Merged Inspection Reports

North Carolina Department of Envir!onment and Natural Resources,
Division of Ene�•7y, Mineral, and Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
PERMITTED rvIINE SH'E
El UNPERMITIvi INE sI r�
I. MINE NAME: Triangle Q.9-tar..2. MINE LOCATION: Harrison Avenue
3. COUNTY0
0 Wake 4. RIVER BASIN: -Neuse
5® CASE: 6.OPERATOR:
Wake Stone (7omorntion ATTN: L.. Cole At
7. ADDRESS.- P.Q.11,
0Box 190 &1110 1td
9 .., ale, Nortli Caroling 27545
8.- MINING PERMIT #: 92-10 1 1 N/A 9. PERMIT EX'LPIRATION DATE: N/A
10. PERSON(S) CONTAC�TED AT SITE: Cole Atkins
11. PICTURES' Z Yes M No TA K*EN BY0-
12. TYPE OF INSPECTION:
El A. Initial Inspection (Unpermitted Mine Sites)
1. Size of affected land:
2. How was this area measured? ac. (attach sketch map)
B. Routine inspect* Measured by:
L] C. F ion (Permitted Mine Sites)
40110w_up Ins
13. Date of last inspection: 0 7/16/? 0 17
14. Any mining since that date? ® WS Q No
If Yes, cite evidence of such mining activity:
vas in onerntinn at dine of 111spection.
15. Was mine operating at time of inspection?
Yes ❑ No if yes, expla*n*
I
16. 1 -
Is the Mine in compliance with the Operatinty Conditi f tile
NO F-1 N/A If no, explain,: ___ See above. ft Conditions o permh
17. Is
tile mine in cOmPliallcc With the Reclanuation Conditions of th
If no, expla*
n:
I ❑! ��� /
18. Is there a -------
HY off -site damage®' A. B. 0 NoC.Yes
If A, describe •tile qpeand severity off The d,,@aiaft(ye:
If B or C, is there potential for offsite damag.,&'.'� M—V—eS
19. Corrective measures needed and/or take�11411
20. Other recommendations and commelits:
Turbidity curtain in Pond noted.
11
None observed
0 Explain:
lZee w V see(��
__e(l area betweell )Iwit rand offi
zqq" . Ree gic wcl.
Z1. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/- map accurate?
Z2. Follow-up inspect* n neec� ---
inspect* ed" 11,;Ycs [�Q No
23. No. of additional paves of ln.Q��Pec P
Repofr�.___ 24. 1
INSPECTED BYS DATI
Telephone No: IQ' ` -791-4200
Yes Not Rcvjewe�l 0 N/A
Proposed (late
-opy of Report sent to operator —10/31/26-19
10/3 0/2019
copy to file
col)yto we"ttoCopy to Minfilg spechlHs�

observations burins site visit tol Wake Stone Tri
Date: 04-05-2019
ON SITE: 11.-15 AM (approx.)
OFF SITE: 1:00 pM (approx.)
Weather: 58 degrees -At steady moderate rainfall
Summary: Met with David Lee who is the Environmental
building. We briefly reviewed the plan set for the mine s,
A=f
Manager for Wake Stone at the mine office
e and discussed how the mined stone is
The inspection was limited to the areas of the mine site With the potential to i , mpact water quafty �n the
locations referenced in the complaint from Mr. Morris. This included the stone processing area and
process water settling ponds the process water reservoir, the bypass channel, env! the north Pond. The
bypass channel runs from a culvert under 1-40 roughly southwest to northeast through the rn�Me of the
permitted area around the process water reservoir to the North Pond. The Non, h Pond �s the pond
downstream of the process water reservoir. VVe then waHifed the recehiing channel down-strearin of the
North Pond to its confluence w4th Crabtree Creek. Afleged accumu�ation of flnes frorn Me m�ne,s stroG��e,-,
Processing plant in this channel was the subject of the c0M0a'nt (vM
ouTube). ch incUed the video posteool,) an
Y
Regarding the processing plant area® the water used In wcash�ng the stone is confined a c�osed-
g g
loop system. The runoff produced at the buash screen drains into the Process water SeWing ponds
which subsequently drain t® the process water re-servogor. Most Of the fines carrDotd by the runoff seWe
out into the settling ponds. Any that don't are canded to the reservoir. The v,,�ater on the reservoir is t�jeoj
reused to %;vash the stone® The reservoir has an ernerggency sPfflway, but Mm.v. �-ee repo, r�s tha�r, it rNa<; not been activated since Hurricane Fran in 1996. Because of the s cDosed400p approach, none of the proncess
water ever has an opportunity to leave the s�'te-
There are some places where sedimentdaden runoff from the M�ne hauO roads and ether open areas
may enter the bypass channel. The day of the insPection, there vuas a st�ady dow, npou o n d d d
not observe an excessive amount of sediment enterin, r f rai an
channel flows around the process water rese g this channel As � stated before, the bypass
evidence of previous rVoff and do'schavges to the North Pond,, There �A/,�as
ious years of deposit,on of mater[,a0 'n the form) of a sand bar on the hea dd ��7a ters of the
North Pond. Using the age of the woody vegetataon growong on th°s scand bar as a ga as
i��
Pars. This �ndicv�zes I hd2t the Noah Pond
probably been accumulating very slowly over the last 30+ y(
been very effectivelhas
y trapping/setVing particles in the runoff from tie rnQne site and Npstream of the
mine} for many years. To my kno�AfAedge, Wake Stone has reported no Parameter exceedances as a
result of periodic water sampling and testong under their NPDES permit,, A review of st(ormwater records
would be needed to confirm this.
In summary,, I found no vWat�ons eother of the mWngg permit or NPDES SW permK on the day of Mb V
lshaWe from visual quality of the water flowing Pand was voM,-,,flh
visit. I further observed that the visual quality in the stream flowing ftom the Nonnh r indistingu
confluehce of these two channeK g �n Crabtree Creek just upstream of the, -
Respectfully submitted by: Bffl Denton

