20210201_E_Portman_to_Governor

MEMORANDUM
Date: February 1, 2021
To: Honorable NC Governor Roy Cooper
Darryl Childers, Policy Advisor, Office of Governor Roy Cooper
Subject: Request for NC to Correct a Grave Public Wrong
From: Ery Portman, prior Wake County Commissioner, Cary Town Councilor, and Cary Planning Board
Cc: Dr. Jean Spooner, Chair, The Umstead Coalition
James L. Conner II, Partner, Calhoun Bhella and Sechrest
Forty Years ago, DEMLR denied Wake Stone's permit application to build a rock quarry near William B Umstead
State Park. There was a public outcry against the proposed quarry, and public leaders including Governor James
Hunt and Attorney General Rufus Edmiston made public statements opposing it. The applicant appealed the
decision, and the Mining Commission ordered the quarry be permitted. State leaders then worked hard to protect
the park from the adverse effects of mining, and issued a permit with significant protections for the State Park.
Two key protections were:
• Large, protective, undisturbed Buffers
• A 50 year time limit on quarry operations —the Sunset Clause
Wake Stone accepted the Permit with these conditions; it did not appeal, and the Permit became final.
After decades of mining and several permit renewals, all containing the Sunset Clause, Wake Stone first tried to get
the 50-year Sunset Clause removed from the permit in 2011. The experienced leaders at DEMLR, who had been
involved from the beginning, rebuffed these efforts. However, in 2018, after the retirement and or death of the
long-term leaders, Wake Stone made asked again the same question to less inexperienced replacements at DEMLR.
The requested was approved almost immediately, and purported to remove the Sunset Clause from the permit
based upon an email exchange with Wake Stone; there was no permit modification application, no public
involvement, and no record from which the public could appeal. DEMLR first called this a "permit modification,"
then when questions were raised, produced a back -dated memo claiming this gutting of the most important
protections for the Park and the people of North Carolina was a "ministerial act." This change was illegal and ill-
advised. Wake Stone, thereby emboldened, requested several other changes to the permit, some of which
lessened buffer protections, again based upon informal contacts with DEMLR rather than the proper, transparent,
public procedures called for in the law, and DEMLR staff granted them almost immediately, again with no proper
process.
In addition to finagling these changes to the permit, Wake Stone has not honored the protective conditions of the
permit; for example, it has violated the buffer requirements early and often.
Now, Wake Stone has a permit modification application pending to roughly double the size of the quarry by
extending operations into the Oddfellows Tract, and further erode the existing buffers in the original site, both
immediately adjacent to Umstead State Park.
We ask the Governor to be sure the Mining Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and due process of law are
respected by:
• Directing DEMLR to reverse the "ministerial acts" from 2018 that illegally gutted the
protections contained in the permit, specifically the removal of the Sunset Clause and the
damaging changes to buffer requirements.
Pagel 1 February 2, 2021

• Requiring Wake Stone to restore the damaged buffers with proper mitigation.
• Investigating the pattern of misleading information provided by Wake Stone, and if warranted
\� seek both civil and criminal penalties.
• Ensuring the citizen and park complaints sent to DEQ are investigated prior to any expansion
permit decision. There is a long history of them being ignored.
A rock quarry next to a state park was a bad idea 40 years ago; expanding it today is even worse. The permit
modification application to expand the quarry should be held until the issues raised in this memo and supporting
documents are resolved.
Former Attorney General Rufus Edmisten has reviewed the 2018 Removal of the Sunset clause, and he writes it was
not a typographical error, in fact the word SOONER, invoking the 50-YEAR SUNSET clause may well have been the
only reason DEMLR issued the permit. He knows, he was a part of the decision. This along with other documents
from the State Archives confirm that the information provided by Wake Stone to support the removal of the Sunset
clause was both Incomplete and omitted key information.
The attached statement (Attachment 2), "Sunset Clause and Permanent Buffers Should Be Restored" provides
additional detail, including references to documents from the State Archives.
Attachments:
Attachment 1. Rufus Edmisten, January 14, 2021 written statement that the Sunset Clause "sooner" was correct
Attachment 2. Statement: Sunset Clause and Permanent Buffers (measured from top of stream bank) Should be
Restored (Portman, February 1, 2021)
Attachment 3. What was missing from the documents Wake Stone provided DEMLR in 2011 and 2018 with their
requests to remove the 50 year Sunset Clause (Source: State Archives)
Attachment 4. Denial of Permit Application (Conrad, August 22,1980)
Attachment 5. Sunset Clause in the original Mining Permit (May 13, 1981)
Attachment 6. 1981 Approved 11' Wake Stone Mining Permit (May 13, 1981)
Attachment 7. Assistant Attorney General Daniel Oakley letter of options to appeal Wake Stone quarry (January 30,
1981, Source: State Archives)
Attachment 8. Departmental Strategy for Wake Stone Permit issue in Umstead State Park, Memo from Griggs to
Secretary Lee (February 4, 1981, Source: State Archives)
Attachment 9. Director Conrad Memo to Citizen explaining he will use all legal options to protect the Park (March
25,1981, Source: State Archives)
Attachment 10. Secretary Lee Letter to Governor Hunt outlining options to consider regarding Mining Commission
Issue (February 2, 1981, Source: State Archives)
Attachment 11. Mining Commission Documents (January 27, 1981 and April 3, 1981, Source: State Archives)
Attachment 12. Mining Permit Draft review by NC State Parks on May 11, 1981 (the cover letter is in the Mining
Permit file, but not the attached draft permit confirming "Sooner" is correct). (Source: NC State Parks Archive).
Attachment 13. Cover letters and History of Accepted 92-10 Permit Renewals and Modifications with Sunset Clause
and buffers (complete record available in Mining Permit 92-10 file at DEQ)
Attachment 14. Wake Stone Mining Permit 92-10 and its Impacts to William B. Umstead State Park and to
/ Protected Buffers required by the Permit -photo overview
Page 21 February 2, 2021

Attachment 2
`--� Sunset Clause and Permanent Buffers (measured
from top of stream bank) Should be Restored
January 30, 2021. Prepared by Ery Portman, supported by DEQ Website, State Archives documents, and
Wake IMAPs Aerial Photos from 1981-2020.
"Sooner" vs "later" — "Sooner" is the Sunset Clause. Voiding it was a Violation
of 1971 Mining Act
The Mining Permit issued on May 13, 1981 contained the 50-year Sunset Clause. This first
permit includes a cover letter that includes: "Please review the permit and notify this office of
any objection or question concerning the terms of the permit." The 1981 permit and the permit
renewals and modifications issued over the next 37 years (April 15, 1986; April 1, 1991;
February 5, 1992; October 11, 1996; April 20, 2001; November 24, 2010; March 20, 2011, and
December 2017) contained the following SB "Sunset Clause" under the "Reclamation
Conditions":
(Under Reclamation Conditions) "S.B. If all quarryable stone is not removed, the right of
the State to acquire the quarry site shall accrue at the end of 50 years from the date
quarrying commences or 10 years after quarrying operations have ceased without
having been resumed, whichever is sooner, and notices shall be exchanged at that time
in the some manner and with the same time limitations as set forth in paragraph A
above."
This one word "sooner" is the basis of a 50 year sunset clause, the one word change to "later" in haste
in 2018 has no time limit on the mine. That change takes away the rights of the State, and substantially
changes the Reclamation Conditions.
The NC State Parks and the Community depended upon the Sunset Clause to protect its popular Park
entrance and expand recreational and conservation protection for William B. Umstead State Park. The
change from "sooner" to "later" in 2018 after 37 years is a violation of the rights that had been given to
NC State Parks and the people of North Carolina.
Wake Stone also offered a misleading narrative to further support a permit change after 37 years that
the Mining Act of 1971 does not allow. The change from "sooner" to "later" is a direct violation of G.S.
74-52 (c) Permit modifications:
... and that the modifications would be generally consistent with the bases for issuance of the
original permit."
The change from "sooner" to "later" is not only inconsistent with the basis of the original permit, it
could be easily understood the original permit would have never been issued without the word
"sooner," and the Sunset clause it evoked. (See letter from Former Attorney General Rufus Edmisten
attached).
\Wlraw/
11Attach ment 2

Background
�� • The approval of a rock quarry next to William B. Umstead State Park was as
controversial 40 years ago, as it still is today.
• On August 22, 1980 DEQ-DEMLR (then NRCD-LR), denied the Wake Stone Corporation
(Wake Stone) application for a quarry next to William B Umstead State Park, "on the
basis of having an adverse effect upon the park, G.S. 74-51(5)" (see Conrad, August 22,
1980).
analyses ana nevea.. ..- --..- -------
staff. Based on this evaluation, I find that the proposed quarry
operation would have a significantly adverse effect on the pur-
poses of a publically owned park, forest, or recreation area and
your permit application is hereby denied. (C.S. 74-51 (5)).
The combined effects of noise, sedimentation, dust, traffic
and blasting vibration associated with the proposed quarry opera-
tion would produce primary impacts on William B. Umstead State Park
in the form of noise intrusion and deterioration of visual resources.
Our evaluation of your permit application further indicates there
are no feasible modifications that can be made to the application
that would make it acceptable.
• Wake Stone appealed to the Industry -friendly Mining Commission, which overturned
the denial and ordered the permit be issued) (Dated April 3, 1981, based on its Findings
of Fact, Conclusions and Decision issued January 27, 1981).
• The dispute between January 27, 1981 and May 13, 1981 had three key points:
o The state opposed a quarry next to William B Umstead State Park due to the
significant adverse effects on the Park and forest.
o Wake Stone opposed any time limit on mining ( 50 Year sunset clause)
o Wake Stone preferred to minimize the protected buffers; the State demanded
permanent buffers
• For much of February through May 1981, DEMLR (NRCD-LR at the time) worked hard to
find a way to both issue the permit and protect the park. DEMLR and the NC Attorney
General Office (under Rufus Edmisten) were poised to Appeal the Mining Commission's
Decision to grant the permit unless more protections for the Park were included in the
Mining Permit.
• The dispute ended on May 13, 1981 when DEMLR Director Stephen G. Conrad issued
the permit, with two key protections to mitigate the significant adverse effects of
allowing a crushed rock quarry next to a park and forest:
1. Large protected buffers of undisturbed natural forested vegetation that could
not be developed or disturbed (for decades the permit required buffers measure
\.011
21Attachment 2

from top of Crabtree Creek bank — not centerline or property line asserted by
Wake Stone in its 2018 modification request).
2. A 50-year limit on mining, to set a date when blasting and impacts would stop
and the land could become a part of the park.
• Wake Stone accepted the permit in 1981 and did not object to the conditions included
in it, to both protect the park with permanent buffers and cease blasting in 50 years,
offering the option to donate the site to become part of the park.
o Unfortunately, Wake Stone has not respected either of the conditions, having
disturbed the protected natural vegetated buffers it promised to protect, and
now having mislead DEQ to remove the 50-year Sunset clause and substantially
decrease the width of the protected buffers.
o Both of the hard fought safeguards the state required have been compromised
or removed. They must be restored.
Incomplete and Misleading Documentation in Mining Permit Files
The documents provided by Wake Stone in 2011 and again in 2018 were incomplete omitting
importation information that, if provided to DEQ would have raised doubt on the merits of the Wake
Stone requests.
To convince DEQ staff to approve the removal of the Sunset clause Wake Stone provided DEQ the
Mining Commission documents issued on January 27, 1981 and April 3 1981. Disturbingly, the official
version of the Mining Commission documents were missing from the DEQ files. Furthermore, other key
documents supporting the Sunset Clause and Permanent Buffers are missing from the DEQ files.
31Attachmen t 2

ssuau 5—j"12
9O4M%@ -
a
�r
i
DEMLR Director James Simons, and his two predecessors Charles Gardner and Stephen Conrad all had
first-hand knowledge of the 1981 dispute and Permit. Wake Stone waited until Simons had retired,
and Conrad and Gardner had died to try to get out of the 50 year Sunset Clause that was always a part
of the permit they accepted for 37 years, from 1981 to 2018. Director Simons rejected the Wake
Stone argument in 2011, as he knew the details around the original permit issued in 1981.
How to know what really happened so
long ago, many of the leaders involved
have passed on or retired, unable to speak
to the work they did so long ago.
In order to seek clarity on the department's action after the Mining Commission ruled on April 3, 1981
and before the permit was issued 5 weeks later on May 13, 1981, 1 searched the State Archives.
There is no indication in the record that DEQ attempted to find official versions or question/confirm if
the versions supplied by Wake Stone were final and complete. In Fact, the Final Decision provided by
Wake Stone, references the as amended and corrected version of the Mining Commission Findings of
Fact, Conclusion and Decision, which was not provided. Other documents, like the Mining Commission
4 1 A t t a c h m e n t 2

�/
Public Hearing Transcripts, are known to have existed but remain missing (see photo of Archive box for
Mining Commission files indicating an unusually thin file for the Wake Stone case as compare to other
cases, despite the enormous public outcry and extensive news reporting).
This photo shows the State Archives file containing Administrative hearings before and after the Wake
Stone appeal in 1980. The hearings both before and after the Wake Stone Case include a thick black
bound hearing transcript. That document is missing for the Wake Stone appeal.
The Archives search confirmed the missing information Wake Stone did not provide.
Wake Stone provided incomplete documents to DEQ along with a misleading narrative to convince less
experienced DEQ staff in 2018 to make the change DEMLR Director Simons previously rejected in 2011.
Wake Stone offered no new information to justify asking DEQto remove the Sunset Clause in 2018
compared to the request the department rejected in 2011. It is also noteworthy that Wake Stone after
requesting it be changed, accepted the 2011 Permit with "sooner" Sunset Clause without objection.
Waiting for People to Die — not a reason to harm public lands
For 37 years, with employees with first-hand knowledge in DEMLR and NC State Parks still living, the
Sunset Clause Remained. Only after they all died, did Wake Stone succeed in getting the DEQ staff to
remove the Sunset clause.
Wake Stone asserted and in 2018 DEMLR accepted the assertion that Director Conrad must have made a
one word typographical mistake inserting the word "sooner" when it should have said "later."
But the audacity of the Wake Stone request is exceptional.
51Attachmen t 2

tV�
It implies that Director Conrad, Director of State Parks Jim Stevens, Secretary Lee, Attorney General
Edmisten, Governor Hunt did not know what the permit said, did not know it was different from the
Mining Commission Final Decision they all read on January 27, 1981 and April 3, 1981.
To accept this theory one would have to conclude the State leaders were either sloppy or made a typo
or disobedient to the law by offering conditions different. Given the intense scrutiny by the State and
Wake Stone at the time, especially regarding the conditions of the donation to the State, such a mistake
is implausible.
Supporting "Sooner" is correct; we found a copy of the attachment to the cover letter from NC State
Parks Director Jim Stevens that shows a marked up copy of the draft permit 2 days prior to its May 13,
1981 issuances (see attached). The Cover letter from NC State Parks refers to the Sunset Clause section
is in the Mining Permit file, but the insightful attachment is missing. Yes, "sooner" was in the permit
review draft 2 days prior to issuance.
In 2011, Director James Simons knew better, he worked the permit in 1981, and knew the details of how
the department arrived at the decision to not appeal the Mining Commission decision but rather issue a
permit, with the conditions Wake Stone accepted.
Forty years ago is a long time, it is hard to ascertain who did what and why, it is for that reason that
usually such old documents are not revised after so many years. The concept is that the Mining Permit
document as issued on May 13, 1981, must speak for itself, because those who wrote it are no longer
here to defend their work.
The Missing... Documents Provided by Wake Stone were incomplete (partial)
Fortunately, the State of North Carolina has an excellent State Archives, and I was able to reach back 40
years to find the real story of what was done by DEMLR after the Mining Commission issued its Final
Decision on April 3, 1981 and before the department agreed to issue the Permit 92-10 (May 13, 1981).
Here is what I learned from the archives, copies attached.
1. Director Conrad did not make a typo with the Sunset clause on May 13, 1981 when he
issued the permit. In fact he did not want to issue the permit at all, he denied it a year
earlier, and opposed the decision of the Mining Commission. He only agreed to issue it
when the permit contained the conditions he felt were sufficient to protect the Park.
2. What Wake Stone did not tell DEQ staff in April 2018 was the following facts that have
now been confirmed by the documents attached from the Archives:
The January 27, 1981 Mining Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusions and
Decision sent to the Mining Permit File by Wake Stone was NOT the as
AMENDED AND CORRECTED decision, issued April 3, 1981. Missing was the
following critical section from the official version:
61Attachment 2

Thin deciaim is not final. In no morn than 45 d:ryn, onl"u: the Carts?ssldu
grants an extension. the Division and Bake Stone shall, at a public hearing,
.`/ present to the Casvinslon the pans outline] abnee. At the hearing the Co¢is-
sion will out hear new ovidence. At least 5 days before this hearing the parties
shall deposit the plans with 3. R. trench for distribution to the Comission.
Following the hearing, the Comnlsaicn oball render a final declaim, tron which
the Para.. mdy appeal pursunnt to NCCS 15DA-1 et seq.
Data of original decision: .January '27.,, 1, 4
l.
As amended and corrected, this the Ty 1961 , 1931.
onynwf eigna16p
Dr. Henry B. Smith, Chairman
North Carolina Mining Commission
The actual document is attached, (Mining Commission from State Archives) and
it shows the January 27, 1981 decision was NOT FINAL and it was subject to
appeal by either wake Stone or the DEMLR, to Superior court (which was the
Appeal option in 1981 per the Mining Act). This fact, left out, was key to the
narrative Wake stone offered DEQ that the Mining Commission decision from
April 3 must overrule the conditions of a permit offered five weeks later on May
13, 1981. Had Wake Stone disclosed this important fact DEQ staff would have
understood both DEMLR and Wake Stone were both free to accept alternatives
of they wanted to, or alternatively if they did not either could have appealed the
decision to Superior Court. In fact that's exactly what Director Conrad said he
would do in a letter to a concerned citizen sent on March 25, 1981 Director
Conrad wrote to a citizen Ms. Gaynell Watson and explained his intentions, letter
attached:
As you know, the Mining Commission has completed the hearing
process on Wake Stone's appeal of the Department's decision to deny
the permit. We expect the Mining Commission to render its final
decision in this matter within the next few days. At that time, the
Department will consider the alternatives available to it and base
its decision on what is the best course of action to provide maximuli,
long term protection to William B. Umstead State Park.
This letter confirms that Conrad was dedicated to do all he could to prevent
significant adverse effects of a quarry on the park and forest.
Assistant Attorney General Daniel C. Oakley confirmed in his January 30, 1981
memo (attached) that DEMLR could appeal the final decision of the Mining
Commission if they disagreed with it:
I hope this memorandum is helpful. I will be glad to discuss
it further with you at your convenience. The decision on whether
to appeal needs to be made expeditiously so that we can prepare
and file the necessary documents within thirty days of the date
the decision was served.
7 1 A t t a c h m e n t 2

And finally, the exact strategy of the department was well documented in the
February 4,1981 Memo from Neil Grigg (representing NC State Parks) to
�f Secretary Lee, (attached) confirming that they should either appeal the Mining
Commission decision or try to establish more significant protections for the park.
If significant protections could be obtained, they allow the permit to be issued, if
not, then proceed to appeal the Mining Commission decision to Superior Court.
Nvam�
The Divison of Land Resources begin to discuss with Wake Stone what
conditions would be satisfactory to both the Department and the company.
If satisfactory conditions can be developed which would obviously pro-
tect the park and which could be supported by the public, we feel the
permit could be issued and the matter would be terminated. If no
satisfactory agreement on conditions can be reached, we would refer
the matter back to the Mining Commission with the recommendation
that the permit be denied. At that time, if there was still not
agreement between the Department and the Commission, the Department
would evaluate and might choose to pursue other legal remedies such
as an appeal.
3. NC State Parks Reviewed the Draft Permit on May 11, 1981 with a detailed mark-up. The Memo
cover pages are included in the Mining Permit file, and it implied "sooner" is correct. The
attached, marked -up draft permit to this memo confirms all parties expected "sooner" to be
correct. This is not a "typo." We found the memo and its attachments in the NC State Park's
Archive files (attached)
These letters provide a clear context to what DEMLR Director Conrad was doing when he issued the
permit in 1981, the recent assertions from Wake stone are laid bare as lacking any credibility and
confirm a pattern of actions that offered incomplete and misleading information to permit requests in
direct violation of the Mining Act of 1971.
8 1 A t t a c h m e n t 2

The Protected Buffers — Severely Diminished and
`/ Wake Stone has violated the protected buffers early and often. Now 40 years later we can see clearly
how what was promised has not occurred. Protected permanent buffers have been destroyed. The
2018 Permit Modification substantially reduced the buffer width, in conflict with the previous 37 years
of commitments. The current permit Application proposes to gut the remaining buffers.
The 1981 permit required buffers of undisturbed vegetated land free from encroachment between the
Mine and the park and the "top edge of the bank of Crabtree Creek..." The missing page of the Mining
Commission Final Decision issued on April 3, 1981 clearly indicates the buffers are intended to be
"permanent" or undisturbed (attached).
Wake stone violated the buffers to the West, North and East of the pit.
There are buffer violations in eastern boundary along the Park, northern boundary with the Park and
Crabtree Creek, and to the west along Crabtree Creek.
In just the east here is the result; Flooded Buffers and Dead trees that has now crossed into the
park itself, flooding parkland and killing trees.
1581 fomsmJ
IDt9 Bu Ue. anJ
vark Ilcodmg
ongoing and
growing
As these buffers were being violated North Carolina State Parks was objecting, citizens were objecting,
unfortunately DEQtook no action, issued no notice of violations and today we have significantly adverse
impacts on the park and Wake Stone contends they are a good neighbor to the park and have a perfect
record with no violations.
91Attach ment 2

