Wake Stone Public Hearing Officer's Report 7.27.2020

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRIAN WRENN
Acting Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
Wake Stone Corporation Mining Permit Modification (Expansion)
Application Public Hearing
(Part 1 -- June 23, 2020 and Part 2 --July 7, 2020)
Hearing Report
Hearing Officer: Mr. Dan Sams, PE
July 27, 2020
No�TH A 111NQ�I
oepartmem m sn.�ronmenn� o�m�
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 1 1612 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
919.707.9200

Table of Contents:
❖ Wake Stone Corporation Mining Permit Modification (Expansion) Application
Public Hearing Summary
❖ List of Issues from the Oral and Written Comments Provided in Response to
Parts 1 & 2 of the Wake Stone Corporation Mining Permit Modification
(Expansion) Application Public Hearing (Part 1 — June 23, 2020 and Part 2 —
July 7, 2020)
❖ Appendix A: Public Hearing Format
❖ Appendix B: Land Quality Section Presentation
❖ Appendix C: Oral Comments
❖ Appendix D: Written Comments

WAKE STONE CORPORATION MINING PERMIT MODIFICATION
(EXPANSION) APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF HEARING
To receive public comment related to Wake Stone Corporation's request for a mining
permit modification (expansion) application for the operations of a crushed stone quarry
located off Reedy Creek Road near the town of Cary in Wake County.
DATE, TIME, PLACE
Due to COVID-19 impacts on the State of North Carolina, the Public Hearing was
scheduled on-line where persons wishing to speak had to register on the
Department of Environmental Quality website before noon on June 23, 2020.
The list of persons wishing to speak had 335 names and staff quickly saw there
were duplicates. The list of potential speakers was cleared of the 93 duplicates
and a final list of 242 persons was used.
The first part of the hearing was held on June 23, 2020 from 7:00 PM to 11:20
PM and the second part of the hearing was held on July 7, 2020 from 9:00 AM to
1:30 PM.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Brian Wrenn, Division Director, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
(DEMLR),
Toby Vinson, Chief Operations Officer and Land Quality Section Chief, DEMLR,
David Miller, State Mining Engineer, DEMLR,
Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist, DEMLR,
Robert Johnson, Public Information Officer, Department of Environmental
Quality — hosted the Webex on June 23ra
James Chapman, Senior Geologist, Geological Survey Section, DEMLR —
hosted the Webex on July 7t"
OPENING
I called the hearing to order at 7:00 PM, welcomed everyone in attendance, introduced
the staff, explained the purpose of the hearing, outlined the hearing agenda and stated
the guidelines to follow for submitting comments at the hearing. I stated that the
proceedings would remain open for a period of ten days following the hearing for
additional comments.
I then explained the action for which the mining permit application is required:
Page 1 of 3

"The applicant proposes to expand their mining operation to include a crushed
stone mine located on Reedy Creek Road near the town of Cary in Wake
County. The applicant has submitted an erosion and sediment control plan for
the mine site intended to protect surrounding areas and watercourses. A
reclamation plan also has been submitted to the Department for review
concerning restoration of this area in a useful land use once mining has
terminated."
David Miller presented an overview on the mining permit procedures pursuant to the
Mining Act of 1971 and explained how it relates to the subject permit application.
David Miller's and my actual comments are attached as Public Hearing Format and
Land Quality Section Public Hearing Presentation.
These two presentations were given again at the start of the second part of the Hearing
on July 7, 2020.
In total 242 people signed up to speak.
During the first part of the hearing on the June 23, 2020, seventy-eight (78) plus the
applicant spoke, for a total of (79).
During the second part of hearing on July 7, 2020, sixty-four (64) spoke. There were a
total of 143 speakers — one person spoke in both hearings and both times on the same
subject, so there were 142 individual speakers.
One hundred speakers that signed -up did not respond to speak when their name(s)
was called.
ORAL COMMENTS
For each part of the hearing the Oral Comments are attached.
WRITTEN COMMENTS
The total Written Comments are also attached.
CLOSING COMMENTS
I thanked everyone for attending and for their comments and presentations. I stated
that the Department would review the items presented at the hearing as they relate to
G.S. 74-51 of the Mining Act of 1971. 1 reiterated that the proceedings will remain open
for a period of ten days following the last hearing which is July 17, 2020 for filing of any
addition comments or statements.
Page 2 of 3

Respectfully submitted by:
Daniel E. Sams
Hearing Officer
Date: July 27, 2020
Page 3 of 3

List of Issues from Oral and Written Comments Provided
in Response to Parts 1 & 2
of the Wake Stone Corporation Mining Permit
Modification (Expansion) Application Public Hearing
(Part 1 -- June 23, 2020 and Part 2 --July 7, 2020)
Comment Summary
Oral comments were given during the public hearings held on June 23rd, 2020 and July
7th, 2020. Written comments were received during the public comment period which
closed on July 17th, 2020. The comments have been grouped into general topic areas
and outlined below.
Water Quality (Denial Criteria d(3))
Comments addressing water quality focused mainly on the impact the new pit
would have on groundwater, surface water runoff and impact to Crabtree Creek.
Comments addressed the current operation and noted the current impact which
included grey water runoff leaving the property and appearance of cloudy water in
Crabtree Creek caused by quarry sediment. There were numerous comments that had
concerns about potable wells in the area and the possibility of dewatering the wells or
causing issues with drinking water. The Town of Cary raised concern with the impact to
Crabtree Creek as it is the receiving stream for their treatment facility. There were
requests for additional hydrogeological studies and for future NPDES permits above
and beyond the scope of NCG02000. Comments were raised about stormwater runoff
causing erosion, increased sedimentation, and turbidity in Crabtree Creek. There were
concerns that increased mining operation will add to additional PCBs downstream in
Crabtree Creek. Groundwater comments also included concerns regarding seepage
from Crabtree Creek into the pit area or even the possibility of the creek breaching into
the pit.
Parks, Recreation, and Greenways (Denial Criteria d(5))
Comments addressing Umstead Park, general recreation and green space/
natural outdoor space focused mainly on the significant adverse impact the expansion
would have on the current outdoor experience as well as future irreversible impacts.
Noise, dust, vibrations cause by blasting and truck traffic were cited as items that would
diminish the park experience. The local greenway system as well as national trails such
as the East Coast greenway (ECG) would experience both visual and safety impacts as
there was an increase in truck traffic cited. Commenters noted that truck traffic is
moving from inside the pit to the surface out of the pit and would be more visible to park
users. Commenters were concerned with the permanent decrease in overall green
space and tree cover which would reduce the natural areas in the Triangle region.

Comments were made about the need for archaeological studies to determine the
potential of historical significance of the Odd Fellows tract. Items of note included loss
of the historic southern entrance to Umstead park, which was set up in the time of
segregation to serve the African American Community. Commenters mentioned that a
fence around the property would ruin the aesthetics of the natural landscape within
Umstead park. There was also mention of the need or want for greenways and parks to
have a 250ft undisturbed buffer, and currently the mine maps show that the area of Old
Reedy Creek Road does not meet that request. Commenters noted how natural areas
and green spaces can help alleviate psychological issues caused by living in an urban
environment. Commenters noted how the open pit will appear as a scar on the
environment forever and will be clearly visible from incoming visitors to RDU in
airplanes. There were also concerns raised about the impact the expansion would have
on the Warren -Haley cemetery.
Application Procedures
Comments addressing the general application process focused on the
appearance of not following the standard application process. Many commenters called
for the need of additional studies including hydrogeological, archeological,
environmental (SEPA), air quality, and noise. There were comments on the improper
notice of some neighbors within 1000' and NCDOT (owners of the ECG). There were
also concerns on the reclamation aspect of the existing and new expansion, namely the
responsibility of reclamation and the financial cost if Wake Stone were to go out of
businesses. Commenters also wanted to see the impact to waters and wetlands from
the bridge over Crabtree creek during the entire life of mine, not just during the initial
construction phases. There were requests to see blasting records and OSHA/MSHA
inspection reports.
Another issue raised although not entirely related to the application was the issue of the
Sunset clause. Many commenters were concerned that the original Sunset clause was
removed, and others had requested that it be reinstated. This concern is in reference to
a prior modification in 2018 where one of the permit conditions was required to be
modified due to the original decision by the Mining Commission when the facility was
initially permitted.
Safety (Denial Criteria d(4))
Comments addressing safety aspects were focused mainly on blasting, but also
included items of air quality, water quality and traffic. Blasting concerns included fly
rock risks to neighboring homes and park users. There were also comments on
blasting's impact to a home's foundations, cracks in drywall and septic systems. There
were also questions as to the type of explosives or chemicals used in blasting and the
dangers they may present.