North Carolina Department of Entmronment and Natural Resoun-ces,
DR'visloon of Energy, Mneral, and Land Re— SO Land uaf' l
MINE IIVSPECTdON REPORT
PERMITTED MINE SITE UHP1E0-JVHU7ED M9NE SITE
1. MINE NAME: Trial lc carry 2. MINE I,OCATION- Harrison Ayenuk-L C"NC
-Q ��a
3. COUNTY: Wake 4. RIVERBASiNo- NeUSC
6. OPERATOR: Wake Stone Co oration Arm Co�e Atkilis-Geo
7. ADDRESS: P.O. Box- 190 KniWltddaale North Carolina 27545
S. MINING PERMIT 92-10
N/A 9. PERMR7ZXJP�RAT10N DATEQ- March 30., 202
10. PERSON(S) CONTACTEID AV MTE- David Lee Cole Atkins
� [�J �d
0
11. PICTURES? R Yes No TAKEN BYQ-
12. TYPE OF INSPECTION:
El A. Initial Inspection (Unpermfl'ftedR-/�'ne
1. Size of affected aad- Eel, QdzMnch sketch map)
2. How was this area Measured?
B. Routine Inspection (Per itted Mine Sfl'�es) Measuired by,
C. Follow-up Inspection
13. Date of last inspection-
14. Any mining since that date? Yes No
RT 'te evidence of such mining Foninnient was operafing at Unie off` hill action. ning activity:
15. Was mine operating- at time of
Rnspecflon?
Yes No ff Yes, explain- As statcd
equipment was operatingnt time of insshove
16. Is the mine in compliance wfth tea 0PURT&O Condijr''
ons
No [I N/A If no, explain: fthe 1pea-mft.' Z Yes
17. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of Ci he Permih�"
0 D . 0, "i d e 0 0 If no, explain. IN a N/A
18. Is there any off -site damage? A.
b, 11 Yes B. No C. None obser—ved,
If A, describe the type and severity of the damage:
If B or C, is there potential for offilite damage 09 Li Yes Z No Explain®
19® Corrective measures needed and/or taken: No
20-10- Other recommendations and comments,- Site is
grood. Thanksfor.your cooperation- III WWII food cop-,Alfion. Vegetated berms look
21. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/- mn nec njrzte,,�
P L 0 Ves, D No (Explain) Z Not RevR'ewed 71 � HIP,
22. Follow-up Inspection needed? LJ Yes No
23. No. of additional Prope- se(o d0e
pages of Inspection Report 24. Copy cT Rapoirt sent to operator,
--7 --------
INSPECTED BY, Joe Dunree DA]FE
Telephone No: July 6 1017
919-791-4208
Copy to file Copy to Operator Corj)y M M�nlng Specj,,,flIlsj

Morth Carolina Department of Env'
ironment and Natural Resources,
Div* ' f% IN"
ision or hnergy, Minerai, and Land ResouircesLand
, Qual" Section
ity
MINE INSPECTION RT
XEI PERMITTED MINE SITE ��������TT��HINE SITE
L MINE NAME:
Triangle Quarry____ 2. MINE LOCATION: 222 Star Ln CgM
3. COUNTY: Wake 4, RIVERBASIN: Neuse S. CASE:
6. OPERATOR: Wake
7, ADDRESS: StokcOrp.
PO Box 190 Knightdale NC 27545
8. MINING PERMIT#: 92-10
—[] N/A 9. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATEQ
10- PERSON(S) CONTACTED AT SITE: -03/30/2021 :Ell j7\yjj,,,
Il. PICTURES? x[I Yes
M No TAKEN BY:
12. TYPE OF INSPECTION:
E] A. Initial Inspection (Unpermitted Mine Sites)
I. Size of affected land: - ac. (attach sketch map)
2. How was this area measured •? Measured by:
Xn B. Routine Inspection (Permitted Mine Sites)
[� C. Follow-up Inspection
13. Date of last inspection: 06/03/2015
14. Any mining since that date? X ❑Yes yes, cite evi•
dence of such mining activity- IM�j' ongoip& ---LVA —MQ9
15. Was mine operating at time of inspection? X11 Yes ❑ No If yes, explain,*
ins echo Mining at 6mg of
16. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit?
If no, explain: XE3 Y el❑No [] N/A
17. Is the mine in compliance with the
Reclamation •Conditions of the Permit? X Yes❑ �NO�O�RA
If no, explain:
18. Is there any off -site damage? A. Lj Yes B.X❑ Na Co ❑ None observed
If A, describe the type and severity of the damage:
If B or C, is there te
o-
pntial for offsite damage? ❑ Yes X
�E�IN�o �Ex�plain:
19. Corrective measures needed and/or taken:
20. Other recommendations
and comments: As discussed Burin.
access road along the W&Rt -ezide of t Ly the insDection walk throw gh. vegetating the
he pro -1 & TST-2 would be beneficial
piect near TST
------------
21. Is the Annual Reclamation R N/A epoirt +/. map accurate? XE] Yes [IlainNo (Exp) Not Reviewed
22. Follow-up
inspection needed? ❑LJ Yes X[j No Proposed date
23. No. of additional ❑pages of inspection Report 0 24. Copy of Report sent to operator
INSPECTED BY: -- Thad Galen
tine.Je Multi Media Group)
Telephone No: DATE 06/08/2015
(919) 79 1 -4200
COPY to file
Copy to operator COW to h4inlng Speci, 1'
a Rst

North Carolina Department of Environment and N'm2nirRR RemiuTlyce�,
Division of Land Resources, Land Qualn't geo�R'Oiln
MINE INSPECTION REF 79777��
]ERIIMIT'ITE D MINE)
I. MINE NAA4E _7;Z_;-o a de- (I Va jjA 2. MINING PERMIT
3-OPERATOR Ng kt 3-tvs,, e 6.0 4. COUNTY wj(z
5. ADDRESS P 0 130A /9 C Sr 19�dc IC
J:�:Al V q-57
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE eq /Z_o_ lZ-c i 1 7. RIVER BASIN M W sx...
8. Person(s) contacted at site A J T% ie 4% coe,
9. Was mine operating at time of inspection? Yes ® No 10. Pictures) 0 Yes No
11. Date last inspected: 0 7 l 6 .3 Po 1- 12. Any mining since last inspection? PS Yes 0 No
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? [;KYes ® No
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? Yes 0 No
If no, explain:
15. Did any of the above deficiencies reIt in offsite damage 0 Yes 11 No If yes, describe the.
type and severity of the damage: ;V/4
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken: Alu—'Uot .
17. Other recommendations and comments:
18. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +Onap accurate.? 0, yes 0 No (Explain) ®Not reviewed
19. Follow-up inspection needed? ®- Yes PK No Proposed date
20. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report 2 1. Copy of Report sent to operatorlio 2-9-1 0,V
(date)
INSPECTED BY: �v
DATE
Telephone No: 7, T S— 7 1 70V
White copy to file Yellow copy to operator Pink copy ic mfnj�g Specialig
101097