This is what happens when those we trust to protect the public and regulate industry instead protect
the industry and deflect the public concerns. (William B. Umstead State Park, May 22, 2020)
As a specific and real example, at the Public Hearing conducted in July 2020 by DEQ-DEMLR on the Wake
Stone expansion there were many complaints from the public about these very issues of killing trees
within William B. Umstead State Park and flooding the buffers. DEQ took no action to require Wake
Stone to mitigate the damages they were given proof had occurred.
This buffer issue is not complicated nor difficult to understand, the attached PowerPoint shows what
has happened to the promise of protections, and how overtime every buffer has been violated. Wake
IMAPS offers evidence, clear aerial photos over the 40 years. It's hard to hide the fact that these are
willful violations of the permit, and unfortunately, DEQ has failed to enforce the hard fought conditions
put in place when this permit was issued.
`% What good are buffers if they are never enforced?
10 1 A t t a c h m e n t 2

To the western boundary along Crabtree Creek, Wake Stone encroached the undisturbed buffer. In 1992
Wake Stone blasted too close to the stream, and caused a massive buffer collapse that resulted in 90
\Wmwo/ percent blockage of Crabtree Creek. DEQ initially calls this a "violation" but later changed to a
"deficiency." Still today, the streambank is not fully vegetated and the undisturbed buffer width is
narrow. To add to this insult, Wake Stone convinced DEQ to reduce the buffer even more in 2018 and
proposes to further decrease the buffer protections along Crabtree Creek with their current Expansion
Mining Permit Application, as well only minimal buffers on the other side of Crabtree Creek. Imagine:
Crabtree Creek suspended above two pits more than 400 feet deep with extremely narrow buffers!
\Iwa�
In 2018, eight (8) modifications were made to the permit, just 23 minutes after they were requested by
Wake Stone. Those eight (8) changes included the largest reduction on buffers in the 40-year life of the
mine. Wake Stone falsely asserted there was no impact, just a map clean up, and misrepresented the
fact that all prior permits measured the buffers from the property line, not stream top of bank (which is
standard for any stream buffer). Instead, Wake Stone tried to misrepresent the property boundary to
be the start of the buffer width (which is the centerline of Crabtree Creek). This was not a "map clean-
up" or GIS error; this was a MAJOR change in buffer width. Furthermore, Wake Stone asked (and was
granted) that the buffer protective language within the Permit be removed and just described in the Site
Plan Map which Wake Stone controls, subject to state review and approval. The 2018 Site Plan map was
modified to indicate the substantial buffer width reduction and changed the designation on the Site Plan
from "undisturbed vegetative buffers" to "buffer from property boundary." Note: in the 2020
proposed Application, Wake Stone now asks for many of the undisturbed buffers to be changed to
"unexcavated buffers." Unexcavated buffers allow deforestation, stock piling, berms, roads, pit
perimeter roads, crushers, sorters, almost anything except for digging a mine pit. The buffer changes in
the 2018 and proposed in 2020 Expansion are gutting of the buffers and an obvious transition to their
lack of protection for William B. Umstead State Park.
The misleading and willfully misrepresentation of facts and information by Wake Stone in their request
for the 2018 Permit Modification to change the buffers is a direct violation of the Mining Act of 1971.
111Attach ment 2

What needs to be done now is fix the mistakes DEQ made in blindly trusting the
information offered by Wake Stone
1. Set aside the permit modification issued in 2018 and restore the permit to
the Mining Permit conditions in place in 2010.
2. Demand that DEQ enforce its obligations under the Mining Act of 1971 and
enforce the permit condition that require Wake Stone to protect the
buffers, and mitigate all damages they have done.
3. Investigate the actions of DEQ Mining Staff around the 2018 Permit
modification made, then (retroactively, a year later) DEQ decided the
Sunset Clause removal was a "ministerial correction" and not a
modification, and if the facts warrant consider both civil and criminal
penalties as required by 74-64 (b) and 74-64 5(b) when an applicant or
operator willfully misrepresents any fact in any action taken pursuant to
this article, or willfully gives false information in any application or report
required by this article.
4. Request DEQ-DEMLR expand their incomplete "Request for Additional
Information" to ask Wake Stone to address the numerous concerns raised
by NC Division of Park and Recreation, citizens and affected local
governments, where were part of the public hearing that to date DEQ-
DEMRL has ignored.
I know the Governor Cooper has a strong record as Governor and Attorney
General to protect our states environment and be sure the law is fully respected
hope he will demand these issues be investigated and resolved to protect the
good work of Governor Hunt, Attorney General Edmisten, Secretary Lee
and DEMLR Director Conrad four decades ago.
These documents from the Archives provide a more complete context to what
state leaders were thinking as they worked this issue in 1981. With the passing of
time it's clear they were correct, a rock quarry next to a state park is not a good
idea. Expanding it today is even worse.
121Attachmen t 2

Attachment 3
What was missing from the Mining Commission Documents Wake
Stone provided to DEQ DEMLR staff in 2011 and 2018 to Support their
request to remove the 50 year Sunset clause.
January 30, 2021. Prepared by Ery Portman, supported by State Archives documents
1. Mining Commission Final Decision, April 3, 1981
In the Matter of Denial ol)
Permit Application of thn ) Amendment to the
Wake Stone Corporation; ) rinal Decision
The 250' bu.-fer area shown on the northern boundary and
the 100' butfor area on the eastern boundary of Hake Stone's pro-
perty is considered by the Commission the permanent buffer zone.
This the 3rd day of April 1981.
Henry B... Smith, Chairman
T: W. Tysinger W. W. Woodhouse, Jr.
This page of the Mining Commission Final decision was not provided
to DEMLR but was included in the 1981 Wake Stone Request for a
Special Use Permit from Wake County. The missing page confirms that
the two area east and north on the site were designated by the
Mining Commission as Permanent Buffer.
Wake Stone Violated both buffers early and often.
111-� 1[Attachment 3

Another fact wake Stone did not disclose is the fact that the Original
Permit issued by DEMLR on May 13, 1981 added a buffer condition on
the west of the site, not included in the Mining Commission final
decision. Wake Stone implied that the one word later which was in
the Mining Commission Final Decision, but was "sooner" in the Permit
was a mistake that needed to be changed. They failed to mention
there were several differences between the Final decision of the
Mining Commission and the permit conditions they accepted with the
Permit.
2. Mining Commission Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision,
January 27, 1981
The Second document Wake Stone Provided DEMLR to support the
removal of the Sunset clause was the Mining Commission Findings of
Fact, Conclusions and Decision dated January 27, 1981
They did not provide the same document as amended and corrected
on April 3, 1981.
The "As amended and corrected" version is referenced in the Mining
Commission Final Decision of the same date they did provide and
DEMLR reviewed.
V, 21Attachmen t 3

BEFORE THE MINING COMMISSION
`.� In the Matter of Denial of FINAL DECISION
Permit Application of
Wake Stone Corporation
In accordance with this Commission's initial Findings of Fact, Conclusions,
and Decision of January 27, 1981, as azended and corrected, and with the
March 12, 1981 Agreement of Wake Stone Corporation and the Division of Land
Resources, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, concerning
the Conditions enumerated below as 1, 2, 4, and 5; and upon consideration of
the supplementary arguments of the parties concerning Condition 3, infra, the
Mining Commission hereby orders that the nivision of Land Resources grant to
wake Stone Corporation the permit applied for with the following conditions:
DEMLR staff overlooked the fact that they did not have the as
amended and corrected version referred to in the document they
used to justify the modification of the permit, 37 years after it was
issued, and 7 years after their department Direct James Simons
rejected the exact same request as having no merit.
What Wake Stone did not provide was the following as amended and
corrected statement;
4%.000 31Attachment 3

Thin decision Is not final. In no more than +►S days, unless tho Corrn:ssion
grants an extension, the Division and Wake Stone shall, at a public hearing,
'V` present to the Co=jniion the mans outlined above. At the hearing the Commis-
sion will not hear now evidence. At least S days hetore this hearing the parties
shall deposit the plans with B. R. rrerch !or distribution to the Conmia„ion.
Following the hearing the Ccwrniyaion stkill render a final decision. tram which
the parties may appeal p-urs►mnt to NeGS /%oA-1 et seq.
Data of original decision: January 27, illal.
As amended and corrected, this the my J1198t 1981.
U.i r,"r i4ned 6y
Dr. Henry E. Smith, Chairun
North Carolina lining Commissioa
The significance of this omission was key to the Wake Stone request
to remove the Sunset Clause. This paragraph would have confirmed
to DEMLR staff that the January 27,1981 decision was NOT FINAL, and
that either party could appeal the April 3 Final Decision if they did not
agree with the Mining Commission decision.
Director Conrad was clear that he felt the Mining Commission
decision to overturn the permit application denial was a mistake, and
that he said so in his communications to the Commission chair, and
spoke against the decision. He was convinced the location next to a
state park was inappropriate for a crushed rock quarry. That's why he
worked so hard to find a way to protect the park if he was going to
issue the permit. That's why he placed the conditions for the buffers
and the Sunset clause that both went above the Mining Commission
decision.
Wake Stone accepted the permit with those conditions, it could have
appealed the permit conditions if it wanted to, and they did not.
�'� 41Attachment 3

�..✓ Director Conrad knew what he was doing and he negotiated what he
felt was a better deal to protect the park. He was clear that if he could
not he would appeal the Mining Commission decision to Superior
Court.
Wake Stone was also on record in 1981 saying the life of the mine was
50 years.
To now imply 37 years after the fact, and after he died, that Director
Conrad made a mistake is just not credible. If the DEMLR staff had
bothered to check with former Director Simons he would have
explained the same, that is why he rejected the assertion as having no
merit in 2011.
Rather than dig deeper and consider they may have been deceived
DEMLR staff defended the action despite serious questions on motive
that were raised. Going to far as to "paper the file " with a new
characterization 18 months after the permit was modified, saying it
really was not a modification at all, but really a ministerial correction
of a one word error made 37 years earlier and to dramatically
decrease the buffers.
The reason for the change of story is the 2018 permit change violated
the Mining Act of 1971 in two key ways.
'\W,MW/ 51Attach ment 3

74-52. Permit modifications.
(a) Any operator eneaged in mining under an operating permit may apply at any
time for modification of the permit. The application shall be in writing upon fomu
famished by the Department and shall fully state the information called for. he applicant
must provide the Department with any additional information necessary to satisfy
application requirements. In addition. the applicant may be required to furnish any other
information as my be deemed necessary by the Department in order adequately to enforce
the Article.
(b) Repealed by Session Laws 2017--209. s. 13(c). effective October 4. 2017.
(c) A modification under this section may affect the land area covered by the permit.
the approved reclamation plan coupled with the permit. or other tens and conditions of
the permit. A permit may be modified to include land neighboring the affected land. but
not other lands. The reclamation plan may be modified in any manner. so long as the
Department determines that the modified plan fully meets the standards set forth in
G.S. 74-53 and that the modifications would be generally consistent with the bases for
issuance of the original permit. Other terms and conditions may be modified only where
the Department determines that the permit as modified would meet all requirements of
G.S. 74-50 and [G.S.] 74-51.
(d) No modification of a permit shall become effective until any required changes
have been made in the performance bond or other security posted under the provisions of
G.S. 74-54. so as to assure the performwce of obligations assumed by the operator under
1. There was never a formal permit modification form filed for the
modification.
2. The change to modify the Reclamation plan by changing the
Sunset clause changing the word "Sooner to Later" can only be
allowed if the change is consistent with the basis for the
issuance of the original permit. This change is not only
inconsistent with the basis of the original Permit, according to
former Attorney General Rufus Edmisten the word Sooner may
be the only reason the permit was ever issued.
In addition the law provides 30 days ( it was 60 days in 1981) for the
applicant to request a modification to a permit Condition, Wake Stone
did not request any changes to the Permit in 1981, nor at any other
time over the next 37 years.
61Attachmen t 3

§ 74-61. Adminisnarive and judicial review of decisions.
An applicant, pemmnee. or affected person may contest a decision of the Department
to deny, suspend. modify. or revoke a permit or a reclamation plan, to refuse to release part
or all of a bond or other security. or to assess a civil penalty by filing a petition for a
contested case under G.S. 150E-23 within 30 days after the Department makes the
decision Article 4 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes governs judicial review of a
decision of the Commission (1971. c. 545. s. 16: 1973- c. 1262. s- 33: 1977. c. 771. s. 4:
1979, c. 252. s. 3: 1987. c. 827. s. 86: 1993 (Rep. Sess.. 1994). c. 568. s. 9: 2011-398. s.
30.)
It was too late for them to request such a change to the conditions
they had long ago accepted.
Now Given what we have learned about the misleading and
incomplete information provided by Wake Stone to DEMLR it seems
the agency needs fully investigate how these changes have occurred
and consider both Civil and Criminal penalties as required by the
Mining Act of 1971 when an operator provides inaccurate or
misleading information to the department.
§ -4-64. Penalties for violations.
(a) Civil Penalties
b. Any permitted operator who violates any of die provisions of
this Article, any rules adopted under this Article, or any of the
terms and conditions of the mining permit shall be subject to a
civil penalty- of not more than five hundred dollars (S500.00).
Each day of a continuing violation shill constitute a separate
violation. Prior to the assessment of any civil penalty, written
notice of the violation shall be given. The notice shall describe
the violation with reasonable particularity, shall specify a time
period reasonably calculated to permit the violator to complete
actions to correct the violation, and shall state that failure to
correct the violation within that period may result in the
assessment of a civil penalty.
C. In determining the amount of the penalty, the Department shall
consider the degree and e.•neat of harm caused by the violation,
the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the
violator saved by the noucompliance. whether the violation was
committed willfully. and the prior record of the violator in
complying or failing to comply with this Article.
(b) Criatianl Penalties. - In addition to other penalties provided by this Article, nay
operator who engages in mining in willful violation ofthe provisions of this Article or of any rules
promulgated hereunder or who willfully ntissepresmu any fact in any action talen pursuant to this
Article or willfully fives false information in any applrcation or report required by Nis Article
shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof shall only be fined not less
than one hundred doll= (S100.00) nor more than one thousand dollars (S1,000) for each offense.
Each day of continued violation after wrium notification shall be considered a separate
offense. (1971, c. 545. s. 19; 1979. c. 252. s. 2; 19S1. c. 787. ss. 7. S; 1987. c. 246, S. l; c. 827, S.
S5: 19S9 (Reg. Sess., 1990). c. 1024, s. 16; 1993. c. 539. s. 555: 1994, Ee. Sess., c. 24. s. 14(c);
1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 56S. s. 10; 199E-215, s. 42.)
�� 7 1 A t t a c h rn e n t 3

Attachment 4 - Denial of Permit Application (Conrad, August 22, 1980)
DIVISION OF
North Carolina Department of Natural StealALA G eMO RESO ESOtiDbeeRCES
Resources &Commurnty Development ]7W, e,Ygrrm,l
Jam" 8 H.M. Jr . Governor Howud N lee. Secretary t<Nvnmrala )]]ir]
August 22, 1980
Mr. John Bretton
Wake Stone Corporation
Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
Dear Mr. Bretton:
A detailed evaluation has been made of your application for
a mining permit for the Cary quarry in accordance with C.S. 74-51.
The evaluation consisted of site inspection, engineering
analyses and several discussions between you and members of my
staff. Based on this evaluation, I find that the proposed quarry
operation would have a significantly adverse effect on the pur-
poses of a publically owned park, forest, or recreation area and
your permit application is hereby denied. (C.S. 74-51 (5)).
The combined effects of noise, sedimentation, dust, traffic
and blasting vibration associatedawith
hon Wthe ism posed quarry B. emscead Stapera-
tion would produce primary imp
Park
in the form of noise intrusion and deterioration of visual resources.
Our evaluation of your permit application further indicates there
are no feasible modifications that can be made to the application
that would make it acceptable.
In accordance with C.S. 74-61 you may appeal this decision to
the North Carolina Mining Commission, provided such appeal is made
within 60 days after receipt of this notice. Your request for a
hearing should be addressed to Dr. Henry B. Smith, Chairman, igh,
North Caroline Mining Commission, 3405 Caldwell Drive,
North Carolina 27607, with a copy to this office.
Very truly yours, (�
Stzylr. w dM .
Stephan C. Conrad, Director
SCC7ps
Cebroakd a1M1 aslbe-)]]7aa], nsMlek arl„,,. 8clim-/R ]a]a. Lme nuMNv Dxean_ 1L aD 10, m,nrrW lire IwwMar ],[Nw.1717a]].
lrW Npurrrrl Ie W mrlwn a,lryw_!JJ ]sae
.,• nuA Onwnm.n rrr llrrmn... �mm�,wwlwer

Attachment 5. Sunset Clause in the original Mining Permit (May 13, 1981)
This word SOONER is the SUNSET
clause.
1-he toms and conditions of the option shall be is follows:
from .11 of the
A. N'hcn ail gLaTcraunderStone
the cantroutid
1 of Wake Stone Corporation during
helenging erat ions and which lies between the
O
the period of its quarrying 40 it shall be the duty of Wakc Stone
Park and Interstate Highway Upon receipt of
Corporation to notify the State of this fact. r.
such notice, the State shall have six monthstheL4varTYi after toay
elect to have Wake Stone Corporation convey ration
the State. if the State elects to hair shal'_S notify Waka Stone
convey the quarry site to the State,si
Corporation OL such electIO
iCdwmaiit l witted r¢to rnn ceiPt're9vested.
notices sball be by uar ry
if the State fails to make an alai CioanC av ncei ofs the qnt
periud or shall elect not to accep the quarry
site, the nPtion shall thereupon terminate and Wake Stone Corp-
oration shall have no further obligation to convey
site to the State.
at the right of the State
50 years
H li all quarr)'nble stonsite shall accrue at the end o'
to acquire the quarry whichever
operattonsahaveu ceasedgwi2houtcolachavingl been resumedr quarrying
is sooner, and notices shall be exchanged at that time in the
same manner and with the same time limitations as set forth in
paragraph A above.
ll not
C. Until the optionted
hasage expireor olT trustaany ofthearea on idesignated
encumber by
'•DUFFER AREA" or, Wake
ev Stone
sed lfn Corpoch ration's
,sexceptite afor apurchase
February 17, 1991,
money security interests.
rein
The terms and conditions a latingbounds
to the donation are placed ration
to prescribe genorally the boundaries of the Wake Stone Corporation
cif,r. The acceptance by the State is auelect to approval he the
D,{+artnwnt of Administration and the Connell or State and the alien
the Department's analysis c
ing that the offer is 1n accord with the taws et the State and law u
adopted rules and regulations. Further,
the condSt ion of the land to be transferred will be in accordance sr
the criteria identified if lednLnothgLatoParks08 Stater Recreationning the ant
Extension and Devalopse
:Race Vatural Arens.'
day of T
C�! 19��•
permit issued this the ��_ ' � (1
BY: �i
9tcphen 0. � Conrad, Director
Division of Land Resources
By Authority of the Secretary
of the Pcpnrtmrnt of Natural Resources and Communit; DeveloPn
EPortman comment; Paragraph B is not required in the word sooner is changed to latter. Paragraph A is
clear that the donation only occurs if the mining is complete. Its illogical that if mining stopper for 10
years in year 11, that the state would allow the site to sit unreclaimed and not donated for 39 more
years. Its illogical. That's why the permit said sooner.
\.oe

Attachment 6. 1981 Approved 1st Wake Stone Mining Permit (May 13, 1981)
4h. DIVISION OF
North Carolina Department of Natural (LAND RESOURCES
W Resources &CommunitY Development Stephen 2 Conrad, Director
Box 27687, Raleigh 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee, Secretary Telephone [phone]
May 13, 1991
Mr. John Bratton, Jr.
Wake Stone Corporation
P. 0. Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
RE: Cary Quarry
Wake County
Dear Mr, Bratton:
The application for a mining permit for the Cary Quarry
in Wake County has been found to meet the requirements of
G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971. Since your company
already has a blanket bond on file sufficient to cover this
application, T am enclosing the mining permit.
The conditions of the mining permit were based primarily
upon information supplied in the application with conditions
added as directed by the North Carolina Mining Commission
necessary to insure compliance with The Mining Act of 1971
and to provide maximum possible protection to William B. Umstead
State Park.
Please review the permit and notify this office of any
objection or question concerning the terms of the permit.
Very truly yours,
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
SGC:pg
cc: John Holley
Geological Survey Section— 73, 1423; Geodetic Survey Section-733-3836; Land Quality Section-733-4574; Planning and Inventory Section-733 3833;
go Resources Information Service-733 2090

dot
OW-9
-0 -
`°140�
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
D1VIS*I0N OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
P E R M I T
for the operation of a mining activity
In accordance with the provisions of G. S. 74-46 through 68,
"The Mining Act of 1971", Mining Permitting Regulation 15
N.C.A.C. 5B,and other applicable laws, rules and regulations
Permission is hereby granted to:.,..
WAKE STONE CORPORATION permittee
for the operation of a CRUSIiED STONE QUARRY
entitled, CARY QUARRY permit no. 92-10
and located in WAKE County, which shall provide
that the usefulness, productivity and scenic values of all lands
and waters affected by this mining operation will receive the
greatest practical degree of protection and restoration.