Traffic was an issue of concern as many people use Old Reedy Creek Road as an
entrance to Umstead park as well as a section of the ECG. It was noted that truck
traffic on this road would cause safety issues with pedestrians and cyclists who use this
road. Not only was quantity of trucks a concern, but size of trucks was also a concern
and their impact to the road itself.
The open pit was raised as a safety concern in that it presents a danger for people
falling in. Once reclaimed there were concerns of drowning in the water that would fill
the pit. There were also concerns of stagnant water creating an environment that would
be beneficial for mosquito populations.
Air Quality (Denial Criteria d(3))
Comments addressing air quality issues addressed the increase in dust caused
from mining activities. There were questions as to how the dust would be monitored
and concerns that there would be frequent violations to air quality standards. PM 2.5
was raised by many commenters who expressed the dangers of this particle size. It
was noted that silica dust might come from the mine and would also present dangers.
Concerns that truck traffic would not only increase dust but would also increase
emissions (CO2, NOx) were also shared. There were comments that the increase in
dust and emissions would cause asthma and other health related issues. Finally,
questions were raised as to how the enforcement of moving or relocating the plant or
primary crusher would be handled with Air Quality permits.
Wildlife Impacts
Comments addressing wildlife issues expressed concern over the reduction in
overall habitat and the impact to the wildlife corridor. Many commenters noted that
Crabtree Creek serves as a "wildlife highway" and suspending the creek between two
pits would essentially cut off this route as a corridor. There were concerns that any
impact to Crabtree Creek would harm fresh and even marine fisheries. There were
concerns that the open pit and subsequent reclamation would decrease native flora and
fauna and increase invasive species. There were also comments that addressed
endangered species that are known to reside in the park, such as Bald Eagles.
Comments noted that reclaiming the pit to a lake is not the same habitat as the original
forested area. Comments noted that the modification and expansion would lead to a
larger carbon footprint leading to increase climate change that impacts wildlife habitat.
Legal Use / Zoning Issues
Comments addressing legal issues raised concerns on the legal aspect of a
private company benefiting from the use of public lands. Commenters called into
question the true ownership of the Odd Fellows tract and the terms of the lease
between RDUAA and Wake Stone. There were questions as to the zoning of the
property and the future industrial use. Additionally, comments were provided that

claimed the Odd Fellows tract has been identified as a "Critical Land Acquisition" for
Umstead part that would expand the current park system. Commenters question the
possibility of a conservation agency purchasing the Odd Fellow tract back from RDUAA
and keeping it in a environmental conservation easement. Comments questioned
whether the application was following all legal processes and questioned the lack of
stakeholder engagement. There were concerns that "back door deals" of wealthy
individuals were negating the rights and promoting injustice to low wealth individuals.
Comments were raised as to how this modification fits the Cary ETJ.
Business
Comments were provided regarding the business aspects for the need for
another quarry and the impact this operation would have to other industries.
Commenters said minimizing greenspace and natural areas would hurt the recreational
industries. Commenters also mentioned that decreasing the general aesthetics of the
Triangle region would influence other businesses, possibly in the tech and medical
industry to relocate elsewhere. Commenters noted that construction may be slowing,
and DOT has scaled back projects for the next few years, which would limit the need for
stone. Commenters noted the numerous other aggregate operations in the area and
questioned the need for increased additional reserves. Commenters questioned the
need by RDUAA for increased revenue through the lease agreement. Commenters
also noted that an expansion of the quarry may decrease property values of neighboring
tracts. It was reported that this was an overall poor financial decision for the community
and park. Commenters were concerned how the use of public lands would benefit a
private entity at taxpayers' expense.
Current Operation Compliance Issues
Comments addressing the current Wake Stone operation addressed current
compliance issues, questioned how they are currently handled, and how they would be
handled in the future. Commenters raised the concern of a past 1992 landslide and
noted how future landslides could impact Crabtree Creek as it is hanging between two
pits. Neighbors of the Knightdale operation had comments on the nighttime operation of
the new expansion of the Triangle quarry. There were concerns of unreported
compliance issues on the current operation. There were also comments on how the
buffers were measured at the creek, whether center of stream or top of bank was used.
Pro Quarry / Wake Stone as a Neighbor
Comments addressing the positive aspects of Wake Stone and the expansion on
the Triangle region addressed how Wake Stone operates as a good neighbor.
Comments mentioned how there have been no adverse environmental impacts to the
park from the current operation. Comments mentioned how Wake Stone has donated
land back to the community for public use. The Knightdale quarry was used as a
reference to mention that churches, homes, and businesses function well with the
quarry nearby. Comments addressed how Wake Stone has no violations with state or

federal agencies. Commenters provided studies on how blasting would not impact
houses outside of a 500' buffer. Comments also mentioned how the revenue generated
from the lease agreement would provide funding for future operation expenses and
expansion projects for RDUAA. Finally, commenters addressed the availability of finite
aggregate resources and how the proximity to the current operation made this a good
use of space.
Department of Environmental Quality
Comments addressing the involvement of DEQ handling of the public hearings.
Commenters were concerned with the technological and logistical issues of the virtual
public hearings. Commenters also addressed DEQ's mission statement and questioned
how the application and approval process for this modification and expansion meets the
mission statement of DEQ.

Appendix A: Public Hearing Format

MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan Sams
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section, Wilmington Regional Office
FROM: Brian Wrenn
Director, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
DATE: June 8, 2020
SUBJECT: Public Hearing
Wake Stone Corporation
Expansion of Triangle Quarry
Permit No. 92-10
Wake County
The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources has received significant public
interest relative to a mining permit modification application filed by Wake Stone
Corporation. I have determined that a public hearing is warranted. Thus, I am
requesting your assistance in performing the duties as hearing officer. Judy Wehner,
Assistant State Mining Specialist, will be in touch with you to answer any questions you
may have.
Please find enclosed copies of the Public Notice concerning the hearing and the Public
Hearing Format. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Enclosures
cc: Judy Wehner,
Bill Denton, PE

7/20/04
PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT
Call to Order:
Good evening and welcome. My name is Daniel Sams and I am the
hearing officer for this public hearing. My responsibility is to provide a
record of this hearing and written comments for the Director of the Division
of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. I would like to emphasize that
absolutely no decisions will be made this evening on this permit
application.
Please refer to a copy of the Mining Act of 1971 for reference during the
hearing.
Introduce Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources staff:
David Miller, State Mining Specialist
Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist
Bill Denton, Regional Engineer, Raleigh Regional Office
Robert Johnson, Public Information Officer, Department of Environmental
Quality
Brian Wrenn, Director, Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Toby Vinson, Chief Operations Officer, Division of Energy, Mineral, and
Land Resources
Matt Gantt, Regional Operations Section Chief, Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources
II. State the Purpose for Hearing:
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment related to the
mining permit expansion application for the operation of a crushed stone
quarry located off Old Reedy Creek Road near the town of Cary in Wake
County.
The hearing will be conducted in the following manner:
Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the
hearing officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act
of 1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources,
Mining Program.
3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other
information may be submitted in writing prior to or during the

hearing or may be presented orally during the hearing. Persons
desiring to speak have indicated their intent prior to this evening by
registering on the website. So that all persons desiring to speak
may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the discretion of
the hearing officer. Oral presentations which exceed two (2)
minutes must be accompanied by a written copy.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be
allowed; however, the hearing officer may ask questions for
clarification.
5. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days
following the hearing for additional written arguments or
statements.
III. Explanation of the Action for which a Mining Permit is Required:
The applicant proposes to expand an existing crushed stone quarry
located off Old Reedy Creek Road in Wake County. The applicant has
submitted an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the mine site
intended to protect surrounding areas and watercourses. A reclamation
plan has also been submitted to the Department for review concerning
restoration of this area to a useful land use once mining has terminated. A
copy of this information may be viewed on line at the Mining Program web
site. Copies of the application materials may also be viewed upon request
after tonight at the Land Quality Section's Raleigh Regional Office and the
Raleigh Central Office.
III. LQS Presentation:
Now I would like to defer to David Miller, State Mining Specialist with the
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, for a brief explanation of
the mining permit procedures as set forth in the Mining Act of 1971, and a
brief description of the proposed quarry expansion.
IV. Comment Procedure:
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7)
denial criteria listed under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the
Department considers in making its decision to grant or deny a mining
permit application. These criteria are the ones that were explained in
detail to you a few minutes ago by the Mining Program staff.
In light of the number of people who have indicated their desire to present
comments on this application, I will limit oral comments to *2 minutes per
person in order to give everyone desiring to speak adequate time. If there

is additional time available at the end of the hearing, I may allow additional
comments at that time. If all registered speakers are unable to speak in
the time allotted for the hearing tonight, the Division will hold a second
hearing on July 7t". Only those speakers who registered by noon today,
June 23rd, and who do not get the chance to speak tonight will be allowed
to speak on July 7tn
If in the course of the hearing you decide that you do not need to speak or
feel that a speaker has already raised your concerns, you can opt to not
speak but submit your written comments to the Division for consideration.
The Division does consider the written comments with the same gravity as
any of the comments raised orally tonight.
You will be called to speak in the order in which you registered. This
hearing is being recorded through the WebEx application and through a
digital audio recorder. It is important that you speak into your computer
microphone or phone in a clear manner and in a location with minimal
background noise so that we can get an accurate recording of your
comments.
If you are using the WebEx application, our WebEx administrator will
unmute your microphone when it is your time to speak. A timer will be
displayed on the screen to indicate the amount of time remaining in your
speaking slot. The administrator will also provide a verbal alert when you
have 30 seconds remaining and when your time is up. At the end of your
2 minutes, the administrator will mute your microphone and the next
speaker will be called. Please be respectful to the other speakers by
adhering to the allotted time limit.
For speakers using the call -in number, please place your phones on mute
when you are not speaking to reduce background noise and electronic
interference. When your name is called, please dial *3, and the
administrator will unmute your line to speak. When you are speaking, the
administrator will provide a verbal alert when you have 30 seconds
remaining and when your time is up.
Non -speaking participants' microphones and phones should be muted at
all times. Please refrain from using the chat option on the WebEx
application unless you are having technical difficulties. Our administrator
will attempt to help you with technical issues. Should you have technical
difficulties with the WebEx application that cannot be resolved, please call
into the conference number provided with the hearing invitation.
The mining applicant will provide the final comments of the night if they so
choose. Now, I will proceed calling on those who have indicated that they
wish to speak.

Please speak when I call your name. Make sure you are being heard.
(Call on each person who wishes to speak and take notes on their comments, concerns,
etc.)
Staff will address questions concerning the Act.
- After all of the individuals that have indicated that they wish to speak have
finished their presentations, ask if anyone else wishes to speak.
- Is there anyone else?
- At this time, would the applicant wish to make some brief comments?
- We would like to thank everyone for attending this public hearing tonight
and for the important comments and questions raised. The Department
will review the items presented tonight as they relate to G.S. 74-51 of the
Mining Act of 1971.
- The proceedings of this public hearing will remain open for a period of 10
days from tonight or until July 3, 2020 for the filing of additional written
comments to be included in the official hearing summary. [IF NEEDED: A
second hearing will be held July 7t" for any registered speakers who did
not get a chance to speak tonight. An additional 10 days will be allowed to
receive public comment following the July 7t" hearing.]
The proceedings from both hearings will be summarized in a hearing
officer's report I will prepare for the Director of the Division of Energy,
Mineral and Land Resources.
Please send any written comments to me at the following address:
Daniel Sams
Regional Engineer
Wilmington Regional Office, DEQ
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Dan. Sams(a�ncdenr.gov
ncminingprogram(a)-ncdenr.gov
Please note that even though the public hearing summary will close on
July 3, 2020, the Department will continue to accept written public
comments on this application throughout the application review process
until a decision is made.