North Carolina Department of Environment and* Natural Resources,
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION RiF.PnRT
I - A41NE NAME **4�1 (PERMITTED MINE)
- _ 7"r-L _t O%o� v 2. mrmNG PERMIT # Z-3
3. OPERATOR --A,) /ce- 4. COUNTY tJ&kr._
90'k- AIC __ZZs-tL -
6. PERNUT EXPIRATION DATE
0 4 A0 ti 7. RIVER BASIN_Ahjrejfz X03 _6q-0z'
8. Person(s) contacted at site #4411ke- PV t /ha
9. Was mine operating at time of inspection7 0 Yes 0 No 10. Pictures? 0 Yes O-No
11. Date last inspected: 0 7 / Z S' / 0 ( 12. Any mining since �ast inspection? X Yes 0 No
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? ;&Yes ED N o
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? A5�es 0 No
If no, explain:
15. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage.? 0 Yams Uffm N,, the
o If yes, deSCIEI
type and severity of the damage: "P
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken:
17. Other recommendations and comments: pwt�; k
18. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +19nap accurate? ;XYes El No (Explain) El Not Revi6wed-
19. Follow-up inspection needed? 1:1 Yes 2T,- No Proposed date
20.. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report 1 21. Copy of Report sent to operator-07/Z-7 / 07-
INSPECTED BY.- w (date)
Z-F!7 DATE 4 7 / 4-31 OZ
Telephone No .- IL Le S_ 7 /-- "'Y 7v-a zt
White copy to fue Yellow co
10/97

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
(PERvUTTED MINE)
I. MINE NAME JTIM�-j& - �' �--2. MINING PERMIT #
3. OPERATOR-.IJAr-F 57DA/LL__C_0eP .......
4. COUNTY
1AJAk
5. ADDRESS to _00K felo
6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE
ZO, 2-o 1 7. RIVER BASIN -,0
8. Person(s) contacted at site 4/1 r'' e,
9. Was mine operating at time of in action? Yes ®
No 10. Pictures? El Yes XNer
11. Date last inspected: Dq V4 J= 12. Any mining since last inspection? ,-Yes C1 No
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? Yes C3 No
If no, explain:
14. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of th-_ -it?
If no, explain: e Perm Yes n No
15. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsi-
te damage.? ❑11 Yes
2r-No If
type and severity of the damage: yes, describe the
16. Corrective measures needed and/or taken:
•
17. Other recommendations and comments:
18. Is the 'Annual Reclamation Report +&ap accurate? Yes 0 No (Explain) 0 Not Reviewed
19. Follow-up inspection needed? 11 Yes Or< 0 Proposed date-
20. No. of additional pages ®' Inspection Report 2 1. Copy of Report sent to operator&? 0 2- 0
INSPECTED BY- (date)
DATE 0 -7
Telephone No: ( 9M 1-5-71 44 LO-0
White copy to file
Yellow copy to operator Pink copy jo ecia,,
ggsd 1019 7

DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
March 25, 1996
ME-MMMMUM
TO: File, Triangle Quarry (92-10)
FROM: John Holley, Regional Engi
ne ni
SUBJECT: Site Visit
March 22, 1996
As a follow-up to an inquiry from the Crabtree Creek Streamwatch,
I visited the si te with David Lee of Wake Stone to see f an
perimeter problems were evident with sediment basins or traps® we
found all structures to be in good conditionP and no signs of
recent soil I loss were observed. The previously repaired slope
along the creek was in excellent condition O
It appears that the inquiry came as a result oz m
observation of an old pond on* the property below the active MUDO's
site and near the park. This pond is exempt from the Dam
Law of 1967, and was breached bef'ore any mining was init-10�at&D-a2i, mt
the site. I remember seeing the pond during initial
site when we were evaluating the original plans vI� s i t s
for the site
IT h a
breach is at the right abutment of the dam, and is down to f
material at its base Although the old PS
pipes are exposed dua, to
past erosion, the breach 'is relatively stable with leaf litj'exr,
pine straw and other native cover, as well as exposed weathered asn'd
competent rock at the downstream end. This area serves as a
spillway for the remnant of the pond, and •I did not notice any
significant changes in it sionce I last saw lot some 10 years ago®
Beavers have built a small dam across the upstream end of the
opening, but no problems were observed* Wake Stone chose long ago
to leave this dam undisturbed within their buffer along the park
because repairing it would involve a significant land-disturbiong
activity in that vicinity.
I notified the Streamwatch coordinator that no problems were found
and that no follow-up action is required.
JLH

North Carogna Department of Environment; Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
(PERMTMD MINE)
1. MINE NAME i f.;fi----'�:-.f'- �' a 2. MINING PERMIT#'�
3. OPERATOR 4. COUNTYJj&'
5. ADDRESS i ' .tkawrkytr- -2. !jR 5- 6. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE - - - 46b !
7. Person(s) contacted at site f
8. Was mine operating at time of inspection? Ixyes ❑ No 9. Pictures? ❑ Yes 191 No
10. Date last inspected: 4 ll 11. Any mining since last inspection? ❑ No
12. Is the mine in compl ance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? ICeyes
M Yes ® No
If no, explain:
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? Xyes ❑ No
If no, explain:
14. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage? ❑ Yes gNo If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage:
15. Corrective measures needed and/or taken:
1. Other recommendations and commen_t�sfj
- mp-e-- S
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Report +/- map accurate? es El No (Explain) 0 Not Reviewed
• • •inspection E]Yes dNo Proposed • w
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection Repon 20. Copy of Report sent o operator
r
� USPECTED c' p
Phone•;
White to file Tefibw copy 0 aper Bar Pink copy to Mining Specialist
9/91