In accordance with the application for this mining permit, which
is hereby approved by the Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, hereinafter referred to as the Department,
and in conformity with the approved Reclamation Plan attached to
and incorporated as part of this permit, provisions must be made
for the protection of the surrounding environment and for reclamation
of the land and water affected by the permitted mining operation.
This permit is expressly conditioned upon compliance with all the
requirements of the approved Reclamation Plan. However, completed
performance of the approved Reclamation Plan is a separable obligation,
secured by the bond or other securities on file with the Department,
and may survive the expiration, revocation or suspension of this permit
This permit is not transferable by the permittee with the following
exception: If another operator succeeds to the interest of the per-
mittee'in the permitted mining operation, by virtue of a sale, lease,
assignment or otherwise, the Department may release the permittee from
the duties imposed upon him by the conditions of his permit and by the
Alining Act with reference to the permitted operation, and transfer the
permit to the successor operator, provided that both operators have
complied with the requirements of the Mining Act and that the successor
operator agrees to assume the duties of the permittee with reference to
reclamation of th& affected land and posts a suitable bond or other
security.
ln_the.event that the Department determines -that the permittee or
permittee's successor is not complying with.the Reclamation Plan or
other terms and conditions of this permit, or is failing to achieve
the purposes and requirements of the Mining Act, the Department may
give the operator written notice of its intent to.modify, revoke or
suspend the permit, or its intent to modify the Reclamation Plan as
incorporated in the permit. The operator shall have right to a hearing
at a designated time and place on any proposed modification, revocation
or suspension by the Department. Alternatively and in addition to the
above, the Department may institute other enforcement procedures
authorized by lag•.
Definitions
Wherever used or referred to in this permit, unless the context clearly
indicates otherwise, terms shall. have the same meaning as supplied by
the Mining Act, N.C.G.S. 74-49.
Site Plan
The site plan referred to in this permit shall indicate the topographic
site plan of the Wake Stone Corporation revised March 10, 1981, with
the following exception:
The berm and associated disturbances located along the northern
\J boundary shall not be constructed unless approved by the Department.

Park
tiv/ Whenever used or referred to in this permit, tho -term "park" shall
IIIc4ul t lle lVi 1 L i am I3. Umstead State Park.
Conditions
The permitted mining operation shall not violate standards of air
quality, surface water quality, or ground .water quality promulgated
by the Environmental. Management Commission.
This per,ni t shall be effective from the date of its issuance until
May 13, 1991 and shall be subject to the provisions of the brining
Act, N.C.G.S. 74--46, et. seq. , and to the following conditions and
limitations:
1. Wastewater Control
Any wastewater processing shall be in accordance with permit
requirements and regulations promulgated by the Division of
Environmental Management.
2. Dust Control
Any mining Process -producing air cont.ami.nant emission; shall
bc; subject: to tho permitting; requirements and regulations pro-
mulgated by the Division of Environmental Management. The
operator will take whatever reasonable precautions necessary
to provent or minimize the fugitive* dust -from- going offsdte
Such measures include but are not limited to:
A. The access road to the quarry,,from the scale house to
SR 1790, shall be paved. Wake Stone Corporation shall
cooperate with the Department of Transportation -in paving
SR 1790 from the entramce to the quarry to the intersection
with SR 1654.
B. The provisions of the air quality permit #4 386 shall be
followed.
C. A water wagon with sprays shall be used for wetting roads
to prevent: dust.
D. Sprays shall be used throughout the plant at transfer points
to control dust.
E. Drill hole dust shall be controlled by wetting or other means.
F. Dust control at the crushers and screens shall be maintained
by the use of grater sprays.
G. A '*water - spray shall be -provided for highway haul. trucks.. .
B • Washed stone shall be stockpiled within the part of the
cles:i.ed plant area which i s closest t
i g� ,o the park.

3. Buffer Zones
�1 The dotted line labelled as buffer along the .northern boundary and
along the eastern boundary is the permanent buffer as designated
by the- M-Lning Commission. (Site plan dated March 10, 1981)
An undisturbed buffer of existing; natural vegetation shall be
maintained between the mining disturbance and Park property as
indicated by the 1110 year buffer" shown.on the site plan dated
March 10, 1981.
An undisturbed buffer zone of existing natural vegetation shall
also be maintained between the top edge of the bank of Crabtree
Creek and any mining disturbance within the 10 year permit area.
The buffer zone shall be of sufficient width to prevent offsite
sedimentation and to preserve the integrity of the natural water-
course. In any event, the buffer will meet U.S. Corps of Engineers
requirements for Crabtree Creek Watershed.
The only exceptions to these undisturbed buffers of natural veg-
eLati.nn arc:
A. The construction of berms as approved by the Department for
visual and noise screening.
B. The installation of drainage and sedimentation controls to
protect the Crabtree Creek.
C. Such crossings as may be necessary in future years to
accommodate the installation of utilities.
4. Erosion and Sediment Control.
A. Adequate mechanical barr..iers including but not limited to
diversions, earthen dikes, brush barriers, silt check dams,
silt retarding structures, rip rap pits, or ditches shall
be provided in the initial stages of any land disturbance
to prevent :pediment from discharging onto adjacent surface
areas or into any lake or natural watercourse in proximity
to the affected land.
B. The existing lakes shall be used to trap sediment from
initial mining disturbances. -The spillways of the exist-
ing lakes shall be further stabilized as necessary to
prevent erosion of the spillway from runoff from the affected
lands. The embankments of the existing lakes shall be
improved if necessary to insure the stability of the embankments.

5 of 13
7
C . The -angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater
than the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover
or other adequate erosion control measures, structure, or
device. In any event, exposed slopes or any excavated
channels, the erosion of which may cause offsite damage
due to siltation, shall be planted or otherwise provided
with ground cover, devices or structures sufficient to
restrain such erosion.
D. Drainage shall be provided either through or around any.
berms that. would otherwise obstruct natural.drainage,
5. Noise Abatement
All reasonable precautions shall be taken to minimize the
impact of operational noise upon Umstead Park. Such measures
shall include but not be limited to:
A. Noise barriers between the park boundary and the crushers
and screening towers to minimize noise levels at the park
shall be provided from the outset of the operation. Noise
harriers may be enclosures, walls, bins, structures, stock
piles, or natural terrain. In the event there is disagreement
over the required noise control measures, the final design
and emplacement of noise barriers shall be determined -by
qualified noise and engineering consultants mutually agreed
upon .by both parties.
B. The plant shall be located at the lowest feasible elevation.
C. The plant shall be designed so that the primary crusher can
be relocated in the pit -at the earliest possible date.
D. The chutes used in processing shall be rubberized.
L. Compressors -with noise abatement enclosures (currently called
whisperized compressors) shall be used with track drills to
open the quarry. Once the quarry is opened, either hydraulic
or down-in--the-hole drills shall be used to further reduce
noise.
F. Pit Haul trucks shall be equipped to exhaust through the
beds of the trucks to muffle engine noise.
G. 'Conveyors rather than trucks shall be used for stockpiling
material.
H. The quarry and stone process operations shall be operated
only on Monday through Friday and shall not be operated on
the following recognized holidays: New Year Day,_ Day,_. Easter.....
Monday, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and
Christmas Day. A reasonable amount of hauling 61 processed

v v A. A ♦,I
J stone from the stockpile areas is permitted until 1:00 P.M.
on Saturdays, but hauling shall not be done at any other
time on weekends or on holidays without prior approval
by the Department.
G. Processing Plant Location
A. The processing and stockpiling facilities shall be located
as indicated on the make Stone Corporation site plan dated
March 10, 1981.
B. The plant shall be located to place the processing and
stockpiling facilities at the lowest possible elevation
.to reduce visibility and noise impact on the park.
C. The location of the pit shall be such that, once -the over-
burden is removed, the quarry excavating equipment-i.e.
compressor and drill, shovels, and trucks -can be placed at
an elevation l6wer than the surrounding natural ground in
the initial ' phases of quarrying.
7. Prevention of Stagnant Pools
The affected land shall be graded so as to prevent collection
of pools of water that are, or are likely to become, noxious
or foul. Necessary -'structures such - as-- draihage ditches or
conduits shall be constructed or installed when required to
Prevent such conditions.
S . Blasting
The following blasting conditions shall be observed by the
operator to prevent hazard to persons and adjacent property
from thrown rock or vibrations:
A. In all blasting operations, exceptas hereinafter otherwise
provided, the maximum peak particle velocity of any component
of ground motion shall not exceed 1 inch per second at the
immediate location of any building regularly occupied by
human beings such as dwelling house, church, school, public.
building, or commercial or institutional building. A smaller
peak particle velocity may be required to protect neighboring
structures or equipment vulnerable -to vibrations less than 1
inch/second peak particle velocity.
B. Airblast overpressure shall not exceed 128 decibels linear
( dBL )- `'warning , " 132 d L "caution," and 135 dBL "maximum" as
inoasured at the immediate location of any dwelling house,
C-11111-Ch , 8U.11001, public build i nib , or cunimeruial or institut-iona.l.
WAI.di-ns; .
M

7 of 13
C. The operULor• shall take all reasonable precautions to
insure that flyrock is -not thrown beyond areas where the
access is temporarily or permanently guarded by the operator.
Should flyrock occur beyond the guarded area, it shall be
reported to the Department immediately.. The Department will
conduct -a thorough investigation to determine the cause.
Failure to take .corrective measures to prevent flyrock and
repeated instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation
of tho permit.
P. Operator shall maintain records on each individual blast
describing: the total number of holes;'pattern of holes;
depth of holes; total pounds of explosives; maximum pounds
per delay interval; amount of stemming and burden for each
hole; and blast -location. Records shall be maintained at
the permittee's mine office and copies shall be provided to
the Department upon.request.
:�. Visual Screening
The operation shall be situated to optimize natural screening of
the operation .from public view from Interstate 40 and the Park
property. The visual screening plan shall include maintaining
undisturbed buffer areas of natural vegetation as shown on the
situ 131tan dated March 10, 1981. Additionally, 'a vegetated earthen
berm shall be constructed east of tho processing plant and stock-
pile area as shown on the revised site plan. Visual screening
J such its vegetated earthen berms and/or.. evergreen trees shall --be
Placed. as.. necessary- to supplement natural screening.
Construction of Berms
A. A vegetated earthen berm shall be constructed between the
Wake Stone Corporation plant and the western boundary of the
Park as shown on Wake St6he Corporation's site plan dated
March 10, 1981.
B. Berm dimensions shall be no less than indicated on Wake Stone
Corporation's site plan dated March 10, 1981 and may be higher
and longer than shown.
C. The side slopes of the berm shall be graded to a stable grade
or 2 horizontal to 1 vertical grade or flatter and revegetated
on the sides and top with grasses and evergreen trees. The
toe of the berm shall not encroach on the park property boundary
and shall be at least 50 feet from the boundary. The alignment
of the berm.may vary from the approved site plan as is necessary
to provide the 50 .feet of undisturbed land between the park
boundary and the toe of the berm and assuring an acceptable
;in.;1 e or repn so for the. slope u C the berm.
D . Otiaer berms may bu required as mining progresses to reduce the
noise and visual impact upon the park.

10. highwall Barrier
A physical barrier consisting of a fence or boulder barriers,
etc. shall be maintained around the perimeter of any quarry
hi ghwal l .
11. Annual -Re ort
An Annual Reclamation Report shall be submitted on a form supplied
bN, the Department on February 1 of each year until reclamation is
completed and approved.
12. Surety Bond
The security which was posted pursuant to N.C.G.S. 74-54 in
the form of $25,000.00 Blanket -Bond is sufficient to cover the
crushed stone operation as indicated on the approved application.
`.l'h.is security must remain in force for this permit to be valid.
The total affectod land shall not exceed the bonded acreage.

9 or 13
APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN
The Mining Permit incorporates this Reclamation Plan, the performance of which
is a condition on the continuing validity of that Mining -Permit. Additionally,
the Reclamation Plan is a separable obligation of .the permittee, which continues
beyond the term of the Mining Permit.
The approved plan provides:
Minimum Standards As Provided By G. S. 74--53
1. The final slopes in all excavations in soil, sand, gravel and other uncon-
solidatad materials shall be at such an angle as to minimize the possibility
of slides and be consistent with the future use of the land.
2. Provisions for safety to persons and to adjoining property must be provided
in all excavations in rock.
3. All overburden and spoil shall be left in a configuration which is in
accordance with accepted conservation practices and which is suitable for
the proposed subsequent use of the land.
4. No small pools of water shall be allowed to collect or remain on the mined
area that are, or are likely to become noxious, odious or foul.
5. The revegetation plan shall conform to accepted and reeom�iended agronomic
and reforestation- practices'as established -by the N.C. Agricultural
Experiment Station and the N.C. Forest Service.
b. Permittee shall conduct reclamation activities pursuant to the Reclamation
Plan herein incorporated. These activities shall be conducted according
to the time schedule included in the plan, which shall to the extent
feasible provide reclamation simulkaneous with mining operations and in
any event, initiation of reclamation at the earliest practicable time after
completion or termination of mining on any segment of the permit area and
shall be completed within two years after completion or termination of mining.
RECLAMATION CONDITIONS
1. Provided further, and subject to the Reclamation Schedule,
the reclamation shall be to restore the affected lands to
a condition suitable for wildlife and recreation.
2. Specifications for reclamation shall be as follows:
A. The process plant area shall be graded and smoothed.
B. Any sideslopes in unconsolidated material shall be graded
to a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical errade or flatter. - -

C. Suitable benches shall be left in -the rock excavation to
provide support where rock weakness could lead to collapse
of high walls.
D. Overburden shall be used for site grading or berm construction
at approved locations.
F. Settling ponds shall be drained and stabi.lized.to prevent
erosion.
F. Oil, grease, scrap metal, wood and other debris shall be
removed from the surface and delivered to scrap dealers
or landfilled in an approved manner.
G. Any diverted or re-established drainage channels shall be.
restored to a stable condition.
II. The affected land shall be graded to prevent the collection
of noxious or foul water.
3. Revegetation Plan
All reclaimed areas in unconsolidated material shall be re -
vegetated utilizing the following provisions:
Site Preparation: The ground will be graded and/or shaped
where necessary keeping in mind the ultimate use of the site,
1 but in no case will any slope greater- than 26-- degrees in un-
consolidated material be left. Loose rock, woody material,
and -other obstruction that will interfere with the establishment
of vegetation planned for the site will be removed and/or buried.
Surface runoff that might concentrate to cause undesirable erosion
will be controlled by terraces or diversions diverting water to
protect outlets.
Lime and Fertilizer: Liming and/or fertilizer will be conducted
in accord -once with soil test results and as required for vegetation
planned for the site.
Seedbed Preparation: Lime and fertilizer will be mixed with the
soil. to a depth of 3 to 4-inches where conventional equipment
can be used. On slopes steeper than about 2:1, soils will be
grooved or scarified along the contour to provide for retention
of seeds and nutrients on the slope until germination and growth
is started. On steep slopes not accessible to machinery, seed and
nutrients will be applied by hand.

1,%sgetation: Sericea Lespedeza and/or Weeping lovegrass will
be established on the site to provide ground cover and erosion
control. When using Sericea.Lespedeza, scarified seed will be
applied when reclamation is conducted during spring months and'
unsoarified seed will be used during the fall.
Application will be in a uniform manner either by machine or
hand at the rate of 50 pounds of lovegrass, Lespedeza, or com-
bination per acre. Seed will be covered to a depth of 1/8-to
1/4 inch and the soil then firmed with a cultipacker or similar -
equipment. Mulch consisting of dry, unchopped small grain straw
or similar type material will be spread evenly over the surface
at the rate of 1 to 2 tons per acre or until about 75 percent, of
the soil is hidden. Loblolly pine seedlings will be planted at
selected sites to provide a view screen to provide revegetation.
Spacing will be about 4' X 4' for revegetation purposes.
Maintenance: Plant replacement and other maintenance that may
be required to establish vegetative cover appropriate to the
reclamation plan for this site will be carried out until veg-
etation is properly established.
4. Reclamation Schedule
Some reclamation activities, particularly those relating to
/ control of erosion, will be conducted s mvltaneous.ly _with.
iniiiing activities. D version channels or terraces that may be
'required to control surface runoff on the property will be
established and revegetated as soon as they are constructed.
Portions of berms will be revegetated as completed. Final
reclamation activities will be initiated at the earliest practical
time after completion or; termination of mining -on --any segment of
.:he permit area, and in"all instances reclamation activities will
be completed within two years after completion or termination of
mining.
5. Donation to State
This provision is pursuant to Wake Stone Corporation's offer
to donate the quarry site to the State as .part of its reclamation
plan.
The term, "quarry site," shall include the entire pit as it
exists after quarrying has been completed., a strip extending
at leash, 50 feet back from the top of the slope of the pit on
all sides and a reasonable area to connect the pit and surround-
iii; - strip to the Park, const ituti rid; a total area of at least 75
acres.

During the option period, Wake Stone Corporation shall have
the right to encumber all of its remaining property from time
to time by mortgage, deed -of trust or other security agreement
then in common use for the purpose of securing one or more
bona fide obligations of Wake Stone Corporation, such as the
payment of money or the providing of any goods or services.
The option to.the State shall be subordinate to each such
encumbrance in the same manner and to the same extent as if
such option had been recorded after the recordation of. each
such encumbrance.
The right of the State to.exercise its option shall be subject
to.
A. Wake Stone Corporation not being prohibited by the U.S.
Government, State of North Carolina, Wake County, any
municipality having jurisdiction, or by any court from
removing Wake Stone Corporation's property all quarryable
stone which is outside the buffer zone referred to in
condition 3, page 4. The requirements by the State that
Wake'Stone Corporation comply with laws and rules and
regulations generally applicable to stone quarries shall
not be deemed a prohibition of quarrying for the purpose
of the option agreement.
B. The operation of a quarry on Wake Stone Corporation's
property for a minimum period of five years.
The conveyance of the quarry.. site, If. approved by the -.State,
shall be by deed containing the usual covenants of warranty
and conveying the quarry site free and clear of all encumbrances
except those existing at the time of Wake Stone Corporation's
purchase, ad valorem taxes at the time of conveyance (which
shall be prorated), and such drainage and utility easements
as shall have been installed in connection with the development
of the property.
The option may include such other terms as are mutually accept-
able to the State and Wake Stone Corporation.
The method by which the quarry site may be donated to the
State is as follows: Upon acquisition of the land by Wake
Stone Corporation (by the exercise of its options to purchase),
W:tke Stone Corporation will grant to the State an option which,
if exercised by the State, will require that Wake Stone Corporation
convey a fee simple title .to the quarry site to the State. The
State shall have no obligation to. exercise its option to accept
a conveyance of the quarry site.

The terns and conditions of the option shall be as follows:
A. When -all quarryable stone has been removed from all of the land
belonging to or under the control of Wake Stone Corporation dur;
\� the period of its quarrying operations and which lies between tk
Park and Interstate Highway 40, it shall be the duty of Wakc Stc
Corporation to notify the State of this fact. Upon receipt of
such notice, the State shall have six months within which it ma3
elect to have Wake Stone Corporation convey the quarry site to
the State. If the State elects to have Wake Stone Corporation
convey the quarry site to the State, it shall notify Wake Stone
Corporation of such election within said six month period. All
notices shall be by certified mail with return receipt requestet
If the State fails to make an election within said six month
period or shall elect not to accept a conveyance of the quarry
site, the option shall thereupon terminate and Wake Stone Corp-
oration shall have no further obligation to convey the quarry
site to the State.
1.3. If all quarryable stone is not removed, the right of the State
to acquire the quarry site shall accrue at the end of 50 years
:rom the date quarrying commences or 10 years after quarrying
operations have ceased without having been resumed, whichever
—� is sooner, and notices shall be exchanged at that time in the
same manner and with the same time limitations as set forth in
paragraph A above.
C. Until the option has expired Wake Stone Corporation will not
encumber by mortgage or deed of trust any of the area designatec
`/ "BUFFER AREA" on' Wake Stone Corporation's site plan dated
February 17, 1981, revised March 10, 1981,-except for purchase
money security interests.
The terms and conditions relating to the donation are placed herein
to prescribe generally the boundaries of the Wake Stone Corporation
offer. The acceptance by the State is subject to approval by the
Department of Administration and the Council of State and the ascer,
ing that the offer is in accord with the laws of the State and lawft
adopted rules and regulations. Further, the Department's analysis
the condition of the land to be transferred will be in accordance w:
the criteria identified in the "Principles Governing the Establishmi
Extension and Development of State Parks, State Recreation Areas an,
u State Natural Areas."
a
Permit issued this the / 3 lt� day of QQ, 19 `.
BY: �jM t�+ rivr dL
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Division of Land Resources
By Authority of the Secretary
Of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Developn
`.�

• 0"U-zov
Attachment 7. Assistant Attorney
General Daniel Oakley letter of
options to appeal Wake Stone quart'
(January 30, 1981, Source: State
1 Archives)
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
csfttfe of cNorth amalina
Lacptutmcnt of Noticie
P. O. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602
30 January 1981
RECEIVED
' N3t,}iq�
MCD OFFICE of
6-40h1s] RAjJgq
_. ... A4
TO: Maria F. Spaulding, Assistant Secretary for Administration
ice
FROM: Daniel C. Oakley, Assi ant Attorney General
RE: Wake -Stone Corporation - Permit Hearing
Several questions have surfaced with regard to the recent
decision of the Mining Commission which this memo attempts to
address.
1. Does the De artment have the right to appeal the decision?
�� This question arises due to the fact that the Commission is
administratively located within the Department. G.S. 143B-279 and
143E-290. There has been varying debate over this question, but
the consensus of this office is that the Department is a "party"
and a "person aggrieved" under the Administrative Procedures Act
such that it can petition the Wake County Superior Court to review
the decision. G.S. 15OAr-2 and 150A-43. This opinion would be based
upon a reading of the Mining Act that give definite duties and
responsibilities over permit -issuance to the Department. It is
supported in case law by IN RE HALIFAX PAPER COMPANY, 259 NC 589
(1963) in which the Commission of Revenue appealed an adverse decision
of the State Tax Review Board.
2. Is there a legal basis for an a eal? This question
should not be really answered without a complete review of the
record, but I can give some initial thoughts at this time.
The legal bases for an appeal would appear to be (1) that the
Commission's decision is "unsupported by substantial evidence"
under what is known as the -N;hole record test," and (2) that the
decision is affected by some other error of law. In briefest terms,
we would have to show the Commission.failed to adequately take into
account our evidence and the inferences to be made therefrom,
ignored a portion of our case, or based the decision on irrelevant
factors. The reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for
the Commission's in case of two reasonable but conflicting views.