Are there any questions? If not, this public hearing is now adjourned.

MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan Sams
Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section, Wilmington Regional Office
FROM: Brian Wrenn
Director, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
DATE: July 7, 2020
SUBJECT: Public Hearing
Wake Stone Corporation
Expansion of Triangle Quarry
Permit No. 92-10
Wake County
The Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources has received significant public
interest relative to a mining permit modification application filed by Wake Stone
Corporation. I have determined that a public hearing is warranted. Thus, I am
requesting your assistance in performing the duties as hearing officer. Judy Wehner,
Assistant State Mining Specialist, will be in touch with you to answer any questions you
may have.
Please find enclosed copies of the Public Notice concerning the hearing and the Public
Hearing Format. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Enclosures
cc: Judy Wehner,
Bill Denton, PE

7/20/04
PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT
Call to Order:
Good evening and welcome. My name is Daniel Sams and I am the
hearing officer for this public hearing. My responsibility is to provide a
record of this hearing and written comments for the Director of the Division
of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources. I would like to emphasize that
absolutely no decisions will be made this evening on this permit
application.
Please refer to a copy of the Mining Act of 1971 for reference during the
hearing.
Introduce Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources staff:
David Miller, State Mining Specialist
Judy Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist
Bill Denton, Regional Engineer, Raleigh Regional Office
Robert Johnson, Public Information Officer, Department of Environmental
Quality
Brian Wrenn, Director, Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Toby Vinson, Chief Operations Officer, Division of Energy, Mineral, and
Land Resources
Matt Gantt, Regional Operations Section Chief, Division of Energy,
Mineral, and Land Resources
II. State the Purpose for Hearing:
The purpose of this hearing is to receive public comment related to the
mining permit expansion application for the operation of a crushed stone
quarry located off Old Reedy Creek Road near the town of Cary in Wake
County.
The hearing will be conducted in the following manner:
Explanation of the action for which the permit is required by the
hearing officer.
2. Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth in The Mining Act
of 1971 by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources,
Mining Program.
3. Public Comment - Comments, statements, data, and other
information may be submitted in writing prior to or during the

hearing or may be presented orally during the hearing. Persons
desiring to speak have indicated their intent prior to this evening by
registering on the website. So that all persons desiring to speak
may do so, lengthy statements may be limited at the discretion of
the hearing officer. Oral presentations which exceed two (2)
minutes must be accompanied by a written copy.
4. Cross examination of persons presenting testimony will not be
allowed; however, the hearing officer may ask questions for
clarification.
5. The proceedings will remain open for a period of ten (10) days
following the hearing for additional written arguments or
statements.
III. Explanation of the Action for which a Mining Permit is Required:
The applicant proposes to expand an existing crushed stone quarry
located off Old Reedy Creek Road in Wake County. The applicant has
submitted an erosion and sedimentation control plan for the mine site
intended to protect surrounding areas and watercourses. A reclamation
plan has also been submitted to the Department for review concerning
restoration of this area to a useful land use once mining has terminated. A
copy of this information may be viewed on line at the Mining Program web
site. Copies of the application materials may also be viewed upon request
after tonight at the Land Quality Section's Raleigh Regional Office and the
Raleigh Central Office.
III. LQS Presentation:
Now I would like to defer to David Miller, State Mining Specialist with the
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, for a brief explanation of
the mining permit procedures as set forth in the Mining Act of 1971, and a
brief description of the proposed quarry expansion.
IV. Comment Procedure:
Comments shall be limited to those that relate directly to the seven (7)
denial criteria listed under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the
Department considers in making its decision to grant or deny a mining
permit application. These criteria are the ones that were explained in
detail to you a few minutes ago by the Mining Program staff.
In light of the number of people who have indicated their desire to present
comments on this application, I will limit oral comments to *2 minutes per
person in order to give everyone desiring to speak adequate time. If there

is additional time available at the end of the hearing, I may allow additional
comments at that time. Only those speakers who registered by noon,
June 23rd, and who did not get the chance to speak on Jun 23rd will be
allowed to speak today.
If in the course of the hearing you decide that you do not need to speak or
feel that a speaker has already raised your concerns, you can opt to not
speak but submit your written comments to the Division for consideration.
The Division does consider the written comments with the same gravity as
any of the comments raised orally tonight.
You will be called to speak in the order in which you registered. This
hearing is being recorded through the WebEx application and through a
digital audio recorder. It is important that you speak into your computer
microphone or phone in a clear manner and in a location with minimal
background noise so that we can get an accurate recording of your
comments.
If you are using the WebEx application, our WebEx administrator will
unmute your microphone when it is your time to speak. A timer will be
displayed on the screen to indicate the amount of time remaining in your
speaking slot. The administrator will also provide a verbal alert when you
have 30 seconds remaining and when your time is up. At the end of your
2 minutes, the administrator will mute your microphone and the next
speaker will be called. Please be respectful to the other speakers by
adhering to the allotted time limit.
For speakers using the call -in number, please place your phones on mute
when you are not speaking to reduce background noise and electronic
interference. When your name is called, please dial *3, and the
administrator will unmute your line to speak. When you are speaking, the
administrator will provide a verbal alert when you have 30 seconds
remaining and when your time is up.
Non -speaking participants' microphones and phones should be muted at
all times. Please refrain from using the chat option on the WebEx
application unless you are having technical difficulties. Our administrator
will attempt to help you with technical issues. Should you have technical
difficulties with the WebEx application that cannot be resolved, please call
into the conference number provided with the hearing invitation.
The mining applicant will provide the final comments of the night if they so
choose. Now, I will proceed calling on those who have indicated that they
wish to speak.
Please speak when I call your name. Make sure you are being heard.

(Call on each person who wishes to speak and take notes on their comments, concerns,
etc.)
Staff will address questions concerning the Act.
After all of the individuals that have indicated that they wish to speak have
finished their presentations, ask if anyone else wishes to speak.
- Is there anyone else?
At this time, would the applicant wish to make some brief comments?
- We would like to thank everyone for attending this public hearing tonight
and for the important comments and questions raised. The Department
will review the items presented tonight as they relate to G.S. 74-51 of the
Mining Act of 1971.
- The proceedings of this public hearing will remain open for a period of 10
days from today or until July 17, 2020 for the filing of additional written
comments to be included in the official hearing summary.
The proceedings from both hearings will be summarized in a hearing
officer's report I will prepare for the Director of the Division of Energy,
Mineral and Land Resources.
Please send any written comments to me at the following address:
Daniel Sams
Regional Engineer
Wilmington Regional Office, DEQ
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
Dan. Sams(a)_ncdenr.gov
ncminingprogram(a-)_ncdenr.gov
Please note that even though the public hearing summary will close on
July 17, 2020, the Department will continue to accept written public
comments on this application throughout the application review process
until a decision is made.
Are there any questions? If not, this public hearing is now adjourned.

