a separate standard and a separate
test which has to be met independently on its
own merit.
I also pointed out to you that the
Department had gone to significant lengths to
narrow the issues, so that the hearing could be
undertaken in as -- with as little confusion
as possible, and that we could focus in on
the concerns that were really of concern to the
Department.
I told you also that we felt that even
with the best of controls and best of intentions
by Wake Stone and all indications that we had
from Mr. Bratton, that he was a good operator,
even with those, we felt that the effect on the
park was a significant adverse effect.

(Z' W. )
51 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
0
N
F 0 18
19
O
O
z
20
W
Z
Z
0 21
}
4
m
u 22
0
4
u
Z
a 23
24
25
Argument
We also pointed out that the purposes of
the park that would be affected would be brought
out at the hearing, those being hiking, camping,
animal and birdwatching, picnicking, the general
peace and quiet of the area, the wildlife in a
natural area. I believe those issues have been
sufficiently brought out to your attention.
As you think back upon the hearing, I
believe you will see that our testimony has
addressed these matters in particular detail and
that our evidence is virtually uncontradicted.
Particularly, as it relates to the park aspect.
I'd like to consider that our reivew in this
matter has been essentially two dimensional.
First of all, the effect of the Wake
Stone operation on the William B. Umstead Park.
And secondly of all, and I think this has
to be,of equal importance is the significance of
that effect to the purposes of the park.
This particular review is based upon the
statute and I would not like to consider it as --
as a review in the abstract. I think that was
brought out in the testimony of Air. Gardner and
I believe that the evidence, the rest of our

(`)52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
O�
O
N
18
a
19
0
Z
20
W
Z
0 21
Q
m
22
0
Q
W 23
0
24
25
9�)9
Argument
testimony and also Mr. Gardner's testimony
will reveal that the Department has looked at
the operation in all of its aspects.
Ile have found that there are some
satisfactory -- some satisfactory aspects to
the operation that are not of concern to the
Department.
Those things such as ground water, the
vibration effect, the effect on wildlife per se,
we have addressed those in our review and have
found those not to contribute to a significantly
adverse effect on the park.
We have also found some things that can
be addressed satisfactorily by the applicant
in compliance with, whether you call them
guidelines or tests or whatever you call them,
that being the sedimentation plan, the traffic
safety, aspect of the situation and the fact that
the air and water permits have been permitted or
have been granted.
We have come to focus, on the areas that
are at issue before you, but I don't want you to
take it to mean that the Department has only looked
at those areas. our review is not that narrow.

53 1
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
4
m
22
a
4
u
Ld
= 23
6
24
25
Argument
Our review went to the entire aspect of
the operation. I think that is significant.
I think it can be said that we have
weighed the entire operation -versus the effect
on the park. And that's what I mean by saying
that we have not undergone an abstract review.
I think that we have weighed the entire
operation versus the effect on the park.
The -- entering in with -- in that regard
is the effect of economics on this particular
matter. And I know that you will recall through-
out the hearing that we objected on several
occasions to evidence relating to economic aspects
of the quarry operation.
I think it is important to note that the
Division is in a position of promoting mining.
They have a deep feeling about the place of
mining in our society.
I don't think that you can say that we have
.looked at it or that our particular slant on
this particular application is any different from
any of the -- any of the other applications.
We did put on evidence that we feel like
the market can be met in this particular situation.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Argument
The statute itself does not call for a
weighing of the economic considerations. It
does not say, for example, that you should
consider the significant adverse effect on the
public. It does not say that you should consider
the significant adverse effect on the environment
in general.
It says, that you should consider the
significantly adverse effect on the purposes of
the.publicly owned park. And we would invite
your attention to the fact that I think it is
a'le gitimate exercise for the State and for the
General Assembly to invite you to focus on one
item.
And, I haven't been able to find a great
deal of case law on this, but I think that one
that I found might be instructive to you. If you rec al
G.S.,.74-51 states that, "The Department may
deny a permit upon finding..." and it lists
seven different findings that you can use
to deny a permit.
The one that we have been concerned with
is, `that the operation will have a significantly
adverse effect on the purposes of a publicly owned
1

- cl_"�
35 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r
13
14
15
16
• 17
0
N
0
18
0
19
0
_
20
21
m
22
V
O
4
V
W 23
a
24
25
562
Argument
park, forest or recreation.area".
I would like *-.you to remember that there
are, six other denials that -- six other reasons
for denial in the statute.
The statute also says,*"in the absence of
any such finding a permit shall be granted".
A similar state statute is the Marine
Fisheries Law.
In G.S. - 113-20 -- 229 (e) states that
"Applications for permit, except special emergency
permit application, shall be circulated by the
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development among all state agencies and in the
discretion of the Secretary appropriate federal
agencies having jurisdiction over the subject
matter which might be affected by the project,
so that, such agencies will have an opportunity
to raise any objections they might have."
I think you will agree that this is
similar to the way the Mining Fact asks this
Department to look at -the applications.
That section goes further to say, "the
Department may deny an application for a dredge
or fill permit upon finding, number 1, that there

56 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
rgument*
will be a significant adverse effect on the
proposed dredging and filling on the use of
the water by the public, or 2, that there
will be significant adverse effect on the value,
enjoyment -- and enjoyment of the property of
any raparian owners, or 31 that there will be
a significant adverse effect on the *.public
health, safety and welfare."
There are two other reasons that they
can grant -- two other reasons that they can
deny permits on.
I point this out to you to try to drive
home the fact that you can consider the adverse
effect on the purposes of the park as a separate
item, and do not need to go'.into the general
economic concerns of the area when you consider
the word "significant".
.And, this particular statute for dredge and
fill has received a Supreme Court attention
recently and although it did not address the
specific question that I would like you to think
about, it was more concerned with whether or not
that particular aspect of the significantly adverse
effect could be considered a proper police power