Page Two
The Department would have the burden of showing that the
Commission's finding and decision were not supported by substantial
evidence. I believe a review of the record will indicate several
areas in which our evidence was not adequately considered. We
could argue that the Mining Commission made prejudicial errors of
law by taking into account irrelevent factors such as existing
influences on park usage which are not directly applicable under
G.S. 74-51(5).
3. One other matter of concern is to determine exactly what
the Commission is expecting from the Department and Wake Stone.
There is some possibility the decision is not intended to be "final"
until both sides have discussed possible permit conditions. I see
no legal basis for such a position, however, I feel this should be
addressed, perhaps by a motion for clarification, as soon as
possible.
I hope this memorandum is helpful. I will be glad to discuss
it further with you at your convenience. The decision on whether
to appeal needs to be made expeditiously so that we can prepare
and file the necessary documents within thirty days of the date
the decision was served.
/ck
`%

---Machment 8. Departmental Strategy for Wake Stone Permit
issue in Umstead State Park, Memo from Griggs to
Secretary Lee (February 4,1981, Source: State Archives)
N%10001
February 4, 1981
MEMORANDUM RtCtIVED
TO: Secretary Howard N. Lee .,J ti
FROM: Neil S. Grigg NRCD OFFICE OF,
AD1W1W15TRA71oN
SUBJECT: Departmental Strategy for Wake.St�one�Permit Issue
in Umstead Park
I met with some key staff members February 3 to develop a recommended strategy
for you on the Wake Stone permit issue. We discussed the matter at great
length and offer you the recommendations contained in this memorandum:
The Department has a long-range objective and two short-range objectives. The
long-range objective is to do everything possible to protect the park. This
is consistent with your memorandum of February 2 to Governor Hunt and with
our responsibilities to protect the park. The two short-range objectives are
to follow the most orderly procedure possible since the Mining Commission has
apparently reversed a Departmental decision. That is, if at all possible, we
would like to avoid the appearance of being in disarray by disagreeing inter-
nally in the Department and using the appeal process. Our other short-range
objective is to signal to the public at large and to the specific park sup-
porters that the Department intends to do everything possible to protect
Umstead Park.
The strategy we have developed is designed to achieve our long-range objective
and both short-range objectives. In this strategy, we retain the right to
appeal the Mining Commission's decision, but we recommend that you reject the
option of an immediate direct appeal. The immediate appeal would have some
public relations value in the near -term, but it would signal that the Depart-
ment and the Commission were not working together in an orderly fashion. The
two-part process we recommend is as follows. First, we suggest you follow a de-
liberate procedure to develop either the most stringent possible conditions
for the quarry or to exercise further legal remedies, whatever they may be, if
satisfactory conditions cannot be developed. Second, we recommend that NRCD
develop a strong public information strategy considering all of the con-
stitutencies of the Department to be implemented immediately.
The specifics of process we suggest are as follows:
1. At the present, we seek clarification from the Mining Commission as to
whether their decision is a final or interm-m decision, contingent on
whether satisfactory conditions can be worked out. I have already
directed that this clarification be sought and the Attorney General's
Office will pursue it right away.
2. The Divison of Land Resources begin to discuss with Wake Stone what
conditions would be satisfactory to both the Department and the company.
If satisfactory conditions can be developed which would obviously pro-
tect the park and which could be supported by the public, we feel the

�,.
Page 2
`J Secretary Howard N. Lee February 4, 1981
permit could be issued and the matter would be terminated. If no
satisfactory agreement on conditions can be reached, we would refer
the matter back to the Mining Commission with the recommendation
that the permit be denied. At that time, if there was still not
agreement between the Department and the commission, the Department
would evaluate and might choose to pursue other legal remedies such
as an appeal.
I have asked Mrs. Anne Taylor to take the lead on the public involvement. program
and work with the Divisions and Offices of the Department that either have an
interest in this matter or resources which can be devoted to it. Mrs. Taylor
will also work with you directly to involve the environmental leaders that you
have been meeting with to advise on this matter.
we recommend this stratgy to you and stand ready to advise you at any time on
this matter. The persons who were in attendance at the meeting and who con-
curred with the strategy are myself, Bill Ross, Anne Taylor, Jim Stevens,
Steve Conrad, Sandy Babb and Dan Oakley.
If you approve, you might direct Jim Sheppard to prepare the appropriate press
release.
`001 NSG/ch

Attachment 9. Director Conrad Memo to Citizen explaining he will use all legal options to protect the Park
�g (March 25, 1981, Source: State Archives)
DIVISION OF
7 North Carolina Department of Natural LAN[' RESGURCES
Step
Resources &Community Development han 2 Conrad, Director
w J ! Boa 27667, Raleigh 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee, Secretary I Tean.mne 918 7333833
March 25, 1981
Mrs. GaynelZ Watson
4315 Leesville Road
Z8-A
RaZeigh, North Carolina 276Z2
Dear Mrs. Watson:
Your letter of March 6, to Governor Hunt has been referred
to my office through Secretary Howard N. Lee.
Although, I know Governor Hunt is personally concerned about
the location of a rock quarry adjacent to William B. Umstead State
Park, and has so publicly stated, I hope you understand and appre-
ciate the fact that the Governor does not have the authority to
intervene and deny Wake Stone Corporation a mining permit as request-
ed in your letter.
The North Carolina General Statutes designate this Department
as the agency responsible for the issuing and denial of mining permits.
\� The North Carolina Mining Commission is given the authority to re-
view decisions of the Department, and on an appeal of a Department
decision, the Mining Commission can uphold, reverse or modify any
Department decision. Under the General Statutes there is no provision
for the Governor, nor any other party, to intervene in this process.
As you know, the Mining Commission has completed the hearing
process on Wake Stoners appeal of the Department's decision to deity
the permit. We expect the Mining Commission to reader its final
decision in this matter within the next few days. At that time, the
Department will consider the alternatives available to it and base
its decision on what is the best course of action to provide maximum,
long term protection to William B. Umstead State Park.
I appreciate your interest and support and please let me know
ifI can be of any further assistance.
Very truly yours,
'Fl�f ht,9 6,
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
SGC/ps
cc: Goo,vernor James B. Hunt, Jr.
.6reeretary Howard N. Lee
Geological Survay Section-733 2423; Geodetic Survey Section-7333836: Land Quality Section-733-4574; Planning and Inventory Section-7333833;
Land Resources Intormation Serv1ce—/33-2090
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

Attachment 10. Secretary Lee Letter to Governor Hunt outlining options to A5 - (
consider regarding Mining Commission Issue (February 2, 1981, Source:
State Archives)
North Carolina Department of Natural
u Resources &Community Development
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee, Secretary
February 2, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO: Governor James B. Hun
FROM: Secretary Howard N. 1
SUBJCET: Unstead Park and Wake
You will be called on to comment on the State's position on the proposed
Wake Stone Quarry next to Unstead Park. The purpose of this memorandum
is to apprise you of our current thinking on this issue.
This Department is very much opposed to the location of any industrial
facility or quarry adjacent to Umstead Park that would impair the use
\1 of the park. For this reason, we are seeking ways to protect the State's
interest by either opposing the quarry or placing stringent enough
restrictions on it to minimize the adverse effects.
We have not yet determined exactly how to proceed. The Department is
studying alternatives including: 1) an appeal of the Mining Commission's
decision to the Superior Court of Wake County; 2) the placement of very
stringent conditions on the permit; (3) other actions such as a legal
challenge to the zoning decision by the Wake County Commissioners. In
reviewing these we recognize that by opposing the quarry we may expose
the park to an even less desirable land use at the site.
Until we have fully evaluated this issue, our policy is to continue
to protect the park using every measure available to this Department.
We plan to have a Departmental decision on a possible appeal within
a week or ten days.
HNL/vbw
P. O. Box 27687 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
An Z4v rtunity Affirmative Action Employer F �.

\4wm�
Attachment 11. Mining Commission Documents
(January 27, 1981 and April 3, 1981, Source:
State Archives)
In the Matter of Denial of)
Permit Application of the )
Wake Stone' Corporation )
BEFORE THE -MINING COMMISSION
Findings of Fact, Con-
clusions, and Decision
This cause was heard before the Mining Commission on November 6 and 7 and ;
December 16 and 17, 1980, pursuant to NCGS 74-61 and NCGS 15OA-23 et seq., to
consider the denial by the Division of Land Resources, Department of Natural
Resources and Community.Development (hereinafter the Department), of Wake Stone
Corporation's application for a permit.
Preliminary Statement
Wake Stone Corporation (hereinafter the Petitioner) has options to purchase
various parcels of land, some of which adjoin Umstead State Park (hereinafter
the park). ,It seeks a permit to quarry stone there.. The Department denied
Petitioner's request for a permit. The Petitioner then appealed this decision
to the Mining Commission.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the proposed.quarry would have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on the purposes of the park.
1
Statutes
The Department is empowered to issue a permit to quarry stone "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 objective of this
Article.." NCGS 74--61. The Department may deny a permit if "the operation would

`.14w.
- 2 -
i
have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a publicly owned park,
forest, or recreation area." NCGS 74-61(5). An applicant may appeal the De-.
partment's action to the Mining Commission, which may "affirm, affirm with modi-
fications, or overrule the decision of the Department and may direct the Depart-
ment to take such action as may be required to effectuate its decision."
NCGS 74-61.
Background Information
*The park consists of 5,217 acres in Wake County, along the eastern edge of
the Piedmont Plateau, between Raleigh and Durham. The Master Plan developed for
the park in 1974, State -Exhibit 020, sets forth its history:
Until 1934, the land now occupied by Umstead Park was a farm
community --houses, mills, and fields in various stages of use
and abandonment. Poor agricultural techniques, such as one
crop farming, primarily cotton, led to the loss of topsoil
.and subsequently, a submarginal existence. Second -growth timber
was then removed from some upland areas, which expedited the
erosion process.
During the great depression, the United States Resettlement
Division began a program of purchasing sub -marginal farm land,
and in 1935 a proposal to acquire and develop a recreational
demonstration project was instigated generally within the area
now known as Umstead Park. The development of this area was
jointly supervised by the National Park Service and the Depart-
ment of Conservation and Development and until 1943, all develop-
ment and land acquisition was financed by Federal money.
addition to the development of four group camps, a lake, tem-
porary roads and utility systems, the CCC Work Force was re-
sponsible for important conservation measures such as tree
planting and the construction of check dams, which aided the
stabilization of the soil.
World War II forced the abandonment of Federal activities and
on April 63 1943, the United States deeded to the State of
North Carolina, for the sum of one dollar, 5,088 acres to serve
"public park, recreation, and conservation purposes". This
land was officially designated as Crabtree Creek State Park.
In 1947 and 1949, public use facilities including picnic areas,
tent and trailer campgrounds, and utilities were financed by
the General Assembly's first State Parks Division appropriation.

-3-
The master plan also describes the present and projected use of the sur-
rounding land:
'-Umstead Park lies in a highly urbanized area of the State
and, as in the past, is currently under pressure from ad-
jacent development. Suburban Raleigh is rapidly moving
westward and recent development, in fact, abuts the eastern
edge of. the Park. With the development of Crabtree Valley
Shopping Center and Interstate 40, land values have risen
enormously so that a setting for residential and industrial
growth in very close proximity to the Park has developed.
City and county land use zoning has set the stage for both
of these types of uses so that the only inhibiting factor
at present is the lack of sanitary sewer and water lines.
While it is only a matter of time before these utilities
are provided, the exact location of the utility easements
has not yet been pinpointed as it relates to the Park.
Specifically, the land adjacent to the northeast between
the Park and Highway 70 and.that land between I-40 and the
park boundary is currently under considerable pressure for
building . . . . In addition, the Raleigh thoroughfare
plan indicates the construction of a new road linking I-40
and the Duraleigh Road as an extension of the Southern Belt -
line which, without control measures, will most certainly
create similar development pressure.
Raleigh -Durham Airport lies adjacent to Umstead Park's
western boundary and presently has two runways; one for
J commercial airlines runs parallel to the Park in a northeast/
southwest direction and the other, for small craft use, lies
perpendicular to the Park in an east -west direction. The
Airport Authority is currently in - advanced stages of planning
a new runway and enlarged facilities. The proposed runway
would lie perpendicular to the Park south of the Airport's
existing facilities and service commercial flights.*
Thus, Highway 70, Interstate 40, and Raleigh -Durham Airport bound the park on
three sides. Of these three neighboring land uses, the airport has the most pro-
nounced effect on the day-to-day uses of the park. The map on page 9 'of the
master plarr depicts two broad swaths, covering about one-half of the park, as
"airport impact zones." The plan states:
Noise emanating from the airport as well as the major roads,
I-40, Highway 70, and proposed roads, is important not only
to the location of overnight facilities in the Park but also
those areas of daytime sue where a greater degree of tranqui-
lity is required. Flight zones over the Park from the existing
`The Mining Commission is aware of the more recent action of the Raleigh -
Durham Airport authority regarding Plan 523L and the alignment of the pro-
posed*runway parallel to the western border of the park.

a
-•4-
�J ..small craft runway and proposed runway impact the park
not only due to noise but also visually so that, in these
zones, the location of -uses requires considerable ser4tiny.
Stipulations
In the Prehearing Order, Wake Stone Exhibit #3, the parties stipulate as fol-
lows:
1. The only contested matters are blasting, dust, traffic, noise, and visi-
bility.
2. Blasting will occur eight to twelve times per month and at vibration and
air blast levels within the Department's guidelines.
3. The Petitioner's dust control plan meets all Department standards, and.
the Petitioner has a permit to operate proposed air pollution abatement facilities
for controlling dust.
4. The Divsion of Highways has determined that a coincidence of projected
peak traffic for the park and the quarry will not create unsafe conditions.
Findings of Fact
A. Chronology of Events
1. On March 21, 1980, Wake Stone Corporation, operator of several stone
quarries in,North Carolina, applies for a. permit to quarry stone on 195 acres
situated north of Interstate 40, south of the airport, at the southwest corner
of the park. Wake Stone Exhibit #1.
2. By letter dated August 22, 1980, Mr. Stephen G. Conrad, Director, Divi-
sion of Land Resources, Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment, denies the permit. State Exhibit #18.
3. By letter dated September 16, 1980, the Petitioner requests a hearing
before the Mining Commission to appeal the denial. State Exhibit #19.

-5-
4. On October 31, 1980, Mr. Daniel C. Oakley, Assistant Attorney General,
appearing on behalf of the Department, and Mr. James M. Kimzey, Esquire, 4p-
pearing on behalf of the Petitioner, hold a prehearing.conference and file a
Prehearing Order. Wake Stone Exhibit #3.
5. On November 6 and 7 and December 16 and•17, 1980, the Mining Commission:
hears the appeal.
B. Evidence
1. A summary of the.important objective evidence on the matters of blasting,
noise, and visibility is as follows:
a. On blasting, the Department puts into evidence documents showing that
the southern area of the park is an "airport impact zone." Department Exhibit
0202 pp. 8-9.
For the Petitioner, Phillip Berger testifies that the sound of an
airplane taking off over the southwestern corner of the park would muffle the
sound of a blast, Tr. pp. 140, 151, and that projected blasts would be well
within the Department's guidelines, Tr. pp. 131-2.
b. The testimony of the noise experts for each party is in substantial
accord. Bruce G. Leonard testifies for the Petitioner that the ambient noise
level in the pertinent section of the park is about 45 decibels on an A weighted
scale (dB(A)), Tr. p. 227, and the projected noise level of equipment and trucks,
measured at various points in the park, ranges from 46 to 55 dB(A), Tr. pp. 228-
39. He also testifies that the Federal Highway Administration standard for traf-
fic noise in parks is 57 dB Ldn or Leq, Tr. p. 224, and that the Division of
Parks and Recreation has proposed a guideline for noise levels in parks of 55
dB Ldn or Leq.
For the Department James D. Simons testifies that the ambient -noise
`v� level in the southwestern part of the park is about 45 dB(A), Tr. p. 414, and

` the projected -noise level of equipment and trucks ranges from 51 to 55 dB(A)2
a Tr. P. 496 (see also pp. 497-516). Documentary evidence introduced by the
Department indicates that most of the southern half of the park is a flight
zone for aircraft taking off and landing. Department Exhibit #20, pp. 8-9.
c. The testimony on visibility reveals little agreement among the
experts. For the Petitioner, Earl Harbison testifies that, due to topography
and vegetation, the crushing equipment at the -proposed site would generally
not be visible from the park. Tr. pp. 158-98.
Richard Hazard testifies for the Department that, during the sum-
mer, the equipment could be visible from a few areas in the park, and, during
the winter, it would be visible "from a good area within the southern half" of
the park. Tr. pp. 776-8.
2. The purposes of the park are to preserve natural resources and to make
them available to the public for recreation and wildlife interpretation. Tr.
p. 912 (testimony of Stephen G. Conrad for the Department). '
Conclusions
The Mining Commission makes the following conclusions:
1. Based on:
a. the stipulation by the parties that vibration and air blast levels
generated by proposed blasting are within the Department's guidelines, Wake
Stone Exhibit ,#3, p. 2;
b. documentary evidence that the southern area of the park is an "air-
port impact zone" (i.e. a flight zone for incoming and outgoing airplanes),
Department Exhibit #20, pp. 8-9;
c. Phillip Berger's testimony that
llw�

-7- '
i. the sound of an airplane taking off over the southwestern cor-
ner of the park would muffle the sound•of a blast, Tr, pp. 1409 151; and
ii. that projected blasts would be well within the Department's
guidelines, Tr. pp. 131-2,
the Commission concludes that blasting will not have a significant adverse of-'
feet on the purposes of the park.
2. Based on:
a. the stipulation by the parties that the Petitioner's dust control
plan is designed to meet Department standards, Wake Stone Exhibit #3, p. 2;
and on
b. James D. Simons's testimony that the dust from blasting is not a
concern of the Department in this case, Tr, p. 490,
the Commission concludes that dust from the quarry and roads will not have a
significant adverse effect on the purposes of the park.
3. Based on the stipulation by the parties that the Division of Highways
has determined that, even with a coincidence of projected peak traffic for the
park and the quarry, there would be no unsafe traffic conditions, the Commission
determines that traffic generated by the quarry would not have a significant ad-
verse effect on the purposes of the park.
4. Based on:
a. testimony of Bruce G. Leonard, Phillip Berger, and James D. Simons
about an existing noise level of about 45 dB(A), Tr. pp. 227 and 414, and pro-
jected noise levels ranging from 46 to 55 dB(A);
b. the absence of a noise level standard for equipment near parks such
as this one; and
c. the analogous, though not diapositive, Federal Highway Administration
standard for traffic noise in parks of 57 dB Ldn or Leq, Tr, pp. 224-5; and

i
d. testimony by Bruce G. Leonard that the Division of Parks and Recrea-
tion has proposed a guideline of 55 dB Ldn or Leq, Tr. p. 224,
the Commission concludes that the noise from the quarry machinery and traffic
will not have a significant adverse effect on the purposes of the park.
5. The Commission concludes from the conflicting testimony of Earl Harbison
and Richard Hazard that, while the crusher may be visible from certain places
in the park, such visibility will not have a significant adverse effect on the
purposes of the park.
Decision
The Commission feels strongly that the Department has acted in a conscientious -
and responsible manner, and had a reasonable basis to believe that the denial of
the permit was correct. The Department had to reach a conclusion on a major issue --
noise --without standards or guidelines applicable to parks. To make matters more
\*MOVI complex, the area around the park reflects a checkerboard of land use plans by
various state and local government units. Thus, although the Commission reverses
the Department's action in this case, it wishes to commend the Department for its
diligence and dedication.
In order to protect the park from any possible adverse effects of the quarry-
ing operation, the permit should be issued, subject to the Commission's final
approval, with the terms and conditions outlined below.
i. The Division and Wake Stone shall develop a plan to be incorporated in
the permit to require utilization of state-of-the-art techniques to minimize
noise, dust, and other possible adverse effects on the park.
2. The Division and Wake Stone shall develop a plan for the optimum location
of processing and stockpiling facilities and roads to minimize possible effects
on the park.