W
1
North Ca'ro0h1d-''l)ePartrnen_t of
Division of Land
Health, aW Natural Resources,
Resources, Land Qualky Section
Z
(PERMrrTED NNE)
1. MINE NAM .2. MINING PERMIT#
"
3. OPERATOR _W;obW-0_
5. ADDRESS 4. COUNTY Ulh r
4-
J#'75-z/:F-6- PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE
L.X�c lern ,-
7. Person(s) contacted at site 25,4vi/1
8. Was mine operating at time of inspection? /2 Yes ONo 9. Pictures? ® (IWO
10. Date last inspectede '
.-Lim? jj=-7�- 11. Any mining since last inspection.? Yes ❑No
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit? Yes No
If no, explain:
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit? OYes C1 No
If no, explain.,
14. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsKe damage y �s EF] No K yes., describe ft '[�ypq
and severity of the damageo Q f
15. Corrective measures needed and/or �aksn: A
16. Other recornmendations and ccmmedms,,'U_�
JZk_4
ZZIW04J,L/�l_�-• v 4 �z- Llu�
17. Is the Annual Reclamation Repo +/- map accurate?
c NFxp�nMrj) 0 Not Reviewed
9
18. Follow-up inspection needed? El Yes jT, Vs N o PToposed dalhs,_
19. No. of additional pages of Inspection Repon_. 20. Copy oar Rnepporti, sca,rjn%,,, �0 0D8rn­11ijDr I
INSPECTED BY: 'I .. ......... ...
DATE
Phone No:(
White copy to file Yet copy to operaeor JP -Ink con�y kn) Y'V21niong spneaj'a§!S�

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
Mm I N E I N S P E Ca"O"T 10 N n"E P 00 R T
(PERMITTED MINE)
1. MINE NAME /2 2. MINING PERMIT# 95�Z -Z)
3. OPERATOR ellp 4. COUNTY- uhtl<4��
5. ADDRESS 190 ZL& Z
. I �,, 1 4 �r� A-1—C 2 Jnof-d Sge=&z
6. Person (s) contacted at site If
7. Was mine operating at time of inspection ? 10 Yes F"I No 8. Pictures ? Yes ZI No
9. Date last inspected: 1-3401 4e C 10. Any miZf
i ing since last inspectio ru ? Yes No
- 0 19
11. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit ? r'71 Yes No
If no, explain: 161
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit ? Yes o
If no, explain:
i,
13. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage ? Yes No If yes, describe the Vpe
and severity of the damage:
14. Corrective measures ABeGled anet /or taken: g4g,4g- wdgff
ti
15. Other recommendations and comments:
4!!!g,�.WA -W� ;r
zerav cce�-
16. Is the Annual Reclamation Report + map accurate ? Yes E] No (Explain) Not Reviewed
17. Follow-up inspection needed ? Yes� � No proposed dallei,
18. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report 19. Copy o'd Repo a �o o
INSPECTED BY: 6
-71ow , DATE .-
Phone No: �4-P/9) -4-71
White copy to rile Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mining Specialist
Iyag

0
j North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
(PERMITTED MINE)
1. MINE NAME
2. MINING PERNitT #
CC2 —10
E
3. OPERATOR fz- t -
4. COUNTY i^.J
i
5. ADDRESS , Q tX I q 0
'�� �- -Z.
.
6. Person (s) contacted at site
f3�'
7. Was mine operating at time of inspection ? ❑ Yes No 8. Pictures ?
9. Date last inspected: j� 1*7,4 /t1M.- 10. Any mining since last inspection ?
p aYes
Y
[] es No
1:1 No
1
11. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit ?
gy6s
No
1`��' ram''"
l'�: �
J �����.il•/
o
1
f
12. Is the mine in i compliance with the Reclamation Condit
ions tons of the Permit . Yes [] No
If no, explain:
1
i
13. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage ? Yes No If es describe the t
and severity of the damage:
� � yes, me
14. Corrective measures needed and 1 or taken:
.mot (45 {
15. Other recommendations and comments.- a T? JJG --- ��
16. is the Annual Reclamation Report ccrj°? Yes No (Explain) �] t p ) Not Reviewed
17. Follow-up inspection needed ? Ef Yes No Proposed date ?-,7/
18. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report CI vj
4 19. Copy of Report, tooperator i ?2-:--
INSPECTED BY: QT date
r _ � ,ATE U- /
Phone No: } S-7 1
White copy to rile Yellow copy to operator k* c vpy Q s echur''s-g
arus

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Land Resources, Land duality Section
MINE INSPECTION REPORT
ewcAM (PERMITTED MINE)
I. MINE NAME 6L.e- 2. MINING PERMIT#
3.OPERATOR ti•t 4. COUNTY
5. ADDRESS o q o t (� /�-t.� C- Z
8. Person (s) contacted at site W4- 24hfi Ll,�'
7. Was mine operating at time of inspection ? FXYes ❑ Nd 8. Pictures ?
Whk
9. Date last inspected: 22/ 9"a 10. Any mining since last inspection ? JBYes
11. Is the mine If no, - explain:,O,in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit ? � Yes
12. Is the mine in cornpliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit ? Yes No
P
If no, explain:
i u. uicj any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage ? Xes No If yes, describe the type
and severity of the damage: II �
15P &16700-
14. Corrective me
l0 1 ^n
a
eeded--aAd 1 or taken:
a
15. oth r recommendations and co ments:
09 e ___ YOU
r F.XAkAl) LY�11157 oc>
12sul 0 V -AA" &K C E-d It
16. Is the Annual Reclamation Report + 1 map accurate ? Yes No Ex lain
i R ) .Not Reviewed
17. Follow-upinspection needed ? Yes No Proposed date
18. No. of additional pages of Inspection Report C' 19. Copy of Report sent to operator„-Z /�/
INSPECTED BY.PH
{date
/ L� lS DATE: � g ^/�
Phone No: (i 9) S77 �0 0
White copy ro rile Yellow copy to operator Pink copy to Mining Specialist
ere