Pawreaed by McClatzby,
The News 6 0bsener
ND0421 Fayettevife Street Suite 104
MEDIA COMPANY ii&m#tNCTIM
Consult. strategize. deliver
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Account 0
Ad Number
I tdentifimtfon
PO
Cals
I lines
778820
0004661794
1 Application for Mining Permit No. 92-10
2
125
Attention:
NCDENQ
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL & LAND RESOURCES
1612 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 276991612
�W�VISION OF ENt.iiGY, lW NERAI� AND LAND RESpUu RC
PUBLIC NCTICE
311no Depart•
tit rnodl
weratiofn la [ca-
AUTHORITY- NC General Statute (G.S.) 14d1 and NCAC Title 1s, Chapter s sub.
c hapterSa, Section .oatl
REMOTE PLACF—TIM E�N S DDUURING DECLARED EMERGENCIES allows a public
1wdY to conduct rubric hearings by remote meetfngL
Remote Meeting due to COV I M19 Declared Emergency
"MP':I June23,2(Qg
Portidows Cmi fOla the mceting ot5:4s
ONL 1 CI�rpa We6Ex Link:
rttcFs� rlfa.weHex.conYgrcrirnrlF�b^'sh`gtg.Mn?MTI p..ea3oCd74iaTMS-'rirl
�44s+7+ar'' ,o ,,P I" y n rep'
ng umberT q e, 6'14 tT
Meeting Password DE0123
PHONE.,
Clue WahEx by Phone: +1415 6$5 OM US TOLL
Meeting number 1, access codes: 617 449 S51
PURPOSE:
To receive comments related to the madifkatian application for a mfning permit
for a crushed stone mining operation laanfetl off OM Reedy Creek Rood in Wake
County.
Cananeots shall be Iimtted to those that refute directly to the seven (7) denial cri-
teria listed under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971 that the Department wrisid-
ers In mok;no Its decls{pi to grant or deny a new mining permit application or a
modllimtfontoanex,slingmining Permit. These criteria are as follows:
The Department inax deny such permit upon finding?
1. That any requirement of this Article or am, rule promulgated hereunder will
be violated by the proposed Operation,
2. That the operation wit) have unduly adverse effects on potable ground wafer
supailes, wildlife, Or fresh Water, estuarine, or marine fisheries:
3. That the operation will vkfate standards of air quality, surface water quail-
ty, or ground water gwIlty which have been Praahtgaled by the Department,
4. That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial ph ical hazard to
€ dwelling � �
alconrsesoublp[unPublic
row
i� . manrelattreoi Ic
S. That the am. Won will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of
a twblidy.owned park, forest Or recreation area;
w�i�ious ra�etfniwrlbnial pos.
sii �ththe metranwill result substantial deposits isire
am
beds or lakes, landslides, or acid water portation i of
7 That the applicant or any Parent, subsidiary, or other offlllote of the appif•
clad or Parent has not been In substantial compliance with this Article. rves
adopted under this Article, or other laws or rules of this State for the pia i;cIlon of
the environment or has not cornded all viotatiam that the applkmd or any Pa -
sent. wbsldkary ar other affiikate of the applicant or parent may have coawn;tted
wrier this Artkfe or rules adopted under this Ankle and thof rnrrlt In:
a. Revocation of his permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or ail of his bond or other security,
c. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74 64 or
d. Any other court order Issued tinder G.S. 74 or
a. Final assessment
of a civil Penalty under G.S. 74-64.
In the by the ap�plkcantfas derermiinneed�ntout ecesssaary by theor fDepa� �ta perrcmitnshall l be
granted.
COAVAEWr PROCEDURE:
A11 Persons iakrcskd inn this matter are invited to attend. The hearing will be
caduclM in the follaw�ig manner:
I. Explanation of the action for which the Permit Is required by the hearing offf-
cer
2, Explanation of the permit procedures as set forth In The Mining Ad all 1971
by the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Lind Resources.
3. Public Comment - Comrnerits, statements, data, and other lMormolton may
be submitted in writinip prior to the heath or may be presented orally at the
tfearin9 PersanS dWri g to speak must follow the procedure outlined below- So
thot all persons desiring to speak may do so, lengthy statemerrts may be limited
It the discrettan of the hearing officer Oral presentations must not exceed the
time IlmiI I obilshed by the hearing officer. Any oral presentation that exceeds
three N: minutes must be submitted as directed by the hearing officer.
It you wish to speak at the digitanu l public hearing, gmust register, provide the
required lnf rmofian, and torllooww Instructions an ways to fain the Public hearing.
Reoistratlon must be completed by 12.00 PM on Jame 23, 2040. To register, please
click the following link:
rms.DHice R seP .as x7i -31F2e MFw-zCbNft
.ram
ml"LPMS!4'VgOvUFAkvwul'-'NNE—VBMV—QWMFWRtVUIWUZRSQi4it
It you have litchnicol dlfficuNfes, an oWOrnated voicemail will be set up from
June M to July 3 to receive your verbal comments: 919.7074M [Please state
Your name before commending. I
4. Crass examination of persons Presenting testimony will not be allowed; how-
ever, the hearing officer may ask questk m for clarification.
the
hear,
arlm and imaThe Y be a�vaillaablle fnt our indmake a shortivIduotlgroup discussion ottteerttthhe t WHblng
odfoumed.
6. The Proceedings will remain open for a period of tin (101 days following bra
hearing for additional written arguments or statements,
INI'RMAT is
A copy of the mladng permit{}cation and correspanding mops are on file with
Mar aoWlc'aglncaFOrrria 9loleriond r p b etc tf�ief ale SheipceuakWheaHwo
stnbmrt tznvnerhls oC far additional Iriaargalion concerning fits Ihearing contact
by wafting or ca'.
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Division of Eheroy, Mineral ad Lard Resources
Department of Envinximentai Qqulity
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carbllna27699.1612
Telephone! (9191707.fno
Comments may also be submitted by email to ncininfngPregramOncifenr,my .
N60: June 5, 2112g
STATE OF NORTH CAROUNA
COUNTY OF WAKE
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of
Johnston County, North Carolina, duly
commissioned and authorized to administer
oaths, affirmaliors, etc personally appeared
BETSY W7MBLE, who being duly swam or
affirmed, according to law, doth depose and
say that he or she is Accounts Receivable
Specialist of the News & Observer Publishing
Company, a corporation organized and doing
business under the Laws of the State of
North Carolina, and publishing a newspaper
known as The News & Observer Wake
County and Stale aforesaid, the said
newspaper in which such notice, paper,
document, or legal advertisement was
published was, at the time of each and every
suc tVublication, a newspaper meeting all of
the requirements and qualifications of Section
1-597 ofthe General Statutes of North
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper
within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina, and that
as such he or she makes this affidavit; and is
familiar with the books, files and business of
said corporation and by reference to the files
of said publication the attached advertisement
Insertion(s)
Published On
June 05 2020
1�9,AwU-'k'LVC
BETSY 1NOMOLE. Accounts Receivable
Spredstt
1ali
Cd-L COIL
Electronic Notary f4lic
State of North Carolina
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
5th day of June, 2020
My Commission Expires: 711012023
WENDYDAWSON
Notary Public
North Carolina
Johnston County

Powered by BkClatchy
The News i4 Observer
N N 0421 Fayetteville Street. Sude 104
MEDIA COMPANY RaleiaFL NC 27G01
consul., strategize de Iver
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Aowunl 9
Ad Number
I Idenitficallon
PO
Cols
Lines
778820
OM680379
Application for Mining Permit No. 92-10
2
119
Attention:
NCDENQ
DIVISION OF ENERGY, MINERAL & LAND RESOURCES
1612 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 276991612
held by
a= crushed
1�NC General Statute CGS; 743E and NCAC Title Ili, Chapter S
er . SMion,Call
MM TIM& QM: Session Law =-I section 4.31 PUBLIC
ETWOS DURING DECLARED EMERGENCIES allows
public body loconduct public hearings by remote meetings.
Mote MMibgdue toCOVI D•19 Declared Emergency
A.M.
Jody 7, 2MO
ONLINE Cisco welrExLink.
� sp .lMcd�n.webexcon*cdenrttsbnstugek.phv2MTID-240 e16aae923 lb
10
Meeting Number LACClss Code; %10446=
Meeting Password: DEQ123
Cisco WebEx try Phone +a Ia 5 6SS CM US TOLL
meafing number (access coda` . 161 a" fim
PURM.
To receive comments related to the modlfkotian appilcuffori for a mining Permit
for aauushed skrie mining operation located off Old Reedy Creek Rand in Wake
cou
Commerds shop be Ifnolled to those that relate directly to the seven ; 71 denial cri-
teria listed under GS 743E of The Mining Act of 197E that the Department comfd-
en In making Its decision k moot or decry a new mining aersnft aPWlcatlan or a
modifica 1 to an existing minlna permit, TTrese alteria are os folkrws,
The Department may decry such Permit upon finding:
1.. l ien( any requirement of this Article or any ruk Promulooted hereunder will
be viaiated by the proposed operaftorl,
2. That the operatlea,wil I hove ittduly adverse efieUs an potable gota woke
suapiles. wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries:
1 That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quoll-
ly, orgrow water quality which have been Promukgalad by the Department.
4. That the operation wN constitute a direct and substardla skol h=rd to
public fsatlh and safety or k a rrighboring _dkwalrmd other public Property.x f, correauerclal or Irdhslrtoil huildinrgg,, 3
clud ing moitera relating to use al o Public rood;
a .That the ownedawroed pa ton will
hue, creation only adverse el feel on the purposes of
6. Thai prevk al experience with similar operatics indicates a sutnlanflal Pos.
IIbl:Iiy that the aPerWlan wail resuit in substantial depostts of sediment in stream
beds or lakes, larndsllda oracid waferpollution, or
7. That the opPIlcant or ow Paremt, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applf-
cant or Parent has not been in substantial compllarim with Ihh ArRtle, rules
under 1�enw ronmtntt or I snag other allvkla�fonsOf that theme applicant r for the P1 DIY Pa
recut, subaidiory or other alfillate of the oopikanf or parent may have oommlNed
order this Artfc�e ar Holes adopted under this Article and that resuff In:
a. Revocationof his permit,
b. 1-a d poor port orall of his band orathersecurity,
c. Corwicilan of a misdemeanor under GS 74d4, or
d. Any other court order Issued under GS 74i4 or
a. Final ossessrment of a civil penalty under GS 74d4.
In the absence at any findings set out above, or it adverse effects are mltlgored
by the kaat as determined necessary by the Department, a Permit shall be
giant
COMMENT PROCEDUIRE :
Ail persorq up■r"M In this matter am Invited to ailed. The hearing will be
NrhdhuCted Inv the following manner•
�fi P`anotlan of the action for which the Perml t Is required by the hearing
2. Explanation of the permlt procedures as set Porch in The Mining Act of W1
by the Division of Enemy, Min", and Land Resources.
3. Publk Cornnenit Iffed In n-pCommerft sktertprior to the ryre�nnts, desk, and other Inkmg or may be piesen! _atbn may
heoFsl3,y. Persons deslrlmlo spec must follow the re outikred below. lly at the
that all ppeerrasaarss deslr Ing to speak may des m, lengthy statements may be I.mlkd
of the dlscauti*. oh the hearhg officer Oral presentations must not exceed the
time limit established by the hearing olticer Any oroi presentatirrn Mall exueds
two';; m-nutes roust be submitted as diraeted by the hearing officer
If you wish to speak of the digital Public heortro you must hove prevlausl v regis-
tered, by 12:00 PM an June 23, 2020.
4. Cross examination of persons preumling test �myy w111 not be olkwedi tow•
ever, the hearing officer may ask quespans ter darifkoilan.
S. fOpltamalj The applicant may make a slim presentation at the end or the
;I*arf= may be available for IndividuaWgroup discussion after the hearing Is
I hearing f lelananal will
a in am
for statements.
s. (lo; days fWlarrlrg the
INFORMATION
tlhekofkt finemining
OH�, Raletah Cmtraioffice arhdi oMFaj prorwfei�lerratvapet
for the puWles 1Momgtion and rerkw prior to the date of the Public hear) g. o
suborn edawrheds or ear oddltloraI Information concerning this Bearing contact
by wr lting or cotlingn
Audy W~
ssistant State Mining Speclolist
Division of EOnFer�yllYv, Mineral and Lard Resources
161 SOepartinenervice Cwler, Ro*0 nmental quality
fh Carolina 270109-1d12
Telephone! (9191 707-TM
Cemmnsrta may elm be submitted byemail k: ncmloin aPnxramhl9rncdenr.gov.
NLO: June24,=
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
Before the undersigned, a Notary Public of
Johnston County, North Carolina, duly
commissioned and authorized to administer
oaths, affirmations, etc.. personally appeared
BETSY MMBLE, who being duty sworn or
affirmed, according to law. doth depose and
say that he or she is Amounts Receivable
Specialist of the News & Observer Publishing
Company, a corporation organized and doing
business under the Laws of the State of
North Carolina, and publishing a newspaper
(mown as The News & Observer. Wake
County and State aforesaid, the said
newspaper in which such notice, paper,
document, or legal advertisement was
published was, at the time of each and every
such publication, a newspaper meeting all of
the Pequirements and qualifications of Section
1-597 of the General Statutes of North
Carolina and was a qualified newspaper
within the meaning of Section 1-597 of the
General Statutes of North Carolina, and that
as such he or she makes this affidavit, and is
familiar with the books, files and business of
said corporation and by reference to the files
of said publication the attached advertisement
Insertion(s)
Published On:
June 24. 2020
BETSY WOMBLE. Accounts Receivable
Specialist
qAjjy d, co,.,.)(-
Elecuortic Notary Rilric
State of North Carolina
Swom to and subscribed before me this
24th day of June, 2020
My Commission Expires: 7/1012023
WENDY DAWSON
Notary Eubtic
North Carolina
JohnstanCounty