E'Z
3. The Division and Wake Stone shall develop an adequate buffer zone plan
for the area between the quarry and the park.
4. The Division shall require Wake Stone to construct a berm or berms
between the quarry and the park.
5. Pursuant to Wake Stone's proposal that, as part of its reclamation plan,
it donate the quarry to the State for park use on termination of the operation,'
the Commission requests that counsel for Wake Stone meet with Mr. Daniel C.
Oakley, Assistant Attorney General, and Ms. Becky R. French, Director, Office
of Administrative Hearings, to reach an agreement, to be submitted to the
Commission, on the best method to transfer the land.
This decision is not final. In no more than 45 days, unless the Commission
grants an extension, the Division and Wake Stone shall, at a public hearing,
present to the Commission the plans outlined above. At the hearing the Commis-
sion will not hear new evidence. At least 5 days before this hearing the parties
shall deposit the plans with B. R. French for distribution to the Commission.
Following the hearing the Commission shall render a final decision, from which
the parties may appeal pursuant to NCGS 15OA-1. et seq.
Date of original decision: January 27, 1981.
As amended and corrected, this the 1�ffl_y aloe, 1981.
n r & at se ed 6Y
Dr. Henry B. Smith, Chairman
North Carolina Mining Commission
\awolJ

BEFORE THE MINING COMMISSION'
In the Matter of Denial of
Permit Application of
Wake Stone Corporation
FINAL DECISION
In accordance with this Commission's initial Findings of Fact, Conclusions,
and Decision of January 27, 1981, as amended and corrected, and with the
March 12, 1981 Agreement of Wake Stone Corporation and the Division of Land
Resources, Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, concerning
the Conditions enumerated below as 1, 2, 4, and 5; and upon consideration of
the supplementary arguments of the parties concerning Condition 3, infra, the
Mining Commission hereby orders that the Division of Land Resources grant to
Wake Stone Corporation the permit applied for with the following conditions:
Condition No. 1 - Minimize noise, dust, and other possible adverse effects.
Noise .
1. Noise barriers between crushers and screening towers to minimize noise
levels at the park shall be provided from the outset of the operation.
Noise barriers may be enclosures, walls, bins, structures, stockpiles,
or natural terrain. In the event there is disagreement over the required
noise control measures, the final design and emplacement of noise barriers
shall be determined by qualified noise and engineering consultants mutually
agreed upon by both parties.
2. The plant shall be located at a lower elevation as indicated on the required
site plan.
3. The plant shall be designed so that the primary crusher can be relocated in
the pit at the earliest possible date.
4. The chutes used in processing shall be rubberized.

mw�=
5. Compressors with noise abatement enclosures (currently called whi.sperized
compressors) shall be used with track drills to open the quarry. Once
the quarry is opened, either hydraulic or down -in -the --hole drills shall
be used to further reduce noise.
6. Only such blasting techniques as minimize noise shall be employed.
7. Pit haul trucks shall be equipped to'exhaust through the beds of the
trucks to muffle engine noise.
8. Conveyors rather than trucks shall be used for stockpiling material.
9. The quarry shall be operated only on Monday through Friday and shall not
be operated on State -recognized holidays.
Dust
`ter►' 1. The access road to the quarry,from the scale house to SR 1790,shall be
paved. Wake Stone Corporation agrees to cooperate with the Department
of Transportation in paving SR 1790 from the entrance to the quarry to
the intersection with SR 1654.
2. The provisions of the air quality permit No. 4386 shall be followed.
3. A water wagon with sprays shall be used for wetting roads to prevent dust.
4. Sprays shall be used throughout the plant at transfer points to control
dust.
S. Drill hole dust shall be controlled by wetting or other means.
6. Dust control shall be maintained by the use of water sprays.
7. A water spray shall be provided for highway haul trucks.
8• Washed stone shall be stockpiled within the part of the designated plant
area which is closest to the park.

- 3 r
Condition No. 2 - Optimize processing and sstock2iling facilities to minimize
possible effects on the park.
1. The processing and stockpiling facilities shall be relocated as indicated on
the Wake Stone revised site plan submitted February 18, 1981. The purpose
of this relocation shall be to screen the park from the sight and sound
of the operation, reduce erosion, and shield the operation from public
view along Interstate 40.
2. The relocation shall place the processing and stockpiling facilities at a
lower elevation to reduce visibility and noise.
3. The stockpiles shall be located close to the quarry entrance roads.
4. The plant and stockpile area shall be close to the intersection of SR 1790
and SR 1654.
5. The initial site disturbance from both quarry excavation and plant site
development shall be confined to one drainage system, which is now already
protected by ponds which will serve as sediment basins. The -purpose of
this relocation is to aid erosion and sediment control.
6. The new location of the pit shall be such that, once the overburden is
removed, the quarry excavating equipment - i.e. compressor and drill,
shovels, and trucks - can be placed below the surrounding land at the
initial phases of quarrying.
Condition No. 3 - Buffer Zone Plan
1. The extent of the completely undisturbed buffer zone to be maintained between
the park boundary during the 10 year permit shall be as indicated on the
revised plan and modified by Exceptions 2, 3, and 4 listed on Page 2 of
Wake Stone Corporation's memorandum of March 10, 1981, except all of the
area north of the ten-year buffer line shall be left as a natural buffer
`140

a
4
-VMW
zone and•not be developed or altered for commercial purposes.
Condition No. 4 -- Construction of Berms
1. A vegetated earthen berm shall be constructed between the Wake Stone Corporation
plant and the western boundary of the park as shown on Wake Stone Corporation's
revised site plan.
2. Berm dimensions shall be no less than indicated on Wake Stone Corporation's
revised site plan and may be higher and longer than shown, except the berm
shall not encroach on the permanent buffer zone.
3. The side slopes of the berm shall be graded to a stable grade of 2 horizontal
to 1 vertical grade or flatter and revegetated on the sides and top with
grasses and evergreen trees. The toe of the berm shall not encroach on the
park property boundary and shall be at least 50 feet from the boundary.
4. Other berms may be required as mining progresses to reduce the noise and
visual impact upon the quarry.
Condition No. 5 - Donation of Quarry to the State
Pursuant to Wake Stone Corporation's offer to donate the quarry site to
the State as part of its reclamation plan, the terms and conditions of the offer
and acceptance shall be set forth -n the reclamation plan as follows.
The term, "quarry site", shall include the entire pit as it exists after
quarrying has been completed, a strip extending at least 50 feet back from the
top of the slope of the pit on all sides (see the reclamation plan for the
requirements applying to the slope), and a reasonable area to connect the pit
and surrounding strip to Umstead Park, constituting a total area of at least
75 acres.

s
- 5 -
The method by which the quarry site will be donated to the State is as
follows: Upon acquisition of the land by Wake Stone (by the exercise of its
options to purchase), Wake Stone will grant to the State an option which, If
exercised by the State, will require that Wake Stone convey a fee simple title
to the quarry site to the State. The State shall have no obligation to exercise
its option to accept a conveyance of the quarry site.
The terms and conditions of the option shall be as follows:
1. When all quarryable stone has been removed from all of the land belonging
to or under the control of Wake Stone Corporation during the period of its
quarrying operations and which lies between Umstead Park and Interstate Highway 40,
it shall be the duty of Wake Stone to notify the State of this fact. Upon receipt
of such notice, the State shall have six months within which it may elect to have
Wake Stone convey the quarry site to the State. If the State elects to have
Wake Stone convey the quarry site to the State, it shall notify Wake Stone of
such election within said six month period. All notices shall be by certified
mail with return receipt requested. If the State fails to make an election
within said six month period or shall elect not to accept a conveyance of the
quarry site, the option shall thereupon terminate and Wake Stone shall have no
further obligation to convey the quarry site to the State.
2. If all quarryable stone is not removed, the right of the State to acquire
the quarry site shall accrue at the end of 50 years from the date quarrying
commences or•10 years after quarrying operations have ceased without having been
resumed, whichever is later, and notices shall be exchanged at that time in the
same manner and with the same time limitations as set forth in paragraph 1 above.
3. Until the option has expired Wake Stone will not encumber by mortgage or
deed of trust any of the area designated "BUFFER AREA" on Wake Stone's site plan
dated February 17, 1981, revised March 10, 1981, except for purchase money security
interests.•

6
4. During the option period, Wake Stone shall have the right to encumber
.all of its remaining property from time to time -by mortgage, deed of txugt pr
other security agreement then in common use for the purpose of securing one
or more bona Fide obligations of Wake Stone, such as the payment of money or
the providing of any goods or services. The option to the State shall be
subordinate to each such encumbrance in the same manner and to the same extent
as if such option had been recorded after the recordation of each such encumbrance.
5. The right of the State -to exercise its option shall be subject to:
(a) Wake Stone not being prohibited by the U.S. Government, State of North
Carolina, Wake County, any municipality having jurisdiction, or by any court
from removing from Wake Stone's property all quarryable stone which is outside
of the BUFFER AREA referred to in paragraph 3 above. The requirement by the
State that Wake Stone comply with laws and rules and regulations generally appli-
cable to stone quarries shall not be deemed a prohibition of quarrying for the
purpose of the option agreement.
(b) The operation of a quarry on Wake Stone's property for a minimum period
of five years.
6. The conveyance of the quarry site shall be by deed containing the usual
covenants of warranty and conveying the quarry site free and clear of all encum-
brances except those existing at the time of Wake Stone's purchase, ad valorem
taxes at the time of conveyance (which shall be prorated), and such drainage and
utility easements as shall have been installed in connection with the development
of the property.
7. The option may include such other terms as are mutually acceptable to
the State and Wake Stone.
\4m�

_ 7 -
The Mining Con nission concludes from the evidence submitted in this case
.that the operation of the quarry, under the conditions set forth in th�x deeigion,
will not have a significant adverse effect on the purposes of the park.
APR 3 1981
For the unanimous Mining Commission, this the day of , 1981.
O"gin a � J;gned 6Y
Henry B. Smith, Chairman
Oriotal jignesl irk Orvnal js�vned 6.4
T.W. Tysinger W.W. Woodhouse
Commissioners Barkalow and Long took no part in the disposition of the case.

In the Matter of Denial of)
Permit Application of the )
Wake Stone Corporation )
BEFORE THE MINING COMMISSION
Amendment to the
Final Decision
The 250' buffer area shown on the northern boundary and
the 100' buffer area on the eastern boundary of Wake Stone's pro-
perty is considered by the Commission the permanent buffer zone.
This the 3rd day of April 1981.
Henry B. $mith, Chairman
' i': W. T in er
Y g
i
W. W. Woodhouse, Jr.

I.
In the Matter of Daniai ofl
Permit Application of the )
Wake Stone Corporation )
BEFORE THE MINING COMMISSION
Amendment to the
Final Decision
The 250' buffer area shown on the northern boundary and
the 100' buffer area on the eastern boundary of Wake Stone's pro-
perty is considered by the Commission the permanent buffer zone.
This the 3rd day of April 1981.
.; J.. %
T; W. Tysinger
Henry B...-Stith, Chairman
W. W. Woodhouse, Jr.
f
4.

`�'
Attachment 12. Mining Permit Draft review by NC State Parks on May 11, 1981 (the cover letter is in the Mining Permit file, but
not the attached draft permit again confirming "Sooner" is correct). (Source: NC State Parks Archive). 15 pages
DIVISTON OF I -ARKS AND RECREATLON
May 11+ 1981
ME :-10IMNDUM
TO: Steve Conrad
P HUM: Jim Stevens
SUBJECT: Recommended Changes to Draft Permit
for hake Stone Corporation
r.. 2, pnra. 5 - Rewrite S e Plan section to j ead:
The site plan referred to in this permit shall indicate the topographic
fAte plan of the Wake Stone Corporation revisr-d March 10, 1981, with
tl:e: follc.wing exceptions:
1.) The berm and associated disturbances located al onq the northern
boundary shall not be constructed unless approvad by the Dc-partmont .
2) The dotted line labelled as buffer along the+ northorn boundary and
along the eastern boundary south to the 10 year buffer line shall
be deleted.
t�. 4, para. 1, Lind 1 - and Para. 2. Line 1 - The following statement after.
"undisturbed buffer" and "undisturbed buffer zone" respectively:
..0 of existing natural vegetation ...
1). 4, par;. 3 - Rewrite part, to road:
The only exceptions to these undisturbed buffers of natural vc-getntion
.-1rn :
p. 4,Section C. - Delete this section. It is unnecessary and potentially Harmful.
The property owner has every right.to post his property against windr_rers.
Any statement regarding removal of trees 1paves th- door oper, to potontiall.y
drastic changes in forest cover. This could :l s,acd to adverse, effocL on park.
p. 4. para . 3 , Section D -- Accommodate mi s spc l l ed
P. 5? Se^tion 5, H - Add Memorial Day
p. 6, Section 8, A Line 6 - Change to -cad:
building, commercial or institutional building, park picnic shelter or
park trail.
:section 8, R Line 4 - Change to road:
Church, school, public building,, commercial or institutional building, park
picnic sh�-lter or park trail

5t,eve Conrad ragc 2 May 11, 3.981
1). 7. Section 91 Line 4 - Change to read:
twining undisturbed buffer areas of natural vegetation ....
i,. 7, section 9, Construction of Deans :-ubsect.i on t_ . Arid ttu followinq :;entP-nce
a` end of subsection C:
The alignment of the berm may vary from the approved site plan as is
necessary to provide the 50 feet of undisturbed land between the Park
boundary and the toe of the berm and assuring an acceptable ancil.e of
repose for the slope of the berm.
r�►. 9, Roca amation Conditions, Section 1, Line 3 - change to read
A condition suitable for those wildlife populations that existud prior
to site disturbances and for those types of outdoor recreation that
are compatible with maintaining those populations.
��. 10, Section 3, Seedbed Preparation:
Sow. statement needs to be made here regarding protection against rranoff into
surrounding or adjacent watercourses.
t). 12, para. 1. Line 10 - Change to read:
Spacing will be 4' on center for revegetat ion purposes.
��. l l , Mara. 6. Line 5 - Constituting irstezcl of constitution.
}�. 12, liara. 3. Dine 1 - l.ewrite to read:
The contioyance of tho quarry site, if appiovod by the St_c-ite, shall ho ...
`mot
1)* 12, para. 5. Linn 1 - Insert the word "male" for "will".
JSS,jr/ARF/cam

\Vaor)
09
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
P E R M I T
for the operation of a mining activity
in accordance with the provisions of C. S. 74-46 through 68,
"The Mining Act of 1971", Mining Permitting Regulation 15
N.C.A.C. 5B, and other applicable laws, rules and regulations
Permission is hereby granted to:
WAKE' STONE COIIPORAT10N , permittee
for the operation of a CRUSHED STUNS QUARRY
entitled, CARY QUARRY , permit no.
and lucated in WAKE County, which shall provide
that the: usefulness, productivity and scenic values of all lands
and waters affected by this mining operation will receive the
greatest practical degree of protection and restoration.

In accordance wi1.h the :tpplicaLion fur Lit is minin►; peruti.L, which
is hereby approved by the. Dopart.me.nt of Natural Resources and
Community Development, hereinafter referred to as the Department,
and in conformity with the approved Reclamation Plan attached to
and Lnc:,trporated as part of this permit, provisions must he made
fur Lhu proteeLiou of the surrounding environment and for reclamation
of the land and water affected by the permitted mining operation.
This pormit is expressly conditioned upon compliance with all the
requirements of the approved Reclamation Plan. however, completed
perfommetnee of t.hc approved Roclamat.ion Plan is a sopat;tblo obligation,
secured by the bond or other securities on file with the Department,
and may survive the axp►r:tt.itill, rovoc:;tl ion or suspension of this permit.
'this permit is not transferable by the permittee with the following
escepLion: I.f another operator succeeds to the interest of the per-
wiitee in the permitted mining operation, by virtue of a sale, lease.
assignment or otherwise, the Department may release the permittee from
the duties imposed upon him by the conditions of his permit and by the
Minin►'Act with reference to the permitted operation, and transfer the
permi.L to Lhe successor operator, provided that both operators have
complied with the requirements of the Mining Act and that tht successor
operator agrees to asswne the duties of the permittee with reference to
reclamation of the affected land and posts a suitable bond ov other
security.
lit the cvuut. 611a1. Lhc DoparLmenI, deLermittes that the permittoe or
perntitLoc's successor is not complying with the Reclamation plan or
other terms and condLtiuns of this pormiL, or is failing to achieve
t'hr purposes and requiremonts of the Mining Act, the Department may
hive Lhc operator written notice of its intent to modify, revoke or
suspend the ptrinit, or its Latent to modify the Reclamation Plan as
incorporated in the permit. The operator shall have right to a hearing
at a designated tame and place on any proposed modification, revocation
or suspension by the DepartmenL. Alternativr.ly and in addition to the
above, the Department may inst.iLuto other enforcement procedures authoriz,
by law.
Definitions
Wherever used or reforred to in this permit, unless the context clearly
Lnd.ic.ates �itherwise, terms shall have the meaning as supplied by the
Mining Act, N.C.G.S. 74-49.
Site Plan
The site plan referred to in this permit shall indicate the topographic
site plan of the Wake Stone Corporation revised March 10, 1981, except
the hernr locaLed along the northern boundnry shall, not be constructed
unless approved by the Department. 1W1hWr1fgk4j7- AZOA&Wp nr
��yC1f ? lrfFfy7vT /3di77fTTit'jltl or= �t/fi—:EcQ /iGBn1� G�91-
I'ark g�hlX/Ly�„ Pr=G�6f,�,G
Whenever used or refforrod to .in this pormit, the term "park" shall
moan the William 11. ilmstend StaLo Park.
Om

Conditions
`Vhe permitted mining ol)(ns ation shall not violate standards of air
quality, surface water quality) or ground water quality promulgated
by Lhe Environracental Management, Commission.
This hermit sha.i l be effective, from the date of its issuance until
and shall I)E! stsl)jc�ut. to t.ho provisions of the; Al:i.ning
' Act, N.C.G.S. 74-46, et. seq., and to.the following conditions and
r
1. Wastewater Control
Any wastewater processing shall be In accordance with permit
requirements and regulations promulgated by the Division of
Env i ronint:n UL t Man-arienuon t
2. Dust Control
Any mining process producing air con Lsami nant emissions shall
lit,! s-ubjuvt L<Lhv, hc;rmiLL.ing requi.romonts and rugul,ations hro-
i.ui l ; a Led by L lir my i s i on o f Env i isonmon tn.l Management . The
opura.tor will take whatevor reasonable precautions necessary
lc� nr4,%vent (_)r minimize the: fugitive dust from going offsite.
5uc:1t �llc'aL�lal'(':� i.n(A ude but are not 1 ins i tecl to:
A . '!'lac: atc;��t::�s rc)atd Loy t:hc: quarry , from the scat 1 �; holt,
STI 1700, shall he paved. Wake Stone Corporation shall
cooperate with the Department or Transportation in paving
lilt 1790 from the; entrance to t,hc, quarry to the intersection
wl.th till 10354. OA44-7-,4"C.-?-d1*W O*SO" OF rn1 S�rZc ?
13. 'fhc provisions of the :c i r cltaat l i t.y permit #4386 Shall be,
followed.
C. A water wagon with Sprays Shall be used for wetting roads
to proven t dust.
;ipratyti shall Ue usedth�•c�uE;hont the plant at transfer points
Lo csc�tl LI-o l dust.
E. Drill 11n1e dust. Shall. be control l vd by wetting or other means.
F . Dust c on L rol at t the crushrrs and screens shall be maintained
by the use: of water sprays.
G . A water spra.y shall be provided for highway haul trucks.
It . Washud stone shall be s to(.kl) Ll od within the part or Lhe
dosignatod plant aron which is closest to the park.

AL . . , .
Bui'fyr Zones
SY7 "G
An undisturbed buffe shall be maintained between the mining
di stur. bancr_ -and Park P -ope-rt:y its indicated by the "i 0 year
l ei I' feet" shcnvet on the s i Lr -)l a•n L;� t.c�ei !�i:t.i ch 10, 1 t}R1
..&MVIV T`aow�cG
V©/S*KOaP
" An undisturbed buffer rol % 1. la. also be maintained he t.ween
a .-V �the top edge of the rank of Crabtree Creels and any mining
EM*ftV �� ' d is turbance �t i thin the 10 year perm i t aroa . The bu f f er zone
shall be ofsufficient width to prevent offsite sedimentation
ion
and to presvi-ve the integrity of the. natural watercourse. In
any event, the width of the buffer shall not be less than 100
feet, measured from the top of the nearest stream bank.
...J;qo 47�� � 7"a �� (Jrs t?l s7`✓�Ys ti�7 III q= nt AWX4,Cx
i;c�th intffcrs u'i ll be di:,turfed -subject, only to the fc,l.lowin _,�
exceptions: )&GG hk�rg
1. The construction of berms as approved by the Department
ror visual and noise screening.
it. 'Pl1c: inti1.:xl1-,it.1on or drainng(" a.nd .seclimrntation control:
to pro tuc: t the C:ra.btrese Creek.
i '
y � '1'hc isomov;i 1 of dead, danrcrous and leaning trees which
� �3c1 might mako the aren. dangerous to p jrsons wandering into
.elf I.11o • l it f ('cat• ::,rva . �i�/t1 , 70 MvcvH 4A 7Y'VVP
f S 1). Stich crossings tgs as may be necessary in future years to
a.ceonjoclate the installation of utilities.
•1. Evosion and 5adiment Control.
e4 P _ .__
' A Ade-cluut o mechanival barriers including but not limited to
ci.iversican.c, c::.�.rl;hcn clikus, brush harriers, silt check dams,
f silt retarding Structures, rip rap pits, or ditchts shall.
be provided in the initial stages of any land disturbance
to prevent sediment from dischar#;ing onto adjacent surface
areas or into any lake or natural watercourse in proximity
to the affected land.
B. The existing takes shall be used to trap sediment from initial
mining disturbances. The spillways of the existing lakes shall
be further stabilized as necessary to prevent erosion of the
spillway from runoff from the affected lands. The embankments
of the existing lakos shall lac improved if necessary to insure
the stability of the embankment;.