57 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
r;
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gument
for the Marine Fisheries Commission.
The Supreme Court in considering the
question found first of all that those general
purposes were within the police power and stated,
"by having a Subsection (E) (2) the legislature
obviously intended to be adding another basis
for the denial of the permit."
They went further after that to explain
the reasons for that denial and I won't go
farther into that.
I think that if is instructive because
the position of the Division is that that is
exactly* what they have done with the Mining Law.
They have given you a separate reason for
denial and it relates to the purposes of a
publicly owned park.
Also, along these lines I -- I think if you -
if you go -- if you take the argument of Wake
Stone's to the extreme, that economic consideration
have to be taken into account, you would have to
also apply that to the other reasons that are
listed in 74-51(5).
One of those being that you may deny a permit
on the basis that the operator has not corrected

58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
�J
14
15
16
17
0
N
O 18
N 19 0
0
h
O
Z
20
a
}
21
d
m
8 22
O
4
u
23
CL
24
25
U5
Argument
all violations of previous permits. And the
Division would -- would question whether if
that were -the case would -- would the Commission
still look at granting a permit to a particular
violator on the basis.of economic consideration.
And we would say that:you would not.
In contrast to our particular approach
relating to the significance of the park, I
think that Wake Stone has taken essentially a
one dimensional approach and has not addressed
really the significance of this particular
quarry, the significance that it will have upon
the purposes of the park.
Our evidence basically shows,.and I would
just like to highlight it to you, I think all of
you are familiar with it. The case has been
fairly consistent throughout. I think everybody
has made their points and made them well.
Our particular position with regard to the
noise aspect of the proposed quarry, we feel like t a
we have gone to significant lengths to acquaint
all of our witnesses with this particular situation.
Of course, there is no way to duplicate what
kind of sounds are going to emanate from a pro-
posed quarry.
t

59 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
A
O
N
18
W
0
19
0
Z
20
W
21
m
u 22
c
W 23
s
24
25
5 6 '�
Argument
We feel that the quarries. that we have
visited are sufficiently similar, comparable
and support the type of investigation that
we undertook.
You heard evidence from our State
witnesses that the -- the quarries that we
visited were similar in terms of*production
rate.the energy that is necessary to produce
that amount of stone is going to be the same,
regardless if it is one crusher or two crushers,
et cetera.
our particular witnesses, I think, have
focused on the quality of the sound, which
will be that low, constant hum that's going to
be ever present in the park situation.
I think that it's uncontradicted that
that will have an effect on the people that go
to Umstead Park for the purposes for which
they go there. It will detract from their
experience and there was evidence that it would
send them elsewhere. And, I think that should be
taken in light of the value of the William B.
Umstead Park to this particular area.
I think it is unique and I think our

a
60 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
—967—
testimony shows that.
We've also gone the second length
and contracted with a noise expert to verify
the noise levels. We felt like that should
be addressed and if you will recall the testimony
of Dr. Bailey he used that community noise
rank exhibit, which showed at nineteen hundred
feet from the -- from the Crabtree Quarry at
decibel levels of fifty-three to fifty-five
that using the community noise rank technique
that you would expect average -- on the average
widespread complaints about that -- that noise.
Dr. Bailey further testified that he
felt like that this was a conservative way
to approach -- a conservative way of looking
at this particular situation because the graph
related:to residential and the park situation
the people would be even more aware of the
quiet.
He also testified in his opinion it would
be clearly -- the noise would be clearly
audible in the .park.
So, what we have done basically, with
regard to nosie is try to acquaint ourselves

(11111�
;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a
17
0
N
a
18
N 19 a
0
0
20
W
_
21
a
m
22
V
O
a
W 23
a
24
25
with the quality of the sound. Each of our
witnesses has done this and each of our
witnesses has visited quarries and tried to
make this determination for themselves. And
I think that is -- I think it was proper for
them to do that and I think that is -- is a. --
is really what this particular permit application
called for. I think we did what we were
supposed to in this instance. And, in that
regard we are convinced that the noise will
emanate into the park and that it will affect
the park use.
As far as the visual concerns, I think
the testimony brought out the fact that the
site can be. seen from several areas in the
park, particularly in the wintertime.
The vegetation, and you had a chance to
visit the site yourself. I think that perhaps
that portions of it -that you went to, if you
had gone back further across the creek and into
the other aspects -- other areas, natural areas,
I think our testimony relates that that is a
significant portion of our testimony. That that
upper northern area is the part where the proposed

0
N
Q
0
0
0
0
W
_
0
0
u
0
u
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
-969- 1
site will be most visible.
The ---- I think you can tell from the
vegetation on the site that it is large patches
of hardwood and in the wintertime it would be
a visible sight.
The impact upon -- of this coincides with
the noise aspect as it affects a park user,
someone who goes out there for a recreational
experience, whether it be birdwatching or animal
studies or just to commune with nature in the
gneral peace and quiet setting. Visual and the
noise aspect have to be considered together.
I think our testimony clearly shows that
it would be an effect. It would be a detraction
from those particular uses of the park.
There is some evidence in the record that
there are some topographic barriers. I think
that'they are generally localized and would ask
your attention -- focus your attention on the
topographic maps and note the elevations and
note the patches that it can be seen through.
As far as traffic is concerned, of course,
the figure of eighty vehicles per hour, I think,
means the same thing to everybody. That is a

1 Argument _gip_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(11;1�')
lot of traffic.
The congestion as it relates to the park
involves the fact that the park entrance and
the road from the quarry are going to intersect.
The aspects of those vehicles themselves are
well known to members of the Commission. I
think what you should focus on is the effect,
.the testimony that we have, the effect of
that on the park user.
And, you heard testimony that the
anticipation of the park event and also the
recollection are of a great deal of importance
about how much you will enjoy that particular
experience.
So, we think that the -traffic congestion
will affect that and that should be taken into
consideration by the Commission.
-The other aspects, again, are cumulative.
And I don't think that our testimony is -- has
in anyway misled you about this.
We've taken some of these to -- taken the
entire picture into account.
You will hear, I'm sure, from Mr. Kimzey
that they have met this standard, this standard,