Appendix B: Land Quality Section Presentation

MINING PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION
As Dan Sams stated, my name is David Miller. My title is State Mining Engineer with the
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources, Mining
Program.
My job, and that of the other members of the staff, is to review all applications for a mining
permit or modification of an existing mining permit as they relate to The Mining Act of 1971.
The Mining Act can be found on the Mining Program web page. Copies of the Act were also
mailed to those who provided written comments.
would like to take a moment and briefly review a few specific areas of the Act. :
"The General Assembly finds that the extraction of minerals by mining is a basic and
essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of North
Carolina and the Nation. Furthermore, it is not practical to extract minerals required by
our society without disturbing the surface of the earth and producing waste materials,
and the very character of certain surface mining operations precludes complete
restoration of the land to its original condition. However, it is possible to conduct mining
in such a way as to minimize its effects on the surrounding environment. Furthermore,
proper reclamation of mined land is necessary to prevent undesirable land and water
conditions that would be detrimental to the general welfare, health, safety, beauty, and

property rights of the citizens of the State. The General Assembly finds that the
conduct of mining and reclamation of mined lands as provided by this Article will allow
the mining of valuable minerals and will provide for the protection of the State's
environment and for the subsequent beneficial use of the mined and reclaimed land."
On page 4 of the Mining Act, under G.S. 74-51, Permits - Application, granting, conditions, the
Act states, under subsection (b) that:
"The Department shall grant or deny the permit requested as expeditiously as possible, but in
no event later than 60 days after the application form and any relevant and material
supplemental information reasonably required shall have been filed with the Department, or if
a public hearing is held, within 30 days following the hearing and the filing of any relevant and
material supplemental information reasonably required by the Department.
On page 5 of the Act, under subsection (c), the Act goes on to state:
"The public hearing shall be held within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period within
any requests for the public hearing shall be made."
The modification proposes to increase the permitted acreage from 223 acres to 329 acres and
the affected acreage from 164.45 acres to 226.66 acres, including improvements to the
existing perimeter roadway and development of a satellite pit on the Leased Raleigh Durham

Airport Authority Land. The current operation is located southeast of Crabtree Creek. The
proposed addition is located northwest of Crabtree Creek. Overburden and rock are proposed
to be removed and taken to the existing site by way of a bridge across Crabtree Creek for
disposal and processing on the existing mine site.
Criteria important to the review of a mining application is found under subsection (d) beginning
at the bottom of page 5 of the Act. It states:
"The Department may deny the permit [or modification to the existing permit] upon
finding [only one of the seven criteria listed on pages 7 and 8 of the Act]:
1. That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will be
violated by the proposed operation;
This means that the very nature of the activity proposed in the application
will immediately violate any of the basic requirements of the Act and
corresponding Administrative Rules.
2. That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater
supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's comments noted the
following recommendations: Provide a 100 foot undisturbed buffer along
perennial streams and 50 foot undisturbed along intermittent streams,

mine discharge should be proportional to the receiving stream and comply
with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES
standards, plant seed mixtures beneficial to wildlife should be used,
concerns about the effect of deforestation of the project area on Umstead
Park should be addressed, and providing adequate erosion and
sedimentation control measures, The application was routed to United
States Fish and Wildlife Service and their comments noted the Atlantic
pigtoe mussel is currently being proposed to be listed as threatened and
has been noted to be found in Crabtree Creek. North Carolina Division of
Water Resources, DWR, comments included the following: The quarry
does not appear to have an unduly effect on ground water supplies but
requests comparison of samples from certain wells is recommended,
reconciliation of two contour maps and submission of a cross section
diagram through the existing and proposed expansion should be done.
Ground water withdrawals of more than 100,000 gpd must be registered.
3. That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
ground water quality that have been promulgated by the Department:
North Carolina Division of Air Quality, DAQ, comments noted the following:
DAQ recommends the facility take extra precautions due to the proximity to
Umstead Park, an air quality permit is required and is existing for the site.

DWR requires a buffer variance for the stream crossing is required. An
NPDES permit exists for the site.
4. That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to
public health and safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church,
hospital, commercial or industrial building, public road or other public property,
excluding matters relating to the use of a public road;
The expansion application contained detailed information regarding active
and final slopes at the site. It also contained information on the blasting
practices and procedures that will be utilized in the area covered by the
application currently under review. Mining permits contain specific
blasting conditions for any sites where blasting is to occur.
5. That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a
publicly owned park, forest or recreation area;
As is well known, the site is located adjacent to Umstead State Park. The
Division of Parks and Recreation has many concerns regarding the
proximity of the proposed operation to the park. These concerns include
noise, sedimentation/water quality, dust/air quality, truck traffic, blasting,
loss of wildlife and park expansion

6. That the previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial
possibility that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in
stream beds or lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution;
A detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan was submitted with the
application and will be thoroughly evaluated by both the Land Quality
Section's Raleigh Regional Office staff and the Raleigh Central Office staff.
7. That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or
parent has not been in substantial compliance with this Article, rules adopted
under this Article, or other laws or rules of this State for the protection of the
environment or has not corrected all violations that the applicant or any parent,
subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or parent may have committed under
this Article or rules adopted under this Article and that resulted in:
a. Revocation of a permit,
b. Forfeiture of part or all of a bond or other security,
C. Conviction of a misdemeanor under G.S. 74-64,
d. Any other court order issued under G.S. 74-64, or
e. Final assessment of a civil penalty under G.S. 74-64.

This pertains to the applicant's prior operating record with the Mining
Program and the Department of Environmental Quality as a whole.
The Act goes on to clearly state that:
"In the absence of any findings set out in subsection (d) of this section, or if adverse
effects are mitigated by the applicant as determined necessary by the Department, a
permit shall be granted."
Please be advised that offsite truck traffic on public roads, noise, and potentially
negative impacts on property values are not within the jurisdiction of The Mining Act of 1971.
These items are more properly addressed through local zoning ordinances. I also would like
to draw your attention to G.S. 74-65, Effect of local zoning regulations, on page 12 of the Act.
The Act basically states that the issuance of a state mining permit, and any transfer, renewal
or modification to it, does not supersede any duly adopted local zoning ordinance.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the local authority, not the Department, to enforce any
such ordinance that may be in effect covering the project area.
The decision on the issuance of a mining permit will not be made tonight. The authority
to issue or deny a permit lies with the Director of the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land
Resources, Brian Wrenn.

Any permit issued shall be expressly conditioned upon compliance with all requirements
of the approved reclamation plan for the operation and with such further reasonable and
appropriate requirements and safeguards as may be deemed necessary by the Department to
assure that the operation will comply fully with the requirements and objectives of the Mining
Act.
If the Department denies this application for a permit, it shall notify the operator in
writing, stating the reasons for its denial and any modifications in the application, which would
make it acceptable. The operator may thereupon modify his application or file an appeal to
the Office of Administrative Hearings. In the event that the application for a mining permit is
approved, any aggrieved parties will be notified by the Department of the permit issuance and
its rights to file an appeal contesting the Department's issuance of the permit.
The hearing record will remain open for a period of up to 10 days from tonight or the
30t" day of June, 2020. This gives those individuals that were unable to attend an opportunity
to comment. You may also think of something else that you would like to add to your
comments made here tonight. This provides you that opportunity.
Now that a public hearing has been held on this application, the Department has a 30-
day review clock. The 30-day period starts after this hearing tonight, July 23, 2020. Should
the Department request additional information from the applicant, the 30-day clock would start
over upon the Department's receipt of all of the requested information. Such a process would

continue until all of the Department's questions have been answered and a decision is made
on the application.
If there are no questions, I would like to turn the program back over to Dan.

Appendix C: Oral Comments

Speakers — Hearing Part #1 — June 23, 2020
(1) Natalie Lew — OPPOSED; concerned about adverse effects on Park. Truck traffic,
milky runoff seen in creek and felt quarry blasts.
(2) Dr. Elizabeth Adams — OPPOSED; spoke of Denial Criteria #3 & #4 which prohibits
violation of air quality standards. Dust (PM 2.5), suffered breathing problems and skin
rashes due to dust from mine.
(3) Tamara Dunn — OPPOSED; adjacent landowner concerned that the 50-year sunset
agreement to close the quarry was removed from the mining permit. Landowner
concerned for blasting 200-feet may have damage. Requested DEQ for all blasting
data. That information has not yet been provided.
(4) Hwa Huang — OPPOSED; Denial Criteria #5 — adverse effects on a public park,
effects on water quality and wetlands, and potential future impacts from quarrying. All
phases of the proposed operations should be examined together.
(5) Dr. Irene Rusnak — OPPOSED; adverse impacts to Crabtree Creek and to Umstead
Park. All impacts must be evaluated together. Suggest that the cumulative amount of
liner stream which would be impacted would trigger a US COE individual 401-404
certification analysis.
(6) Betsy Beals — OPPOSED; unjust to destroy the environment impact under Denial
Criteria #4 and #5. Potential for damage to home and water well from blasting and the
logging trucks crossing a single -lane bridge.
(7) Mark Dixon — OPPOSED; grew up in a region with protected land. The proposed
quarry is in conflict with both Denial Criteria #4 and #5. He came to North Carolina to
ride trails for public use.
(8) Charles Piercy — OPPOSED; DEQ's science -based environmental stewardship for
health, safety and prosperity. To allow this quarry results in a loss of 105 acres which
will be carried away by up to 500 truck -loads a day.
(9) Randal Dunn — OPPOSED; residence adjacent to existing quarry 2/3 of a mile. He
has found cracks in the building foundation. His residence will be 100 feet from the new
quarry. Blasting contractors for Wake Stone said that there would be no damage at 500
ft, but his residence will be at 100 feet.
(10) Dr. Jean Spooner — OPPOSED; seen, heard and felt impacts — silica plumes,
impacts to Crabtree Creek, landslide into Crabtree Creek, buffers measured in
application use a different distance than is normally used, and impacts of the 7Q10 flow
rate for creek.