5 of 13
/ C . The angle for graded slope$ and. fills shall be no greater
than the angle which can he retained by vegetative cover
or Utlic;r adequate erosion �S�drolo��AsorPanystructures
excavated or
cicsvirc.. 7ti any event, pxp
channels,t,lic crus.ioti of whieli may (:a.use of f:�i to damage
due to siltation, shall be planted �otherwise
sufficientprovided
with ground cover, devices or structures
restrain such erosion.
D. Drainago shall be provided c:ithc;r through or around any
I)orms tliat would otherwise obstruct natural drainage.
�. Noise Abatement
All reasonable precautions shall b� ken to minimize the
impact of operational noise upon __?ark. Such measures
5ha L L iucl ttdo but not be limited 'to:
A. Noise barriers between the park boundary and the crushers
and screening towers to minimize noise levels at the park
shall bc provided from -the outset of the operation. Noise
barriers may be enclosures, walls, bins, structures, stock-
piles, or natural terrain. In the event there is disagreement
over the required noise control measures, the final design
and cinpl acemen t; of noise barriers chat 1 be determined by
qualified noise and engineering consultants mutually agreed
upon by both parties.
B. The plant shall be located at the lowest feasible elevation.
C. The plant shall be designed so that the primary crusher can
be relocated in the pit at the earliest possible date.
D. The chutes used in processing shall be rubberized.
r, Compressors with noise abatement enclosures (currently called
whisperized compressors) shall. be used with track drills to
open the quarry. Once the quarry is opened, either hydraulic
or clown -in -the -hole drills shall be used to further reduce
noise.
T. pit: ha.til 1*.rucks shall be equipped to exhaust through the
hods of the trucks to muffle engine noise.
G . Conveyors rather than trucks shall be used .for stockpiling
material.
11. The nu a rry and s�t one process operations shall be operated
p only on Monday through Friday and shall not be operated on
..AA, tilt,
, (ul l owi n#; recognivod holidays- New Year's Day, Easter
I�loti S O Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and
1 Chri.stliias Day. A rcasonab Le amount of haul i n#; of procC:sSod
5 v�

stone from the stockpile areas is permitted until noon
on Saturdays, but hauling shall not be done at any other
time on weekends or on holidays without prior approval
by the Dviiar tment .
6. Process.i.ng M a.nt Location
A. The processing and stockpiling facilities shall be located
as inclic.ct:ed on the Wake Stone, Corporation site plan dated
larch 10, 1981 A5 ArV1*E,I-1C'hl� Fit 11-t1'�►a
Ii . The plant shall be located to place the processing and
stockpiling facilities at the lowest possible elevation
to reduce visibility and noise impact on the park.
C. The location of the pit shall be such that, once the over-
burden is removed, the quarry excavating equipment--i.e.
compressor and drill, shovels, and trucks -can be placed at
an elevation lower than the surrounding natural ground in
the initial. pleases of quarryi.ng.
7. Prevention of Stagnant fools
The affected 'Land shall be graded so as to Prevent collection
or pools of water that are, or are likely to become, noxious
\ftuop/ or foul. Necessary structures such as drainage ditches or
conduits shall be constructed or installed when required to
prevent such nonditi.ons.
8. Blasting
The following blasting conditions shall be observed by the
operator to prevent hazard to persons and adjacent property
-from thrown rock or vibrations:
A. In all blasting operations, except: as hereinafter otherwise
provided, the -maximum peak particle velocity of any component
�- -� of ground motion shall not exceed 1 inch per second at the
iinmed late location of any building regularly occupied by
? human beings such as dwelling house, church, school, public
GIG S building, or commercial or institutional building. A smaller
�q��tJ7 peak particle velocity may be required to protect neighboring
structures or equipment vulnerable to vibrations less than 1
inch/second peak particle velocity.
l B. Airblast overpressure shall not exceed 128 decibels linear
(dBL)-"warning," 132 dBL "caution," and 135 dBL "maximum" as
measured at -the immediate location of any dwelling house,
church, school, public building, or commercial or institutional
building.

.N •ri
N �' 4-3
c�Cd.o
-Jol0aC�
r-I
4-a C. r-i � iM1J x
0 -0
d
Ood
• rf
0)Ecd04)
.04 00>
p 0A4-) 0 k ;4
5CH•ri O
• :n 0.4 co F. a a)
r-4w Cd $�,
0 A +) C3 O r-E -O
Cd O R
3
•E O C
.-I � -H G � to
'y C X "i -H a)
:.3 En ._} A 4-3 C
-H k Cd k Cd .Q
Cd w
cd-30potdGCa)0
r>i+ r-i
�
ti I,- :d $4i•..0
� R� C) .0
Q
CC{ U
ri 'Y3 r-• '� 4-) d
Cd t) C C 10 0
.�
O r-4 r-ti -H O -r-i
0'
0�+)c
r..0y .no
0 4= C U •r• f .
O U O Ic U
000UCwO
U:0C-•to0
J p d .0 •re d i+
•CS C 0 O
E44 0a
;�-, k 4-8 0 d
•rCrarl
007.10� •
+--1 O ' O MD 4H
C) .Q d c •N
d0 04`•Ij>CH
;4 00 - (1)
0k>10 O-H O
GOd04-+tj
C) 0 4) E a) -t4
0 r. o o CH Cc
.:•: (a A •:•� > U O -r4
•rt r-4E -r-4 O a)
d •r+ >, COO E
d d ,--� ed ;•� r-,
.� r•1 d •r4 $4 U F4
+-3 +) d d U
.:•r-d^. f-rCa)
0GC
--i O c3 Q a tZ 04-)
d 4-) d r-4
.jk;-+O d i»O
EQ > O
.:>,0 ::CJC.0
4,.F4.)
0 4—) d 0 r.
0 .0 +a •O
d r- C r-4 0 U
+) •ri y v Gi C
k .r4 c .. C3 C G C,..
J 4-) C) ^, —1
O .O C r-t Cd .^-.
C+ 0 U) 'O -tJ J f.1 a) 4.)
4-3-r 4 %) U 0
O i•• U. r-� r. 0 k Cd
d kF- ru • - �. A
JJ.Q0rlC•r•OO
JJ)^-4kr-4UO
„00.000030-H
C{yUC)O�.L"
C
LY
r-+
d
U.
4-)�
0 ,0n � m
��oh(, :.) to (1) cot1
93 0 Z v r-E
•ri .0 -•-+ d Cd > O
k=O�.Eddd
C) d 'd p 04
EA d J tJ � c) •O
Cd 0 •U; C cd
•r4 a) U to r-4
d +-) U .0 O r. O.
td +� r-4 4-3 ;4 &0
4: En C3 c3 (D .0
�+ .0 C C) 1* a)
N -P c 'O Cd
r
• H Cd 3 4-'d.
tn�
43EO..^-�c3c3
Uri O'J)
p LC 4- :r U.
r�•4 a)O r4 >�N
4 C C •+�
r(1) cr.
>j (D lv 0-) •1•t
•r( r-s 0 r- U
r-4 ri r d ;4 '. s 10
rt .0 ct Cl l ; ^w a) a) i f
W0Z4-O +2>0
C, (P.L- --Ha) -H Q
v .0 to
it
�-! �_ 41
C >�-v''•C O d
Z v O w .O
C 4J > cJ C:
� En a)
r-i
O cog p •.� O �+ C
r3 C1 W •` W
;40c
O :{ r-�1:,,
c 0
0+ 0 M. r
O.p &4 r— +� 11
�1 Orr'. Cj 0
:rv�c�
41
Q
m
G
-d a)a0i OQ "d
O aA -%I4J 4:
Cd O '0 C42 ba 44) 1 U
4-3 0 0 G) a) 0) >13 .6 w
93itir4. >>2 od&4a`)i0
C) d d +) O R
.00w 'ti dd04=,a V
��aO 4-3� 4JN4)$4Cd O ..i
tJO- d +-)kd2f O
4.) $ C 0 00 'O +3 C N �.!►
t: O c O cd O
4 C � d 4-4 !>.0
1% W
O U �. ccs O a) O C O� 0 p
U 0 � U ro E 0
C J U? :2i e he 0 0 4..
- � ,O
r d = 'U 4 it S.i
p r-4 •O co r-t d 0 •N d
Cy :.) u C) d r- C:
.r. C� 0 d E�
Er.►J
H o e 'd V +� .r.. ;J d
k cs 'UJHCto O�
ct -� U t
X) 0~ r-i H C .0 "f 4-) 0 ed l i
c41 o cr 0 O cd d E
P4 c. c :n r-I c E -0 ✓. Cd C
J G WOO tR .= ..141 0 In r�
U C) •rt - -� O C cr. 4 0 •r(
� � 00� EDNda) r� 2
..s Q •r J •rt n-4 X: r- :-i ce,.
ct .. r„, O E 4-3 tC %+ U; 4-3 r--
0 0 0 E a CV += O co � !
:3 E-4 0 0+j, � O C � ...•
• �' 2 A
�• A U A L `�

v U L 1..3
`4�
10. ilighWIL11 13,11,11- i 0l' WG Ear `0
A physical barrier consisting of a, fence: or boulder barriers,
e-tc. shall he mlintained around the perimeter of any quarry
highwal l .
11. Annual �Report
An Annual 16c o l aria t .ion Ropor t shall bu submitted can a form supplied
by the Department on February 1 of each year until reclamation is
completed and approved.
12. Surety Honed
The security which was posted pursuant to N.C.G.S. 74-54 in
' the form of $25,000.00 Blanket Bund is sufficient to cover the
t/ erushod s wiio oporat i on as indicated can the approved application.
This security must remain in force for this permit to be valid.
The total affected land shall not exceed the bonded acreage.
Opp (�I I.A� - Can r i9tn-�

9 of 13
APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN
The Mining Permit incorporates this Reclamation Plan, the performance of which
is a condition on the continuing validity of that Mining Permit. Additionally,
the Reclamation Plan is a separable obligation of the permittee, which continues
beyond the term of the Mining Permit.
The approved plan provides:
Minimum Standards As Provided By G. S. 74-53
i
n
1. The final slopes in all excavations in soil, sand, gravel and other uncon-
solidated materials shall be at such an angle as to minimize the possibility
of slides and be consistent ��future use of . ?�S���
rx(ow Vrr- l r
2. Provisions for safety to persons and to adjoining property must be provided
in all excavations in rock.
i
3. All overburden and spoil shall be left in a configuration which is in
accordance with accepted conservation practices and which is suitable for
the proposed subsequent use of -the land.
4. No small pools of water shall be allowed to collect or remain on the mined
area that are, or are likely to become noxious, odious or foul.
5. The revegetation plan shall conform to accepted and recommended agronomic
and reforestation practices as established by the N.C. Agricultural
Experiment Station and the N.C. Forest Service. v7AC sp rGFIG
6. Permittee shall conduct reclamation activities pursuant to the Reclamation
Plan herein incorporated. These activities shall be conducted according
to the time schedule included in the plan, which shall to the extent
feasible provide reclamation simultaneous with mining operations and in
any event, initiation of reclamation at the earliest practicable.time after
completion or termination of mining on any segment of the permit'area and
shall be completed within two years after completion or termination of mining.
RMLAMATION CONDITIONS
1. Provided further, and subject to the Reclamation Schedule,
the reclamation shall be to r-estor•e. *the a C fected lands to
a condition suitable :f r wildlifeAand recreation. A#*,0s6Hvuf
� &JR.
4C XPVAS xzurml& ?K70
S� �% foie. V
2. Specifications for .reclamation tihal 1 be as follows:
olo s:
A . The ��rc�c�r:,s F�l �tri t •shal I be graded and smoothed.
B • Any side:slopes in unconsolidated material shall be rad
to a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical grade or flatter. g ed

3
1.001
C. Suitable benches shall be left in the rock excavation to
provide support where rock weakness could lead to collapse
of high walls.
D. Overburden shall be used for site grading or berm construction
at approved locations.
E. Settling ponds shall be drained and stabilized to prevent
erosion.
F. Oil, grease, scrap metal, wood a,nd other debris shall be
removed from the surface and delivered to scrap dealers
or landfilled in an approved manner.
G. Any divorLod or re-established drainage channels shall be
restorod to a stable condition.
H. The affected land shall be graded to prevent the collection
of noxious or foul water.
HuvugetaLion Man
All reclaimed areas in unconsolidated material shall be re -
vegetated utilizing thu following provisions:
Site Preparation: The ground will be graded and/or shaped
where necestiary
but in no case will any slope greater than 26 degrees in un-
consolidated material be left. Loose rock, woody material,
and other obstruction that will interfere with the establishment
of vegetation planned for the site will be removed and/or buried.
Surface runoff that might conconLrate to cause undesirable erosion
will. be controlled by terraces or diversions diverting water to
protect outlets.
Lime and Fertilizer: Liming and/or fertilizer will be conducted
in accordance with soil test results and as required for vegetation
planned for Lho site.
Seedbed Preparation: Lime and fertilizer will be mixed with the
soiL to a depth of 3 to 4 inches where conventional equipment
can be used. On slopes steeper than about 2:1, soils will be
grooved or sc.aariFiod alone; the contour to provide for retention
of seeds and nutrients on the slope until germination and growth
is started. On steep slopes not accessible to machinery, seed and
nuLrionLS will be applied by hand.

t f 1.1 of 13
�J Vegetation: Sericea Lespedeza and/or Weeping lovegrass will
be established on the site to Provide ground cover and erosion
control. When using Sericea Lespedeza, scarified seed will be
applied when reclamation is conducted during; spring months and
unscarified Need will be used during the fall..
rr �!'
�w
V�
Application will be in a uniform'manner either by machine or
hand at the rate of 50 pounds of l.ovegrass, Lespedeza, or com-
bination per acre. Seed will be covered to a depth of 1/8 to
1/4 inch and tli'e soil then firmed with a cultipacker
or similar
equipment. Mulch consisting; of dry, unchopped small grain straw
v�
or similar type material will be spread evenly over the surface
at the rate of 1 to 2 tons per acre: or until about 75 percent of
the soil is hidden. Loblolly pine seedlings will be planted at
?
selected sites to provide a view screen to.provide revegetation.
OAMie�
"r - ?Spacing; will. inn for revegetat ion purposes.
A- ` DES
Maintenance:
Plant replacement and other maintenance that may
be required to establish vegetative cover appropriate to the
reclamation plan far ,this site will be carried out until vag-
o tat.i.on is properly (bs ta.i)l i shed.
��.
Reclamation Schedule
Some reclamation activities, particularly those relating; to
�j
control of erosion, will be conducted simultaneously with
mining activities. Diversion channels or terraces that may be
required to control surface runoff on the property will be
established and revegetated an soon as they are constructed.
4
Portions of berms will be revegetated as completed. Final
reclamation activities will be initiated at the earliest practicable
time after completion or termination of mining; on any segment of
the permit area, and in all instances reclamation activities will
be completed within two years after completion or termination of
mining.
5. Donation to State
This provision is pursuant to Wake Stone Corporation's offer
to donate the quarry sl a -o ilie State as part of its reclamation
Flan.
The term, "quarry site," shall include the entire pit as it
exists after quarrying has been completed, a strip extending
at least 50 feet back from the top of the slope of the pit on
all sides and a reasonable area to connect the pit and surround-
ing strip to the Park, constitute a total area of at least 75
acres. ""

'`4wm� During the option periods, Wake Stone Corporation shall have
the right to encumber all of its remaining property from time
to time by morLgage, deed of LrusL or other security agreement
then in common use for the purpose of securing one or more
bona fide obligations of Wake Stone Corporation, such as the
payment of money or the providing; of ftny goods or services.
The option to the State shall. bc Subordinate to each such
encumbrance in the same manner and to the same extent as if
such option had been recordod after the recordation of each
such encumbrance.
'!'he right cif' the State to exorcise its option shall be subject
to:
A. Wake Stone Corporation not being prohibited by the U.S.
r 5 Governinumt, State of North Carolina, Wake County, any
`itiunicipa,lity having jur. i.:;d i.ct ion, or by any court .from
11 removing Wake Stone Corporation's property all quarryable
stone which is outsi do the buffer zone referred to in
AA lowi' condition 3, pat�;c: ` ho, rocluir.ement.s by 'the State that
�1a.�:n Stone Cnt j�ora.g. •i or. comply with laws and rules and
Of regulations generally a,pplicablt.- to stone quarries shall
not be deemed a prohibition of quarrying for the purpose
Q' f" of the option agreement.
%),I(L3 . The operation of a quarry on Wake Stone Corporation's
tr`
property for a minimum period of five years.
-d' i,"
The convey-ance of the quarry si,teAshall be by deed containing
11�� Q rsthe usual covenants of warranty and conveying the quarry site
free and clear of all encumbrances except those existing at
(v� the time of Wake Stone Corporation's purchase, ad valorem taxes
' at the time of conveyance (which shall be prorated) , and such
drainage and utility casements as shall have been installed in
connection with the development of the property. '
The option may include such other terms as are mutually accept-
able to the State and Wake Stone Corporation.
The method by which the quarry a4-te 1 be donated to the
q Y
State is as follows: Upon acquisition of the land by Wake
Stone Corporation (by the exercise of its options to nurchase),
Wake Stone Corporation will grant to the State an option which,
if exercised by the State, will require that Wake Stone Corporatic
convey a roe simple title to the quarry site to the Statc. The
State shall have no obligation to exercise its option to accept
a conveyance of the quarry site.

The Lel'Iny acid CIMULLiuns of Lhe upLiun shall be as follows:
A. When all quarryable stono has been removed from all of the land
belonging to or under the control of Wake Stone Corporation during
the period of its quarrying operations and which lies between the
Park and Interstate Highway 40, it shall be the duty of Wake Stone
Corporation to notify the State of this fact. Upon receipt of
such notice, this State shall huvr, six months within which it may
elect to have Wake Stone Corporation convey the quarry site to
the State. if the Late elacls•Lo have Wake Stone Corporation
convey the quarry site to the State, it shall notify Wake Stone
Corporation of such election within said six month period. All
notices shall be by certified mail with return receipt requested.
If the State fails to ma.kc nn election within said six month
period or shall elect not to accept a conveyance of the quarry
site, the option shall thereupon terminate and Wake Stone corp-
oration shall have no further obligation to convey the quarry
site to the Slate.
h. If all quarryabLe stone is not removed, the right of the State
to acquire the quarry site shall accrue at the end of 50 years
from the date quarrying commences or 1.0 years after quarrying
operations have ceased without having been resumed, whichever
is sooner, and notices shall be exchanged at that time in the
same manner and with the same time limitations as set forth in
paragraph A above.
C. Until the option has expired Wake Stone Corporation will not
�J encumber by mortgage or deed of trwit any of the area designated
"BUFFER AREA" on Wake Stone Corporation's site plan dated
February 1.7, 1981, revised March 10, 1981, except for purchase
money security interests.
The terms and conditions relating to the donation are placed herein
to prescribe generally the boundaries of the Wake Stone Corporation
offer. The acceptance by the State is subject to approval by the
Department of Administration and the Council of State and the ascertain
ing that the offer is in accord with the laws of the State and lawfully
adopted rules and regulations. Further, the Department's analysis of
the condition of the land to be transferred will be in accordance with
the criteria identified in the "Principles Governing the Establishment,
Extension and Development of State Parks, State Recreation Areas and
State Natural. Arras."
Permit issued this the day of , 19
BY:
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Division of Land Resources
By Authority of the Secretary
Of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development.

Attachment 13. Cover letters and History of Accepted 92-10 Permit Renewals and Modifications with
Sunset Clause and buffers (complete record available in Mining Permit 92-10 file at DEQ)
I DIVISION OF
North Carolina Department of Natural I AND RESOURCES
Resources &Community Development Steepen G. Conrad, Director
Box 27687. Raleigh 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Howard N. Lee, Secretary Telephone [phone]
May 13, 1981
Mr. John Bratton, Jr.
Wake Stone Corporation
P. 0. BOX 19.0
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
RE: Cary Quarry
Wake County
Dear Mr. Bratton:
The application for a mining permit for the Cary Quarry
in Wake County has been found.to meet the requirements of
G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of 1971. Since your company
already has a blanket bond on file sufficient to cover this
application, T at enclosing the mining permit.
The conditions of the mining permit were based primarily
upon information supplied in the application with conditions
added as directed by the North Carolina Mining Commission
necessary to insure compliance with The Mining Act of 1971
and to provide maximum possible protection to William B. Umstead
State Park.
Please review the permit and notify this office of any
objection or question concerning the terms of the permit.
Very truly yours,
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
SGC:pg
cc: John Holley
Geological survey Section-73. '423; Geodetic survey Section-733-3836; Land Quality Section-733-4574; Planning and Inventory Section-7333833;
•nd Resources Information Service-733-2090

Signature Page from April 15, 1986 Permit Modification
(Cover letter not found) I3 of 13
The terms and conditions of the option shall be as follows:
A. When all quarryable atone has been removed from all of the land belonging
to or under the control of Wake Stone Corporation during the period of its
quarrying operations and which lies between the Park and Interstate Highway
40, it shall be the duty of Wake Stone Corporation to notify the State of
this fact. Upon receipt of such notice, the State shall have six months
within which it may elect to have Wake Stone Corporation convey the quarry
site to the State. If the State elects to have Wake Stone Corporation
convey the quarry site to the State, it shall notify Wake Stone Corporation
of such election within said six month period. All notices shall be by
certified mail and return receipt requested. If the State fails to make an
election within said six month period or shall elect not to accept a
conveyance of the quarry site, the option shall thereupon terminate and
Wake Stone Corporation shall have no further obligation to convey the
quarry site to the State.
B. If all quarryable stone is not removed, the right of the State to acquire
the quarry site shall secure at the end of 50 years from the date quarrying
commences or 10 years after quarrying operations have ceased without having
been resumed, whichever is sooner, and notices shall be exchanged at that
time in the same manner and with the same time limitations as set forth in
paragraph A above.
C. Until the option has expired Wake Stone Corporation will not encumber by
mortgage or deed of trust of any of the area designated "BUFFER AREA" on
Wake Stone Corporation's site plan dated February 17, 1981, revised March
10, 1981, except for purchase money security interests.
The terms and conditions relating to the donation are placed herein to prescribe
generally the boundaries of the Wake Stone Corporation offer. The acceptance by
the State is subject to approval by the Department of Administration and the
Council of State and the ascertaining that the offer is in accord with the laws
of the State and lawfully adopted rules and regulations. Further, the
Department's analysis of the condition of the land to be transferred will be in
accordance with the criteria identified in the "Principles Governing the
Establishment Extension and Development of State Parke, State Recreation Areas
f and State Natural Areas."
�G Permit issued this the day of 1996
By:
Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Division of Land Resources
By Authority of the Secretary
Of the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
DMsIon of Land Resources
James G. Martin. Governor
Wham W. Cobey. Jr.. Secretary
April 1, 1991
Mr. David Lee
Wake Stone Corporation
P. 0. Box 190
Knightdale, NC 27545
RE: Permit #92-10
Triangle Quarry
Wake County
Dear Mr. Lee:
Cha des H. Gudner
Director
Your application for renewal and modification of Permit No. 92-10
\140.� for the Triangle Quarry in Wake County has been approved: A copy of the
renewed and modified permit is enclosed.
The conditions in the permit renewal and modification were based
primarily upon the initial application. Modifications were made as
indicated by the renewal and modification request and as required to
insure compliance with The Mining Act of 1971. The new expiration date
is April 1, 2001.
Please review the renewed and modified permit and advise this
office at [phone] should you have any question concerning this
matter.
Sincerely,
Tracy Davis, E.I.T.
Minin Specialist
Land Quality Section
TED/se
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.
P.Q. Box 27687 9 bleigh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aff rmatfve Action Employer