U4-
[AJ
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
-971-
this standard, they've done what we asked them
to in several instances, but, again, we would
like to focus on the fact that this quarry
will be adjacent to a park, and that you will
have uncontrollable fugitive dust, and that
you will have noise and dust emanating from the
blasting.
I think this is based upon our general
experience in quarry site investigations and
quarry site appli -- quarry.applications.
There's also going to be uncontrollable
sedimentation. There is just no way to get
around that. They are within our guidelines
and we're impressed with Mr. Bratton and we're
impressed with Mr. Edwards I. We've never told
1
them that we were otherwise.
But, the uncontrollable sedimentation
has to be taken into consideration when you
consider the effect of the entire operation on
the park. And, the uncontrollable sedimentation
will go into the Crabtree Creek and the Crabtree
Creek flows through the park.
As far as the standards are concerned, as
I mentioned, I believe you will receive some

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
Argument -972-
argument that they are meeting the standards
the State can put upon them, but I would call
your attention to the fact that they cannot meet
the one standard that is at issue before you,
they cannot meet the test of operating without
having a significantly adverse effect upon the
purposes of the park.
Their evidence, I'm sure,will be brought
out by Mr. Kimzey, one thing that they did not
show by their evidence was that they would not
have a significantly adverse effect on the
purposes of the park. I don't think that they --
again, I don't think that they approached the
particular consideration in terms of the
purposes of the park in anyway, whatsoever.
Their evidence also makes some mention
of noise and visual abatement techniques that
they'may -- that they may put in, but they
did not talk to you in terms of the actual
impact of those techniques.
They talked to you in terms of generalities
and certainly there are some localized improve-
ments that could be made in terms of noise and
visual aspect. But, again, there was no quantity

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
0
18
O
w
N 19 0
0
0
20
W
21
ca
0 22
V
O
Q
u
W 23
a
24
25
-973-
of reduction of noise particularly f rom the
noise abatement equipment.
We don't know how much that will affect,
how much that will -- how much quieter that
will make it. They did not address that.
The secondary items, blasting dust,
sedimentation, traffic safety, again, they have
presented evidence with regard to the guidelines
and the standards and the permits that they have
and that they can meet. But, they have not
addressed in terms of quantitative assurances
to the Commission or the Department that the.
uncontrollable aspects of those items will not
present a adverse effect on the park.
I'd like to call your attention to that,
also.
In summary, I think that our testimony shows
that there will be a significantly adverse
effect upon the purposes of the park.
We're looking at "significant" in terms of
an important influence.
We're looking at "adverse" in terms of
contrary direction or harmful influence -- harmful
interference.

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
a
-974- 1
We're looking at "effect" in terms of
the intrusion and the impact.
And, just in conclusion, I feel like
that there could be no doubt that the operation
will constitute such an adverse influence and
will interfere with the use of the park.
I don't -- I just can't see that this
Commission could come to any other conclusion.
The Department has been convinced from the
very beginning, it is convinced today that the
permit should be denied on the basis of 74-51(5)
and we would ask the Commission to affirm that
denial on the basis of the evidence that is
before you.
MR. KIMZEY: Members of the Commission,
I too would like to express my appreciation and
thanks for myself personally and for my client,
Wake Stone Corporation, for your patience. We
have been here for a long time and I recognize
that sometime it is difficult to be patient with
me, and when I feel that I have a particular
duty to perform and maybe go at it a little bit
bullheadedly, and I apologize for that, if I have

0
01 O
0
0
W
O
0
u
0
OL
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
-975-
done that. But, we feel that this is an
important case. All of you have donated your
time for four days to be down here. I think
that signifies some of the importance of it.
And, I think, that you can obviously see the
importance both to Wake Stone Corporation and
the State of North Carolina in the matters
brought forth here.
We're really going to be talking in my
summary and we are limited to a half hour, of
what does the words significantly --"significantly
adverse effect" mean.
I think we have -- I have what I consider
an impossible task to cover. the. evidence that's
been presented before you in four days in a
half hour and I know that I will not be able to
do that.:
-But, I think that there are some
important things that have not been put into
evidence in the way of some legal arguments that
I'd like to argue to you briefly and then
perhaps I'll have time to summarize some of
the evidence which I think is important.
Of course, one of the real luxuries of

J
1
4
•• 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
..........:.
14
15
16
o
17
N
18
O
0 19
O
I.
z
20
W
z
z 21
O
}
m
0 22
0
W 23
0
24
25
—976—
appearing before a learned Commission, such as
yourself, is that we do have with I
people
expertise on the Commission. The evidence.
that was presented to you as meaningful to
you in the context that is presented without
having to be stressed over and over again by
an attorney and if I fail to mention some point
of evidence that you consider important it's
because of the time limitation that are placed
upon me, not because that we consider that
evidence unimportant and we -- we ask you to
consider all of the evidence before you.
You recall, all of us, without reminding
ourselves that subsection (5) of the statute
that controls says that the Department may, not
must or shall, but may deny a permit if the
oper -- proposed operation significantly adversely
has a•significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly owned park or forest.
I think those are the key words. I think
we've focused on that yesterday. I think the
Bench itself -- the Commission itself focused on
that and I think that is where I must focus.
I think we can gain, as Mr. Oakley said,