(11) Steve Lund — OPPOSED; park user. There are noises heard in the park from the
existing quarry that are at a Decibel (dB) level of heavy use same as interstate highway
traffic (70 dBA). Not a compatible land use with the existing park.
(12) Gil Johnson — OPPOSED; quoted from the prior denial by DLR director Stephen
Conrad who said the proposed quarry at that time was incompatible with the existing
park. That decision was overruled, and the quarry was permitted, but with a sunset
provision that was included in 8 subsequent mining modifications. The speaker also
asked that the sunset provision be reinstated.
(13) Mark Stohlman — OPPOSED; former Mayor of Morrisville — adverse effects on
Park. Haul Trucks use park trails that was to cease in 2031. The sunset provision was
changed. Deny permit and reinstate the Sunset Clause.
(14) Deborah Hage — OPPOSED; park user — significant effect to the Park — new
quarry with quarry noise, ground shaking and the potential for blasting accidents.
(15) Caroline Lalla — OPPOSED; board member — must deny under Denial Criteria #4
and #5 impacts on Reedy Creek greenway and Umstead Park.
(16) Kris Bass — OPPOSED; eco engineering — reviewed Wake Stone's plan. Plan and
design are untrue to impacts on the watershed. The detailed work that is required has
not been done.
(17) Dr. Jeff Wald — OPPOSED; user of Park. Deny based on Criteria #5 — noise
adverse to a publicly owned park — 500 trucks per day — documented bad level of noise
and a 15' berm — application must be denied.
(18) Ery Portman — OPPOSED; recommend denial of application — reclamation plan
inadequate. Plan says the details of the reclamation plan will be decided by the Airport
authority and Wake Stone AFTER mining has been completed. Speaker requests
denial of the application.
(19) Dina Deaton — OPPOSED; recommend denial under Criteria #5 — adverse effects
on a public Park — excessive noise and dust — impacts from 500 haul trucks per day.
(20) David Collier — OPPOSED; board member of the Umstead Coalition — application
must be denied based on Denial Criteria #2 and #5 — significant impacts to Crabtree
Creek and Umstead State Park — concerned with unexcavated buffers at 100 feet
measured at the centerline of the creek.
(21) William Doucette — OPPOSED; 30-year licensed geologist specializing in
environmental hydrogeology — disappointed with the site -specific hydrogeology
analysis. He sees adverse effects on groundwater standards, changes to the 7Q10
along creeks, dewatering, seepage of contaminated groundwater, and another
structural failure such as the landslide in 1992.

(22) Brent Harsh — OPPOSED; requests denial under Denial Criteria #5 — Adverse
impact on park and recreation areas — concerned with trucks associated with clear -
cutting forest and removal of soil on the Odd Fellows Track — concerned with truck
traffic on Old Reedy Creek Road.
(23) John Peters — OPPOSED; 50-year park users wanting peace and quiet. Request
denial under Criteria #5 — adverse impact on park and recreation areas. Concerned
with trucks using the greenway trail as a road.
(24) Lynn Peters — OPPOSED; another 50-year park user — requests denial under
Criteria #5 — adverse impact on park or recreation areas. Greenway entrance is being
degraded by logging trucks.
(25) Holly Amato — OPPOSED; requests denial due to the effect on the wildlife. The
Odd Fellows tract provide a wildlife corridor to the south to connect with Jordan Lake.
Habitat fragmentation and water pollution will effect wildlife.
(26) Dr. David Humphrey — OPPOSED; requests rejection of this permit modification
as the depth of bedrock under Crabtree Creek is unknown. There is a strong potential
for Crabtree Creek to discharge into groundwater causing a groundwater violation. This
contaminated water could result in a landslide inside the quarry and effect groundwater
quality.
(27) Lauren Wilkins — OPPOSED; requests denial under Criteria #4 — Health and
Safety — risk is difficult and a hidden threat from PM 10 and PM 2.5 — silica dust at the
surface and a 1000-foot fly -rock hazard zone.
(28) Mark Rain — OPPOSED; the proposed activity will be a substantial public heath
threat at the surface at one of the most visited east coast greenways. Impacts on the
park and trails from the removal of the sunset clause in the current permit, and trucks
from both the old and new quarries are the greatest impact.
(29) Kenneth Schuster — OPPOSED; extreme hydrologic gradient, little sampling,
stormwater permit and monitoring of discharge, "no flow" reported for some sites.
Request denial under D#3, #5, and #6 due to impacts on water quality in creeks.
(30) Mike Farrell — OPPOSED; resident to park and greenspace to restore. Noise by
quarry Denial Criteria #5 impacts to park and recreation areas, permit should be denied.
Ten -foot vegetative buffer for quarry is incompatible with current land use.
(31) John Hunt — OPPOSED; asks to deny permit for prior sedimentation into streams
beds. Measurements from wadable streams missing from report, which makes it
difficult to assess current impact.

(32) Heiko Rath — OPPOSED; asks to deny permit on public health concerns. Earlier
plans shown the stone would be moved on conveyor belts not trucks. Using trucks now
requires a new air quality permit for PM 2.5.
(33) Bill Padgett — OPPOSED; asks to deny permit due to PM 2.5 quarry dust taking
place. Health issues known in blacksmiths and miners.
(34) Bob Drew — OPPOSED; permit denial for violation of air quality standard. As a
Citizen Scientists group, he has installed three of four solar -powered air quality
monitoring stations. They are also recording blasts on a "Raspberry Shake" seismic
monitor and have correlated seismic readings with felt blasts from quarry.
(35) Woody Woodward — OPPOSED; member of an Open Space Advisory Board.
Requests DEQ deny under Criteria #5 — adverse impact to a Park or Recreational Area.
The Open -space Board has sent a letter the Wake County Board of Commissioners on
this issue.
(36) David Anderson — OPPOSED; off -road cyclist believes this is the most valuable
park and along with the east coast greenway. Significant impact from blasting, noise
and dust. Sunset clause must be reinstated.
(37) Camye Womble — OPPOSED; avid user of Umstead Park which has become even
more popular and overcrowded during the pandemic. Uses the park for exercise.
Quarry will impact wildlife, buildings and people living there.
(38) Charles Bachmann — OPPOSED; Board Member of the Umstead Coalition. Park
should not be used as a disposal site. Fine white rock dust is being deposited by trucks
at the Reedy Creek Umstead Park Entrance and Wake Stone is irrigating Star Road,
but the runoff is going into the Park.
(39 Maria Frank — OPPOSED; requests denial under Criteria #5 -- adverse impact to a
public park and recreation area and Umstead Is Black Creek Greenway. Reclamation
plan is inadequate showing "future" area. Foxcroft Lake is physically located on the
Odd Fellows Track and will be destroyed should the permit be approved.
(40) Rais Miftakhutdinov — OPPOSED; request denial under Criteria #5 -- significant
adverse to park and recreational area. Current quarry is already impacting park. Uses
park at lunchtime for biking and walking. Safety and health must not be jeopardized.
(41) Dr. Fred Gould -- OPPOSED; cyclist concerned about looking 50 years into the
future. Deny permit based on #5 significant adverse impact on park and recreation
area. Reclamation plan is not realistic. Unclear if quarry will fill with water and a water -
filled quarry may result in deaths from trespassing onto such a site.
(42) Dr. Ron Southerland — OPPOSED; chief scientist on wildlife conservation and
conductivity. Proposed quarry will reduce wildlife conductivity getting to Jordan Lake

since wildlife use the Odd Fellows track and Umstead Park to reach Jordan Lake. Asks
also to deny permit.
(43) Robert Enochs — OPPOSED; spends significant time at Umstead Park. Asks to
deny permit under Criteria #5 significant adverse impact on Umstead Park the East
Coast Greenway, and Crabtree County Park.
(44) Mark Strickland — OPPOSED; deny permit on Criteria #5 -- significant adverse
impact on park and recreation area. Speaker rides two times per week, get exercise
and being in the woods. Construction traffic with fumes, noise and loud sound will be
much closer to the park if the permit is approved.
(45) Robin Stern — OPPOSED; deny permit based on Criteria #5 significant impact on
park or recreation area. Joy in riding bike on Black Creek Greenway away from traffic
and with fresh air. New quarry will destroy forest.
(46) Drew Ball — OPPOSED; director Environment NC nonprofit — oppose to
inadequate application. Impact to park, loss of conservation lands and noise, and
vibrations impact to visitors.
(47) Pamela Olson — OPPOSED; effects on Umstead Park -- significant amount of
green seen in flying into Raleigh with the scar of a quarry. Reduction in greenspace
detrimental to city advertising the quality of life in Raleigh.
(48) Bob Geary — OPPOSED; runner, bike rider, environmentalist. Deny permit, harmful
to Park, greenway, and Crabtree Creek. Mining application states company will haul
rock to the crusher from the new quarry using a new bridge over Crabtree Creek. The
diesel trucks emitting NOX and with PM 2.5 dust from the load.
(49) Stefanie Mendell — OPPOSED; former Raleigh City Council member.
Reclamation plan inadequate — impact to water supply, no engineering, no
hydrogeologic study.
(50) Terry Snyder — OPPOSED; request denial of application due to adverse and direct
hazards to Park and Recreation facilities.
(51) Donna Bailey — OPPOSED; The Division of NC Parks and Recreation should
determine adverse conditions to Umstead Park. DEQ previous monitoring of dust and
noise levels from the quarry but ended after funding cuts. This permit approval would
be a detriment to Umstead Park. Sediment and contaminated stormwater currently
discharges into the park via Crabtree Creek.
(52) Mary Theresa Scott — OPPOSED; deny based on Criteria #4 -- hazard to public
health and safety due to danger on air and water quality from the PM 2.5 dust. Air
quality was important due to the current COVID crisis.