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor
Wiliam W. cobey, Jr., Seaetaty
June 17, 1991
Mr. David Lee
Wake Stone Corporation
P. 0. Box 190
Knightdale, NC 27545
RE: Revision to Mining Permit No. 92-10
Triangle Quarry
Wake County
Dear Mr. Lee:
Charles H. Gardner
Director
This office has reviewed your proposed revision to Operating
Condition No. 3.D. of the above referenced mining permit which was
recently renewed and modified on April 1, 1991. I hereby approve said
revision and have attached a revised Page 4 of 15 of the mining permit
in order for you to replace the previous, incorrect page for future
reference.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please advise Mr.
Tracy Davis if you should have any additional questions or concerns.
Very truly yours,
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
CHG/TED/se
Attachment
cc: Mr. Tracy Davis
Mr. John Holley
P.O. Box 27687 • Ralelgh. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

s1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr.. Secretary
February 5, 1992
Mr. John Bratton
Wake S'one Corporation
P. 0. Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina Z,7545
RE: Triangle Quarry
Mining Pernit No. 92-10
Wake County
Dear Mr. Bratton:
Charles H. Gardner
Director
This office has completed its review of your company's January 20, 1992
report regardinq the blast and corresponding rock slide that occurred on
January 7, 1992 along the western pit boundary adjacent to Crabtree Creek.
This office concurs with the findings of the report and the safeguards that are
proposed therein to prevent future incidents from occurring at this site.
Therefore, your mining permit has been modified to incorporate the report, in
its entirety, and require compliance with the corrective actions proposed. I
would like to draw your particular attention to Operating Conditions Nos. 3 and
10 of the enclosed permit.
3. Buffer Zones Please review the modified permit and advise this office should you have
10. Blasting any questions concerning this matter. I would like to extend the Department's
appreciation to you and your company for the timely and professional manner in
which you investigated and rectified this situation at your mine site.
Sink rely, n
Tracy Davis, E.I.T.
Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
TED/se
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Af9rmarive Action Employer

\Varwl
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Charles Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
October 11, 1996
Mr. John A Poole
Wake Stone corporation
P.O. Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
RE: Permit No. 92-10
Cary Quarry
Wake County
Dear Mr. Poole:
Your recent request to have the above referenced mining
permit modifiers has been approved. The modification is to allow
the shipping of material after 1:00 P.M. on Saturdays until such
time as the Umstead State Park reopens or the repair of the
Raleigh Outer Loop Project near the RDU Airport is completed,
whichever comes first.
0
Please attach this r v o t' '
permit for future refgrgnce. The expiration date, mine name and
permit number on the permit document shall remain the same as
before this modification.
The issuance of a mining permit and/or any modification to
it does not supersede local zoning regulations. The
responsibility of compliance with any applicable zoning
regulations lies with you.
Please advise this office at [phone] should you have
any questions concerning this matter.
CHG/tls
cc: Mr. John L. Holley, P.E.
Geological Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Sincerely,
e�"
Charles H.
Land Qualify Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
GarOer P.G., P.E.
Geodefic Survey Section
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
e , P.O. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
OLJAn Equal opportunity Atfrmailve Action Employer 50%recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

V
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
Apri123, 2001
Mr. David F. Lee
Wake Stone Corporation
P.O. Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
RE: Permit No. 92-10
Triangle Quarry
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Lee:
ED
A UFJ
li %AM
miiimiiii�; V-W
NCDENR
Division of Land Resources
Your application for renewal of the above referenced mining permit has been approved.
A copy of the renewed permit is enclosed.
The conditions in the permit renewal were based primarily upon the initial application.
Modifications were made as indicated by the renewal request and as required to insure
compliance with The Mining Act of 1971. The new expiration date is April 20, 2011.
As a reminder, your permitted acreage at this site is 223 acres and the amount of land
you are approved to disturb is 153 acres as indicated on the Site Plan Map dated March 1,
2001.
Please review the renewed permit and advise this office at [phone] should you
have any questions concerning this matter.
Sinc rely,
Tracy. . avis, P.E., C.P.M.
State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
TED/jw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.
Ms. Monika SharmaWRC, w/enclosures
Mr. Bradley Bennett-DWQ, w/enclosures
Mr. William Gerringer-DOL, Mine and Quarry Bureau,
w/o enclosures
Land Quality Section (9M) 7334574 Fax t919) 733-2876 Geological Survey Section [phone] Fax [phone]
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
139vtsion or Lund Resources [phone] Fax: [phone]
AN 4Q►lALOPeORTUNITY' AFFIRMA1'I%'I: t% rioN EMPI.OYER .- 50%, RECYCLED, 100i POSTCONSUNJERIIAPL'R

,
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist
November 24, 2010
Mr. David Lee
Wake Stone Corporation
PO Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
RE: Permit No. 92-10
Triangle Mine
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Lee:
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
Your recent request to have the above referenced mining permit modified has been
approved. The modification is to increase the affected acreage at this site to 156.6 acres as
indicated on the Site Plan Maps last revised November 22, 2010. The modification includes
the construction of a stockpile area contiguous to the existing plant and stockpile yard and
includes the installation and maintenance of all associated erosion and sediment control
measures. A copy of the modified permit is enclosed.
The conditions in the modified permit were based primarily upon the initial application.
Modifications were made as indicated by the modification request and as required to insure
compliance with The Mining Act of 1971. The expiration date, mine name and permit number
shall remain the same as before the modification. I would like to draw your particular attention
to the following conditions where minor additions or changes were made: Operating Condition
Nos. 3K, 4E, 7A, and 12B and Reclamation Condition Nos. 3 and 5. E-
5. is Donation to State includes "sooner"
The issuance of a mining permit and/or any modification U3 11 does not supersede local
zoning regulations. The responsibility of compliance with any applicable zoning regulations
lies with you.
As a reminder, your permitted acreage at this site is 223 acres and the amount of land
you are approved to disturb is 156.6 acres.
Please be aware that Mining Permit No. 92-10 expires April 20, 2011. If your company
wishes to continue mining operations at this site after April 20, 2011, a renewal request must
be submitted prior to said date.
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612 - Telephone [phone] / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604 • Intemethltp:llw m.dlr.enr.slate.nc.uslpages4andqualitysecflon.html
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled / 10% Post Consumer Paper

Mr. Lee
1*44� Page Two
Please review the modified permit and contact Ms. Judy Wehner, Assistant Mining
Specialist, at [phone] should you have any questions concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
?JamesWD. Simons, PE, PG
J DSCw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Holley, PE
Ms. Shannon Deaton - WRC, wlpermit
Mr. William Gerringer-Mine and Quarry Bureau, w/o enclosures
LW44�

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
Land Quality Section
James D. Simons, PG, PE
Director and State Geologist
March 30, 2011
Mr. David Lee
Wake Stone Corporation
PO Box 190
Knightdale, North Carolina 27545
RE: Permit No. 92-10
Triangle Mine
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Lee:
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Dee Freeman, Secretary
Your application for renewal of the above referenced mining permit has been approved.
A copy of the renewed permit is enclosed. The new expiration date is March 30, 2021.
The conditions in the permit renewal were based primarily upon the initial application.
Modifications were made as indicated by the renewal request and as required to insure
compliance with The Mining Act of 1971. 1 would like to draw your particular attention to the
following conditions where minor additions or changes were made: Operating Condition Nos.
3E, 48, 7A, 11, and 12B and Reclamation Condition No. 5.15 i 5. s Donation to State includes "sooner"
As a reminder, your permitted acreage at this site is 223 acres and the amount of land
you are approved to disturb is 164.45 acres. A slight increase in the affected acreage at this
site is because of more accurate mapping of the site.
Please review the renewed permit and contact Ms. Judy Wenner, Assistant State
Mining Specialist, at [phone] should you have any questions concerning this matter.
incerely,
neY `bus � - �4
J net Boyer, PE
S to Mining Specialist
nd Quality Section
JSB/jw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. John Holley, PE
Ms. Shannon Deaton-WRC, w/enclosures
Mr. William Gerringer-DOL, Mine and Quarry Bureau, w/o enclosures
1612 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1612 • Telephone 919-733A574 / FAX: [phone]
512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27604 • InlemethftpJ/www.dlr.enr.slate.nc.us/pagesllandqualitysecuon.html
An Equal Opponunlly / Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled / 10116 Posl Consumer Paper

• � JED
Energy. Mineral &
Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL OUAUTY
December 1, 2017
John Bretton
Wake Stone Corporation
P0Box 190
Knightdale, NC 27545
RE: Mining Permit No. 92-10
Cary (Triangle) Quarry
Wake County
Dear John Bretton:
ROY COOPER
GQv+er W
MICHAEL S. REGAN
sermrary
TRACY DAVIS
Dt mar
This letter is to advise you of recent amendments to the North Carolina Mining Act of 1971 which impact the
permit term of your existing mining permit Pursuant to the passage of House Bill 56, which became law on October 4,
2017 as SL 2017-209, all existing mining permits and any newly issued mining permits are to be issued for the life of site
or for the duration of the lease term. The "life of site" means the period from the initial receipt of a permit for the operation
until the mining operation terminates and the required reclamation Is completed.
Considering the above, this letter hereby modifies your existing mining permit to remove all references to the prior
expiration date to convert your permit to a life of site or lease permit effective Immediately. No action is required on your
part for this modification to be effective. Please attach this letter to your existing mining Permit for future reference. The
mine name and permit number on the permit document, and all existing operating and reclamation conditions contained
therein, shall remain In full force and effect. Furthermore, all provisions of GS §74-51 and GS §74-52 still apply to all new,
transferred and modified mining permits.
In addition to the life of site or lease mining permit provision. SL 2017-209 also enacted a new annual mining
permit operating fee of $400 per mining permit number. By statute, the initial payment of this annual $400 fee must be
submitted to this office by December 31, 2017 — see the attached Invoice to remit the initial annual fee payment by this
deadline. Beginning in 2018, the $400 annual operating fee must be submitted by July 1 of each year with the required
Annual Reclamation Report as required by GS §74-55. Failure to submit the fee by the required deadline will result in a
$50/month late fee and could result in the denial of future permit actions and/or revocation of your mining permit.
Lastly, pursuant to GS §74-54, the cap on reclamation bonds has been raised from $500,000 to $1 million. Any
adjustments needed in existing bonds will be initiated by this office or addressed during your next requested permit action
unless you contact this office with a written request to have your bond reevaluated.
The issuance of a mining permit and/or any modification to it does not supersede local zoning regulations. The
responsibility of compliance with any applicable zoning regulations remains with you.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions on the above, please contact Ms. Judy
Wehner, Assistant State Mining Specialist, or me at [phone].
Sincerely,
r
William "Toby" Vinson, Jr., PE, CPM
Interim Director, DEMLR
State of NurlhCarulina i biviratimental Qualify I EfIrigy. Mirivr l acid Land Keswmrs
512 N'. Salisbury Street 1 1612 M;di Service Center 1 Raleigh. >`wh Carolina:;b9Q 1a12
919 707 ?200

Wake Stone Mining Permit 92-10 and
its impacts William B Umstead State
Park and on Protected Buffers
required by the Permit
Buffers have been violated and DE4 has not taken action to require Mitigation,
despite repeated complaints - significant adverse effects have now crossed
over from the Buffers into William B Umstead State Park
M, The result is Flooded parkland and dead mature trees
' S r

f
C
Outline of this Presentation
• What was Required by the Mining Commission and the Mining Permit
• What really Happened
Buffers were Violated
Streams were Impacted with Sediment coating the streambed
Sunset Clause was revoked based on incomplete and misleading data
• It will get worse — Expansion request further erodes buffers
• More bad Changes in the Expansion
• Conclusion — There is a Disconnect between the DEQ Mission and the reality
• Director Conrad was right in 1980 to deny the Quarry as the significant adverse effects
he predicted are now a reality. The Expansion Request will increase significant adverse
impacts on the Park

Comparison of Mining Commission Final
----------------- - --
Decision, and the --
Original Permit - Buffers
Mining Commission Final Decision
April 3 1981
'noti tion no. 3 - auffrr `one of.
1. The extent of the tnylet.ly undintarbad buffer tore to kn n.tnta:nei betusen
the park boonaary da,ine the 10 year imroit dull he a. indiCntel . top
revised D1" and suallfx" by Cr_.pti.0 0, 1. and r It ... a on folic ; of
Hake St.. C.,wrnlcp'. -wear andas of `larch 10. ',gat. eat.,t all of 1�
area north of the ton -Year 'offer -for a4111 be left as a naty l butte^
raw and not the duvalopad or altered for r,f,1 purpoe ,.
1. the Ilaa.r of 0rnial of)
ht+lt Appi catlot or the ) Asuendsmt to the
links St.. Corpor.t:.n ) iltvrl aacleloc
The 1SO' tuft., arse noun ph the twrtbern boundary and
the 100' butler area to the eant.tyt I. n y of tint. Slone'. pto-
ptrrtY is conaldered L-f t:v Cwiaalon ::rs Islatssenl buffer pone.
Permit as Issued May 13, 1981
The Jett" Itne laboll&d as buffer aloe, :mundhry and
&loop the eastorn boundary to the perataneat taf:er er designated
Da lion Ytnina Gppoleales. felt. plan dated March 10, Iea1)
An WdlatUrbrd buffer of C-Wlaa satural reffeta Croa shell ba
aarntat.ua bete.,-n the .%.tax dleturesnt. sad park prepertr ..
Ind icstN by the '410 your hung - Shows on Lbe site plan dated
%Larch 10. lost.
An undLtarerM buffer enee of ..left" natural rKelat lua &ball
a l.o he Yt.talned beusee the top edge of the bank of Crabtree
Crack and aey sulning dtsturhance .,in,. to, 10 year prest, area.
Tne bolter v+ne shall be of 'tIflefeet ,fate to 11....t ffelt.
aedl"-I Icon end to prener,s the Integrity of tho natural sater-
.ourun. to any event. :he buffer %III surer Lt.s. rorps of ynrifeners
raysupaenta far Crabtree r,ek weternhe..
Than only ..rapt Suns to toss, undisturbed buffers of na]ural veg-
tat1,,u are.
A. The nunatru Ctldn Of bnrtM .a .,prbvW be the I4p.rtmeal for
et anal and ..fr.r ¢r rrning.
B. Tnr r, 1astallatlon of death&" and &edteotatlon controls to
prntert the Crabtree rr—k.
l 5uch erOa.ln:..s oak 1r .,re...... 1. tut... ...ra to
aerelaandate :be lKtallatlnL 1. utllltlen.

Comparison of Mining Commission Final Decision
and the Original Permit — Berms
Blue is exact copy, green is added
Mining Commission Final Decision
Condition W. a - Conacruotion of acres
1. A vegetateil earthen berm shall be constructed beMoen the Wake Stone Corporation
plant and the watern boundary of the park as shown el Wske Stone corporation's
ravisod site plan. ,
]. sew dimensions shall be an leas than indicated do Wake Store Corporation's
revised site plan and my he higher and lomyer than sham, eatmpt the berm
.M11 net encroach on the pnunent buffer cone.
3. the bide elope. at rho em ..I. ee grades on a acamla grla. of L nerlsontay
to 1 vortical rado or flatter eM rrvogstatod on the aides ead top With
grasses and evergreen trxn. ra one of the Mrs shall not encroach on the
park property boundary and shall be at least 54 feat free tha boundary.
4. other barn li, be required as slain, progresses to reduce tla noise and
visual impact upon the quarry.
Permit as Issued
visual Screening
The operation shall be situated to optimize natural screening of
the operation from public view from interstate 40 and the Park
property. The visual screening plan shall include maintaining
undisturbed buffer areas of natural vegetation as shown on the
s it, Alen dated March 10, 1981. Additionally, a vegetated earthen
berm shall be constructed .net of the processing plant and stock-
pile area as shown on the revised site plan. Visual screening
such ns Vegetated earthen berms and/or evergreen trees shall be
placed an necessary to supplement natural screening.
_Construction of feral.
A. A vegetated earthen berm shall be constructed between the
Wake Stone Corporation plant and the western boundary of the
Park as shows on Wake Stone Corporation's site plan dated
March 10, 1963.
B. Berm dimensions shall be no less than Indicated so Wake Stone
Corporation's site plan dated March 10, 1981 and may be higher
and longer than shown.
C. The side slopes of the berm shall be graded to a stable grade
or Y horizontal to 1 vertical grade or flatter and revegetated
on the side. and top with grasses and evergreen trees. The
toe of the hr rm shall not encroach on the park property boundary
shall be and at least 50 feet from the boundary. The alignment
of the berm may vary from the approved site plan as is necessary
to provide the 00 feel of undisturbed land between the yank
boundary and the toe of the berm and assuring nn nccept.blc
an:;lo of reuse for the elope of the born..
ll. 0livr burns may Inc required as mining progresses to reduce the
miss and visual Impact upon the park.

1981 Site Plan
referenced in the
1981 Permit 92-10

In the First Year of
Violated the East E
foot buffer within
1981 aerial of
Park quarry
boundary -
forested
50 feet undisturbed buffer between the park
boundary and the toe of the berm was
violated in the first few years of the permit.
DEMLR failed to enforce the requirement and
failed to issue a violation of the permit to
document the encroachment.
Consequently Wake Stone asserts incorrectly
they have never violated the conditions of the
permit, because DEMLR never charged them
with a violation.
1988 aerial confirms
clearing within 14 feet
of the park boundary,
Blue Line shows the
required 50 foot
buffer cleared

Buffer Complaints to DEMLR/DEQ
that have been Reported with no notice of Violation issued or required Mitigation
April 21, 1982 In the first year of the Permit - State Parks reports 50 foot buffer violated and stagnant water flooding
buffer and crossing into State Park which was to be protected by the violated buffer.
DIV ISION OF
North Cardin Department of Noturd PARKS 6 RECREATION
Resources&Community Developmente5� °I�M
Jamb B. Hu t. Jr . Goumm JCMh W Gr,mCti . Se: etuy ♦aw.an m, n
April 21, 1982 - �' 1. U L. D
MEMORAMDUM / WR 27 OR
70: Mr, Stephen G. Conrad, Director
Division of land Resources �H0 QU�!1tY SECTION
FROM: James S. Stevens, Jr., Director
Division of Parks and Recreat'
SUBJECT: Wake Stone Quarry Pa mit Violet n
It has come to my attention that a condition related to a
Wake Stone permit violation in the berm and buffer area adjacent
to MR. B. Umstead State Park is causing standing water to encroach on
State property. Specifically, grading within the 50' buffer area
between the toe of the berm and the park boundary is causing stagnant
water to pond within the buffer arm. In addition, due to recent
rains, this water is encroaching on park property.
we hope this situation will be remedied without any additional
vegetation removal in the buffer area.
Thank you far your attention to this matter.
'4-5% Sutpeusion or revocation of perait,
(a) Whenet er the Department shall Lase reason to beRe,,-e that a iiotation of (i) this
Artide. (n) any rules adopted imder ft Article, or (tit) the terms and conditions of a
pemnr. imitidino to approved fecimtarian plan has taken place. it fall Rerr ti nften
natice of the apparent nolation upon the operator. spedf ug the facts consdtotin¢ the
apparent violation and informing Fhe operator of the operator's right m an infm nl
coafffine with tine Deputment. The date for an informal conference shall be not less than

i MAPS
•7- 4 .ice I . �i�y•y+T .�y. :{r�r t ��. y.•, s� ataw.y
Is
A;
+
s,► ;' t
ot
1981 Forested Undisturbed site JIA
R { �✓� ( t .
ILL
14
1Y fit• IJ -. L^ { r ��/ { }t./�'
• r
J ♦r/' � .jY
a '1
rti. I` f x,
Disclaimer About Feedba
f t 't n Maps
r r
i Street Map
P
Aerials
�a r LAWS
1981
BlefW
n Overview

Rough estimated Overlay of the
1981 Site map showing
protected 10 year buffer area
North of the line, and 1988
(MAPS photo showing three
large encroachments into the
protected buffer.
1981 and 1986 Permit required
an UNDISTURBED buffer zone of
existing natural vegetation
between the top edge of bank
of Crabtree Creek and any
mining disturbance, North of
the 10 year buffer line.
On the east park boundary
there was to be 50 foot
undisturbed land between park
boundary and the toe of the
berm, this area was cleared
within 10 feet of the boundary.