O
V
O
t
u
G
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-977-
some guidance from the North Carolina law on
what those words mean. And, as you know,
Subsection (5) of G.S. 74-51 appears in the
Mining Act of 1971.
Now, what those words mean can probably
best be defined -- determined from the context
of the Mining Act of 1971 in which they appear.
I believe in my opening statement I read to
you and with the -- even with the risk of
being somewhat repititious I think I'll read
again, a portion of the policy set forth in
.General Statutes just preceding Subsection (5).
In 74-47, in creating a Mining Commission
and setting forth -- enacting the Mining Act
the General Assembly said and I quote, "The
General Assembly finds that the extraction of
minerals by mining is a basic and essential
activity making an important contribution to.
the economic well-being of North Carolina and
the nation.
"Furthermore, it is not practical to
extract minerals required by our society without
disturbing the surface of the earth and producing
waste materials and the very character of certain

Cd ,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
surface mining operations precludes complete
restoration of the land to its original
condition.
"However, it is possible to conduct
mining in such a way as to minimize its effect
on the surrounding environment. A significantly
adverse effect -- conduct mining in such as
way as to minimize its effect on surrounding
environment."
I think .:we can draw some significance to
the word used in context of the policy and the
words of the statute.
It also goes on in a -- after skipping a
little bit says, "The General Assembly finds
that the conduct of mining and reclamation of
mine lands as provided by this article will
allow the mining of valuable minerals and will
provide for the protection of the State's
environment and for the beneficial use of the
mine and reclaimed land."
If we mine in accordance with the Mining
.Act and the rules and regulations set up under
it, it will not only permit mining but it will
provide for safeguards to the things that need

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
-979- 1
be safeguarded, namely, in this instance,
a state park.
In addition to trying to gain some '
insight on what the words "significantly
adverse effect" mean in the statute and in
addition to reading the policy from the
statue itself, I think we can gain some insight
from the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Title 15, Chapter 5, having to do with mining
mineral resources.
And this is the code -- Administrative
Code provision that organizes and set forth
the organization, administration of yourself,
the Mining Commission.
It sets forth the purpose act and.I think -
the purpose of the Mining Commission is instructive
here.
Reading from Section 0 -- .0102, and I
quote, "The Mining Commission is vested with
the power and duty to promulgate rules and regu-
lations for the enhancement of the mining resources
of the state". For the enhancement of the
mining resources of the state. Not for the
denial of utilization of those resources but for

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
the enhancement of it.
Significant, certainly you must measure
in order to determine whether an effect is
a significantly adverse effect. It must be
measured against what the terms of that statute
are set forth in the general policy.
The utilization of minerals, the reclamation
of land, the following of standards set up in
the Act to protect the environment, and the
enhancement of mining.
As Mr. Oakley said, there has been a recent
change where the word significantly adverse
effect had been used the North Carolina Supreme
Court has made a determination in a matter
involving the dredge and fill law with the,
I believe,it is the Fisheries and Waters Commissic
Marine Fisheries Commission. Mr. Oakley set
forth his interpretation of how you might benefit
from that case.
But, I state to you that the case speaks
directly to the point that we have here and. I'd
like to quote from it. In that case the Marine
Fisheries went so far as to define three terms.
I thin,L their definitions could be more

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
O
N
z 18
O
O
19
0
0
20
W
Z
10
21
m
22
0
u
= 23
6
24
25
-981-
helpful but I'd like to tell you•what they
did.
They said --they defined "value" and that
definition is set forth. They defined "enjoyment"
and said what that means and then they define
three, as to what constitutes a significant
adverse effect on value and enjoyment, as
a phrase they use in G.S; 113-229(e), "an
objective standard is applied," quote.
Now, that's what the Commission said.
Now, the case doesn't help us beyond that. It
doesn't say what that objective standard was.
But, the Kin -- but the Fisheries Commission
used an objective standard in applying
"significantly adverse effect". And, here's
what the Court said about that, "We find the
above definitions to be entirely proper and
in accordance with the intent of the legislature --
legislative goals -- with the intent and goals
of the legislature."
And then about four pages over, in determining
the issues in the case the Supreme Court of North
Carolina in June of 1980, this year, said,
" The next issue is whether the Department or the

u
_
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-982-
Review Commission acted arbitrary or capriciously.
Since the administrative body has acted in
accordance with the applicable standards which
we find to be proper and constitutional in
all respects, and since the Commission applied
an objective standard for determining whether
there was a significant adverse effect on the
value and enjoyment of the property of the
adjacent owners, we find no arbitrary or
capricious' action by either the Department
or the Review Commission."
MS. FRENCH: Mr. Kimzey, do you have a cite
on that case?
MR. KIMZEY: Certainly, I'm sorry, I dc:
have it cited. It is 266 North Carolina I
should have cited the case as a matter of
courtesy to the Commission.
In the matter of Appeal from the Denial
of Application to Dredge and Fill of the Board --
I'm sorry, of the Broad and Gales Creek Community
Association found in -- I have the Southeastern
cite, if that is all right, 266 Southeast 645.
I do not have a North Carolina cite.
MR. GAKELY: I have it, if you'd like it.

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
Argument -983-
MR. KIMZEY: That's all right.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Who wrote that opinion?
MR. KIMZEY: Judge Copeland wrote the
opinion.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Which one?
MR. KIMZEY: Judge Copeland wrote the
opinion.
That opinion states that in determining
what the words "significantly adverse effect"
means the Supreme Court has approved an objective
standard applying to those tests.
Applying that to the evidence that you've
heard before you today from the State's witnesses
the only evidence before you is subjective,
subjective, subjective.
The State has said that there will be a
subjective impairment. It's own witnesses said
subjectively when I hear that noise myself it has
such and such influence on me. There has not been
one objective standard applied by the State.
Yet, the Wake Stone Corporation has, as
Mr. Oakley pointed out and we certainly will
argue to you we have determined what objective
standards exist and we have met or exceeded those