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
NE INSPECTION REPORT
(PERMITTED MINE)
I-MINENAME (NCLt' 2
MINING PERMIT #
3. OPERATOR W_ A Ic _F_ S r6 E7 (71, 4. COUNTY
5. ADDRESS P 8dy. (qo A
6. Person (s) contacted at site A 1)
7. Was mine operating at time of Von ? fes No 81 Pjc�ujrcsS
mysecc I
D 1 1 � yes
F­_ L IrD ___1 m
9. Date last inspected: PK
10. Any mining since last inspection ? 01,
1 Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the Permit ?
If no, explain.- e s on
12. Is the mine in comp
If no, explain Hance with the Reclamation Conditions of the Permit ? gjOle-s❑ No
13. Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite damage ? E3Y e s
and severity of the damage If yes, describe the type
e-_7orrec,Ha - wss,, measures needed and / or taken.-
-
E_4�E_aa
15. Other recommendations and comments:
16. Is the Annual Reclamation Report - + map accurate? Fv"es. No (Explain) j"'� Not Reviewed
17. Follow-up inspection needed ? Yes
QKo Proposed date
181. No. o�j add�flflo ml pages o� �nspeciN`bn Repmr
19. Copy (a_-4 Repon sem, io operat�or la)/
rl"Pl Lc (date
I N S P E C T E D B Y. t
DATE.'
Phone No:
White copy to file
Yellow copy to operator
Pink copy L,?o Min' Specialist
m),g
REV. 9M8

North Carolina
[impartment of Natural Resources andmmm"�
Community Development
L Division of Land Resources, Land
_uality Section
`21"E INSPECTION REPORT
M
�PFRMWTTED MIK
I. MINE NAME
-,7
3.OPERATOR 2. M IN N G P E R M T
5-ADDRESS ---------- G 0 U N T Y
A q .......
6. Person (s) contacted at site 7. Was mine operating at time of inspection ?
1 TK,-j e s .0 83. P�cfu-ras ?
F�
9. Date last inspected: Yes g:No
10. Any ming-ng since �ast inspection ? 7
/'-y-aS
1 �s the mine in compliance with the Operating Condificons- of �frje perp
If no, explain: Y as
jj
12. Is the mine in compliance with the Reclamation •Conditions of the Permit
If no, explain: ? 9,-�Kes No
13. Did any of the above -
deficiencies result in offsite d- amage ?®Yesand severity of the damage:[00 If yes, describe the type
14. Corrective measu' s
re n�seded-and#=er taken''.. �1
•LIP
to. inner recommendations and comments:_ :f:,7) 1
'f )
16. Is the Annual Reclamation Report + I p accurau«S,�' 9, - [21�(e s No (Explain) ❑Not Reviewed
17. Follow-up insDacg
On needed
-S E3 Ye rc))
18. No. of additional roages Oy �nSPC-Cflon Repo ��r S) COPy of Repo n s
G- 'flit to oit
pqratc(
INSPECTED B)�. DATE
Phone Noe
White cqpy fo jil&
Y8/10 w/ copy to cylp'raeor
eo ikin 6 'jise
Ing cia
REV. 9i'm

MINE INSPECTIONjWORT,
Land Quality Section
1® Operator: I I MvE v � = 2. I:Uia Kgir ,a _ IR G -)
'7
3. Countyo, q 7
4. Is site permitted? Yes 'mca— 3. Pe-zmit No.
BlU 2TO
6. Person(s) cant a ct ced L _x
7. Was mine operating at time of inspection.? Yes VRO 8. Pictures? Yes No
9. pays Last Inspected,, /Z?Igj�0. Any ml In ing
Gince last inspection? Yesvio
11- If Mine is not under pe-rmit cite evidence of recent mining activity,
12, Are public safety provisions in compliance with the permit? Yes io-�KG_
13. Is the mine in compliance with the Operating Conditions of the permit?
Yes 111NO If no, explain:
14, Is the Ine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions of the permitlP
Yes No ILf no, explain-,
15& Did any of t
le above deficiencies result in offsite sedimentation?
Yes No
H, yes, what measures are ner,--ded?
16. Is the Annual Reclamation Report and map accurEi_te .1 Yes If no,
explain®
17. Other recommendations and
1A.4 &J�-!�
I - 7V b
'Lu P11S H L L
18. Follow-up inspection needed.? Yes No v,Proposed date:
19. Copy of report sent to operatoro? Yes 'g-/Imo/ &-' of add'
l pagea
(date)
J.
INSPECTED BY,-.. e� �j

140
15
160
HINE INSPECTION REPORT
Land Quality Section
ftft�
Operator: WA K_C: S IDA 2. Mine Name 1A A/C 4. C_
3. County:
-LOA La 4. Is site permitted? Yes
/N0 5 Permit No.
6. Person(s) Contacted:
3/K Al
7 . Was mine operating at time of inspection ? Yes o No 8. Pictures? Yes No Le000l,
90 Date Last 1-maspected: Z-1/9/6 -27109 Any mining 'since last inspection? YestA(00,0,
not under permit cis is svidence of recent •milaing activity:
12. Are public safety prov1.sions in compliance with the permit? Yes L,--'�No
13. Is the mine in compliance with t . he Operating Conditions of the permit'.P�
Yes If no, explain: A 713ar dz�>ITC—
Is the ine in compliance with the Reclamation Conditions- of the permit?
Yes, No If no, explain-. Baxm OA-1
PAALA I'S'l '51— r
S7wV5 -1
%4
A LOPAQ_.MAU(_ RIA t> Alt
W/11
Did any of the above deficiencies result in offsite sedimentation?(Po i etj -114 L) Uvt�&.
Yes /oNo I ZIF Yes D what measures are needed?
WA
COW
0
Ba- (AAaL Al E L- TZFr
L i
Is the Annual Reclamation Report and map accurate? Yes &00'-ONOO If no,
explain, 0
­*')OAA 7
17* Other recommendations and comments: <0
C��L
M?
18. Follow-up inspection needed? Yes /No Proposed.date:
19* COPY Of Teport sent to operator? Ya s:�7a/e_7ft
No.
of add'I
pages...-.—
(date)
INSPECTED BY:1��-q A
71 AT IE