Eel"' i M A P S Disclaimer Ab.tA Feedback
id
v Tools ` � fJ4':f I z*�' .r ...f t Maps( /.. �'.� '♦ 1Y v ,tr�!`C}, .,j Y 1 Y�y. `JS• Street Ma
P
r -. ,z •.
+/ rP . ■�
Av
31�
[��+y •rug /. ,q ip ' t
.7+�4
— +' 0 © t"� T�`.`t` � �: '�� � :►�i7' n Overview

7W
88 Buffer Violations
on North Buffer and
st Buffer, Pond was
er approved after
ke Stone violated
ffer, East was
croachment of 50
of do not disturbed
ffer when they built
a berm that was to be
located to leave 50 feet
undisturbed buffer
next to the Park, Wake
Stone cleared 40 of the

In the first 5 years of the 1981 Permit Wake
Stone had violated the Northern permanent
buffer required by the both the Mining commission April 3
1981 Decision and the May 13, 1981 Permit conditions, which required an
UNDISTURBED BUFFER of EXISTING NATURAL VEGITATION.
Mining Commission Final Decisio
issued April 3.19&1:reauired.
"taditlx to. 1 - differ Sme eta)
!, Its west of tte oVletely undf3=W odffer mne to be m?+,tamed between
tte park to iuy daci1 the le yeht pewit shall ne U ieduatal a cY
ceriaed pion and aoiified by snejtira 2, :', ce L !istee or, fa3e i of
We Star 0airpration's tarcandut t? larch I.D. IS81 er:apt ell of [be
area mfth of tht ten-year Siffer _'.te iha!1 be.1 s a eattlwl eider
not and cote developed tr a1M_ri for cormt'..j purposes.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development
DNk N P,rk. seJ Re aam
il) Nnnh Sak,6ey Saco s PAOUN. Nash GmWv rnn
jan n C. mane. Coemor DrNYIdkee N Dew
S Thome Rhoda Sat:evry January 21, 1996 rkrztmr
MEMORANDUM
IV: Mr. St sphere G. Conrad, Director
Division of rand ROWUrCaftll
WL PA: William W. Davis, PhA,
Ruliaeer: Proposed wry Quarry Dan construction
The Division of Parka and Recreation has further reviesal
the request by the elks Stone Wrporation for an amendmant to
their mining permit.. Approval of this amendment would permit
the construction of a dam that would extend beyond the current
boundary delineated by the 10 year pb=it. we understand that
Make Atone, Without Written authorization, has cleared tbo land
,.._ _ _... of this
After t e��, akebtained a DEQ permit to encroach this prote7lMuffer, but the on
occurred before the Permit that allowed it. It was opposed by State Parks and only done so Wake Stone gained as they
could have offered land in their site to do the sarne without encroachment of the protected buffer.

And Yes... they also Violated the Buffers
the East of the site
In the First year of the permit, 1982 Wake Stone Violated the 50 foot protected
buffer during the construction of the Berm, They cleared within 15 feet of the Park
Boundary
In 1982 State Parks objected to the buffer violation and reported flooding in the
area that had filled the buffer and crossed into the park
Over the next 38 years the 100 foot protected buffer was flooded in two areas,
killing all tress that were to be protected,
In recent years the flooding has crossed into the State park flooding parkland and
Killing trees in the park.
Despite many complaints over the last 40 years, DEQ never issued a Violation of the
permit, or required mediation to repair the damages

1981 Forested
2014 buffer
Flooding 2019 Buffer and
4 growing Now Park flooding
R Crossesinto ongoing and
Park + growing

Here a second pond has been
created in the undisturbed
protected buffer, flooding 80 of
the 100 foot buffer, and the
flooding crosses into the park
property flooding 30 feet into
the park, killing all trees flooded
The size of the encroachment
continue to grow and DEMLR has
responded to complaints saying
it is OK, it's the best place for the
mine to put the water.
This attitude shows no
commitment by current DEMLR
staff to enforce the buffers
required by the permit.

Start of Nanh Carolina
Depertmmt of Emmonmtnt, Hcalth, and NaMI WAttmnc
R,kygh Roacnal ONwt
hnn L I.bnn.
DIVISION OP LARD PL9WRCMS
January 13, 1992
N a OF Mn PEARIT Mricispcin
On RIM
RENRN RCCBIPL REOUL92®
Male steN C.M.
P.O. Oak 190
Nnlghndale, NC Tt9a9
A11R: Mr. Jd:n R. Nra[tan
U: Triangle (Cery) purrY (92-10)
wake County
Met Mr. Nrrtton:
This is to docusent our observation duriM the
inspection en bnuary a. 1192 following your repair of the
cock slide Iota Crabtree Creek at the war and of the pit.
he
y. know', It wa deterotrmd that deficiencies exist
with resPact to 0 of tbe condition. contained In
your minin petmlt. o� applicable conditions and our
aMervetlrns are as fell..,
I I. R. and T.1 Tile undisturbed buffer along Crabtree
Creek In the aces enacted by the rock slide has notMen sutficier to prevent deposition of eateslal in
the watercourse. rbs :ataclal extendsl approelnetely
90, across the width at the main ch canal.
td L:u Oi+ 9,a.:i .4Yte. NL IRItI
Ta.Rww ham rn Rw • tAx Wdn .,.,ream.,
lhe Buffer on the West of the site was viol
n January 7, 1992 when Wake Stone blaste
oo close to Crabtree Creek, destroying the
ndisturbed buffer and blocking 90% of the
aterway.

74 4, k-4'mj�
#�v West Duffer
t t 7 Vto!ation
7992 Blast too
:� • - Close to Stream
1
destroyed natural
• r* buffer and filled
Steam 90`i,
�►- , j f blorkoig channel,
t / red shape is buffet
: w * ` 7 years later still
' d-
' not reve21tatled,
r• $ s - and blue line
r _ 4� r
'
tshows tOQ feet
+ • w~� ah - - - ---
ram .op of bank

Conclusion
The Buffers in the Permit have never been Enforced
Director Conrad was right the Quarry is an incompatible use adjacent to a state park
The buffers established to protect the park have consistently been violated and DEMLR has looked away, taking no
enforcement action to require they be respected.
1. Eastern buffer was cleared within 15 feet of the park boundary despite the permit condition requiring 50 feet
undisturbed natural buffer be maintained.
2. Eastern buffer violation is ongoing and growing with two new ponds that exist in the buffer killing all vegetation in the
100 foot protected buffer. This flooding has now crossed into the park and had flooded State park land and all trees in
the flooded zone
3. The undisturbed buffer zone of existing natural vegetation required from top edge of bank of Crabtree Creek, and
any mining disturbance shall be of sufficient width to prevent offsite sedimentation and preserve the integrity of
the natural watercourse, was violate on January 7, 1992 when Wake Stone blasted too close to the creek causing a
landslide that destroyed the undisturbed buffer and filled 90% of the watercourse. The department issued a
deficiencies notice January 13, 1992, but never issued a Notice of Violation and continued to allow Wake stone to
blast that close to the creek.
4. It is clear that William B Umstead state park continues to be impacted despite the buffers, it also is clear that when
they violate the buffers DEM LR does not enforce them.

c
enforce the Permit buffers is r V
1
•. �t buffersThe result is the protected
flooded • trees
I 1,
arebeingkilled ^% y
The flooding has now crossed
the park
The impact continues to grow
overtime and DEMLR has been
unwilling to take any
enforcement action to enforce
the permit buffers, despite
both written complaints and
numerous complaints at July
2020 Public hearing
r" _

In the event that the Department determines that the permittee or
permittee's successor is not complying with the Reclamation Plan or
other terms and conditions of this permit, or is failing to achieve
the purposes and requirements of the (fining Act, the Department may
give the operator written notice of its intent to modify, revoke or
suspend the permit, or its intent to modify the Reclamation Plan as
incorporated in the permit. The operator shall have right to a hearing
at a designated time and place on any proposed modification, revocation
or suspension by the Department. Alternatively and in addition to the
above, the Department may institute other enforcement procedures
authorized by law.

( ( C
Comparison of Mining Commission Final Decision and
the Original Permit — Erosion and Sediment Control
Mining Commission Final Decision
• Topic Not mentioned
Permit as Issued
4. Erosion and Sediment Control
A. Adequate mechanical barriers including but not limited to
diversions, earthen dikes, brush barriers, silt check dams,
silt retarding structures, rip rap pits, or ditches shall
be provided in the initial stages of any land disturbance I
to prevent sediment from discharging onto adjacent surface
areas or into any lake or natural watercourse in proximity
to the affected land.
D. The existing lakes Shall be used to trap sediment from
initial mining diaturbanaeo. The spillways of the exist-
ing lakes shall be further stabilized as necessary to
prevent erosion of the spillway from runoff from the affected
lands. The embankments of the existing lakes shall be
improved if necessary to insure the stability of the embankments.
C. The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater
than the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover
or other adequate erosion control measures, structure, or
device. In any event, exposed slopes or any excavated
channels, the erosion of which may cause offsite damage
due to siltation, shall be planted or otherwise provided
with ground cover, devices or structures sufficient to
restrain such erosion.
D. Drainage shall be provided either through or around any
berms that would otherwise obstruct natural drainage.

Wake Stone violated Sediment controls required
by the Permit — DEQ never issued Violations
M RM O R AN D UM
TO: Tracy 1levls, Mining 9gclalis/t^`^ge�'nJ/-
PROMI John Holley, Resio'l Rng/n.Z �l[.�
SURIRCT: Perait Renwal Request UV
Gry (Triangle) Quarry (92-10)
W.A. C .ty
We have coa l-tod .r rest. of the subject application and offer the
follwins <
1F1 Although no, vloLtletu lyw haan cttod In a NOV under the Mining
rs. Act. It should be noted tbet • l�Liar of Def/elancy ws IessW on
` - 24-87 for Itlsdeq"atg eadiaent controls am off-aita swiasntatien.
0round'ter Sect/on finds�ner'wblrnvi AI tepres'tae lvuI it.
�y pro be plan a IndlcKad in
the attached arn- The Water polity Section be. verified tbet
P.
MC0050fd11 is still .lid eed ill/ ezpin '"o-9T. The At,
pwllty 30 ton 1a. v"Ifl. cAa P.L't ZMA Ss atlll valid sed .ill e.pin I7-11.9A. Bolt bees Indir.t.d that no omit
aodlfic.tion..Pp.ar see....ry.
•'ISTd" la m[ properly d'igned. It —C a<coseWata the runoff
frm the dral'p .res to sed Wnt bast. "C•'. Thenfo', .properly
designed rock d' 1, r.gol ed ' . alnlar.
-,,A. Although the TST'a and sWi..t beds. are too d..p to prwlde for
.fflelant O.. ling ft.4 the 1800 cfhc cricsria, a. 1 of the
wrist. mes sgelf Ld spoor ressoesbl. if a 9W cll.. crlt.rL 1e
used. 1 bell.,. this to be sufficient for T5T-], TST
trict"['-A, TST-5,
beef.la ag"
. in 11[At of the L ben "11a1tad use pl...d for tM.a
s
9

Sediment discharges have completely coated stream bed with hard sediment deposits — in the streams between
the Quarry and Crabtree Creek, in direct violation of the permit Conditions — DEQ has ignored multiple
complaints of this violation as early as 1992 and as recent as the July 2020 Public hearing on the Mine Expansion
Request — Damages are ongoing
Stream In William B Umstead State Park- streambed coated with Healthy Stream in same area not coated with
mineral sediments downstream of the quarry sediment downstream of Quarry discharges

But Wait it gets worse,
If the violations to the Existing Mine Permit is not bad enough the New
Expansion request (2020) Includes more changes to further erode Buffers
on the existing site which will significantly and adversely Impact the Park
uffers proposed are significantly eroded with no benefit to the park or the public, and only of benefit to Wake Stone.
I here is No Public justification to agree to grant a private company such significant changes in buffers Wake Stone was
obligated to protect in the 1981 Permit which allowed mining.
They propose to erode the buffers on the East, North and West of the 1981 approved site, and only offer significantly
reduced buffers along the Park in the expansion site. Original park buffer in 1981 was 250 feet, proposed in Expansion
site is 25 feet, a 90% reduction of buffer protection to the park that has already incurred significant adverse impacts.
DEQ has not raised any objections to the 90% reduction in proposed Buffers and seems to be ready to accept them, with
no public benefit for such drastic changes.

New Expansion request from Wake Stone Guts historical buffer widths from 250 foot undisturbed to only
25 foot undisturbed along the park Boundary, a 90% reduction in the UNDISTURBED buffer. Wake Stone
violated the 1981 Buffers early and often, why should we trust they will respect these? DEQ never issued
a_i despite several blatant willfulnts over the life of the existing mine.
.� .� � 205y500.0000
11
Ca
is f1W Needy Cmi Ru+f
North 27513
_ — —
/� Wtllum b Ilm�le�l9eu Rr4 I gOUII
e/o ITavne Ane:>m. ln+ener
/ PL"074h548101-Nmh
V. Caedi:u 211.+ _
) /
CamWU Sw. Hrb
'.
/
1
11111tl
Re Cleeh Rwtl—Pp.
`
OT}61]592e .
-
. Nosh C 27513@I I1
\
MI
07"511951
/ \ P;os d Permit Bou
'. 0
WwLlhi u lm AigYn
/o Mlebnl Wlryln, l'
+hwW
\ 1
— — ` '
R
,
o@u=Mh'
IYr u
n \
��I'1`XN1j11
I 1 1 \.
Cnvhlu 2]rY3.Ulp1
1.
p•4 \�
la
\ I \ \ �illl
� � \
IN117(Wmn
..
IN nihyl'4_llyBe
.lP?IyR@
_ _. / \�
\ ` ••1�^A�XJN � -
r
s
!�}YMYlNNXEpoire
a 0?Mr.
r1PP
_
.; W. 11m
1h wmfi:
1
.., xy+:N-.TRf
ql I+
. Whh.
e.✓.e•'""..'.n^'.
d
unn
r
`�1.,, •""
I ��
Desk
line Denotes leir
wT.,�i ��rWMI —
1
'�' / /'Propose
Clearing Limits'
It
I X�5
51
:. 1
/
UhnrvtlionlWeO

January 2021 Site Plan change proposed by Wake Stone undermines the 1981 Required buffer of existing natural
vegetation from top edge of bank, gutting the protection to just the Neuse River Rules, and allows crossing the
buffer and creek to establish haul road and bridge through the former Undisturbed buffer of Existing natural
Vegetation.
/ wenance1t.
\ \ \ •a
�e / R0�Nian 4
Stream Z
252 Linear Fee Ole
110
rz
10,
000
I E)a ING BASIN Dashed Line Denotes ) f
Line Denotes F
Active Pit Area

Here on the existing site Wake Stone proposes changing Undisturbed Buffer of existing Natural Vegetation to just Buffer?? So
much for honoring the 1981 Permit. Note they also have moved the buffer to Center of creek, allowing them to expand the
pit closer to the park and the stream. In 2018 Permit modification approved in 23 minutes they removed Buffer text from the
Permit and allowed them to control it on the site plan subject to state approval of the site plan.
What has always been
Undisturbed natural buffer
of existing natural
Vegetation from top pf
bank in the permit is now
proposed 1/2021 as just
Buffer from center of
stream.
r A. a

9 f
Reservoir
WEssos /
—r
I
.
r•'�i i
�..�, h
c:\\'H.-62,
I
t
ssing
I
Plant,
ockpil , Pr cess
er it %n Se ing
�� f t _
,0
r
a�sins, and O e an
jdales Facili
+ _ s
land Area = 57.0 Ac
es +%- UqCn
(f
�n
Ibo
�(
Z
1vr�.a
tes
o
•`1'anuary -
0
0
Wake Stone now
0
Proposes to
downgrade the
Undisturbed
Natural vegetated
buffer to simply
UN EXCAVATED to
cover up the
flooding violation
■
they have allowed.
To do this they
0
0
have requested the
0
S
permit text be
removed to allow
the site plan they
control and the
state approved to
allow these
downgrades

More bad things to come...
>I,w
-LEGEND.
A
• NTRLAWLOWNNA9ULE T9TATIONr1r
VR1RE PIT PERINETER w•u runty
GMA
- NORTN E WRT DMCIMRM
lam•
.-._.-A _
-
• FOVIP MTAM1NT fETPLEV)
LWIC WMTAf•UINT PJTSIDL ACTWE
A USON STRE/JIMNOMONTATION
OIARRY DWNOAM RT ELEVI
•��"•�
rR RW,R,�,oa+au01
I •V AT Ly.
WNIT(MING WELL LO TION 4NP
DATE 41P2020
PROJECT 1E3401
WAKE STONE CORP - TRIANGIE QUARRY
FIGURE 9
The Proposed NEW Expansion Erodes
existing Buffers and proposes gutting
new buffers - Undisturbed Buffer
Widths along the Park go from 250
feet in the 1981 site to just 25 Feet in
the 2021 Proposed Expansion
request
This photo from the expansion
permit request submitted includes
the Future reserve area that Wake
stone has EXCLUDED in this request.
DEQ should require all in our all out,
the same area to be approved from
mining should be the same area to
be evaluated by DEQ and Reclaimed
plan.
As submitted the application is
incomplete as it is inconsistent in
scope in the area to be mined and
reclaimed.

In the Expansion Site Plan Submitted to DEQ Wake
Stone Excludes the Future Reserves from critical
review in this request saying it is EXCLUDED from this

In the Same Application that Excluded the Future Reserve area, Wake Stone shows that area in its
eter, and the Reclaimed CQcep
Here in the Same Application Wake Stone shows a
reclamation view which includes the EXCLUDED FUTURE
RESERVE AREA, and completely eliminates the protected
Foxcroft Lake.
or Exclude it, but notboth x the the same Permit requestcope
DEQ should re u ne sistent- her In

Wake Stone has been showing these photos of the Reclamation Plan, in the RDU Lease, on their website,
and in presentation to the Wake County Board of Commissioners.
FUTURE RESERVES area excluded from this Mining Expansion request as shown as INCLUDED in the
reclamation plan, also of note is the removal of Foxcroft Lake. DEQ should require Wake Stone to only
include or EXCLUDE the Future RESERVE area not mix them in the same request.
[mc.Flvet NMa .Ia. !e. 1•�a..yb O•a.•. t.Fae.�c•
•

Despite many violations of the Buffer conditions , Wake Stone asserts they have never violated the conditions
because DEMLR/DEQ never cited the Violation!
Just because they were not cited does not change the fact that they violated both the conditions of the Permit
and their promise to respect the buffers.
See this comment on Wake Stone Website January 31, 2021---
- Does Wake Stone have a history of permit violations at Triangle Quarry?
Wake Stone has neyer recerved a Notice of Violation INUV) ter noncompliance with any of its NC DEQ environmental permits. Wake Stone has worked exceptionally hard to meet
err exceed all environmental requirements and permit conditions, and has strived to be a good neighbor to Umstead State Park and the surrounding community.

C
Conclusion
In 1980 DEMLR denied this quarry do to significant adverse effects on William B Umstead State Park
In 1981 the Mining commission ordered the Mine be permitted anyway
DEMLR worked hard to protect the park from the significant adverse effects of Mining , requiring as a
part of the permit both;
Significant Protected Buffers
A 50 Year Sunset Clause
Wake Stone accepted the Permit with these Conditions, and every renewal for 37 years
But over time Wake Stone has violated the buffers and gutted the Sunset Clause
Now they seek to further impact the park with even less in Protection as they expand
The Mining Act of 1971 must be followed
The buffers violated must be mitigated and restored
The 50 Year Sunset Clause Must be reinstated.
The Park must be protected from the Significant Adverse Effects of the Mine

There is a need to review DEQ's Role in
protecting the State of North Carolina, the gap
between the mission vs the reality has grown
over the decades...
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
The reality in the Case - Wake Stone Mining
Permit 92-10 does not reflect well on the DEQ
Mission...
No Permit Violations were ever written despite
Wake Stone Violations of the Permit Conditions
Early and Often, ongoing violations exist and
remain unmitigated.
I
result is significant adverse Impacts on
illiam 6 Umstead State Park, just as DEMLR
irector Stephen G Conrad Predicted in 1980
when he denied the permit.
ime and time again violations were 40
verlooked with "after the fact modifications"
that changed the Permit to allow the violation.
Every Permit Modification requested by Wake
tone was approved, each one resulted in less
protection to the State and more advantage to
Wake Stone.

v I(1•fA'aP+rmaMw+tYrtWv�,wn�umO,IraW ' — c Y
ol
-e.A W Ir W9'�•U' •�4ywrl
Rufus Edmisten rufus(riPrufusedmisten con),
Wake Sm Quarry
To Whom it May Concern,
I have reviewed the email and the attached newspaper articles on this controversy from 1981 to help
refresh my thoughts.
To the best of my memory as the former N.C. Attorney General, what I can say is that I do not think
Director Conrad made a typographical error with the word Sooner in the permit issued on May 13, 1981.
I also find it difficult to believe Wake Stone would have accepted the permit if it was an error. This was
not a small or insignificant point.
The word Sooner put in place a 50 year sunset clause. The term later had no time certain for the mine
to end.
While it's clear that Wake stone always preferred no time limit to the donation, and the Mining
commission copied that position into their final order.
• It is also clear that I , Governor Hunt and Secretary Lee publicly criticized the mining commission
decision, as we opposed the location of a quarry adjacent to the state park, and we were
publicly on record considering a legal appeal of the mining commission decision
• It is also clear from newspaper reports at the time, Wake Stone publicly stated they expected
the life of the mine to be 50 years.
• These three facts are not in dispute and are confirmed by the public record.
• The controversy of these points was resolved with the May 13, 1981 Issuance of the permit
which
o Allowed the mine to operate adjacent to the park ( contrary to the states goals)
o Set a time certain for the mine to close at 50 years ( contrary to Wake Stones request)
When disputes exist, which they often do they are often resolved with a compromise.
It would be wrong to change the permit in 2018 after it was issued and renewed 8 times over 37 years
with this condition. Each time the permit was issued Wake stone had the opportunity to express a
concern if there was an error, they never did until 2011.

Equally important is to note that this claim that Director Conrad made a "typographical error' suggested
in 2018 was not new information.
The same claim had been made by Wake Stone in 2011.
It was considered at that time by Director James Simons, who had firsthand knowledge of the original
permit application in 1981. He saw no merit to the claim, and renewed the permit with the word sooner
intact, maintaining a 50 year time limit on the mine.
For these reasons I think the permit issued speaks for itself and should be respected. It would be
inappropriate at this late stage to change the permit in 2018 eliminating the very condition that may
have been the basis for the approval.
With the passing of time it is difficult to recall every detail, but forth at reason the issued permit should
speak for itself.
Thank you,
Rufus Edmisten