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-984-
standards in every instance and those are the
standards which must apply in this case under
that Supreme Court case.
The subjective standard of"% would be
bothered", "I maybe would not go back to the
state park", I can't tell you that somebody
would or wouldn't be there, but I know how I
feel about it. I can't tell you that there are
so many decibels or that there's any standard as
to noise level there, only thing I can say is,
the quality of the tone annoys me.
Those are subjective evaluations. Those
evaluations have not been approved whereas
objective evaluations have and we have met every
one of the objective tests which has been set
before us, which are properly part of the regu-
latory procedure.
'blot to dwell on this too long, but I
would think that perhaps as Mr. Conrad said in
his testimony, the State's witness,last witness,
perhaps we can look to Webster and get a little
bit of insight on what "significantly" means.
I think y'all know what an adverse effect is.
You know if something adversely affects something

z
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
Argument -985-
it has a deleterious effect or..inf luence on it.
"Significantly''is really the word we're
talking about.
It was interesting to me that significantly
seemed to be a rather quote "significant" word to
Mr. Oakley, he used it several times in stressing
the importance which they had placed on the case.
I think significantly means more than an
impact, of course, there will be an adverse impact
from any activity in the park.
You take a group of school kids out for
a'picnic, their. noise is going to have an impact
on the other visitors to the park,but is that
significant in the context of what it is set up
for, no, I think it is insignificant.
I think significantly is a question we have
to face,
,Mr. Conrad said he defines significantly
as important. I agree with that. It is more
than just an impact. It is an important impact.
Webster says, "having a meaning especially
full of import" or Mr. Conrad said, "important,
momentous" more than just some impact. "A thing
which has significance or consequence".

V
Z
W
d
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I say to you that you cannot judge whether
or not the impact that this proposed operation
may or may.. not have on that park has any
consequences of significance unless you measure
it against something. You cannot do it in the
abstract as their testimony said they did whether
Mr. Oakley likes it or not, that's what he said.
Mr. Conrad said directly and that's what
Mr. Conrad -- Mr. -- I mean, Mr. Gardner, Mr.
Conrad and every other witness said when questions
about it, that they did not consider the economic
effects.
Not only that, as questions from the
Bench pointed out, they did not consider other
possible uses of the park and they did not
consider how much of the park territory -wise
was adversely affected,if any.
Let me state to you why I think those
matters are absolutely necessary. It cannot be
the -- any adverse effect -- we here are assuming
adverse effect, cannot be measured from the
standpoint of an -- of significant unless it
is measured against something else.
It must be insignficant or significant

0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IMM
in the light of something.
You can -measure it against the economic
good to the public, to the users of stone in
terms of a proposed forty million dollar cost
savings over the life of this quarry, is it
significant or insignificant?
Measure it against the uses which the
park -- which the -- to which the -park could be
subjected on this industrial zoned property,
such as, heavy industry, shopping _center or
commercial development, operating seven days
a -week rather than not operating on Saturdays
and Sundays. Having visual impact such as,
clearing the entire site, putting up paving and
building on it. Is it significant? What is
significant?
I think the obvious conclusion to you
from Wake Stone's standpoint is, their impact,
if any, will be insignificant compared to those
things.
Their impact will be insignificant compared
to the economic benefit.
One other analysis. You recall Mr. Conrad'-s
testimony yesterday, again, elicited from the

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
Bench -- from the Commission itself, well,
Mr. Conrad if this proposed operation were
a half mile from the park border, what would
you have done? Oh, we would have permitted it,
we would have permitted it.
Well, as you will recall the testimony
from the exhibits before you, particularly the
maps, particularly Mr. Hardison's exhibit --
Harbison's exhibit whre he measured the distances,
the distances of the proposed plant, not.the
quarry because that is further, but the proposed
plant from the park boundary range from fourteen
hundred and sixty -feet to twenty-two hundred
feet.
A half mile is what, twenty-six hundred
and some odd feet, I'm not too good on my math,
but a half mile is twenty-six hundred and some
odd feet. So, there is a difference of between
four hundred feet and a thousand feet to get up
to that twenty-six that possibly would be impacted
under ter. Conrad's decision of a half a mile
being okay along the borders of Crabtree Creek
within five thousand two hundred and seventeen
acre park; significant or insignificant?

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
cc 18
O
g 19
0
0
20
W
_
0 21
m
22
0
u
= 23
d
24
25
—989—
Maybe if that encroaching was a taking
of those it would :even be insignificant, of
that little narrow band in that major park. It
may be insignificant if it were an entire
inundation of that and total misuse of that
property. But, it certainly is insignificant
in light of the encroachment that is going to,
or would occur or has been testified before you
might occur.
A very narrow band, it certainly would not
impact in any relation to the economic impact and
it certainly would not impact in ..any relation
to the other alternative uses that could not be
regulated at all.
There is not any industrial use commission
such as Mining Commission. There is not any
shopping center such as a Mining Commission.
There is not any commercial center commission
such as a Mining Commission to -- to regulate
and have a constant effect of keeping down to
a minimum using berms, using sound abatement
equipment, tryring to minimize any impact.
We think that the word "significantly
adverse impact" must be thought of in the context

R_
�J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we've discussed from the Supreme Court
case and from the statute policies and also
from Webster's and Mr. Conrad's definition.
We think that the objective -- that the
definition must be based on objective criteria
rather than subjective criteria.
Quite frankly, I think it is somewhat
shocking to think that the State did make its
decision in the abstract. All of you having
experience in mining applications know that
as to any mining consideration that comes before
you or any mining consideration that you are
personally acquainted with whether it comes
before you as a commissioner or not, that there
is always the question of cost benefit analysis.
You have to weigh the benefit of the using
of the mineral versus the cost in some other
area or benefit to the public from the utilization
of the. -resource against the detriment to the
public in not using it or cost to the public
in some alternative use.
Even if you were the North Carolina parks
commission, of which there is not a body and
you were considering acquiring land for park