�Qrth
r1111kState of Carolina
Uepartment of Natural Resources and Community Development,
P%aleiO Regional Office
James G. Martin, Govemor S. Thomas Rhodes, Secretai)
Mr,, John Bratton
'A
Wake Stone Corporation W�Iej
Post Office Box 190 447 34>40
Knightdale, NC 27545
RE.- Sedimentation Complaint
Wake Stone Triangle Quarry
Wake County
In response to a citizen's complaint of sediment
getting 'Into Crabtree Creek from the Triangle Quarry,
inspected the site adoacent to the Creek on February
19870
I I I
I found that spo,*' material f rom a large berm is * ndeed
getting into the Creek. Some sediment has gotten through
the buffer area at the tce of the slope but the more of
*t 's v* leav1 *ng the s'te 1 pia several drainage ways,
It was noted that attempts have been made to control
the sediment by *installing silt fences and hay bales. These
measures are inadequate and 'in some cases have already
failed.
Due to this being a rather a large site and 'in a
critical location due to its proximity to Crabtree Creek, ft
is important that stepsbe immediately to correct the
I s, 'tuat' p 1 1 3.on. It a pears that the f'rst step *s to construct
sediment basins with stone and gravel filters at the
drainage outlets* The next and most important step 'is to
permanently staze the berm. This will involve grading
the slopes at an angle that will support vegetation.
3800 Wmm Dnvr, P0, 8m 27687, kaltwh NC27611.,7687 # Tek-p1me 919,733-2314

Mr. Bratton
February 4, 1987
N
If needed,, I can meet with you or a representatl*ve on
the si.te to discuss needed measures,,
Please let me know of your 'Intent ions as soon as
'blea I am at 733-23144 possl
Sincerely,
T I'm Holland
Ass , Regional Engineer
Land Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
t

I.
30
56
7*
8®
9 6,
LZ�7 ILI &Wvk qo�
Land Quality Section
Raleigh 10109ional off:)Lca
Drive
RMISigh,,) HC 17611
019) 733-2324
Company: e- St46/)C'j cjotwpa # 0
2 16 County
Mine
Permit No.
Person Contacted:
Pictures: Videotape Slides 6. Date Inspected a -Io2 -97
Other
Was mine active on date of inspection? Yes '.Ho
Erosion Control Measures taken,
q ol
100
Describe any offsite damage,
11. Are public safety prov-
isions in compliance with permit?
12. Waste Disposal measures taken.
13* Is Annual Reclamation Report form acc ___-�_^�.---,� -_
urate?
Yes F Cr
If no, explain
14s Reclamation accomplished since last inspectlov.,
Koo Uf
�r� ac
IQ Sl_
15* Recla�m*Eticn meEsuyes needed , ru
11,6e
Other recommendations & comments-,
oz;42 c ILC::
24171,
'Ylae
L
41
A01. AZ
Lise. 4
R s
14V C/
We
Were recommendatIons * ma de to operator
at site yes
No
18*
Follolw-up inspection needed? Yes
19*
Copy sent t® operator"2; Yes _ ./�--
No
"' 1AP -,S,7 (date) No
INSPECTED BY&-----`

MINE INSPECTION REPORT
Land Quality Section
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive
Ca
Raleigh, NC 17611
[phone]
1.
Company: '5`/-VWt 2. Count-v
3.
Mine.* rat,, auaerj 4. Permit No,,
/Z
5.
Person Contacted: -7-6 13,r& ems. . © Date Inspected
7.
Pictures: Videotape Slides
other
8.
Was mine active on date of inspection? Yes No
9*
Erosion Control Measures takendl
110.
Describe any offsite damage,
11 D
Are pubi:'L'c safety provisjonns in co'�aio�plian,ca with permlit?
12
Waste D I3. sposal &,/nasuires taken,
139
Is Annual Reclamation Report form accurate? Yes NO
If no, explain
14s
Reclamation accomplished since last inspection, No.
of acres
15.
Reclamation measures needed.
6.
Other re co mmendations & commentsW 0
17.
Were recommendations made to operator at site.? Yes
No
18.
I
Follow-up inspection needed? Yes No
19a
i
Copy sent t® operator? Y e s v`� q-1 -Ha (date) No
INSPECTED BY*-

May 22t 1984
MEMORANDUM
Jim SteVens
FROM: Steve Conrad 5 6C
SUBJECT: Inspection of Wake Stone Cary Quarry
Pursuant to our discussions on May 18, 1984f an inspection was made
of the Cary Quarry on May 21, 1984a AddlitIonallyp the concerns
expressed May 18, were discussed with the mine operator,,
Problems with truck traffic crossing the centerline' discussedo
Wake Stone has indicated that Landmark Associates had plans to develop
the property across Reedy Creek Road from the intersection o_,F the Wake
Stone access road, The development plans include a redesign of the
intersection which may alleviate the truck traffic crossover. Perhaps
we can discuss this redesign with Landmark and Wake stoned
Concerning the reported blasting vibrations, Wake Stone blasted at
1:30 p.m. on April 6. 1984 not at 12.*00 pom. The company's seismograph
record for the blast taken at Landmark Engineering across 1-40 showed
practically no vibration and little air blast, Wake Stone did not blast
at all on April 10, 19840, the other date reported* Please check 'to see
if 12:00 p.m. April 6 and 12-30 p.m* April 10 are the correct times-o
Another possibility for a source of blasting iis construction blasting
for a pipeline under construction on the south side of 111"-40 during this
period, Wake Stone, indicated that the park ranger should feel free to
notify- them immediately of any problem with blasting as "it is easier to
investigate the complaint then*
Wo water was found ponding on the outside of the, berm althoug ,h
max-sh grass was noted. At this pointv we don't, feel that additional
drainage warrants destroying the adjoining vegetation. Howeverr Wake
I A --
Stone was advised to monitor the situation and provide drainage If
pondling occurs* .
Additional vegetative screening was discussed and Wake Stone asked
for recommendations, We suggested that your landscaping experts should
participate in any recommendat ions* we will be happy ft arrange 'a
1 s� with Wake Stone. Construction 01,
meeting to discuss any recommendation I
the berm along 1-40 is on -schedule and is expected to 'be tinished
this fall*
Although wake Stone acknowledged that they were ahead of their
projected production schedule, they could not yet say when the primar
crusher could be relocated into the pl*t*