(53) Holly Neal — OPPOSED; deny based on Criteria #5 -- adverse effects on the park.
While she worked in the Visitors Center saw runoff from the Wake Stone into Crabtree
Creek. Plume went one -mile into park property. Proposal will decrease undisturbed
buffers. Park is often at capacity. Decreased greenspace will lessen public enjoyment.
(54) Teresa Moore — OPPOSED; deny based on Criteria #2 and Criteria #5. Wildlife
corridor connection to other greenways will be severed. Site plan has deforested 50'
buffer with 8' fence topped with barbed wire adjacent to the greenway. Company patrol
road next to fence on other side. No mitigation offered by Wake Stone.
(55) Mark Durant — OPPOSED; NCSU Degree in engineering. Opposed because of
7451-section 6 (previous experience clause). Public records show rock slide in 1991-
1992 resulting in notice of mining deficiency impacting Crabtree Creek where the slide
crossed 90% of the creek.
(56) Jessica Heironimus — OPPOSED; hiker and trail rider. Denial criteria #2 —
adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies. There are three private potable wells
and the 4t" on the Odd Fellows Track.
(57) Kathleen Weaver — OPPOSED; North Carolina Licensed Professional Civil
Engineer. Permit should be denied based on previous water quality sampling done by
Wake Stone employees. From 2015 - 2019, DEMLR records show sampling performed
incorrectly (total rainfall column not entered). Compliance is dependent on monitoring.
29 discharges in 2019, expansion of quarry will result in substantial sediment deposits
downstream. Hearing officer request copy of her presentation.
(58) Jason Tucker — OPPOSED; NC General Statutes 74-51-4 — substantial physical
hazard to public health and safety. New equipment to mine the topography of this
steeply sloped pit will require a new air permit. The stability of the new pit is unknown.
Umstead Park is an asset to the community and cannot be denied to future generations.
(59) Daniel Bowman — OPPOSED; Listen to prior experts. Who want the permit
denied due to impacts on air, water, and wildlife. He asked that this "great jewel of
forested land" be preserved.
(60) Julie Hall -- OPPOSED; For over 30 years, Box Scout troops have hiked and
camped on the Odd Fellows track until two years ago when they were uninvited
because of this quarry issue. Proposed buffers are too small which will cause a
fragmentation of a unique wildlife corridor.
(61) Joseph Huberman — OPPOSED; President of Backwoods Orienteering Club.
Does not trust Wake Stone because the original permit would have allowed sale of pit
when mining ceased or fifty years, which ever came first. The permit was modified eight
times over 36 years. On the 9t" modification in March 9, 2018 the clause was deleted.
This was done without, with notice or a public hearing.

(62) Lisa Liske -- OPPOSED; science educator and users of the Umstead Park.
Request denial under Criteria #2 — adverse impacts on wildlife and Criteria #5 adverse
impacts to Park and Recreation areas. Area is unique to the world, adjacent to a
metropolitan area. 5,500 acres with bobcat, wild turkeys and connected to a wildlife
corridor thru the Odd Fellows tract to Jordan Lake.
(63) Matthew Carpenter — OPPOSED; attorney on behalf of the Umstead Coalition.
Look at the 2004 N.C. Appeals Court Ruling concerning the Clark Stone permit which
was revoked by the Court for harmful impacts on the Appalachian Trail. Department
must deny the permit should there be significant impacts on Umstead Park with little
mitigation. Evidence of serious impacts on steams, air quality, and water quality. Duty
to deny permit.
(64) Isabel Mattox — OPPOSED; co -counsel to the Umstead Coalition. Other speaker
will present adverse impacts under five of the seven denial criteria. Hearing Officer has
heard or will hear of impacts on groundwater, surface water sources, wildlife, greenway,
sedimentation, landslide and rockslides. Adjacent residents and parks have been
impacted by truck traffic. Permit must be denied. Asked that the recording being made
available as soon as possible.
(65) John Ward — OPPOSED; teacher at the Triangle Math Academy. Unique system
of trails which he has used as both a runner and bicyclist. Natural beauty and amenities
with the trail system. Under Denial Criteria #5 significant impact on Park or recreation
areas, you must deny the permit.
(66) Scott Huler -- OPPOSED; spent life writing two books. Raleigh infrastructure
where well water was so pure, it was called "delicious". Approving this permit would be
a death sentence for Crabtree Creek and impact on groundwater, since Crabtree Creek
provides water to the northern part of Raleigh.
(67) Dr. Cathrine Leonowens — OPPOSED; asks department to deny permit. Trail and
gravel cyclist knows the importance of trail system. Teaching others about the forest
and streams. Accessible trail system is a priceless gift. There are impacts on trails and
forests. Must deny the permit.
(68) Debra Good — OPPOSED; live less than three miles from park and quarry site.
Noise generated by and escaping from the new quarry will have significant adverse
effects on the purpose of a publicly owned park. Noise from the quarry was
documented in a State Park study in 1982. With the new quarry, noise will increase. A
quarry beside the Park was incompatible in 1981. Another quarry should be denied.
(69) Regina Ali — OPPOSED; weekly user of the Park. Ask for denial of the permit
under Criteria #4 — direct adverse effect on Public Health and Criteria #2 adverse
impacts on fisheries and aquatic life. There is a contaminated site nearby (Ward
Transformer superfund site) where blasting could disturb the buried PCBs and release
the sequestered PCBs.

(70) Maria Clavell — OPPOSED; deny the permit because of Criteria #2 — unduly
adverse effect on Wildlife. In addition, there will be a new unforested edge to the park
where sun, wind, and parasites could impact the park with a loss of habitat. The park
will also lose the wildlife corridor. Deny with no reconsideration.
(71) Judith Strickland — OPPOSED; uses park and can hear mining operations. New
quarry will diminish air quality. Both surface waters and groundwater will be effected
and there will limits on expanding bicycle trails. Deny the permit under Criteria #3 —
adverse effect on park and recreation areas.
(72) Barbara Braatz — OPPOSED; regular user of Umstead Park. Deny the permit
under Criteria #2 undue adverse impact on wildlife and Criteria #5 significant adverse
effects on park or recreation areas. Destruction of the wildlife corridor between
Umstead Park and Jordan Lake Gamelands.
(73) Charles Mcclelland — OPPOSED; avid user of outdoor space. Since this land is
inside the beltway it will likely not recover from development. He formed a company to
build sensors to count visitation data on Umstead Park. Data from two entrances show
significant increases since 2018.
(74) Sarah Nicholson — OPPOSED; lots of evidence has been given in the hearing.
Devastated by what has happened to the environment. Our health is a need. Nature is
a need. Clean water and clean air is a need. More greenspace is a need.
(75) Melissa Hall — OPPOSED; greenspace user. Deny permit under Criteria #2
adverse impact on wildlife and Criteria #5 adverse impact on Park or recreation area.
Only connection between the park and the Jordan Lake Gamelands is the tract in
question. Quarry will block wildlife movement, years of blasting, shock waves and
ground vibrations from numerous sources. Quarry noise would interfere with wildlife
communications.
(76) Ruth Bromer — OPPOSED; treasurer of the Backwoods Orienteering Club. Value
of connected park and recreation areas. Deny permit under Criteria #4 -- direct and
substantial impact to public health & safety. Public property will be destroyed. Must
deny permit.
(77) Mike Porvaznik — OPPOSED; call for agency to deny permit under Criteria #4 --
hazard to public health and Criteria #5 -- adverse impact on park or recreation areas.
New air pollution from truck traffic would impact users of the East Coast greenway
system. Trails are not identified on the mining plan maps which is part of the mining
application.
(78) Joy Toro — OPPOSED; calls for denial of the permit on Criteria #4 and Criteria #5.
Grew up a few miles from Umstead Park. Crystalline silica dust particles gets into the

lungs. California Office of Environmental Health has shown that these particles have a
greater impact on children than adults.
(79) Samuel Bratton — APPROVE; applicant speaker. CEO of Wake Stone
Corporation. Due the time limit of two minutes, he will only address 2 of the 7 denial
criteria. #4 quarry will not constitute a physical hazard to public health and safety to
neighboring dwellings. At proposed quarry site two residences within 1,500 feet. The
company also operates Knightdale quarry where residences are closer but are
protected by a 40-foot berm. #5 quarry will not have an adverse impact on the purpose
of park, forest, or recreation area. Has a 1999 letter from Dr. Spooner which says that
there never been a complaint against Wake Stone quarry.