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
• 17
A
O
N
F 0 18
U.
19
0
0
20
W
Z
0 21
a
m
22
O
a
u
Z 23
a
24
25
-991-
purposes, well, then, you would obviously
consider -- you wouldn't consider that in the
abstract, would it be a nice park. Wb can
take almost any piece of land in North Carolina,
consider it to be a nice park. But, you have
to measure it against the landowners rights,
you have to measure it against whether the
benefit to the public in the use of that park
would be -- will outweigh the present use or
the potential use of that park -- of that land.
I find it very telling, very damaging
when we found out yesterday that they had not
made any analysis as to significant in terms of
relationship with a cost benefit type approach.
I think that any land use decision must,
of necessity weigh a cost benefit approach.
Mr. Oakley said again, I say rightly so,
that ,you .would hear from me that we have met all
standards. I don't think that takes a lot of
argument from me because all the evidence shows
that as -- as to any objective standard which is
in force today we have met or exceeded those
standards and as to those areas where there are
not objective stardards but where there are

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
M_
-992-
guidelines or common practices which are good
practice, we have met or exceeded those good
practices.
And in some areas we quite frankly, disagree
with the state as to whether they are standards,
particularly in noise and I'll get to that in
a minute. Ke think: there are standards there.
There is testimony that there is a fifty-five
decibel limit standard applying to -- as between
-- as between airports and parks which had been
applied to this situation as you pointed out in
your perusal of the letter concerning the question
of reversion yesterday, and I'll get to that.
And, there is a fifty-seven decibel standard
applied by the state Department of Transportation
to park property, and we've way exceeded both of
those standards.
But, nevertheless, we have met or exceeded
all standards. Now, what does that mean?
I think you can draw some instruction from
two other North Carolina Supreme Court cases,
and I'll read to you briefly from those.
In Woodhouse versus Board of Commissioners
of Nags Head, decided February lst, 1980, found

A
O
I
Cr
O
z
Z
O
0
V
O
Q
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
-993-
in 261 Southeabtern Reporter 822, wherein the
Court said and I quote, "In the instant case
petitioners have fully complied with applicable
specific conditions set forth Article 9.section
on standards and requirements, and the parties
have so stipulated."
You know, the first thins -I read to you
in my opening was the stipulation. Wie stipulated
that we met these standards, these requirements.
"There are numerous sections in Title -- in
Article 9 which list general considerations for
determining the appropriateness of a particular
p-u-d or pud including the section upon which
respondent relies here. To hold that an applicant
must first anticipate and then prove or disprove
each and every general consideration would impose
an intolerable if not impossible burden on an
applicant for a conditional use permit.
"The applicant need not negate every possible
objection to the proposed use.
"Furthermore, once an -applicant shows that
the proposed use is permitted under the ordinance,"
mining is permitted under the Minign Act, "and
presents testimony and evidence which shows that

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
J
14
15
16
a
17
0
N
F 18
0
N 19
0
0
Z
20
W
Z
0
21
r
4
IG
O 22
V
O
a
t9
Z 23
4
24
25
-994-
applicant meets the requirements for a special
exception, the burden of establishing that such
use would violate the health, safety, and welfare
of the community falls upon those who oppose the
issuance of the special exception."
And to further clarify the Supreme Court
in the case of Abalone Refining versus Board
of Alderman of Chapel Hill, decided in January
1974, 202 Southeast 129 said and I quote, "When
an applicant has produced competent material and
substantial evidence tending to establish the
existence of facts and conditions which the
ordinance requires for the issuance of a special
use permit prima facie, he is entitled to it.
A denial of permit should be based upon findings
contra which are supported by competent material
and substantial evidence appearing in the record.
In no other way can the reviewing court determine
whether the application has been decided upon the
evidence of the law or under -- or upon arbitrary
and extralegal considerations." .
Reading from the Head. Notes, "when an
applicant for a special permit has produced
competent material and substantial evidence

U4-
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
-995-
tending to establish the existence of facts
and conditions the ordinance requires the
applicant is prima facie entitled to the permit."
When you have met the standards and
you put on evidence to that, you're entitled
to the permit. That applies one hundred percent,
foursquare right here.
We're talking about special use permits.
We're not talking about mining permits, because
there are no cases on mining permits. This is
the first case that y'all have heard. I guess
maybe this will be one of the cases.
But, I think the law is instructive.
When you meet the standards, when you meet the
objective criteria set up by the rules and
regulations passed under the statutes, under
the standards, then you've made a prima facie
case and you're entitled to the permit.
You don't have to meet all of the subjective
objections that may be raised by the State in
the future. And when you do that the State
doesn't come and say that you have not met those
objective criteria, you're entitled to the permit.
Let's talk about the areas just a moment

[l�
C.,
1 Argument -996-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
17
N
0
18
0
19
0
20
W
21
m
u 22
c
a
= 23
d
24
25
that we have met and what the standards are.
I don't believe that there's much question
as to sedimentation. The sedimentation design
comes directly from Mr. Simon's booklet on
sedimentation control for mining use operations.
His testimony, the testimony of Harlan Britt,
sedimentation specialist,as well as the testimony
of Wake Stone's witnesses said that sedimentation,
all guidelines, all standards had been met. I
see no reason to dwell on it.
Dust; we-'ve been granted an air pollution
permit based on our air pollution control, dust
control measures.
Nothing else needs to be said. There is
certainly no evidence before you that the dust
would not be controlled and there is the permit
itself which says it would and has been stipulated
to.
Traffic; state Department of Transportation
in a letter based on a traffic count from ten to
twenty times the actual traffic count out there
during the week days when Wake Stone would be
operating, you recall that was a weekend day and
peak load traffic involving some two thousand