MRV
..........
MEMORANDUM
JIM Stevenis
Page 2
MaY 22, 1984
The int' ,Ine opera -tor does intend to operate on �jemorial Day (May
HOwever, they have 1
Saturdays rSti1
tuted a Policy of not operating at all on
exceRt for special requests. We did a.dvilse them tjat any.
1 1 a
request for a variance tC operate on times prohibite' by pervit should
be made as far in advance as possible.
Overall, the quarry was found to be 'in good order and iri compliance
ith the permit on May 21, 1984,
wl
I belleve that this addresses the concerns mentioned during the
May 1.8 meeting. We will be happy to coordinate any follow-up
discussions on Visual screening and intersection redesign,
SC/JS/Cj
cc: Paula Burger

'INSPECTF;� BY:
i 1%11.
10
INSFECTION REPORTt
amwwwwwwwomon nmmwmwmw�
Company,•
-T-b
Mine:
Date Inspected:
Date of has
.Product:
a
C
Rrso "ads
n Contct
I. Remarks — Measures Taken
Ae Eros -loon Control:
� ?—� r,� �
BB. Waste Disposal:
Ce
a
Reclamation,
F!
OEM
E,C014=DAT IONS & L
Mca
'Ira
NO 0
Golunt YO
t
irth Number,
2 Ira P J6 oil 0 DR 00
zz-
COMMENTS: Io
1+7
0rya
-4,6TZ
Delicieney need"I'adil
sent Reinspect ion Needed

May 17v 1983
Mr. John Bratton, Jr.
Wake Stone Corporation
PO 00 Box 190
K'Zrulghtftles No C* 27645
Cary rry
Wake County
Dear Mr* Bratton:
This letter will follow up our meeting and in inspection of the Cary
Quarry on May 17s 1983 in accordance with G.S. 74.*56 of the Mining Act.
During our meeting, we discussed continuing noise abatement measures,
extending the present hers to the south to provide additional screening,
filling small pools of standing water, sediment control, paving the
access road, and hauling material from the quarry on Saturday. Through
our discussion with you and inspection., we have found that the agreed
noise abatement measures have been taken and the existing lakes are still
functioning for sediment control. You indicated that the access road
will be paved in the near future and the pools will be backfilled and
revegetated, We also discussed that hauling overburden from the site
on Saturdays will be considered subject to mining permit condition number
5H. Additionally, we appreciate your consideration to extending the
berm to the south .
A report of oil contaminated water discharge frbm your operation to
Crabtree Creek vas investigated, No evidence of any oil contaminated
water discharge was found where your site drainages is Crabtree Creek,
Thank you for your cooperation in these matters.
Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BI
James D. Simms, C.P.G.S., POE*
dining Specialist
LAND QUALITY SECTION
J Moo 9 f
cc.o John Holley
- - -------- -- ---- ------

IN CTIO.BY: Lmy
INSPECTION REPORT
Company: i,J
i
Min 'e:
Dat,6 Inspected:
.ProdUct
I-3
4?
&osion Control: I S77AJ G PO -7—
Dig& JdLdke- ---- (f IM AllVe 4
� I rw
Waste DlosposaL.
NO
County0
,
ermit ja
I iu-nspssc --lion.
j�Dacbe of last t
P%
us- fhl -7-b tj��
Perso-n Contacted., P
am"' -Ono &VE
I. Remarks — Measure.-D, Taka,-)a
As
C. Reclamation.0 nl40r"47n4 41� C,
t9c / A- c
io rvlr 7-Z A/, i
RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMSO
16
&V / --
f a
k.,A
Co
4
is� 7
y
may,
r
Co R-liv le tz
6A...)A-3 Dlr C' /7A4
Ice,
o a.L.1,4p
loom
"low
P tC Lo G S
7-2)
Cc AIS 7)P--,u C7—
among--�____�__ _ _ r��
7?�sr-
0 X'-
7Z)
monemi� dz��A�L 1T7�5
T7Z,)
Ai
7
7/f A Jill A 1450
0 Al 77YLC—
Co P4--
- -so
0��-c ��
Def }eiency letter needed
Iq S /-4,e
7-
;I
1-3 C t e
7 7, 0
(6-
sent Rua iAsps ction Needed

1 All AIC Z,, j 6 4:r
/42U
A-S
-� 7L
Ao
AI'6 7/---`, 3a I V, VI<S ff
ZV 7#4e
o CAI 017Wa qr-
70D
177-4

INS CTED BY:
DIR, !SY-R3CT 111-01N RUoTORT,
coffTaw: 1,^-1A-KjL 1�-I*v N��wu
M.
3-,;e, t'//heA70
i 01=1
0
Bate Ins pe ct ed
-z-
Countp,
Fermi t -Nuum b a r
Date of last irlllspect' no
z �av
Pr et Parson Contactedo
I*' Remarks Me=-s?=as '.1"aken
A& Erosion Coiffbro]LS, -�, �Al � L�'L�
Bo Waste D isposal C 7VA-., e—
I C. Ike clamat ion: L 5- Ag 99 )V
own % , g . 4&="
wwwvi.
RECOMMENDATIONS & COMMENTS:
0
Ad — -r 4o' NO-7
C6 ^J7 Zo L,
1-
py+yLr-
-ev/
7
e7—
ISO.
13
-94LC
Xjt)
J,
0
/C 71
-/7Y7S
(fro.
Def Jx iency letter needed' LeliL.- ar- selInt n s - 2-0
pact'

IN SPECs4z"
0
NO
INSIECTION O-RT
Con)pany:
0
CountyD
WE=
Mine: C?
2
Permit Number:
Date -Inspected:
1'J`6L'te- Of inspection:
Product: C7bn�/4 s o n ContactedS
L ]Remarks — Measures Taken
® Erosion Contro.-I'L.
r
Bo Waste Disposal*
r
S a �.-
Co R8 C1 a) mat -7'Lono,
A-.s%je:) �e771MxiJ
2WA /1,
A4
REPOMMDATIONS & Cop 3* ,�
der..
�,% c >>
AO
A7
Ae7q-1
Defi j
c sec(
letter neede-d
LebteLn sent
Re-inspectlon R'aaded