Speakers — Hearing Part #2 — July 7, 2020
(1) Dianne Mayer: OPPOSED; concern is regarding the environment and best use for
green -space.
(2) Patrick Camblin: OPPOSED; concern is regarding best use for green -space.
(3) Kay Reibold: OPPOSED; concern is adverse effect on Umstead State Park (cites
G.S. 74515).
(4) Harvey Schmitt: FOR; cites our region's expected population growth and the
responsible management of Wake Stone.
(5) Paul Scrutton: OPPOSED; (cites G.S. 5471 — concerning groundwater quality).
(6) Fred Hain: OPPOSED; concerned that the environmental and recreational benefits
of the green -space out -weighs the economic benefits. Further, cites benefits of green -
space to combating human -induced climate change.
(7) Kristin Stone: OPPOSED; cites negative effect on wildlife and the discontinuity for
wildlife corridor.
(8) Karen Clark: OPPOSED; cites concern for the environment.
(9) Darren Jackson: FOR; cites Wake Stone as a good steward and community
benefactor.
(10) Lindsay Parlberg: OPPOSED; cites subsection 3 and 4. Cites concern that
proposed site is too close to the Jonesboro fault and the potential effects to the Sharon
Harris energy plant.
(11) Bob Schmitz: OPPOSED; concerned that the deal isn't a lease but effectively a
sell. Further, cites quality of life damage to the area and environmental impact. The
proposed berm is not enough of a buffer is also a concern.
(12) Bryan Mohorn: OPPOSED; concerned that proposed tract is not an extension of
the old tract but a new tract altogether. He cites potential negative impact to the Cary
wastewater treatment plant. Further, he points out the area already multiple quarries
nearby.
(13) Fabio Beltramini: OPPOSED; cites subsection 4 — negative effect on public
health. Reads from several peer -reviewed studies.
(14) Edward Barnes: OPPOSED; cites section 5 — impact on recreational areas. Reads
from a Cary town study concerning the town's greenway.

(15) Ian Rogers: OPPOSED; concerned about the area's quality of life effect. Further,
the wildlife impact is a concern.
(16) James Robertson (Mayor, Knightdale): FOR; cites Wake Stone's quality
management, important employer, and community benefactor.
(17) Bill Summers (Town Manager, Knightdale): FOR; cites quality management of
Wake Stone and important community benefactor — including a youth soccer complex.
(18) Hillary Buuck: OPPOSED; cites G.S. 7451 D, subsection 2 — unduly adverse
effects on wildlife. Further, concerned for the continuity of the wildlife corridor. Goes on
to state that the wildlife corridor (the east coast greenway), otherwise uninterrupted.
(19) Noral Stewart: OPPOSED; is a consultant stating that, as currently proposed, the
proposed expansion will negatively affect noise pollution and air quality.
(20) Thomas Ragsdale: FOR; states that although he's used adjacent green -space for
years, he's only recently learned that the quarry is there. He credits Wake Stone's
quality management.
(21) David Cox (City Council Member, Raleigh): OPPOSED; states that the Raleigh
city council unanimously agreed that the airport authority should have sought Raleigh's
permission before entering the quarry lease. Cites that the legal question is still
undecided in the courts. He is concerned that buffer zones are not enough to secure the
wildlife concerns.
(22) Bett Padgett: OPPOSED; cites the negative impact on Umstead State Park.
(23) Laura Wood: OPPOSED; cites subsections 2 and 4, specifically the negative
impact on Crabtree Creek. Says the extension will not respect the needed buffers.
(24) Michael Nordin: OPPOSED; states that the blast has a negative impact from the
blasting operation, although he lives nearly a mile from the current operation. Further,
states that the east coast greenway corridor would be interrupted.
(25) Allen Glazner: FOR; states that he only recently learned that Wake Stone was
there although he's lived in the area for many years. Further, he cites Wake Stone's
good stewardship. Also points out that if the material doesn't come from the current
quarry, it will need to come from somewhere else.
(26) Chad Chandler: OPPOSED; does not understand why land under consideration is
part of the airport property to begin with — location of proposed quarry could never have
been used for airport operations. Says that RDU Airport Authority should sell the
property to Umstead State Park. Further, states his concern for the Crabtree corridor
continuity.

(27) Mark Springfield: OPPOSED; cites subsection 5 and, specifically, the quality of
life aspect from Umstead State Park. Further, states that the buffer between the current
quarry and the park is necessary.
(28) Leah Ranny: OPPOSED; cites the negative air quality impact from the crushed
stone operation. Further citing multiple peer -reviewed public health studies.
(29) Matt Pilz: FOR; cites no adverse impact on the neighbors and Umstead State
Park, specifically advances in sound vibration technology.
(30) Helen Tart: OPPOSED; cites the "sunset" clause, that there no feasible changes to
the proposal that makes a reasonable difference.
(31) Joe Nawrocki: FOR; addresses the negative impact claim of blasting on the
nearby Umstead State Park. Cites a study conducted by blasting consulting company
that the impact will be well within the parameters. Also, states the good stewardship of
Wake Stone.
(32) Walter Zee: OPPOSED; states that there are other, more suitable, locations to
mine. Underscores the proposed location's proximity to a state park. Questions Wake
Stone's "good neighbor" status when they tried to enter into an agreement in secret.
(33) Louisa Carpenter -Winch: OPPOSED; states the value of public green spaces in
the community. Is concerned for the environmental impact from the quarry.
(34) David Bertram: OPPOSED; believes that the buffer between the proposed quarry
and Crabtree Creek is not enough. Further, he cites the quality of life value that nearby
green -space provides which will be negatively impacted.
(35) Michael Kirlauski: OPPOSED; cites the quality of life provided by the Crabtree
Creek and Umstead State Park green -spaces and the negative impact the expansion
will create.
(36) Henry Copeland: OPPOSED; cites likely adverse impact on Umstead State Park
from a new nearby mine.
(37) Michael Jarzomski: OPPOSED; cites the quality of life provided by the Crabtree
Creek greenway and Umstead State Park. Further, states that there will be an adverse
impact on wildlife.
(38) Michael Taylor: OPPOSED; cites the negative air quality impact from an increased
mining operation.
(39) Aric Beals: OPPOSED; cites the negative impact on the quality of life for
neighbors in close proximity to the operation. Claims that Wake Stone broke a promise
regarding the "sunset" clause.

(40) Bryan Brice: FOR; states the good management from Wake Stone and the
needed product that is provided. Wake Stone, he claims, is a consistent valuable
benefactor to the community.
(41) Lorraine King: OPPOSED; cites adverse impact on Umstead State Park and
quality of life benefits from the nearby green -space.
(42) Jonathon Kramer: OPPOSED; cites the negative air quality impact from the
proposed quarry, especially on the elderly.
(43) Maria Cervania: OPPOSED; cites that the buffer isn't large enough, the potential
of landslides from a mining blast, and the negative impact on wastewater storage.
(44) Blake Burgher: OPPOSED; cites quality of life balance between industry and
green -space. Further, he claims that there is a threat to the Mission Statement of the
state parks that can't be fulfilled if the quarry is expanded.
(45) Sarah Beals: OPPOSED; cites quality of life offered by the green -space from
Umstead State Park. Says that the Statements reclamation plan is inadequate to
address the acid mine drainage impact.
(46) Thomas Oxholm (Vice -President, Wake Stone): FOR; cites the valuable
commodity that the quarry provides. States that there's never been a complaint from
Umstead State Park, says that the environmental impact will be negligible (citing impact
studies), and there's never been a negative environmental impact complaint.
(47) Janice Sears: OPPOSED; cites subsection 5 - stating the quality of life impact.
Further, there are documented negative environmental impacts.
(48) Matt Cohen: OPPOSED; cites section 4 — says an impact statement was not
performed for this project. Claims that it's unlawful for project to continue without an
impact statement.
(49) Andrew Beals: OPPOSED; cites the quality of life that Umstead State Park and
Crabtree Creek access currently provides.
(50) Tommy Frank: OPPOSED; is concerned that there are 3 schools within a couple
miles of the proposed tract. He's concerned with both the quality of life impact and the
air and water quality impact.
(51) Sue Johnson: OPPOSED; concern is water and wildlife quality, as well as quality
of life. Believes it's a questionable use of such a small tract of land considering the
location.

(52) Laura McGuinn: OPPOSED; claims that the current water quality has already
been negatively impacted. Also, states that the air quality has been adversely impacted.
Claims there needs to be a new storm -water permit.
(53) William Brown: OPPOSED; states the value of the quality of life that Umstead
State Park offers which will be negatively impacted by the quarry expansion.
(54) Bob May: OPPOSED; cites the quality of life that the Umstead State Park public
land negative impact that a new mining operation will cause.
(55) Kristin Bulpitt: OPPOSED; cites G.S. 7451 D. Is concerned for the damage to the
quality of life for the area. Further, states the impact to the air, water, and noise
(environmental) to the tract land.
(56) Charles McClelland: OPPOSED; concerned for the quality of life for the area
residents. Shared data that he collected concerning the large number of visitors that
Umstead State Park receives.
(57) Jane Ferdon: OPPOSED; states access to quality natural spaces that the area
needs to preserve. Further, the water, air, and other wildlife habitats will be negatively
impacted.
(58) Ben Ferdon: OPPOSED; cites article 4. Says the air quality permit issued a few
years ago may not have considered the population growth since the permit was issued.
Cites the silica impact on air quality as a severe negative.
(59) Wiley Nickel (State Senator): OPPOSED; cites the potential environmental
damage (wetlands) and public health concerns, and negative impact on local small
business economics which depend on good quality of life to draw employees to area.
(60) Patrick Trombetta: OPPOSED; cites G.S. 7451 D. Further states that a new air
permit should be written for the current mining operations.
(61) Mary Brice: OPPOSED; claims that the permitting is confusing, that there should
be 2 separate permits rather than only 1. Says current buffers should be respected if not
expanded.
(62) Valerie MacNabb: OPPOSED; concerned about the buffer, believes it's not large
enough. Further concerned about the air and water quality.
(63) Philip Currie: FOR; cites the positive economic value provided by Wake Stone.
(64) Peter Hallen: OPPOSED; cite G.S 7451. Claims that the quality of life will be
negatively impacted. Believes that opening the new tract will open up the potential of
massive deforestation.

A recording of the above comments can be found at the following links:
June 2311, 2020
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/DEMLR/
wake-stone/WAKE-STONE-PUBLIC-HEARING-20200623-2150-1.mp4
July 71", 2020
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Energy%20Mineral%20and%20Land%20Resources/DEMLR/
wake-stone/Wake-Stone-Public-Hearing-pt.2-20200707-1257-1.mp4

Appendix D: Written Comments

Written comments can be found at the following link:
https://edocs. deq.nc. gov/EnergyMineralLandResourcesBrowse. aspx?id=3 49 &dbid=0&repo=En
ergyMineralLandResources