rM
a
0
N
0
0
s
z
w
Z
Z
0
a
m
0
0
LLI
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
-997-
cars and on cross-examination I brought out
some of the days showing you the normal weekday
traffic is one hundred to two hundred cars.
Based on ten to twenty times the volume
,of traffic the state Department of Transportation
said there's not any problem with the design of
the intersection, any problem with safety, there
don't need to be any additional safety devices
and sometime in the future if there does need to
be a widening or a provision for a left-hand
storage lane, the existing facility can simply
be widened to provide that. That seems to be
the answer.
Complaints by the State, well, you know there
are going to be trucks going out there and there's
gon' be cars going out there, that subjectively is
gon' bother folks. Well, we all walked right up tha
ridge today and we heard the traffic coming down
I-40. There's traffic out there now, gentlemen.
Sure there's gon' be some traffic. Sure, that's
gonna cost, but if those trucks has -to deliver
the stone to that marketing area whether they
come from the Wake Stone quarry out thereor not,
they're gon' be traveling right there on that I-40

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
J
14
15
16
0
17
N
18
0
0
0
19
0
20
w
21
0
m
g
22
0
u
W
d
23
24
25
road. It's not going to increase it that much.
Sure, it might right there at the entrance.
But, the state Department of Transportation,
who the Land Use and Parks Division sought as
their qualified folks gave them an opinion, they
chose that they didn't like the opinion, and they
wanted to criticize it, but they'had no objective
criteria to --- to criticize it.
Blasting; well, it was stipulated, all
blasting was within all reasonable standards,
both as to vibration and air pressure blast.
Mr. Berger the blasting witness who came
down from Pittsburgh, Jim Simon, Mr. Gardner,
everybody agreed that blasting simply was not
a problem.
Visibility, visibility. I think we could
talk about the argument of visibility, Mr.
Harbison says you can't see the plant. Some
of the State's witnesses said you can, but why
should I talk about visibility when we all went
out there and walked around today to see what you
could see.
W6 .stood on a knob, the last place we went,
you recall, we stood on a little kncb that was

Em
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
the line between the property on the park
property and we looked over that way and there
is a ridge. And three times �Mr. Gardner said,
well that's the ridge that the plant will be
on and three times Mr. Bratton reminded him,
no, that's -- that's another ridge, that's
not over, that's in between.and three times he
backed up and said, that's right, that's the
second ridge over.where the plant will be.
If you -- you can't see it. You couldn't see the
house down there. You saw the trees, what three,
four hundred feet visibility in there even without
ground -- the pine trees. And, when you had
pine trees it was not that far.
I'really think if you don't -- didn't see
with your own eyes that visibility is not going
to be a problem there's nothing that I can say
to you -to argue to you that's going to convince
you, because I think you are convinced. I
was really convinced when the State took us
to the Crabtree Quarry.
Now, we think -- we really think the
State was reaching to go to Crabtree Quarry,
particularly in noise consideration because

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
AIM
that's a double -- there's a plant over here on
the right, a plant over here on the left, a
sound mold behind the plant and hill overlooking
straight into -- there'a amphitheater broadcasting
to the hill where we. -were standing.
You could hear that stereo effect, but on
the way walking out there, did you notice the
visibility? did you look to the right
at the screening? It wasn't three, four, five
hundred feet of thin woods there, mixed hardwoods,
and you couldn't see that quarry. Not till we
came around to where where the clearing was,
get less than a hundred feet of actual woods
between us in a cleared spot, could you see it.
When you compare that to sixteen hundred
to two thousand feet with topographic ridges
in between, what about visibility?
I have to rely on your own good judgment
and common sense. That's the reason we made the
motion for a site visit. That's the reason we
felt you should go out there and look at it,
perhaps we went a little overboard on site visits
today, taking what, three quarters of a day, a
little over a half a day to do it, but just the

U4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
o "
17
N
0
18
0
19
0
z
20
w
z
z
0 21
a
m
V 22
O
Q
t7
Z 23
a
24
25
-1001-1
value of having you there to see the vegetation
screening, I think, was the main reason we went.
Finally, we come down to noise. Well, I'd
like to talk to you technically about noise first
and then I'd like to talk to you practically
about noise.
The Commission expressed concern when
Mr. Conrad was on the stand with a question to
him and he said he did not consider the fact
that there may be some possible reversion of
the land due to noise encroachment, you recall
that, I'm sure.
The reason he did not consider that is
because there is not even a hint of that being
applicable. There is a case in Florida,
Fort Lauderdale Jetport versus Everglades
State Park. In that case before it was decided
the state, as I understand it, the Department
of Interior and the Department of Transportation
agreed that a fifty-five.decibel limit was --
would be a limit that those two departments would
apply to determine whether or not the noise
encroachment on that state park was too much
or not and cause a reversion of the land.

a
0
N
0
0
0
Z
w
z
z
0
4
m
0
u
0
0
V
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
—1002
That has never been applied in North
Carolina as Mr. Eakes himself and and all the
other state witnesses said, we know of no
standards that apply in North Carolina.
But, let's take that fifty-five decibel
limit.. Now, if you applied that to Umstead
Park presumably you'd have to apply it as would
happen from jet noise going over the park to
all five thousand two and seventeen acres, not
just to a narrow band four hundred feet to
maybe a thousand feet along a couple of thousand
foot border, But, if you did use that fifty-five
decibel level and you encroached over the
whole park with that fifty-five decibels,
presumably there then could be talk about a
reversion. Although, Mr. Harbison testified to
you, right now from the Raleigh -Durham Master
Plan, airport plan that there is now fifteen
percent of this park up in the northern section
that is exceeds the decibel level -- exceeds the
fifty-five and there has been no reversion talk
there.
The
reason they
didn't
consider reversion,
we hadn't
-- we would
not
reach any levels which