INSPECTED (` irE µi
f .
I
NO
i
DRISPECTION � OPT
I _
Coo
J
COUAYCY-i
].ne Z�
a
Mi unflbt r o°
gnp�9o,�/.yy �y� ,per �q
'�ie -
Product
Dat e of' last ' io n.-
'
-'
Tlb r� t ✓
Pe-rss rd Contactlad, ,� r
I
a
• Eros� .?.
,
Be
Waste g �\
+J�
�
Aj
i ; <4, t,
RECO .BL S G,01jp,,MTS.-
f�
--
jp.) � f" �� f-
spa
t,�
,
i -7j713
m�
All
,
r t
I
Def jLu lency '
I per sent

ZNSPECTED BY*
Now
NCO
INSPECTION REPOIRT
Company,,&
0 0 a 0 WA v =JL County: AwK
M:'L'ne: 0._0f*Q'6:Y
-Permit Number: 9
Date Inspected,&
Date of last •inspection:
roduct s
Person Contacted:
jj.
• Remarks Measures Taken
A* _rosD 11, Control:
(26 kjP S
el
B9 Waste Disposal: 0 �j S rrp
C* Reclar'' t� r 5�--
mationuo
b1n "A%
ev.
F-10 I _r
1�1
t-J i SJ6 1 tQ
L__11) H-C X3
De f is 1 0
iency letter needed 6
L t a
2mspac-biorn ad

INSPECTED BY: ;"ate: `: �S j '^ �7: s
NOO
Company: County: L/----i
Mine: Permit Number:
Date Inspected. Date of last inspection:
'Person. Contactedo.
- ".'Z--
Producto 7'�
L Remarks a St ar, a s a a n
A Erosi'Lon- Conkrol IS 77p--,C r6 "Os
P
Be Wasts D-101-S G*g4,,j
Ca Reela mat 1-on
klft 7-
Ab,
4-Oj re�i7;
91,C
—J "P4S
RECOMMENDATIORMS & COMP —TOR' Soj �Of
LIAJ
'C.� /�eo
A-10ee-1P
I so <2-0 0"A:4
Alt,
plum
Af AO -A 7 7r.
A -A e
j
Deficiency Isib-ter neadac-�, Letter sent Reinspect ion Needed

i
November 24 1982
Mr. Jahn Bratton, Jr.
j WWW stone Corporation
Fast Office BOX 190
G 6
Knightdalev 7545
Nar Mr. rat ton : .
Y2 ill 0 6�F� }
WEka Come
i This is to confirm� the x sul.ts of our inspection of the subject site
on November 23, 1982.
'As we discussed, reclamation activities and conservation practices car-
i
f ried out to date •were - found to be in cw*liance 'with, the provisions of your
luning Permit® We particularly appreciated your assie' tance with our inspec
tion of the wise abatement measures carried out to date ® The -woxk you have
done in tbds area. is also in compliance with your permit.
' • P �' r
The following ite= were noted which ue+ed your timely attention to in-
sure continued nued ct pliance s
(1) ComPletion of repair and stabilization work for eroded areas at
the northeast pond dam and ►stem Berms.
(2) rovement of drainage within the.Ea turn Drainage Channel to
• eliminate the ponding area adjacent to the park property
. -
In addition to the above I would recommend that any planned additional
seeding work proceed as swoon as possible due to the rapidly approaching
winter season.,
�
�, v ...Jw ,��..;i�:1�iti . (=F1 C'2v�.-) "l) ram'_., '.�5�: �t^r
� � ,� f s �..T �(C'.� J �(• C3 � t (t• :�
C> �
�) S (''r„'�5i� G��S�{� � �' r��j `"� S'� /y� rht S? r" �l (':'} � 4" �'S �`"' t �I •`i` 3 c � -�, r� r -, �) _ � '.� 7
Vu s a, vm: � �I k ) _ (.�. � .n:��� !l �( � .T. 1✓, ,ri„ �� i� f� (,z } o , � r c�,1Cc`:}c�,C �� f�F;7,4" � a ,n �,�T f� l ��?�j �.,`�} r'
`, J `- Y_. .�t�c..>.-..� v rw c.:== vJ ti.:.y `�.:_� ✓ cJ �.'1 J,� `�..:� .;.-�> �: Wf . -L �j r x=� .� i%.." 3 iw.�rC;by 3� �'.-`� �J•�J j r
�J
John L Holley, Jr,
Rezima3: Engineer
Land Quality Section
JLH/ffiP
cc* Jim Sfmona
t

W 1 7113 '0� aKe stone rporati*on
Locavons
U. S. 64 East,, Ralel19 h, N.C.
U. S. I at Deep River, Moncure, N.C,,,
1-40 at Har6son Ave.,, Cary, N C.
Quarry Phone Numbers:
919/266-9266—Krilltdale
919/77&7349—Moncure
919/467-4300—Triangle
Business Offilce Address:
P. 0. Box 190
Knightdale, , NX. 27545
919/266-9266
November 29,, 1982
Mro James Do Simons
Division of Land Resources
No Ce Dept. of Natural Resources &
o e Community Development
Po OBox 7 2687
Raleigh, No Co 27611
I am Writing to not-fy You that we have taken care of the
reco,zannendat ions You and John Holley made On Your visit to
Triangle Quarry last week, Also, please find enclosed a copy
of the Bureau of Mines report regarding noise abatement, If You have any questions about the report, Please donot
hesitate to ask as we might be able to simplify
Foster-Miller's descriptions, Some of
Yours truly,
RECEIVEQ

North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources &��Ommunity Development
Mr . John R,, Bratton
Wake Stone Corporation
P
Knnight4ale3., North, Carolina 27545
Dear IA-r,, Brat -ton -,,
Thank youi f or sending a cojoy of the Bureau of Mines Report -
"SO' FCE'
T e I ec bt c, no 919 733.3833
We appreciate your cooperation dur
1M9 the November 23rd inspection..
During a recent trip to umstead park, I did notice that the gulley on
the bem at the park bcxmdary had been filled and rmlched I also noticed
that scue effort had been made to drain the pools ad3acent to the middle of
the berm. . However, the pools were still present on December 7th and apparently
Will require sane additional effort to drain,
Again,, we appreciate ycur copperatai-ve spirit and look forward to following
the ss on your quarry .
S cerely 01
James D. Simns C 1, P. (3
MixdMg Spec i St
1AND QUALITY S=Ijcx
S 1: P g
CC: Jolion Hoiley