�J
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
-1003-4
even approach causing a reversion. It's
simply not a factor. It's one of those red
flags waved in the park's memorandum, and I
don't blame the park. The park, after all,
wants that land to stay there. They don't want
that land to be used for anything, by anybody
ever, so that it's a buffer for the park or
until they can get it and use it as a park.
I don't blame them for that. That's what
their job is, but that's not reality.
Well, to get back to the noise.
Technically speaking, fifty-five decibels
is the place where you even start worrying
about reversion. As you will see from the
exhibits on top there (indicating exhibits on
table), that's the Luke Stone Noise Analysis
locations. The decibel count starts at fifty-one
goes down to forty-six, up to forty-eight,
forty-nine, fifty-two is the highest point and
then back down.
You remember the recording they played?
Fifty-five decibels, why did they play it at
fifty-five decibels?
There's not any evidence here that there's

T
0
N
F
O
ti
0
0
0
w
0
Q
J
0
4
a
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
-1004-1
any fifty-five decibel level noise in the
park, nor was there any evidence from the state's
witness.
Mr. Bailey said, oh, there would be a
community standard problem but he didn't say
it would be fifty-five decibels, you recall,
he didn't quantify. He used a subjective, not
an objective standard.
So, why did they play it at fifty-five?
Because fifty-five is that level that the park
really considers as dangerous. It wouldn't admit
that that's a standard, but that's what it
considers, and it proved it when it played that
recording at fifty-five.
How about that recording? I was impressed
by how quiet it was. We couldn't even play it
in the hearing room yesterday, we had to find a
quieter room or you wouldn't have heard it,
because the decibel level there as measured by
our recording machine right when we were making
that motion was fifty-six to fifty-eight decibels.
I really think as to technically, all
objective standards have been met. The Department
of Transportation's standard for .park areas, quiet

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
-1005
secluded areas is fifty-seven decibels.
When you're talking fifty-two is the
highest ranging to forty-six along the borders
of the park from the projected noise impact,
you're not close to any standard.
Now, let's deal a little bit with the Crabtree
Quarry visit.
I think I probably hit on enough before
I got to it.
Weren't you impressed that the state was
reaching when we got over here on this hill and
you're facing an amphitheater with a sound box
behind in terms of that quarry, and you're on a
hill looking straight down to the noise source
and you're faced with two noise sources, one
on the left and one on the right, and they're
talking .about twelve hundred feet from a common
point. Now, there is not a site that we could
go to including the bank -- the rise in the portion
of the park on the other side of the creek that
was stressed by Mr. Gardner, you could not go
to anywhere on that site and have those same
conditions.
In the first place, you'd be sixteen hundred
k

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
• 13
14
15
16
17
0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
u
Y '
Argument -1007-
Benefits to resource management by
utilizing rock where it is. You cannot possibly
manage to get that resource if you don't get it
there, because it doesn't exist anywhere else.
There is no other stone close by in answer
to the Commissioner's question. There was some
general testimony, but that is the only resource
right there.
The other two points I'd like to make is
there is possible benfit to the park.
It will benefit the park by preventing
heavy industry from going in there.
It will benfit the park by preventing
commercial and shopping centers from going
in there.
It will benefit the park because this
operation will be closed on Saturday and Sunday
when the park is at its maximum use.
And, it will benefit the park from a
donation of seventy-five acres of reclaimed
land including a natural lake or filled with
natural water to the park.
I would like to summarize the evidence, but
I don't have time, from each witness.

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
11•
to two thousand feet away and the second
place, there would be topographic barriers
between you and you would not have a shot
down into that pit or into the noise source
at all, because you shot down into it would
go into another bank bLnd there'd be another
ridge coming down to the Crabtree Creek before
the dip and before you got to the saddle where
the plant is.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Kimzey, you've got about
two minutes.
MR. KIMZEY: Thank you, sir.
I think that the noise level is the same
problem -- let me talk -- I think that the noise
is not there. The only -- it has become the main
problem because the State has emphasized it.
But, let me talk just briefly about
other considerations that I think you should
consider, and that is that the implementation
of this proposed plan will have several benefits.
Benefits to the users of stone resulting in
approximately forty million dollars savings
over the time.
Benefits to the public in fuel consumption.

[A
�J
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 would close by saying to you that
perhaps the one consistent thread other than
meeting the standards throughout this whole
hearing has been Wake Stone's operation as a
quality operator.
Mr. Oakley has been kind enough to
reiterate that in his summary. I don't think
that needs -- each witness certainly emphasized
that and probably does not need to be re-emphasized
to you.
It's a pleasure representing a client who
not only is not sniped at but is complimented
with his actions at every turn and I think that
all of you know that if you grant this permit,
just as he said yesterday, he will develop a
showcase quarry which will use every conceivable
means to. protect the park.
,We think there is no significant adverse
effect. We urge you to reverse the decision
of Mr. Conrad and grant the mining permit.
Thank you very much.
cCHAIRMAN SMITH: I would like to express
appreciation to the lawyers from both -- the
lawyers representing both sides and to the

rm
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
—1009
witnesses, and we appreciate your forthrightness
in this matter.
At this point in time we have to consider
the evidence, we've got to get the written
documents in. We will try to resolve this
just as early as possible, and I'm hopeful in
the first two weeks in January,'cerainly not
later than that.
Mr. Kimzey, excuse me, Mr. Oakley, you
had testimony from Professor Warren?
MR. OAKLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: Is that testimony available?
MR. OAKLEY: We're making that -- I think
we're going to get with Wake Stone about it and
provide it to you as quickly as we can.
We'll try to do it this week.
MR. KIMZEY: Mr. Chairman, we would want to
accomodate that being done quickly and sent to
you by Monday.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: We would like to have
that as soon as possible.
I think we have come to a place where we
can close this hearing.
r..e shall wish interested parties gook luck

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
Colloquy -1010
and we'll have to do a little housekeeping
with the Commission here.
The meeting is hereby adjourned.
Thank you.
(WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED)