92-03_3_Redacted

MEE

6."
6dellfw
tL
Irl
yam'{ ` 'r(L�• .'�j�.� n '�',, ��,� ��'`�' �i.ir�,�' �r r °f' � +�•. �.
1 � .•L _.y� �� �•T i�yl + •r .� Q �, � Ly.Jf• � Cf',,i �.
• [`• a # ; { 11 r '
jt
_ RLv C7© •• '''
ti i,1� E T�;f�
>, � • •-� �, 4 1 �+ 1� a �I"i a• 1 5Y
�� _ ,.r • Irv. M �• � ' . � -� 4 i
Llo ie
Ic-
�,�l}{t� "►y t O I �I/JJrCj
1•. Ar j1 � �' 3 i � �
[j r`f''+ �7l�jr••.TSt`w (�.�+7 Uly �s �l� + �!' >l'{ _ p € �� � 11 •ti•

� ate" �✓
A f/
c
. .... . .... . ..... . :1 - �: I �5: ��

Suggestions in planning for crushed stone quarry operations,
to facilitate the integration of abandoned quarry sites into
the urban fabric.
A Research Project by:
Guy L. Anne or
Joseph C. Hill
Anthony W. McBride, Jr.
Richard A Paton
Henry H. Pope, Jr.
with the guidance of professors Daniel Young and Wayne
Maynard, Department of Landscape Architecture, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
sponsored by:
The Nello L. Tear Company- Durham, North Carolina
with the cooperation of William F. Wilson, Geologist,
the North Carolina Department of Conservationand
Development- Mineral Resources Division

COPYRIGHT 1970
HELLO L. TEER COMPANY
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .........................................
1
Obiectives .. . .. .. ...............................
2
Summary ...........................................
3
Context...........................................
4
Form.............................................
8
Master Plan .......................................
13
Operational Procedures .............................
13
Conclusions .......................................
13
Concurrent Land Use Conflicts .......................
15
Case Study ..........................................
19
Introductiop.......................................
20
Site - Regional Analysis .............................
22
Reclamation Proposals ..............................
24
Concurrent Land Use Conflicts .......................
33
Appendix...........................................
35
Quarrying Procedures ..............................
�7
.��
Operational Equipment .............................
39

INTRODUCTION
This study deals with open pit quarrying operations engaged
in the extraction and crushing of base rock granite used in
highway construction and as concrete aggregate. The crush-
ed stone product is a vital element in the building industry.
The ready supply of this low cost building material is of eco-
nomic interest to everyone. For example, a sharp increase
in the production costs of crushed stone could lead to an
increase in highway costs and hence an increase in highway
taxes. Because it is a low Lost, bulky product, its price is
closely dependent on the distance it must be transported
from quarry site to job site. For this reason crushed stone
quarries are found in close proximity to the areas of most
intensive building activity —urban areas. As the population
increases and urban areas expand, the competition for land
use increases. This simply means that the land used for quar-
rying operations becomes increasingly valuable as an urban
resource.
In the past, quarries which have been abandoned have often
been left in a state unsuitable for urban use. They often be-
come liabilities not oniyto the urban communities in general,
in the sense of a wasted resource for development, but also
to the quarrying concerns, since this non productive land may
become a tax burden. It is obviously to the best advantage of
both the community and quarry owners to be able to put these
sites to use when quarrying operations are terminated.
Another issue arising from the quarrying of crushed stone is
the apparent conflict between quarrying and other urban land
uses. Previously thisconflict hastaken many forms. These may
be dust, noise, or the presence of heavy equipment —
intrusions on the environment which have created a certain
amount of prejudice against quarrying operations. Although
improved quarrying techninnoc hayo roVi—orl nr oliminatprl
,mpro...., quarrying .y...,..
some of these conflicts, the prejudice remains. More re-
finements in quarrying techniques and procedures, along
with improved public relations, will help alleviate this urban
land use conflict.
Whenever the "public interest" is involved in an operation,
some types of controls or regulations are usually necessary
to protect this interest. The awakening awareness of the
importance of environmental quality will demand an even
greater response to these issues by the quarries. The con-
trols that we hope will emerge from this study will be poli-
cies self-imposed by the quarrying industry rather than by
governmental control.

OBJECTIVES
There are two basic objectives of this study. The first is to
establish some guidelines and procedures which will facili-
tate the eventual integration of the quarry site back into the
urban fabric. The second is to enumerate some of the techni-
ques which may be used to alleviate conflicts between urban
land development and quarrying operations.

SUMMARY s
-- \,ti„=t,'v:I7a�-�,:�....�.�• .�;�.ri.r-05'7''-.-•t�.., '- , r
�,..\.-rl �t,%`_�j,�-a ��(y '' '� ,' � � •'`r� � `" �� � r ��Yrt• "c-•Y �""-�'•Y`'✓.1�'--cam'"`` 'e�"'"'r�...h�`��ay`
=�'{, �`k`w`z+"`..�. "-:�-."' �' "f a�� -A t�° � a 'Cii, � o �cs tj`�,� .! ��. ' ; ,�-+?,:,v.=.''• - r . , rsi.n�.''� N�,'Z
`aa §`� � L, • r � �� °` oo i`� .. j� � ° y �r.�(-_erl :4 � � � `��yJ _
\ib sir' �/. f 'Y�i a.�•'6 y!r�•
4� o
' �. Y wa �/Ji,• wl—
awl,
cDnn
M i1fiY.f lTiti:T

PLANNING RECLAMATION
Several ideas were postulated as a starting point for this
study. Primary among these ideas is the fact that quarries
are abandoned. Some quarries are planned to be operational
for a certain number of years. Others may be temporary op-
erations set up for a single job. But even "permanent" quar-
ries are forcers to cease operations from time to time whether
by a shift in markets or by unfavorable legislation. Good
planning can help insure that these abandoned sites are
usable. Ideally, this planning should be done before quarry
operations are started. However, with existing operations, it
is better late than never.
When dealing with the problem of planned quarry use recla-
mation, three questions may be posed:
(1) To what use should the site be put when quarrying is
terminated?
(2) What form should the nit be loft to beet accommodate
this anticipated use?
(3) How can these goals be accomplished while simultane-
ously carrying on a successful quarrying operation?
If quarries took only one form, the task of selecting a use for
the abandoned site would be greatly simplified. The process
would be to define the land uses which the quarry form can
accommodate and select one compatible to the demands of
the community. However, the large earth manipulating equip-
ment used in the quarrying process allows much flexibility in
the way the different components of the quarry's form can be
handled. Thus, quarries may take many "final" forms. Every
anticipated land use may require special land form character-
istics for optimum development. The problem then becomes
to select the most feasible use for the site and create the
form which it demands.

ANALYSIS
CULTURAL CONDITIONS
The first step in determining an eventual use for the quarry
is to examine the probable physical conditions which will
eventually surround the site. Describing the context in which
the quarry pit will exist at the termination of operations is a
difficult, is not impossible task. The problem of trying to
predict what an area will be like at some point in the future
is complicated by the fact that with most quarry operations
the terminatinn riata is iinknnwn 1-Inwavar, actimntas of the
quarry's life expectancy can usually be made by quarry per-
sonnel. With these estimates in mind, planning consultants
can make educated guesses as to the regional and local
context in which the quarry site will exist at termination. In
choosing a future use for the site which will be compatible
with its surroundings, a study should be made by profes-
sional planners which would examine the relationships
between projected natural and cultural conditions of the re-
gion and site. The following is an example of some of the
conditions and relationships which may be included in such
a study.
NATURAL CONDITIONS
Natural conditions are more easily predicted than cultural
conditions slnra their natural rates of change are relatively
slow. Significant changes in the natural conditions in the
near future would likely be the result of changing cultural
conditions. The elements described here would include:
(1) Topography
(2) Macro and micro -climatic conditions
(3) Ecology
(a) Plant communities
(b) Animal communities
(4) Geological data
(5) Hydrology
5
The cultural conditions are subject to much more change
over time and are therefore more difficult to predict. They
describe the physical manifestation of man's activities on the
land. To project them to some future date would require a
study of their patterns and rates of change over some period
in the immediate past. The elements included in this study
would include:
(1) Land Use Patterns
(a) Residential
(b) Recreational
(c) Commercial
(d) Institutional
(e) Industrial
(f) Agricultural
(g) Circulation
(h) Open Space
(2) Utilities Systems
(a) Water
(b) Sewer
(c) Electricity
(d) Gas
(e) Telephone
In addition, political and economic conditions as projected
can give valuable direction to future development plans.

RELATIONSHIPS
One relationship between these conditions is that which de-
scribes the manner in which the cultural changes affect the
natural environment so as to modify the feasibility (or de-
sirability) of proposed land uses. For example, industrial
operations could change the quality of the natural water
systems or, perhaps, lower the water table. These changes
may affect the desirability of recreational and agricultural
use respectively. Another relationship between these con-
ditions and future development is the demand that projected
land use patterns may make. Future high density residential
areas may demand open space or commercial facilities.
A third relationship may be the compatibility between pro-
jected natural or cultural conditions and possible develop-
ment. For example, projected industrial development may
not be compatible with proposed residential development.
lu+d for 'P, 1�►�e�}� oKe
pollU }s leave
iA eia VA
Re reAclyl d 4of
rom area _
V.
a� esi,denflod
Commercia
Re5l101�'101
il_1S.1.U.i0"al_ \\\
TDV YBG19MO h
1
11
11
1

SELECTION OF RECLAMATION PROJECT
The selection of a specific use for the quarry site when oper-
ations are terminated is the next step. Early in this study it
was hoped that a decision on the exact use would not be
necessary at this point. It was felt that a more compatible
rise might ha developed if the rlarisinn wgre nnstnnne'd iintil
late in the quarry's life. The idea was to group possible quarry
uses according to the similarity of land form required and to
select that group which the projected regional -site analysis
indicated as having the greatest number of feasible uses for
the region. The problem would then be to plan the quarry
operations so that the pit was left 'in the proper form. Un-
fortunately, it as found that this approach did not give the
positive direction needed for quarry planning.
This conclusion was reached when it was found that the
fnrms raniiirarl by each land use were rather specific, If the
final quarry forms were generalized to a point where there
were only three or four forms, the relationship of these forms
to specific or even generalized uses seemed nebulous. For
example, let us say the final form choices decided upon
were a, b, and c:
(a) Open, sheer wall
(b) Covered, bowl
(c) Open, treated wall
Let us also say that the activity under consideration is a re-
gional park. A regional park could conceivably go into any
one of these forms. However, if the horizontal dimension in
figure (a) was reduced sufficiently the form might not be
giiita hla fnlo.r a mark, Thic width -Ain ratin is juct nnc form
element that is not dealt with in ­
simplified models (a),
(b), and (c). If, on the other hand, all of the significant form
elements such as slope of walls, width -depth ratio, and edge
treatment are considered, the possible combinations would
result in an astronomical number of quarry forms —each sig-
nificantly different to be considered a special form. The
tuber may approach the inui fiber of possible Uses. There-
fore, a better technique may be to choose the use and
manipulate the form elements to accommodate it.
It is proposed that a definite plan be establlslled as to the
eventual use of the quarry. Even "permanent" quarries should
plan for eventual integration of the site back into the urban
community. The olanninq team, having completed the site
analysis, will, in cooperation with the site owners, be able
to propose an eventual site use or uses. Once a decision has
been made on the proposed future use of the site, a rationale
must be developed for planning the final form of the quarry.

8
ESTABLISHING FORM 1
Earlier, it was stated that every land use may require special
1
land form characteristics for optimum development. These
cha..In nl:.. .J.. •L.. -Ilia U-!
laral.lCrlJlll.J VCterlllllle 111C gUtlllly V3 the gUarlyJ JUJIll.
It is possible to examine this quality of form by identifying
the form elements relating to quarries and showing their
relevance to the anticipated use. These form elements are:
(1) Size
(2) Width - depth ratio
(3) Wall slope
1
(4) Edge
(b) Shape
(6) Orientation
(7) Texture
In the following discussion of these elements of form, two
�I
plans of development will be used to illustrate the relation -
shin of the nnticinatpri imp to the mnninlllafinn of tha cle-
ments: A regional park and a light industry such as a cloth-
ing manufacturer or food processing plant.
11
11

coy, c{ ce,
(1) Size - Certain land uses require rather specific dimen-
sions. These may be maximums or minimums. It would be
difficult to place a stadium in a hole whose maximum hori-
zontal ulimensio,n is less than 100 yards. On the other hand,
some activities may not relate to the scale of a pit which
covers hundred acres. A regional park would require a more
extensive space than the compact industrial complex. The
size may be limited by property lines or by economic con-
siderations, varying depths of overburden, etc.
(2) Width -Depth ratio - The sense of space or volume is an
important factor related to this ratio- Micro -climatic condi-
%tions may also be greatly determined by this variable—
i/ especially light, wing, and temperature. The base of a very
narrow deep hole may never receive direct'sunlight. It may
+ I I dk sources
r�FAR'
t
Z.
get very little air circulation. Its temperature may be cooler
and more constant than the wider, shallower pit. The sense
of open space or the sense of being down in the pit may be
mi-P0llarlt experlentlal considerations 111 the planning- of a
park. The micro -climatic conditions resulting from special
wind conditions and the reflection of sunlight off the quarry
walls may also be part of this experience. On the other hand,
the industry may wish to be in a narrower, deeper pit where
vertical circulation and constant temperatures could assure
an efficient operation or a minimum amount of land. The
horizontal limitations were stated in section one above. The
vertical limitations are economic and will be reduced as tech-
nological advances reduce the cost of raising the stone out
of the quarry:

(3) Wall Slope -The slope and treatment of walls may have
a determining effect on the type of vertical circulation into
and out of the pit in its final form. It also may be closely re-
lated to safety factors. The regional park may want gradual
slopes at some points for access and vertical slopes at other
points for visual impact. The industry may plan to depend
entirely on vertical circulation and may prefer only vertical
slopes. The desired slope can be achieved by planned extrac-
tion or by alteration after extraction is terminated.
(4) Edge - Edge treatment is important at two scales. The
treatment of the immediate edge may affect safety, especially
Around nits with near by vertical slopes. Also, various edge
treatments may affect the quality of light, air, and noise mov-
Q
10
ing into or out of the hole. Landforms, bolders, vegetation,
water, and fabricated structures are a few of the elements
which may be used in dealing with the edge at this scale. At
a slightly larger scale the edge may be thought of as the un-
quarried land which is part of the site. The size and shape
of this land can be significant when reclamation development
takes place —especially with regard to access to the pit.
The park could require specific edge treatments for safety
around vertical slopes, as well as for visual interest from
within the pit. Access and parking facilities would also be
required at the upper level. Edge treatment for the industry
might include screening from nearby areas, provisions for
[ruck Ur rail access, anfJ parking. Tile parking RAYM ue ilafl-
dled vertically in decks within the structure.

(5) Shape - The shape of the quarry edge can be a limiting
factor on the activities anticipated for the reclaimed site.
The perception of the quarry pit as a space can also be af-
fected by shape. Psychologists find that people have dif-
ferent feelings about circular forms than they do about long,
slender forms. Shape is closely related to size and width -
depth ratio in its physical and psychological implications.
The park may be planned so that people can move through an
exciting progression of spaces controlled in part by the shape
of the quarry. This may involve rather complex forms. The
industry may desire simplified, even geometric shapes to
accommodate specific building types. The facto,.. delimit-
ing shape are the same as those for size, plus on -site ele-
ments like bodies of water, rights of way, etc.
(V) Orientation - IEIC eIICl.1J VI orientation reIGIC primarily
C. reek
dir&4M Sol
MWA
11
to micro -climatic conditions, secondarily, perhaps, to access.
Orientation occurs in two ways, horizontally and vertically.
Horizontal orientation implies the way in which the major
axis of the pit relates to the cardinal points of the compass.
Vertical orientation may be the way the pit relates to the sur-
rounding topography. The park may require an orientation to
insure sunlight during certain hours of the day when max-
imum usage is anticipated. The planners may also wish for it
to take advantage of prevailing breezes. Also, they may
wish it to be oriented towards other recreational facilities.
The industry may wish to take advantage of the sun's light
I some commercial tray, e.g., solar ncauuy. it may Secn to
orient its operation so that noise associated with the opera-
tion is directed away from certain nearby development. It
may wish to orient towards major highways or railroads.
aw?
AgA
flaw IdJeM

(7) Texture - The texture of quarry walls and floor refers
to the roughness or smoothness of these surfaces. The qual-
ity of these surfaces is a factor in determining the final form,
and as such, is related to eventual land use. The basic vari-
ables of texture are type of material and the degree to which
the surface is refined. Stone quarries may be left uncovered,
creating a bold, dramatic landscape, or if the slopes are so
Planned, they may be covered with overburden and replant-
ed. This procedure would create a more naturalistic land-
scape. The extraction procedure known as "stepping" or
"benching" creates a kind of super -texture which can be
useful for certain reclamation projects. The park -may seek a
variety of textures —both for interest and function. The in-
('I�,CtN _ . _.
---.. , .......•. n•,........,r , a3yun c vary une Ur two. i ne penChing
procedure could be useful in providing structural elements
for the industry.
-
hNr,7 VAr,[IPMau hU 'Cl,il
w•,V�1•la'r nav v r rli
ri id1�i de�ne fivr a i ural
,2
We have discussed the form elements determining the final,
physical quality of the quarry, some of the implications of
these elements, and some of the controls or limitations in
manipulating the elements. The scope of control allowed by
the manipulation, combination, and interrelation of these
elements allows flexibility in achieving a desired form. One
important aspect omitted here is the type of equipment used
in quarrying. Each piece of equipment, whether bulldozer
or dragline, has certain spatial requirements for efficient
operation as well as limitations on the kind of work it can do.
These are discussed in the appendix to this report.
IIMf JA-IAn JAnG-iYontu�nAlnT 4,v
,.V9 Krv• kI vn{ Q/ �r
Lf.
1
1
1
1
1

MASTER PLAN
Having established the anticipated use of the quarry site and
the form best accommodating this use, the next step is to
establish a master plan to guide quarrying operations towards
the desired end. The use of many professionals may be needed
to develop a workable plan. These might include civil en-
gineers, landscape arthitects, traffic engineers, quarry
managers, interested governmental agents, and financial
advisors. The plan should include implementation schedules
as well as physical designs.
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
Once the master plan is completed, quarrying experts are
freeto plan and schedule theirquarrying operations to achieve
most effeciently the required forms. Craig Johnson's report
No. 2 for the Sand and Gravel Association outlines several
useful techniques for simultaneous reclamation and quarry-
ing procedures? Although they were proposed for sand
and gravel operations, they are easily adapted to the quarry-
ing of crushed stone. The major form elements to be manip-
ulated are outlined earlier in this report.
CONCLUSIONS
The procedures for effective reclamation of crushed stone
quarries should include these basic steps:
(1) Analyze projected regional and site conditions —both
natural and cultural.
(2) Define pertinent relationships from the analysis.
(3) Choose an anticipated use.
(4) Determine the desired form.
(5) Develop a master plan with implementation schedule.
(6) Plan operational procedures to accomplish plan.
1. Johnson, Craig, Practical Operating Procedures for Progressive Reha-
bilitation of Sand and Gravel Sites, University of Illinois, Urbana, III., 1966.
13

- ••'S P _ •F _h j,. �' 3� ;� f• •emu
J .ytr, � Oi 'ij 1 S ry 1
n
. F=
- i •'� v.SS},. '% �1�[ r � k° Yam' .',}; S. 1T v - ij'' it .
_.EL _ fir ? •1, .� _ -t
f' y.•.r
'Wit1,
t.•-.. Mom. �} �r �' � i k�.. •r� �
!'� s� 7 �' �' r t � � ' r•7.
'! Fps"��'e y,^, `' ,R ••f, .. K.�•°a'•,1•
■

CONCURRENT LAND USE CONFLICTS
Many complaints are lodged against quarries by people who
live or work in the quarry's vicinity. Quarrying companies
are well aware of most of the conflicts which result from a
business of their nature within the urban setting. Since the
quarrying industry is vital to urban growth, an improving
relationship with the surrounding community is a constant
goal. Some of the major conflicts, and proposals for their
alleviation, are:
CONFLICT:
Visual - The most evident effect of an open pit mining opera-
tion is its drastic change of a land form and natural environ-
ment. Also of visual concern is the various machinery and
processing equipment employed in the mining operation.
PROPOSAL:
Screening - Screening can serve many functions. It can act
as a noise and visual barrier, a frame for interesting portions
of quarrying operations, a dust filter, and as a visual enhance-
ment for reclaimed areas. Screening can be done with
mounds of overburden, rocks, vegetation, or a combination
of them.
The simplest method of screening with overburden is to
stockpile the material along the site perimeter where it can
later be used, if needed, for fill material. A more aesthetic
solution is to shape these mounds into pleasant forms.
Scrapers are well adapted to shape screening mounds. The
slopes should be a maximum of 3:1 to allow for mowing.
Vegetation, both treesand shrubs, makes an excellent screen-
ing material. An ideal situation would exist if natural vege-
tation could be left around the outer edges of the site during
the initial clearing operation. Trees and shrubs growing on
areas to be cleared could be moved to bare areas around
the site's edges. Of course, nursery stock could be brought
in to supplement existing vegetation.
1s

Large boulders could also be used for screening materials.
But, because of their stark appearance it would be best to
use them in conjunction with one of the other methods of
screening.
CONFLICT:
Dust - Dust is a by-product of all the mining processes —
from clearing the site, to transporting the material through
the crushers, and onto the stockpiles. Even the machinery
moving around the quarry site will cause a certain amount
of dust. This problem is increased by the absence of vege-
tation which would normally help to filter the air.
PROPOSAL:
In addition to the screening process described above, dust
can also be controlled by using water sprays on truck routes
and in the crushing process.
CONFLICT:
Noise- Noise is constantly produced during quarrying opera-
tions. The combined operations of the various machinery
cause a continuous drone to be emitted from the area. As in
the problem of dust, the lack of vegetation contributes to the
situation, for vegetation is a natural sound -proofing material.
PROPOSAL:
In addition to screening, noise may be lessened by controlled
blasting and by orienting operations so that noise may be
reflected away from sensitive areas. Land buffers may some-
16
times be secured when quarry property is being purchased
orleased.
CONFLICT:
Silting - In crushed stone operations, large quantities of
water are used for cooling and dust control during the crush-
ing process. When this water is returned to its source —often
a steam —the suspended soil particles settle out and cause
siltation. Additional siltation occurs during heavy rains. The
large amounts of runoff erode the soil and pick up a large
amount of soil particles. This water eventually finds its way
to the quarry's water source either through continued run-
off or through pumping operations.
PROPOSAL:
Settling ponds may be constructed so that particles may set-
tle out before returning water used in the quarry operation
back to its source. The problem of erosion on the site may be
attacked by limited clearing and by the planting of cover
crops. Limited clearing implies clearing only that portion of
the site which will be quarried in a specific length of time.
The vegetation remaining on the uncleared land helps reduce
erosion, acts as a noise and dust filter, provides temporary
screening, and allows for a gradual ecological change.
If it is necessary for the entire quarry site to be cleared dur-
ing the initial clearing operation, a cover crop will aid in dust
control and provide food and nesting habitat for wildlife.
Covercrops could also be planted on areaswhere overburden
is stockpiled.

64
A
�i.
V 1S>Pl I
.... ...........................
�..................�
vvwUl All' l �ramfs -mkves{ 09 vim 4 quarry
17
gieje}a6n & hnco rutou4ml

CONFLICT:
Safety - The major hazards of the quarry in relation to the
community are the steep ciiffs, loose rocks, and boulders
which occur at the edge.
PROPOSAL:
Safety precautions should be taken around the periphery of
the open pit. A border of large rocks is the simplest, though
least aesthetic solution. A more pleasing solution would be
to create a border of earth mounds, possibly incorporated
with the screening mounds.
Safety within the pit can be improved by using the benching
technique which provides large terraces which can catch
falling debris, and thus provide protection for people and
equipment working below. They also provide shelves for
planting and for the construction of roads.
CONFLICT:
Trucks - One of the major sources of irritation to residents
in the quarrying area is the constant stream of dump trucks
going to and from the quarry site. They tend to create a con-
siderable amount of dust and noise pollution.
PROPOSAL:
This is a difficult problem to control. The only alternative is
to provide other access points to the quarry so that the traf-
fic will be dispersed and therefore less dense. These ser-
vice roads might also be planned to avoid residential areas.
18
bare 0 e&kh
Moula 5 -
bs�b. yVil foy
a is over rMA
OVA
l /
R&

INTRODUCTION
The snerifir nir iarry fnr %Alhirh thie nrniart %A a8 Commissioned
isthe Crabtree Quarrylocated on Highway 70 west of Raleigh,
North Carolina. The quarry has been in operation fora number
of years and is presently operated by the Nello L. Teer Com-
pany of Durham, North Carolina. In studying different quarries
it was concluded that there is no such thing as a "typical''
quarry. Crabtree is unique in many respects. For one thing,
there s . , y' little water n the Crabtree Quari j. Most qu r'ie5
start to fill with water when excavation extends below the
water table. This water must continually be pumped out for
quarrying operations to continue. Water has not been a prob-
lem at Crabtree.
Crabtree Quarry was chosen for the case study for two
reasons. First, because there was a fair amount of data on
20
the immediate area v':h;ch resulted from several site analy-
sis projects dealing with property adjacent to the quarry.
Second, because of its location, the Crabtree Quarry was a
convenient site to investigate.
The Crabtree Quarry sites located in gently rolling hills bound-
ed on the south by Crabtree Creek, a fairly narrow though
scenic creek which meanders through Raleigh. Most of the
land surrounding the site is undeveloped. An exception is
the Oak Park subdivision approaching the quarry site from
the east.
The quarry site is leased from several individuals and from
the state. The leases will expire in approximately thirty years,
which will be a major determinant in setting the time for
reclamation around the year 2000.

• - �GRANYILLE
COUNTY
i
DURHAM
,
ll
RESEARCH
TRIANGLE
�r
�., ums
5 MORRISYILLf
GHaTHAM ��R,ASTIREE
GGUNTr
apEx ' 1
HOLLr
SPRINGS L �
�L
HARNET COUNTY
r
a
21
of .
e� o

0 0
° 66e
VW
A 0D11 ° ° QO ttg ° po °o °�°DD oD°
o° d ° ° o ° ° moo ° 0� o�4q� tX� on@$ o ova gve 99 SOB
JJ/J D D 0 O R g 9 I 0 U D #
P -v p000gp�O �� a 0 �„p O p0 p 11U0 O° °p�Q 0QA
�po P�q ° 4 Q ° pD o0 a` aao p pppppQO oI °Op a b�� 0 �48 �8 a 0�� a ccaaoo ff a Q�ow r�tti` 00
dB4OpOo4 O068
D / On
�ariD0001
a 0 Ode a0
g 00 0 0 0 0 o c +J
o n °cbbegapD O Q 0 00 cl Oaao OD
' (j�] 4 0 0 oaP O oO o°l/Jj O D 0 o° e a a �D ��
U- a ° O � a� DO o '- q OOO O D p O e,
Q 0 V
19 4 g ° eaa� pdd�o0� coo Q00 0 0 •
aLO %. a .w1R" O /� O� qb�o `� a� pO 6 nQ p DoAee n
� d
ego u
goP
aB�� oOV o0
00
0 boo dppo��o
D pp
d°�� 0 Q
DZ
a Q •00�
xpn mo ��
'av 0
o c oc4o°`b ° 0 D
o D �. -�� Q B D 99 0 D �� "ape
ooDa,$9 drip
�
°^Q� D q o ° $ a q,�$Q p g% o o°po (� z
"000 IX AA 0 ° 00a_�0 �� °69°\\0°�4aZ%'\�
o� CpOf h 86%
o°a 1111 V4aP o ° Q Q,� Oa' 4000
"O�p o� 4 ri % oe n Q
co oe C2 N
cz;KD pGa �pd�Ge V
a
o
"I9a8So°
9Q� ° a
U 00 °061, o 00 00 0 mm4cdo 5 p00 � 00 0 gp0
0 Deg o ®� Qo a o °oo 0
9 O �0®�sB� °qp 6a p �O
c c 0 �0 ° dip v�U4
�00��4 oOpgo (Imo e p0 0 °q°0��
so" �4�0 QQ ogo q0� @ ° 6� p rDO°O��Oe
D U pde ° �� oaO O� �vo _ �b Nsk%
oA 6 �s C
n aQv AvGog� oao O o aooQ Ra 8
00
O �a��Ommab dgg066 4q �� �ao da 4o a
'qoa ® p�o0oeoao0p�' - �a$44 �p9 p'9
-5-bopO�p�p 4 u �R D°D Qo epod�°p A°° ° ° 00� O�oDo
OSS 0 `' ,C
8 O O 400 m pO000� oO4O4 9�0 Op OV D9 °2O��OO�
o e od O n� 4 nO 0o nV /.fs�f99��rcp�o�� ° o �Ooagaao
�000�00 � �eogo6acbeoq�oo 0D Q DU 0�'6��°6m�o0 p00 - e POOOo 0
®�D 00 p�q0p� qp ap0 O b0 eoab p0 ° poi Pq° °" A ° ° 0 O O
g0ap0004pOdd_P4 4 ea4cog OOoq �oC=D 9° op0
°QO�DopQ c o oo� O coonO oho Q O �J0 m�°° eg° �, �9 aq�'p o
-LIPpp p q daaaapgp 0 0 ap"°oe' ebooODnl ., A n 0
ncp��0_®_ 0 ool� A���a?i°91e� °� 0
�a5iv '��o�

�--COMMERCIAL
• • fNEMENT OF WATER & SEWER
C�1II_��f ill��1.11 Ili
0 11—onlrco Ilure
❑ -G SITE '"w Upfl IJII
O � I � U � IIIIUIIII IUI
n
p 0Pop
0
O Q
O
,poo�aB� u
�O.
° p9
tl FPP -po9n� ° o ��
°e�� °m �.
- uu wou.
Cl
MIRJ= c ' I I
CULTURAL CONDITIONS
23

RECLAMATION PROPOSAL
RELATIONSHIPS
It was first decided that the size of the abandonded site would
allow either a solution using shaped land forms, a solution
using a complex of buildings, or a solution using a combina-
tion of the two.
The next step was to extract the most important relation-
ships from the regional analysis. These are listed below.
Crabtree Valley .ahwF.Muny -I LUF i nc UA10t0nCe ui una large
regional shopping center negates the need for another one
on the abandoned quarry site. Also the presence of this
shopping center will increase the rate of residential growth
in this area.
Umstead Park: This park offers a vast opportunity for rec-
reation. Turning the quarry site into a park would only ex-
tend this recreation area slightly.
24
Research Triangle Park: As the Triangle increases in size,
more residential areas will be needed. The situation of the
quarry site between the Triangle and the city proper increas-
es its value as a residential area.
Thoroughfare connection with Duraleig h Road: This new road
will provide transverse circulation through the area making
the site accessable to the Research Triangle, the Belt Line,
N.C. 54, U.S. 70, and to the city proper.
These relationships imply that the best use of the Crabtree
Quarry site after abandonment will be for some form of res-
idence. Based on existing proposals for apartment com-
plexes in the area, a decision was made that a high density
residential complex would be best suited to the site.

QUARRY FORM
Size: It was assumed that a primary goal of the quarry opera-
tion is to extract the presently estimated quantity of stone;
and that any master plan should, if possible, adhere to this
goal. For this reason — although the shape was modified
to some extent — the volume to be excavated was altered
only slightly from quarry estimates.
Width -depth ratio: The stepped method of extraction suits
the development of an apartment complex more than would
sloped or vertical edges. The desired step height is approx-
imately 20 feet, while the width from the tiers vary from 50
to 75 feet.
Wall -Slope: Walls that are to be built directly against should
be vertical. For safety, open walls should be tapered out-
ward to the bottom.
Edge: On the walls that drop vertically more than one step,
some safety precautions should be taken. Both aesthetically
and physically the most suitable edge treatment would be
building
a low . all 2 1 /7 9 1 /7 feet high on the upper level
U l ulllya IVW Wan L 1/L-U I/L IGGI Iliyll VII UIc uppcl Icvc.
and having a ledge below approximately 5-6 feet wide planted
in some material that would discourage movement through
it.
Shape: Practically speaking, the final shape. of the quarry
should be kept fairly simple —this is merely a matter of ease
of operation during quarrying. The shape decided upon
divides the pit into two slightly different orientations to dis-
tract from the size of the space and create a sense of smaller
spaces. It would even be possible to change the "atmos-
phere" of the space by variation of materials, Types of archi-
tecture, etc..
25
ORIENTATION:
Because of the cool damp feeling of a stone pit, the major
orientation of the quarry should be east -west to allow a large
north surface to receive direct sunlight during the major
part of the day. Development should be concentrated along
the northern side of the pit to take advantage of the sun.
This location will also shield the apartments from northern
winter winds. Shading can be provided with vegetation and
overhangs. This plan for development will also allow access
and parking on the northern side where land is available and
reserve the creek side for pedestrian use. The two minor
orientations, northeast -southwest and northwest -southeast
will funnel the prevailing southwesterly breezes through the
pit providing ventillation and cooling during the summer.
They also help orient activities within the pit toward the nat-
ural recreational areas.
Texture: The walls to which the apartments directly abutt
should be left relatively smooth to aid in construction. Walls
that are left open should vary in their degree of roughness,
depending upon their aesthetic need.

N
,lowIll/IL
bow
o�
c dim ae9 ooe °, o 0 0 ooa�P
no
n
o�
/
ODoD
Op
QUARRY FORM
26 '

undeveloped Iveaeovereel lane
evee}ual gwrq llmi}s
k �prtscnl•-quarry li
this barrio Is 5V({IuutE a �e5aa} bui Id ra be ra�wn, J � fhia, bv(fu 15 wnp Wely effolve firagwb mosf of ik disco�c�. w, awsval burriew
}he ore t�cnve Ir w v httl to k}e oar r m }I1e road. or ilus same (moo }he
Some �, p oad to the of 9 ry q C�{ r p f `�{�'
presto}Igshi ed jYvon+ o�vatlons y Alfs bu is I) IesS e4� a5 a r�o,x 0.�a dust barrg, w uundlnq dlref'f�odwent to .
oarrt� ary eesfecLal y ,n e ance aria A �me. SLr�nun�
}hm l,w o<bof lrr u,Sual lrt¢ , I, cle;druble
7uburben 9roWti1 ---► } t evv,n�ual quarry booby undeveloped het covered land
durulahfi bad '
.. �..... --- I'i►.....I P+r;.cn} quarry hmi}s � __�_��_�
this bu{{a n an
afosb a +b"ia,r,�urIiYe. lr Luwe_ iu1bLeurtoin�rr�a+ri5t ednuovs�tr9y �Yr1 1n't ,nFw7Gitf.pm�'ox 'n Mai
yia`m�k
I-,p IRA, s pii a;var•o bum let�b Y01
expand.
SECTIONAL VIEWS
27
bJ.rSOli[ )I €01Y11'i..:.t'{.�•':':;; i.` -': a
_".`�`n'ranm .i�3;� ry�uLai
-11ae. i� Ilw %rl gamat rote
�r '�} � q,n�ry ba�md
1ozafal,e r -zoo
')
1' •1oU'

MASTER PLAN
it is believed th-at the of the abandoned
q
.. ." "".".`.� .. .+. .v uniqueness v .�Ic GAlG�IV VIICV quarry
site would be wasted if a 'conventional" type of apartment
complex is used. Some people might think that the fact that
an apartment complex is located in a "hole" would be unique
enough. But this is only a beginning. It is best to pick out
a prominent characteristic of the site and repeat it in the
structures. In this case it is the rough and uneven surface of
a quarried wall. By capturing this character in the architec-
ture a unity will result between the walls left open and the
apartment structures. It is, therefore, suggested that the
apartments be of modular units, stacked and placed in an
irregular manner on a system of stepped tiers.
28

APARTMENTACCESS
30

CONCEPTUAL SKETCH
31

CONCURRENT LAND USE CONFLICTS
The Crabtree Quarry site is already an illustration of many
of the recommended proceedures for controlling problems
of visual, noise, and dust pollution. There are various fac-
tors that combine to result in this atypical quarry site. The
old Duraleigh Road was moved from its original path along
the ridge beside the quarry to a lower location on the oppo-
site side of the ridge from the quarry pit --a natural earth
screen resulted. The trees and forest understory growing
on this bank were left standing --a natural vegetative screen
resulted. Many of the techniques proposed in this report
for alleviating land use conflicts are a standard practice —
the use of water in crushing processes, controlled blasting,
the use of settling ponds, and the use of physical safety pre-
cautions. Indeed, all that is left for proposals is to suggest
minute measueres to be taken for visual enhancement! Thus,
the Crabtree Quarry exists as an example to other quarries
as to what can be done to reduce the environment problems
that are inherent toquarry operations.
33

PROPOSALS:
Visual - The only bad view that Crabtree Quarry exhibits is
to a traveler going north on Duraleigh Road. While descend-
ing the hill before the bridge, he is presented with a fantastic
view of the quarry, marred by the sight of the office and weigh
station building. Therefore, it is proposed that this building
be screened and a pleasing landscape be created at the
entrance. This need not be an expensive undertaking for the
method of screening with earth mounds, rocks, and vegeta-
tion could be employed.
34
EXISTING
PROPOSED
1
1
1
1
1
1

Safety - It is also proposed for pit edge safety that the more
aesthetic solution of using screening mounds be incorporat-
ed with the larce rocks now used.
35
EXISTING
PROPOSED

^ � �. ��^' .G ' � D ��}�'I. ,o.'va .1• ?'• �f}.'-` ;4c� .sf .I..ea_f.1. V.1� �.dfA{t.-...
°��y,�! � �?+};`�'t. r s � ,r,'y?,r v(n �f , o � t +►.. .,, � t f9 s o?. :�fi F �.,
Ic
<i.5"n C ti � +� �rL t x �•� �}' - - e wt: it � 9 r' �r � �hd J` B. i - -
'�,.r-� '��a�,.+'.%rrr ��.a ,t- �y �}� �'* •T'' jf ae"��' t� �� •' U '_ a A vc ,�!'T aj' t��'y.M:.� o � '�� - •�'Y � � .�' _ _ •
rFrF `r?
J
N
4
S�,i ♦y �s, .. i Yf P Y `sl3 x� �r ,,p V� ,.`�+ o s - A h t . O*d, �° � r ,a+ y ya
. (C� Ly r,�,- `'S' r •� ; ��...'�'^ -.-.c rv-s .� k >r"yK � o� � 5t � ; 1 S +
� j }� 15.T'+l ^� � }'h � , � �,„ f , �• .O }• i - o o R � $�+- ,r t . }' „° fi,} �
y.. ._ �- a Wit • �Pt . ' j �c L h.E -, �, �,s�` 7 tr ° P Q rh i t `- - �" 3' ;e, y��� ✓,
�' o° .� ac' -_ "'` 'S� �� j .. Lr O O g o- SAS a�• ,n - - r.-. °$
�u. ' 9 dQ 1 Jos i'y,' _, - c a O° °C✓ � ,., O �`4 - � -. •'S L
Lp
y �.-:}'n'•fV, ✓y,- Y^"' ° o `r"o p �,po 04� 3 � t ,^ti`H�.;
r
j u
Fb
�� ^\Z�{• ° �'. � v �� .. •ova
,.gyp � '.f T< ,�` •. • 1 � ,► A .f R� }� .�t^Qyr����°�.
✓!\'�� � `� - ° o o '� r�l r.if4 ,.ifs � F f�'��i r'k--'�•4. . y'.- y', ��,��4 �Y 77 T ., 9
�- O � ��.� !' g � f �r p'iT :�t+\ '4 /•--tt' ` �. F ads. f�r� � T � j� r\,r
- •ia r t ,'',i- - o d.°• _ i'. v^. . CI��,�ey-�*, �y^. fy°y�� •. R, ��,Qy.
'414
LZ
•y J: - ' l {..:Y.'°^` SST f yy .^d`-'►. a�
44
-"�� "' -` , i 'trs"i�iq ~o � off+'` `��r ..°��,.� ���,�f•J �` � , ' �tf '"''ti•'•i� 9 `� '� y
to `• � `" A �� .,c , , ��� .,,�+r��, r. '' '�`��:' � ice, �r• L�, �'�' ���ar-�f,S`[t��. • • �r `
_,.. .•_a _�.�i-�r��.t' -rs�'' J'i�-. ✓.wi'rj.�� '� rq .� � d �r`s��.. C)7,�lt�R+�.r��) �� _ - ti,•/�. /`1 .et1 %., f,R,

QUARRYING PROCEDURES
f11 Clearina - The first step involved in the excavation of
a new quarry site is the removal of all trees, shrubs, and un-
desirable structures present. This allows the heavy equip-
ment to maneuver easily over the site. The bulldozer is the
most commonly used piece of equipment for the clearing
operation.
(2) Stripping - Stripping means the removal of all top -soil
and sub -soil from the quarry site, exposing the stone deposit
to be quarried. The basic machinery for this operation are
bulldozers, scrapers, loaders, and power shovels.
(3) Stockpiling - Stockpiling is done in conjuction with the
stripping operation and consist of the storage of over -burden
(top -soil and sub -soil) stripped away. In some processing
much of the non -clay type overburden is used in the crusher
38
operation. Stockpiling is done in areas away from the quarry-
ing operation, usually a marginal or never -to -be quarried
area.
(4) Blasting - Explosives are set in borings in the rock sur-
face and detinated causing the rock to break up into various
sizes which can be easily excavated. After the initial shoot-
ings, the charges are set in an order so as to create a "bench-
ing" effect. Controlled blasting techniques are used to insure
maximum efficiency of charge and direction of explosion —
as well as the least amount of noise.
(5) Excavating -This process includes the removal of stone
from the quarry and the transportation of that stone to near-
by processing or crusher operations, wet quarrying and dry
quarrying. In the wet quarrying, the operations proceed
below the water table, requiring a pumping system to keep
the quarry free of water. In general the dry quarrying opera-
tions stay above the water table.

(6) Processing - Raw stone is processed it through a series
to crushers. Each crusher reduces the size of the stones until
they reach the desired size. After crushing, the product may
be mixed and stockpiled.
(7) Transporting - The product is loaded into dump trucks
which move to a set of scales for weighing. After weighing
the trucks move the material off the quarry site to the job
site.
39

OPERATIONAL EQUIPMENT
(1) Front End Loader - The general use of the Loader is to
load trucks at the excavation site and at the processing plant.
Their operational cycle at the site is usually less than fifty
feet, therefore, grade changes little affect their uses. The
bucket capacity is up to six cubic yards, and the average
turning radius is approximately twenty feet. Loaders were
designed to provide the industry with a fast, maneuverable
piece of equipment capable of loading loose material rapidly-
(2) Scrapers - The main uses of the scraper are to strip the
overburden earth and broken material covering the stone
deposit and to stockpile the material. These machines have
an advantage in their ability to load, haul and spread a seven-
teen cubic yard load in one operation at speeds up to fifteen
miles per hour. There are several varieties of scrapers. The
more powerful ones are well suited to heavy stripping but
are slower and less efficient over distances of 1500 feet than
the lighter models. The average turning radius for all models
's twenty-five f__. rci: _:___.. :_ __r..__r _-___�:___u.....:"
IJ 1WC11LY-1IVC ICGI. CIIIL:IGIIL.Y IJ ICuu(:Cu p lupul LIullaily wllll
grade increases, and these machines are not well suited for
inclement weather use.
40
iI
11

(3) Grader - The principal function of graders is finishing
and shaping ratherthan digging ortransporting. This restricts
their use in rock quarry operations and limits them to main-
tenance quarry roadways bii8piny` of stockpiiea. uraders
work efficiently over unlimited linear distances, but their
high center of gravity limits their unassisted slope work to
grades under twenty percent.
(4) Trucks - In relation to rock quarryinn triickt f"ncrinn
mainly as transportation equipment —taking rock from exca-
vated areas to the processing plant and from there to the
job site. These trucks can be classified in two categories.
First is the slow, on -site trucks with capacities up to thirty or
forty cubic years. The second is a smaller, faster road truck
with sixty ton capacity and speeds of sixty miles per hour.
41

(5) Bulldozers - The versatility of the bulldozer is perhaps
its strongest asset. These machines are used for a variety
of shnrt rannari riigginn anrf tranennrtatinn npor.% inng, Thoy
can work straight slopes of 45 degrees in stable material --
wide track models can easily work 20 degree slopes. Their
design allows them to turn 90 degree corners in a distance
of theirown length. But, high power and low speed limit their
use to short distances. Their efficiency drops proportionally
with distance. In grading operations, bulldozers clear land,
strip over short distances, and perform miscellaneous clean
up work. They are also used in shaping overburden and other
rehabilitative work.
(6) PnwP_r ShnvR(s-Pnworehn%iP1eA nno nffho fire+m h_
anized earth moving equipments. The average bucket ca-
pacity is from four to five cubic yards —standard sizes go up
to fourteen cubic yards. The shovels have a 360 degree
operational area and an average digging radius of 35 feet.
Their main limitation is in maneuverability due to the cumber-
some boom and to the slow movements.
42

(7) Dragline- Thedraglinecombinestheboomoftheshovel
and the bucket of the scraper. it lacks the digging strength
of the shovel, but it counters with a long digging reach up to
250 feet and with a fast cycle time. Average bucket capa-
cities are four to five cubic yards but may be as large as 85
cubic yards. Electrically powered draglines are gaining in
popularity due to their reduced maintenance and silent op-
eration. The dragline is used for both stripping and stock-
piling, and its fast cycle makes it useful for loading trucks
and hoppers.
(8) Clamshell - The functions of both the dragline and the
shovel can be performed by the clamshell—but not as effic-
iently. It is widely used in sand and gravel operations for
excavation, but its use in rock quarrying is limited to occas-
ional' collection of loose material and to loading hoppers.
(9) Belt Conveyors - Conveyors are cycling belts used to
transport large volumes of loose material. They are adaptable
to both flat and hilly terrain. Stationary conveyors can move
material to processing plants located off the immediate quar-
rying site. This is valuable in noise and dust reduction in de-
veloped areas. The normal conveyor width is 30 inches, and
operating at average speed, they can transport 520 cubic
yards of material per hour. An adapted conveyor can trans-
port material at any angle up to 90 degrees. Smaller, porta-
ble conveyors are excellent for loading trucks and for work-
ing with stockpiles due to their short cycle time and maneu-
verability.
43

4
- - _�- is ':�'=S�"�'�""......-.•a.,r
i
d
r—
�nai>eae sit • ..
L — u
.,. -. ._ •1 .-- cam.... �..w.—_ '2'�_'�Vw�1dV C-.i
]p�� • i
tA.. T..ii

/F,! -` y.i;'... _� i '4�•\ ���� �f.% 1. Ir,r-i',•t/1 ,�{
/= ,,. .� '. � �/ .'� //7 �° /� ' I�f�':�� / �•.:'-9 s_„/�ceiV r w��� \t. r y\\ ��... 1 � I.� /. �� c 1`'$r��,�,�
/ - - -*r s \ j (` \ �_ ram. ] ,tG �I �` 11�Q �`, ,/ , ' �.. ° �'% . 7 -• "-\
',•�' '�� i _ � _ i` 'lr� _..�i. u�ma I��\oo `�� •,��� � t..�f ;dal-./ 'i"�,J
,/�.. • l� �t � \ (` �1 f/j Pot y,"j Fy/ \ �.�, � l{`, � L , !' t /A,' /
�tJ� ..• r J-� J��.� I.i { s �� L� \5 f/\\�/ /\//j\�`) /\�\y �\/ '< 4e ✓�1' j/lJj� ! \-_ �}l1 -- /�J�
/ ^✓_"1.':'SV y• e•/� ii� ~, kk'1 /J •..r,�e.. al .''C\I�..""tl ti 4f16 �f\e'I.fo E t.aa,.
UMST
'/, // �.\/ REED :•'f PARK i . •. txi o;
cIEFx
I' N
a7
C1—tr ^�^, // l✓ _..�\ ��4/pfi \' \r� 5:�/\J �� ll✓ \( /VIIba1 /�( 5 \ .111
.. - I _ yr• i. /�",. `.�' c �� _ ry,� �`f � \,_n •�:�\ / /. p � J..,, �� 1 \�� � � +r '1 3/' . J - "-• �r"\`�
1111115] fu Y Y .";";r ✓5
rtyt! \`�lii:•, f. frill f \\. .; d
Rt,i FIC,
`l, .,l�+ i�E '�ir I � I- ZLLO 6. A GKK 1I0.

RAGSDALE =D JSULTANTS, P.A.
ENGINEERING -LANDSCAPE ARCH ITECTURE -SURVEYING •PHOTOGRAMMETRY
❑ SMITHFIELD OFFICE: 310 East Johnston Street, P.O. Box 1749,
SmithUeld, North Carolina 27577
Telephone:[phone] or 934.7155, Raleigh WATS Line:
828.2788 ■!��++
❑ LILLINGTON OFFICE: B13 Main Street, PO. Box 760. C
Lillinglon, North Carolina 27546 n� ! _ /��
Telephone: (9t9) 893.2156, Raleigh WATS Line: 832-4244V )' ,
RALEIGH OFFICE: Suite 36o WestChase One 4020 �140 �� I O� 1j `98�
WeslChase Blvd. Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
[phone] or 832-6043
� ,T r
TOSf�r
WE ARE SENDING YOU
Plans/Prints
Specifications
❑ Permit Applications
LE,�FEn (OLI TnD n L1l1V5LV11��7LrilL
OATS
z ��
JOB NO.
U « -,
ATTENTION
RE
VAttached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items:
❑ Survey Plats ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Invoices ❑ Other.
❑ Certifications ❑ Calculations ❑ Contracts
❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Change Order ❑ Product Literature
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
For approval ❑ For information
❑ For your use ❑ For record
As requested ❑ For distribution
❑ For review and comment ❑
❑ Resubmit copies for approval
❑ Submit copies for distribution
❑ Return copies
COPY TO _ (�iia� d`r z1g(/.
SIGNED: /r ,

. .'
�:
—. � .
JY
_ �_ __ _... - - _ _
p Qom. '!� I
., � V � 1
_.
I't � �
�
/�
.. � t .'.. y - I
�
1
�� C''
` e 11 c { i
J, f
i
,- � ,! j i � � I
_ �
_
-f fi
'
i
-
'
� ' � I � �
_ �
W
f :�
i '
1
�
yl' � .'
�
�
�_ .� . _..
__.._._ _ .
,
a _.. _.. __ .__ ._

t
Page 7 of 12
Surface Drainage
The affected land shall"be graded so as to prevent collection of
pools of water that are, or likely to become, noxious or .foul.
Necessary structures such as drainage ditches or conduits shall
be constructed or installed when required to prevent such
conditions.
Blasting
The operator shall provide to the Department a copy of the .
findings of any seismic studies conducted at this facility. The
operator shall make every reasonable effort to incorporate the
studies' recommendations into the production blasting program.
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 beak particle velocity of any
component ofground motion shall not exceed 1 inch per
second at the immediate location of any building outside of
the permitted area regularly occupied by human beings such
as dwelling house, church, school, public -building, or
commercial or institutional building outside of the
permitted area. The operator shall monitor each blast with
a seismograph.
B. Airblast overpressure shall not exceed 128 decibels linear
(DBL) as measured at the immediate location of any regularly
occupied building outside of the permitted area such as any
dwelling house, church, school, public building, or
commercial or institutional building. If vibration/airblast
limits are exceeded, the operator shall immediately report
the event with causes and corrective actions to the
Department. Use of explosives at the blast site that
produced the excessive reading shall cease until corrective
actions approved by the Department have been taken.
However, blasting may occur in other approved areas within
the permitted boundary. Authorization to blast at the blast
site may be granted at the time of the verbal reporting of
the high airblast reading if the circumstances justify
verbal approval. Failure to report will constitute a permit
violation.
C. The operator 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 permitted and guarded area, or the
level in Item A. above is exceeded, the operator shall
report the incident to the Department immediately and
further use of explosive at the site shall be immediately
suspended until the following actions have been taken:

a
Page 8 of 12 4
1. A thorough investigation as to the cause(s) of the
incident shall be conducted.
2. A satisfactory report detailing the investigation shall
be provided to the Department within 10 days of the
incident. Said report shall, at a minimum, document
the cause(s) of the incident along with tech„ica a
� ,at.1L.a.1 and i
management actions that will be taken to prevent
further incidents. l
The report shall meet with the approval of the Department V
before blasting may resur«e at the site. Failure to take
corrective measures to prevent flyrock and repeated
instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation of this
permit.
D. T•he operator shall maintain records on each individual blast
describing: the total number of holes; pattern of holes and
delay of intervals; depth and size of holes; type and total
pounds of explosives; maximum pounds per delay interval;
amount of stemming and•burden for each hole; blast location;
distance from blast to'closest off -site occupied structure;
and weather conditions at the time of the blast. Records
shall be maintained at the permittee's mine office and
copies shall be provided to the Department upon request.
E. The operator shall, when requested by the Department, give
24 hour advance notice to the Land Quality Section prior to
any blast during a period for which notice is requested.
High Wall Barrier
A physical barrier consisting of large boulders placed end -to -end
(a minimum of four (4) feet high) or concrete barriers or
fencing, both as specified in the Crabtree Quarry Permit Renewal
Drawings dated January 1992 and revised April 1992, shall be
maintained at all times around the perimeter of any highwall to
prevent inadvertent public access. in addition, a minimum 25
foot wide horizontal safety bench shall be provided at the
junction between the top of rock and the toe of any overburden
cut slope.
10. Visual Screening
A. Existing vegetation shall be maintained between the mane and
public thoroughfares to screen the operation from the
public. Additional screening methods, such as constructing
earthen berms, shall be employed as deemed appropriate by
the Department.

NORTH CAFt4A DEPARTMENT OF
1u, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
_js„�+ti�:� �.,�• DIV1SfON OF LANE) RESOURCES
June 17, 1999
1! ILI L)
:, .. •
Mr. Sig Hutchinson
:ham• �>.
"-.i_
520 Brittany Bay West
'J'AMEg y, HUNTJR.
,GOVKRNOR ;.�
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
RE: Hanson Aggregates Carolina
•r•�+t;. :;�y ;s�
L1 QUlree Huai i y ,
W4ITIEhLcnEVITT4 ""
x
f 'ir�
Permit No. 92-03
SECAETARYt ••i.• � t
R
Wake County
Dear Hutchinson:
P.G
P.E.DIRHC
-REC-TOR -i" This letter is in response to your questions regarding blasting at ;,�,
ANti STATE 'G OLOGIlT.:':
the Crabtree Quarry. Hanson Aggregates Carolina has an excellent
wYr""
.. ; .r 7Y�- blasting record at this site with regard to compliance with their mining
r
n� permit's blasting conditions.
.ij,.r• .:,.11• -.fir
Our office has completed its review of shot records related to
SYi
several more recent blasts occurring in 1993, 1996 and 1998 blasts at
their Crabtree Quarry, as well as records from earlier years. It was
found that Hanson Aggregates Carolina was well within the blasting
requirements of their mining permit.
1
-4 The more recent records (1993 to date) that this office has on file
indicate that peak particle velocities, a measurement of ground vibration
fir_,: }.'� i with units in inches per second (ips), were well below the maximum
., .. . .
�.y:Yo,,. allowable limit of 1.0 ips specified in Hanson Aggregates Carolina's
mining permit. More specifically, all recorded values were at or below
—=� 13 percent of the maximum limit of 1.0 ips. According to extensive
research b the U.S. Bureau of Mines and others, y particle velocities
' below 0.5 ips effectively eliminate the possibility of any structural
' ? damage.
All airblast readings, a measurement of the atmospheric pressure
+. -- wave (overpressure) with units in psi or dBL, were below the maximum
.F .
allowable limit of 128 dBL specified in Hanson Aggregates Carolina
mining- permit and well below the U. S. Bureau of Mine's recognized
`"" level of 164 dBL for prevention of glass breakage. A key point worth
�¢ .• ,�c.� ..r.•�.•��.11 noting is that glass breakage occurs at much lower levels of
overpressure than structural damage, such as cracking plaster.
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
yy � GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
'-• = ,f,�q;,3 F.O. aax 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROUNA 2761 1.7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
1M' � •• AN EgUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVC ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10q POST-CONSVMER PAPER

Mr. Hutchinson
Page Two
In addition, our records do not indicate that a single high air blast recording was
ever reported from this site.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. Hopefully we have answered your
concerns a('equately if you should have any, Uadditionol questions or concerns please
.-..-.•.vv.�.v adequately. i. rvu ..���vu�� ��uvV uliy uVVill Vllul I�UGJLIUIiJ VI VVIII'GIIIJ �./IGa.IG
advise at [phone].
Sincerely,
,!J'u
u'i".�
Judith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
JW
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.

*. 1
'6
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
May 27, 19941
Ms. Gloria Davis
4113 John S. Raboteau Wynd
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry
Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Dear Ms. Davis:
Our office has completed its review of Hanson Aggregate
Carolina's shot records related to the June 1998 blasts at their Crabtree
Quarry. It was found that Hanson Aggregate Carolina was within the
blasting requirements of their mining permit.
All peak particle velocities, a measurement of ground vibration
with units in inches per second (ips), were well below the maximum
allowable limit of 1.0 ips specified in Hanson Aggregate Carolina's
mining permit. More specifically, all recorded values were at or below
16 per cent of the maximum limit of 1.0 ips. According to extensive
research by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and others, particle velocities
below 0.5 ips effectively eliminate the possibility of any structural
damage.
All airbiast readings, a measurement of the atmospheric pressure
.A17ve (overpressure) with t"nitc in nci nr rjRl wprP hPlnvv the maXimllm
allowable limit of 128 dBL specified in Hanson Aggregate Carolina's
mining permit and well below the U. S. Bureau of Mine's recognized
level of 164 dBL for prevention of glass breakage. A key point worth
noting is that glass breakage occurs at much lower levels of
overpressure than structural damage, such as cracking plaster.
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL. SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 276t 1-7687 TELEPHONE [phone]R33 FAR rn 1 9I 71 ,-nnni
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPLP

. 0 s
Ms. Davis
Page Two
Thank you for your interest and patience in this matter. Hopefully we have
answered your concerns adequately. If you should have any additional questions or
concerns please advise at [phone].
Sincerely,
N' W
64,41
Judith A. Wehner-
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
May 27, 1999
Mr. James Sprinkle
Hanson Aggregates East, Inc.
P.O. Box 13983
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
RE: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry
Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Sprinkle:
The review has been cuffi ileted on t1 ie shot records you
previously submitted for the June 1998 blasts at the Crabtree Quarry.
Your company has been found to be in compliance with the blasting
requirements of your mining permit. I have already notified the
complainant, Ms. Gloria Davis, of our findings.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Sincerely,
- , A (id4-tc,
Judith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
JW
cc: Mr. John Halley, P.E. w/ blasting records
LAND QUALITY SECTION (91 9) 733-4574 FAX [phone]
GEOL.OGICAl. SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX (9t9) 733-0900
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1.7687 TELEP"ONE (91 9) 733-31333 FAX [phone]
AN EgUAL OPPORTUN I TV / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50q RECYCI.CD/10q POST -CONSUMER PAPER

c
J �--�—^..T ten.,--.--.. —«...—»—.—. _ _ �� �..—� r� _ — __ _`-- _ �.
.— __ - :.,--w---�—tom.—�--».—. .—r-
� � _ -- . � _ _ __�.�� '- _ _�—_�__�_ ..... __�.- —•--'—
_._..—. � ..-__..-_--•— _._
_ _ — —y_'•. , _
_i — _.__.—_ �.
.._
__ —' — • _ _ "--- .
_•�_
�._. .. � t�—

LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(' = dennteS fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 32 Date of Blast*: 06/01/98 Time of Blast*: 13:07
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1800.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 98.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = D/W110.5 SD = 181.83
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)^-1.6 V = 0.04---
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.07
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1800.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft d* = 1800.00
PPV = Theoretical peals particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)"1.5 PPV= 0.0700
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (DIW^0.33)^-1.2 P = 0.062519
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10"-9)log x 20 P = 146.67
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dBL): AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 111.67
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = /90 dBL)

�r
9
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to DLinnnt Hanrthnnk fnr arttual Spr) nthenui zP nce the fnllnwinn•)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
if "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1' = 4233.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 550.00
Ratio between explosives = 7.70
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 98.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = 85.27
Explosive #2 = 12.73
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1* = 1.25
SPD for Explos. #2* = 0.84
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)"2
LD for Explos. #1 = 6.80
LD for Explos. #2 = 4.57
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 12.54
Explos. #2 = 2.79
Total explos. column height = 15.33
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 6.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 21.33
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 30.00
Analysis Completed By: ` Date: S Xoz Z2 2

0
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* = denotes fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 33
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast: 06/02/98 Time of Blast*: 11:22
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1800.00
W Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 47.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = DIW"0.5 SD = 262.56
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)^-1.6 V = 0.02
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.00
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1800,00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 1800.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DSId)"1.5 PPV= 0.0000
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast./Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W'0.33)^-1.2 P = 0.046734
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (PI2.9 x 10"-9)log x 20 P = 144.14
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dBL): AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 109.14
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = dBL)

0
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1' = 1627.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = NIA
Ratio between explosives = NIA
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 47.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = 1627.00
Explosive #2 = NIA
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1* = 1.25
SPD for Explos. #2* = NIA
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)12
LD for Explos. #1 = 6.80
LD for Explos. #2 = NIA
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 6.91
Explos. #2 = NIA
Total explos. column height = 6.91
Stemming height used in shot (feet)" = 7.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 13.91
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 20.00
Analysis Completed By: L, Date:

0
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* = denotes fields where innut data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*:i4
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 06/05/98 Time of Blast*: 09:56
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1800.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 132.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = DIW^0.5 SD = 156.67
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)^-1.6 V = 0.05'
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as Follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.04
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1800.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 1800.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)"1.5 PPV= 0.0400
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D[WAO.33)"-1.2 P = 0.070345
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P12.9 x 10^-9)log x 20 P = 147.70
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dBL]:_ CAB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 112.70
(*max. limit in mining permit is:, dBL)

Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight' emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1 * = 1585.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 2050.00
Ratio between explosives = 0.77
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 132.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = -38.73
Explosive #2 = 170.73
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1 * = 1.25
SPD for Explos. #2* = 0.84
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)^2
LD for Explos. #1 = 6.80
LD for Explos. #2 = 4.57
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = -5.69
Explos. #2 = 37.36
Total explos, column height = 31.67
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 7.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 38.67
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 37.00
Analysis Completed By: Date:

.0
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* = denotes fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 35
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 06/09/98 Time of Blast*: 13:01
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1800.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 432.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = DIW110.5 SD = 86.60
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)^-1.6 V = 0.13
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.03
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1800.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 1800.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)^1.5 PPV= 0.0300
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W^0.33)^-1.2 P = 0.112496
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10^-9)log x 20 P = 151.77
AB =Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dB
AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 116.77
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = dBL)

0
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD-(specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1* = 3677.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 3750.00
Ratio between explosives = 0.98
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 108.00
RrenLiinum of o--- nnunrir of -= —iv— nnr hnln A.— +- —+;—
VIVGInwvvvll VI uvY i ILJ. V FIVV IIVJ VI V FJIVJIVJ FJVI IIVIV VUV LW IQLIV.
Explosive #1 = -2.14
Explosive #2 = 110.14
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1 " = 1.25
SPD for Explos. #2* = 0.84
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)"2
LD for Explos. #1 = 6.80
LD for Explos. #2 = 4.57
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = -0.32
Explos. #2 = 24.10
Total explos. column height = 23.79
Stemming height used in shot (feet)" = 8,00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 31.79
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 32.00•
Analysis Completed By: Date:

E
0
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
l* = rlenntes fields where input data is neer1er11
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 36
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 06/11/98 Time of Blast*: 12:53
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1800.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 113.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = D/W"0.5 SD = 169.33
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)"-1.6 V = 0.04
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.14
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1800.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 1800.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)"1.5 PPV= 0.1400
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined AirblasUOverpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W"0.33)"-1.2 P = 0.066146
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10^-9)log x 20 P = 147.16
AB =Confined AirblastlOverpressure (dB �AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 112.16
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = dBL)

•
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dunont Handbook for actual SPD otherwise nca tha fnlinwinn•1
Assumptions (per Ireco):
if "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1 * = 2294.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 3800.00
Ratio between explosives = 0.60
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 113.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = -74.18
Explosive #2 = 187.18
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1 * = 1.25
SPD for Explos. #2* = 0.84
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)12
LD for Explos. #1 = 6.80
LD for Explos. #2 = 4.57
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = -10.91
Explos. #2 = 40.96
Total explos. column height = 30.05
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 6.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 36.05
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 30.00
Analysis Completed By: v " i Date:

10
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* = denotes fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 37
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 06/16/99 Time of Blast*: 13:59
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure MY D* = 2100.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 236.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = D/W"0.5 SD = 136.70
%I - 1!-AQn /[1n\A
VrGdR n[.�:VIG VGIVl:aj�:.l.GJ .eI se,V.0v -.@ l/- n .AC
IVVk0u)iV v VVV (*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.05
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 2100.00
d = Distance from Mast to second location (ft): d* = 2100.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)"1.5 PPV= 0.0500
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W"0.33)"-1.2 P = 0.073591
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10"-9)log x 20 P = 148.09
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dBL)- AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 113.09
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = dBL)

0 0
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1* = 4034.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 5400.00
Ratio between explosives = 0.75
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 118.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = -39.96
Explosive #2 = 157.96
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1 * = 1.25
SPD for Explos. #2* = 0.84
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LID = SPD(.34)(HD)"2
LID for Explos. #1 = 6.80
LD for Explos. #2 = 4.57
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = -5.88
Explos. #2 = 34.57
Total explos. column height = 28.69
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 6.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 34.69
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 30.00
Analysis Completed By: i/" Date:

a
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(" = denotes fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 38 Date of Blast': 06/19/98 Time of Blast*: 13:04
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D" = 2100.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 244.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = D/W"0.5 SD = 134.44
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)"-1.6 V = 0.06
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V" = 0.04
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 2100.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 2100.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)11.5 PPV= 0.0400
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W^0.33)1-1.2 P = 0.074569
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10^-9)log x 20 P = 148.20
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dBL): AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 113.20
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = QA dBL)

0

Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
if "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. W = 6550.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2` = 668.00
Ratio between explosives = 9.81
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 122.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = 109.56
Explosive #2 = 12.44
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1" = 0.84
SPD for Explos. #2' = 1.25
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD" = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)"2
LD for Explos. #1 = 4.57
LD for Explos. #2 = 6.80
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 23.98
Explos. #2 = 1.83
Total explos. column height = 25.81
Stemming height used in shot (feet)` = 6.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 31.81
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question" = 30.00
Analysis Completed By: Date: e2e?�

O 0)

0
0
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* = denotes fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 39
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 06/23/98 Time of Blast*: 11:06
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 2100.00
W Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 129.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = D/W"0.5 SD = 184.89
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)^-1.6 V = 0.04
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.04
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 2100.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 2100.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)11.5 PPV= 0.0400
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W^0.33)"-1.2 P = 0.057935
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10^-9)log x 20 P = 146.01
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dBt L _ AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= 111.01
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = dBL)

•
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per lreco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight' anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1* = 3075.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 2509.00
Ratio between explosives = 1.23
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 129.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = 23.74
Explosive #2 = 105.26
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1 * = 1.25
SPD for Explos. #2* = 0.84
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)"2
LD for Explos. #1 = 6.80
LD for Explos. #2 = 4.57
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 3.49
Explos. #2 = 23.03
Total explos. column height = 26.53
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 6.00
Total height of Pxnlosive rolumn(s) and stemmino in the hole = 32.53
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 34.00
n
Analysis Completed By: Date:

0
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
{" T denotes fields where inr)ut data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: crabtree quiarry
Blast Report No.*: 40
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 06/25/98 Time of Blast*: 10:59
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 2100.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 120.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = D/WAO.5 SD = 191.70
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)^-1.6 V = 0.04
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.06
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 2100.00
d = Distance from blast to second location {ft): d* = 2100.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)^1.5 PPV= 0.0600
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W^0.33)"-1.2 P = 0.056300
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10^-9)log x 20 P = 145.76
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure 080: _ AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (_for quarry_ situation) AB= 110.76
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = Ze dBL)

i
•
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
if "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) _ 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1 * = 5650.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 499.00
Ratio between explosives = 11.32
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 120.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = 109.40
Explosive #2 = 10.60
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1* = 0.84
SPD for Explos. #2* = 1.25
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)"2
LD for Explos. #1 = 4.57
LD for Explos. #2 = 6.80
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 23.94
Explos. #2 = 1.55
Total explos. column height = 25.50
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 6.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 31.50
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = 30.00
Analysis Completed By: Date: y

•
i

A
Q
-V V
Benchmark
Carolina Aggregates
July 21, 1998
Ms. Judith Wehner
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Land Quality Section
P. O. Box 28687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7697
Re: Crabtree Quarry, Permit No. 92-03
Blasting Complaint
June 11, 1999
Dear Ms. Wehner:
0
.0
E��/1 1
I am in receipt of your letter dated July 9, 1998 regarding a blast complaint that
occurred on June 11, 1998. 1 am enclosing with this letter duplicate copies of
information that which you have requested, including all blasts which occurred between
.June 1 and June 25, 1998. I realize this is more information than you have requested, but
it may be useful in determining if any trends exist.
We are in the process of contacting (lie complainant to determine if there is a
problem with our blasting in this area.
If you have any further questions, please advise.
J R l-1 Sldr
E-nclosure
cry truly yours,
James R. =Sprinkle
Area Manager
P.O. Box 13983, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
Sales Office: [phone] • Telefax: [phone] • Toll Free: 1-800-334-8094

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DlvISION OF LAND RESOURCES
July 9, 1998
„Sr _ - ---1-1-
lVll. James Spilluu
Benchmark Materials
P.O. Box 13983
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
RE: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry
Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Sprinkle-,
This office recently received a complaint directed at blasting practices
conducted at the above referenced quarry. According to the complainant, Mrs.
Gloria Davis, the vibrations produced from the blast at the Crabtree Quarry on
June 11, 1998 caused significant vibrations of her home.
As provided in the mining permit for this site, you are requested to provide
to this otuce duplicate espies or all snot records related to the blasts conducted on
June 11, 1998 including any seismograph records made. Furthermore, please
forward all shot records for one production shot conducted immediately prior to
and one production shot after these blasts for review.
I suggest you discuss this matter with Mrs. Davis. Her address and
telephone number are as follows:
4113 John S. Rabotau Road
Raleigh, North Carolina
781-0033
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. BOX 27687. RALEICH. NnRrH ['ann A 2761 1-7— r
._._... _...._.......... ... ... ... .ti„-err, �.�.E (9l of iuu-u aauu F�yX li:iB/7i 5-nnOi
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10'�'o'POSY-CONSUMER PAPER

•
•
' I 1
REPORT
�pgM[E
u L 2 21998
TO
Mr. Dort Lineberry
BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Post Office Box 13983
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
DATE
July 1, 1998
SUBJECT
B!asts dated June 1, 1998
through June 25, 1998
Crabtree Quarry
COPY ' NUMBER OF
2 3

•
•
B- E
RA CH 377 Carowinds Boulevard, Suite 112, Ft. Mill, SC 29715
The Vibt ndion M«kmft ENperts 803-548-3066 FAX [phone]
July 1, 1998
Mr. Kenneth Kennedy, Superintendent
BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES - Crabtree Quarry
P.O. Box 52309
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
This report contains the seismic data from blasting associated with the Crabtree Quarry as retrieved
from data sent to our office. Nine blasts, dated June 1, 1998 through June 25, 1998, are included.
The maximum value of the recorded peak particle velocity for this series of blasts was 0.07 inches per
second (ips), which is below the established criteria for ground vibration as recommended by the
United States Bureau of Mines (RI-8507: November, 1980), Structure Response and Damage
Produced by Ground Vibration From Surface Mine Blasting. This value, recorded from the blast dated
June 1, 1998, represents seven (7%) percent of the allowable vibration limit as stipulated by the North
Carolina Mining Act of 1971.
The maximum recorded air blast level for this series of blasts was 116 decibels (dBI), or 0.00183
pounds per square inch (psi), for the blast dated June 9, 1998, which represents twenty-two (22%)
percent of the 128 dBl limit stipulated by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources.
Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding the contents of this report,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS, INC.
ty.
Terri D. Smith
Area Manger
r1
Charles W. Trettel A.I.P.G
Regional Manager
TDSJttk
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Don Lineberry
Mr. Jim Sprinkle

377 Carowinds Blvd., Sulte 112 VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS 0 803-548-3066
Ft. MI It, SC 29715 ART AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]M
B
L
A
S
T
A
T
A
E
I
S
M
O
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client— i'1 -�06va -
Job Location dA-CAd A 4 (7r--
Date Z' �_/ ��_ Blast No. Time b 4 n_...�
Exact Blast Location ,R,
0-
No. of Holes_ Diameter in. Avg. Depth CU - 2!y ft. Subgrade ft.
Spacing O ft. Burden 2 ft. Avg. Stemming 6 ft.
a s' y>I- 7 So oZ S�/ate 'SIG - 30 141tif IV - 5�
Make & Type of Explosives:
ZLYE lbs.
B-42 lbs.
28-F Ibs.
lbs.
v lbs.
Total Explosives lbs.
Seismograph No. -�
Exact Seismograph Location , 12t
Seismograph.Distance & Direction from Blast
Meters Peak Overpressure 101 dB
Peak Particle Velocity r U ips
Comments:
Delay Make a ,2,67s Y-a, a �I z
Delay Tye -.Zr Nos.
Min. Delay Period b MS.
Max. Lbs./Delay Period lbs.
Blaster
Weather C 5 AAA
Wind Direction & Speed UZ,sw
j _/ b GJ I S Everlert On
ly
Range/Gain Setting p Trigger Level
i s
Operator
Cassette No.

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 0
Blast 32 n.,te 6/Al /aA INlime: +31.n^r
Instrument 7285
0.0005 Airblast = 101 dB
0.0000
-0.0005 r
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6 1.8 2.1
2.3
0.25
Transverse = 0.05 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6 1.8 2.1
2.3
0.25r
I
Vertical = 0.03 in/sec
u.vu
-0.25
I
r
r
r
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6 1.8 2.1
2.3
0.25
Longitudinai = 0.07 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
1
1
1
1
1
1
I I r
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.6 1x 2.1
2.3
0.013
Transverse
10 50
Response Spectra
Vertical
1.0
0.1
0.0113 j IIO 50
vibr¢-tech enaineers
0.013
1.0 50
•
J

v ol'r)�f
377 Carowlnds Blvd., Sulte 112 • VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS4 803-548-3055
Ft. Mill SC 29715 BLAST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
B
L
A
T
D
A
S
E
S
M
O
G
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
JobLocation
. ,
Date e' -a :�22 Blast No. 73 — Time a
Exact Blast Location Old AIM."? he%. 11,1441 D _
No. of Holes_ Diameter �' .- in. Avg. Depth it. Subgrade ft.
Spacing U _ ft. Burden ft. Avg. Stemming it.
oa jfH7S- 21-yo a Z/-?A j4,0S S -" p
Make & Type of Explosives: Delay Make 1 w -ia
1) A-a.d
lbs. Delay Type & Nos. 1Y1 S
G-
_
2 7S- lbs.
-7•'Z Ibs.
lbs.
tbs.
Total Explosives lbs.
Min. Delay Period a 45:" 1 ms.
Max. Lbs./rD�elay Period 4 Ibs.
e Blaster I '
Weather A IG
Wind Direction & Speed
Seismograph No. _ 7 -S Range/Gain Setting ips Evedert On
ly
Trigger Level
Exact Seismograph Location 4fS`/d2 ZU cd elz2 f4 z i s
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast
Peak Overpressure O dB Operator
Meters
Peak Particle Velocity O ips Cassette No.
Comments:

•
Seismograph Monitoring Confirmation
A review of the monitoring log from the seismograph listed below confirms
that a seismograph was monitoring at the time of the blast.
This blast transmitted ground vibration and air overpressure levels below
those required to automatically activate the seismograph. The levels were
lower than the Ground Vibration Trigger Level and the Air Overpressure
T,'��� _� L _f __ _ _
r rigger Level oelow.
Client: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Location: Crabtree Quar
Event Date: June 2, 1998
Event Time: 11:22 a.m.
Seismograph Serial Number:
7285
Begin Monitoring:
11:22 a.m.
Ground Vibration Trigger Level:
.05 i s
Air Overpressure Trigger Level:
120 dBl
End Monitoring:
11:22 a.m.
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS, INC.
Carolinas Office
377 Carowinds Boulevard
Suite 112
Fort Mill, SC 29715

377 Carowinds Blvd., Suite 112 • VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS • 803-548-3066
Ft. Mill, SC 29715 BLAST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
B
L
A
S
T
Client
Job Location.-
Date l - S . A—:-' Blast No. y Time
Exact Blast Location 4 a `Y
No. of Holes_ r2 Diameter Z in. Avg. Depth 2 ft. Subgrade d ft.
6,
Spacing _. � ft. Burden ft. Avg. Stemming ft.
_t/a S a y rn a s/,c-od d r-
Make & Type of Explosives: Delay Make '-fit - S-o _ 262 ,?
D Alr / �_ lbs.
T lbs.
A lbs.
I
D
A
T
A
4c.N - 3 3_ lbs.
-3 lbs.
plosives 41,04$ lbs.
Delay Type & Nos.
Min. Delay Period a S -:/-b> 0 ms.
Max. Lbs.IDelay Period.
Blaster
Weather C
Wind Direction & Speed
s
lbs.
Everlert Only
Seismograph No.. 7 i� Range/Gain Setting —� "_�1� w ips Trigger Level
Exact Seismograph Location 12 rime 1 s
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast ze�eUd
Peak Overpressure Cl 3 dB Operator
Meters
Peak Particle Velocity 4 ips Cassette No.
Comments:

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 240
Blast 34 Date: 6/05/98 Time: 9:56
Instrument 7285
0.0005
Airblast = 93 dB
0.0000
1
1 1
1
1
f
-0.0005
0.0
0.2
0.3 0.5
0.6
0,6
0.9
1.1 1.2 1.4
1.5
0.25
Transverse = 0.04 in/sec
0.00
i
i
i i
i
-0.25
0.0
0.2
0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1 1.2 1.4
1.5
0.25
Vertical = 0.04 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
0.0
0.2
0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1 1.2 1.4
1.5
0.25
Longitudinal = 0.04 in/ aec
0.00
1
1 1
1
1
--0.25
0.0 0.2
0.3 0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.1 i.2 1.4
i.5
1.0 50
Response Spectra
1.0
ibra-tech en,-4- Leers
1.0
0.1
50 0.013
10 50
•
e

377 Carowinds Blvd_, Sulte 112
Ft. Mlll, SC 29715
. VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS is 803-548-3066
BLAST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
B
L
A
T
D
A
T
A
D
A
T
A
Client
Job Location b
nata f - 9 Gi // Blast No_ _ .. ��=�_ _._ Time
Exact Blast Location _ 13, n� h o2 11
No. of Holes D Diameter in. Avg. Depth 3.2 ft. Subgrade ft.
Spacing
0
Make & Type of Explosives:
ft. Burden ce it. Avg. Stemming 7 / 4 r It.
d /'/ 2X 7 0 - 5"v d Q-/ a G P - 3 o a N Td a' /-> 7-'z.
Delay Make �ZV -" 9' ? -,?0 ZZ72} 2s-_ot -aa
i ` 5 2S0 tbs.
Ivy 3 x / 2 32-23- tbs.
%,rLx(1�2r3 '� 4yx I t� �lr,D tbs.
tbs.
SU �bd 2 Ibs.
Total Explosives tbs.
Delay Type & Nos.
Min. Delay Period '2 y U p ms.
Max. Lbs./Delay Period L13z . Ibs.
Blaster ZL4iFt�!-�/' JYi7�/ v�-/--
Weather_ CloecJc,
Wind Direction & Speed / ,:;�i 7L L2& -
Seismograph No. a Triggggert Y,- Range/Gain Setting �� o fps TriOn
er Level
Exact Seismograph Location 9 Ano �1�/�ri�„L i s
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast
f Peak Overpressure 114 dB
Meters
Peak Particle Velocity , O 3 ips
Comments:
i�
Cassette No.

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 210
Blast 35 Date: o/ 09/98 Time: 12:56
Instrument 7285
OA020
Airblact = 118 do
o.0000
-0.0020
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.7 3.1 3.5
3.8
0.25
Transverse = 0.02 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.7 3.1 3.5
3.8
0.25
Vertical = 0.02 in/sec
F
0.00
1
1
1
1
I
1
I I I
-0.25
w,1
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.7 3.1 3.5
3.8
0.25
Longitudinal = 0.02 in/sec
0.001
1
-0.25
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.5
1.9
2.3
2.7 3.1 3.5
3.8
Transverse
10 50
Response Spectra
Vertical
1.0
0.1
0.013 10
;r, -te t
50
10 50
0

377 Carowinds Blvd., Suite 112
Ft. Mill, SC 29715
�VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS • 803-548-3066
BLAST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
B
L
A
T
D
A
T
A
S
E
I
S
M
0
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client
Job Location /,-,) /oZ
Dale 4 //- !2k ~� Blast No, 176 Time f.
Exact Blast Location 13- - e__ a D
No. of Holes S Diameter in. Avg. Depth D "a ft. Subgrade - it.
Spacing i v n. Bcrden (I _ it. Avg. oleritirning __r=. ft.
'R s/#?S So - So aS16';,f>Z> 3.0 - 30 ),qAS b - sO
Make //& Type of Explosives:
A61/ Tr OD I Ibs
3x/ a�l�Y Ibs
Ibs
lbs
S '4 �,¢C a x,� — �� lbs
Total Explosives Ibs
Delay Make,.? oal4' s -Z d 6�2- fr -da a l a
Delay Type & Nos. ___ -4 l _�
Min. Delay Period La_O U ms.
Max. Lbs./Delay Period Ibs.
Blaster /�-
weather_ e-2 L7,44
Wind Direction & Speed
1
Evedert Only
Seismograph No. Range/Gain Setting i ^ /- vw ips trigger Level
Exact Seismograph Location i s
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast
Peak Overpressure O
Meters
Peak Particle Velocity ips
Comments:
Cassette No.

L'
•
Seismograph Monitoring Confirmation
A review of the monitoring log from the seismograph listed below confirms
that a seismograph was monitoring at the time of the blast.
This blast transmitted ground vibration and air overpressure levels below
those required to automatically activate the seismograph. The levels were
lower than the Ground Vibration Trigger Level and the Air Overpressure
r r igger revel below.
Client: BENCHMARK CAROLINA AGGREGATES
Location: Crabtree Quar
Event Date: June 11, 1998
Event Time: 12:53 p.m.
Seismograph Serial Number:
7285
Begin Monitoring:
12:53 2.m.
Ground Vibration Trigger Level:
.05 i s
Air Over ressure Trigger Level:
120 dBl
End Monitoring,
12:53 p.m.
VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS, INC.
Carolinas Office
377 Carowinds Boulevard
Suite 112
Fort Mill, SC 29715

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 30
Blast 36 Late: 6/11/98 U-ne: 12:153
Instrument 7285
0.0006 FALSE PEAK a r 1 = 1os
0.0000
-0.0006
0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.1 7.9
0.25 FALSE PEAK Transverse = 0.07 in/sec
0.00
-025 I I I
0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.1 7.9
0.25 FALSE_ AK Vertical = 0.13 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.1 7.9
0.25 FALSE PEAK Longitudinai = 0.04 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 5.3 7.1 `i.s
1.0
0.1
0.013
Transverse
10 50
Response Spectra
Vertical
1.0
0.1
0.013 10
ibr _lec
50
1.0
0.1
0.013
10 50
E

377 Carowinds Blvd., Sulta 112 VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS 803-548-3066
Ft. Mill, SC 29715 BLA AND7EISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
cl
ient '
11JObLocation _ O !2
B
L
A
T
D
A
T
A
S
E
S
M
O
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Date - -P Blast No. Time I : S Cl 41T,
Exact Blast Location_n� d ! o
No. of Holes-2/ Diameter in. Avg. Depth 2 it. Subgrade ft.
I r-1 /
Spacing u n. Burden o _ ft. Avg. Stemmingfl.
a,r/Al;Fj— 63-Sa .?S`Sav
Make & Type of Explosives:
I vd lbs.
�'y X SSo lbs.
3�lbs.
j
,CS A -fT1AP-f l 7 lbs.
lbs.
Total Explosives lbs.
Seismograph No. , 7 a1?r
Exact Seismograph Location 0
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast a O U
Meters Peak Overpressure 1 9d'� dB
Peak Particle Velocity , d S ips
Comments:
Delay Makedoms it _;L v y-A ­7 -,z a i 7 2 -A
Delay Type & Nos. g f T bD 1 `cf
Min. Delay Period o� 5 - 119 o d - MS.
Max. Lbs./Delay Period 3 lbs.
Blaster
Weather
Wind Direction & Speed S[�
Everiert On
Range/Gain Setting Z — Ni Ips Trigger Lavel
� l-� i 5
Operator � Jc' airL
Cassette No.

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 210
Blast 37 Date: 6/ 1o/98 llYne: 10.11.7
Instrument 7285
0.0008 Airblast = 108 dB
0.0000
-0.0008
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8
1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8
0.25
Transverse = 0.02 in/sec
0.00�
I I
( I 1 1 1 1
-0.25
0.0
0.3 0.6 0.8
Li 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8
0.25
r
Vertical = 0.02 in/sec
0,00
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8
1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8
0.25
Longitudinal = 0,05 in/sec
0.00--
1 I
I I I I I 1 1
-0.25
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8
L 1 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8
0.013
Transverse
Lo 50
Response Spectra
Vertical
1.0
0.1
0.013 1.0
ob,r _iec i-e--c
50
0.013
1.0 50
•
•

377 Carowlnds Blvd., Suite 112
FL Mill, SC 29715
AST
V[BRA-TECH ENGINEERS • 803-548-3066
AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
B
L
A
T
D
A
T
A
S
E
S
M
O
G
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client
Job Location
rnatP 1, I � Blast No. Time
p
Exact Blast Location „),2aUr � / y
No. of HolesS/= lL Diameter !Y in. Avg. Depth 213 �/ ft. Subgrade 3 ft.
Spacing ft. Barden ft. Av .Stemming tt.
a2-�/N�r N Sa L5/,6va FS1-.?v ,gars �v-
Make & Type of Explosives:
��S D lbs.
330 lbs.
3lbs.
Z, 3 lbs.
lbs.
Total Explosives lbs.
Seismograph No.
Exact Seismograph Location
t�
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast
f Peak Overpressure / O , d6
Meters I Peak Particle Velocity " U 44 ips
Comments:
Delay Maakeca�l1J�a_2 4Q._ ire -��v &2
ion s
Delay Type & Nos 3 -�
Min. Delay Period, 'a S - /,4-4 D ms.
Max. Lbs./Delay Period / lbs.
Blaster E, =,r ac ZzC 4Ofii 2" 1 U/1 e
Weather.
Wind Direction & Speed
Evedert Only
Range/Gain Setting! ^�e-w ips Trigger Level
�/��Q/7✓ i s
a,[vo (.
Operator �-
Cassette No.

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 210
Blast 38 Date; 6/19/98 Time: 13:04
Instrument 7285
0.0007 r
Airblast = 107 dB
0.0000
titi✓
-0.0007
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1 2.6 2.8
3.1
0.25
Transverse = 0.04 in/sec
0.00
f - n
✓� r
-0.25
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1 2.5 2.8
3.1
0.25
r
-
Vertical = 0.03 in/sec -
O.UU
I
1
I
I
I I
I
-0.25
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1- 2-5 2.8
3.1
0.25
Longitudinal = 0.03 in/sec
- -
-
0.00
rr--
1 1
I
I
I
I I
-0.25
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1 2.5 2.8
3.1
0.013�
Transverse
1.0 50
0
Response Spectra
Vertical
vibra-tech enaineers
-13
1.0 50
•

377 Carowlnds Blvd., Suite 112
Ft. Mill, SC 29715
AISVBRA-TECH ENGINEERS a 803-548-3066
TAIND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
B
L
A
S
T
D
T
A
S
E
S
M
O
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client /
Job Location C' �'
Date Blast No. `?� Time
Exact Blast Location d
No. of Holes _ q L4 Diameter �1 - in. Avg. Depth 7q ft. Subgrade ft.
Spacing ft. Burden ft. Avg. Stemming 4�1 ft.
.t S/,y 3, -Sv .4 jymf
Make & Type of Explosives: Delay MakeA s4 9a 42 ­9 o a -A v
/? .2-.2a -2 s 3-aa A y-A";,
a� lbs. Delay Type & Nos. - _ 41,V7-4) l —R _
�/// �c� lbs. Min. Delay Period U v U ms.
X Z4, _ vt lbs. Max. Lbs./Delay Period 420 lbs.
412 _ lbs. Blaster/1s�c�/c�c
�0'gn,FI lbs. Weather
Total Explosives lbs. Wind Direction & Speed
Evedert On
Seismograph No. _ 7 02 Range/Gain Setting fps Trigger Level
Exact Seismograph Location 0e-- ,�y - i s
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast 491626
Peak Overpressure 9 '? dB Operator �/�/� y .� .0 z
Meters �
Peak Particle Velocity O `ar ips Cassette No.
Comments:

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 240
Blast 39 Date: g/ 23/98 Time: 1 1:06
Instrument 7285
0.0005 r
Airblast = 93 dB
0.0000
I
1 I 1 I I
-0.0005
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
0.25
Transverse = 0.04 in/sec
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
0.25 r
Vertical = 0.02 in/sec
U.UU
I I 1
I I f I
I
-0.25
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
0.25
1.^ng",tudina1 -0 03 ." "Ise c
0.00
-025
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.0 1.2 1.Y 1.0 1.8
2.1
1.0
0.1
O.O L3
Transverse
10 50
Response Spectra
Vertical
1.0
0.1
0.013 10
vibra-tech engineers
50
1.0 50
L
•

377 Carowlnds Blvd., Suite 112
Ft. Mill, SC 29715
B9VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS • 803-548-3066
ST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT . FAX: [phone]
B
L
A
S
T
D
A
T
A
S
E
I
S
M
O
G
R
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client 74W N Job Location 6'1 -2- CA9JJ i45-- c
Date 6 _ � s~` �1 ffr��iJ Blast No. ��� Time _ % S�9 '4 A,
Exact Blast Location_,.!�1�<� �+
No. of Holes -- Diameter in. Avg. Depth 2z ft. Subgrade - -- ft.
Spacing) ft. Burden ft. Avg. Stemming ft.
.t SIAI > J- H %- Sr .t S Sd0 .5;X - 3D /*/Hs S - yo
Make & T pe of Explosives: Delay Make
�l / d.- 6 lbs. Delay Type & Nos.
, z1 lbs.
�/30 lbs.
lbs.
2 lbs.
Total Explosives lbs.
Seismograph No. 7 a P
Exact Seismograph Location
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast ;� / P
r Peak Overpressure % dB
Meters
1 Peak Particle Velocity ips
Comments:
Min. Delay Period o2 -5+` /0 6 6 ms.
Max. Lbs./Delay Period 1-2 Z� _ lbs.
Blaster ,c, r- 1/ C
Weather
Wind Direction & Speed
LErverlert OnlyRan/ge/Gain Setting — u e 1pSgger Level
r 4 a Xn L! - -- i s
Operator __ A $�°iP,� IAsc-ney�
Cassette No.

BENCHMARK CAROLINA Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Bench 210
Blast 40 Date: R /9510A Tim.• 1 0:50
Instrument 7285
0.0005
r
Airblast = 93 dB
0.0000
I
r
1
I
-0.0005
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 1.6
1.6
0.25
Transverse = 0.04 in/sec
0.00-
1
1
1
I
I
I
I I I
-0.25
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 1.6
1.8
0.25
Vertical = 0.03 in/sec
0.00�
-
--
-
-
- - - -
-
-0-25
^
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 1.6
1.8
0.25
Longitudinal = 0.06 in/sec
0.00
r
-0.25
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 1.6
1.8
Transverse
1.0 50
0.013
Response Spectra
10
vibra,-tech engineers
to 50
e

JAMES B. HUNTJR.'?•,;�'
:"GOYERNOR
,i;WAYNE MCDEVrrT.�
M3�
!?G RE. DIRECYOR
AND STATE GEOI_OC
. . .,I.,_ w
•+F 5
�~.r NORTH CAROVNA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
July 9, 1998
Mr. James Sprinkle
Benchmark Materials
P.O. Box 13983
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
RE: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry
Permit No, 92-03
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Sprinkle:
This office recently received a complaint directed at blasting practices
conducted at the above referenced quarry. According to the complainant. Mrs.
Gloria Davis, the vibrations produced from the blast at the Crabtree Quarry on
June 11. I998 caused significant vibrations of her home.
As provided in the mining permit for this site. you are requested to provide
to thic nff-l-r.e diintiratP rnniec of all shot records related to the blasts conducted on
June 11, 1998 including any seismograph records made. Furthermore, please
forward all shot records for one production shot conducted immediately prior to
and one production shot after these blasts for review.
I suggest you discuss this matter with Mrs. Davis. Her address and
telephone number are as follows:
4113 John S, Rabotau Road
Raleigh, North Carolina
78 1 -0033
LAND QUALITY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION 191 9) 733-2423 FAX f919) 733-0900
P.O. BOX 27657. RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1 -7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/1 Oq POST -CONSUMER PAPER

0 •
Mr. Sprinkle
Page Two
I look forward to receiving the requested information in the near future. Your continued
cooperation will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
qu�dith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
JW
cc: John Flolley, P.E.
Mrs, Gloria Davis. complainant

Author: Tracy Davis at NROLROIP
Date: 6/19/98 1:03 PM
Priority: Normal
TO: "John L. Holley" <[e-mail]> at Internet
TO: Judy Wehner
CC: Tony Sample
CC: Jim Simons
CC: Mell Nevils
Subject: Re: Benchmark Quarry, Duraleigh Rd.
------------------------------------ Message Contents ------------------_-_---------------
Judy, please request blast records from the company and let's analyze
to determine compliance at the closest offsite structure & what Mrs.
Davis' theoretical readings are for the blast in question.
John, as far as monitoring at this site, we'll have to put in on the
list. Currently, we are alternating both our seismographs at a
complainant's house adjacent to a quarry in Lenoir (the complainant
has filed a contested case against us for issuance of a recent
modification). Next on the list is a complainant near a dimension
stone quarry...Charles promised Representative Weatherly that we would
monitor at this location next.
After these are addressed, we will let you know when we can move to
this site. In the meantime, be sure to remind us so this doesn't get
forgotten.
Thanks!
TD
Subject: Benchmark Quarry,
Author: "John L. Holley"
Date: 6/19/98 12:49 PM
Reply Separator
Duraleigh Rd.
<[e-mail]>
at Internet
Yesterday I spoke with Mrs. Gloria Davis (4113 John S. Rabotau Rd.,
Raleigh, 781-0033) regarding her concerns with blasting at the
subject mine site. She lives in Olde Raleigh (which is a significant
distance away from the quarry). She reports that they built about 8
years ago and have always experienced significant vibrations relative
to the blasts at this site during the work week. In particular, she
experienced a significant event last Thursday, June 11, just after
1PM. I asked her to continue noting significant events, including
time, weather conditions, etc., and indicated that I would discuss
follow-up on her complaint with you. I suppose we could go with the
above report and request data from Benckmark for analysis; however, I
wonder if this would be a good candidate for monitoring with our
seismograph in light of the reported long history. What do you
think?

s shalNecessary"strvict' t
be constructed or installed when required to prevent such
conditions.
8. Blasting �k
The operator shall provide to the Department a copy of the
findings of any seismic studies conducted at this facility. The
operator shall make every reasonable effort to incorporate the
studies' recommendations into the production blasting program.
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
F JE .3 . tJ1 Cs h"1 l In i- "x���d � inch rer
ioiipviieii+., vx groui�u iii���ilii aziu�� av�
second at the immediate location of any building outside of
the permitted area regularly occupied by human beings such
as dwelling house, church, school, public.,building, or
commercial or institutional building_ outside of the
permitted area. The --operator shall monitor each blast with
a seismograph.
B. Airblast overpressure shall not exceed 128 decibels linear
(DBL) as measured at the immediate location of any regularly
occupied building outside of the permitted area such as any
dwelling house, church, school, public building, or
commercial or institutional building. If vibration/airblast
limits are exceeded, the operator shall immediately report
the. -event with causes and corrective actions to the
Department. Use of explosives at the blast site that
produced the excessive reading shall cease until corrective
actions approved by the Department have been taken.
However, blasting may occur in other approved areas within
the permitted boundary. Authorization to blast at the blast
site may be granted at the time of the verbal reporting of
the high airblast reading if the circumstances justify
verbal approval.. Failure to report will constitute a permit
violation.
C. The operator 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 permitted and guarded area, or the
level in Item A. above is exceeded, the operator shall
report the incident to the Department immediately and
further use of explosive at the site shall be immediately
suspended until the following actions have been taken:

0
incident_• shall ' be conducted .
• - S .. Nam'.
2."F yA''satisfactory report detailing the investigation shall
be provided to the Department, within 10 days of the
incident. Said report shall, at a minimum, document
the cause(s) of the incident along with technical and
management actions that will be taken to prevent
further incidents.
The report shall meet with the approval of the Department
before blasting may resume at the site. Failure to take
corrective measures to prevent flyrock and repeated
instances of flyrock shall be considered a violation of this
permit.
D. The operator shall maintain records on each individual blast
describing: the total number of holes; pattern of holes and
delay of intervals; depth and size of holes; type and total
pounds of explosives; maximum pounds per delay interval;
amount of stemming and,burden for each hole; blast location;
distance from blast to'closest off -site occupied structure;
and weather conditions at the time of the blast. Records
shall be maintained at the permittee's mine office and
copies shall be provided to the Department upon request.
E. The operator shall, when requested by the Department, give
24 hour advance notice to the Land Quality Section prior to
any blast during a period for which notice is requested.
High Wall Barrier
A physical barrier consisting of large boulders placed end -to -end
(a minimum of four (4) feet high) or concrete barriers or
fencing, both as specified in the Crabtree Quarry Permit Renewal
Drawings dated January 1992 and revised April 1992, shall be
maintained at all times around the perimeter of any highwall to
prevent inadvertent public access. In addition, a minimum 25
foot wide horizontal safety bench shall be provided at the
junction between the top of rock and the toe of any overburden
cut slope.
1.0, visual Screening
A. Existing vegetation shall be maintained between the mine and
public thoroughfares to screen the operation from the
public. Additional screening methods, such as constructing
earthen berms, shall be employed as deemed appropriate by
the Department.

Auqust 29, 2000
goo? t C Dnb
■■■
■■■Hanson
Ms. Judith Wehner
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Land Quality Section
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Blast Compaint — Crabtree Quarry
Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Dear Ms. Wehner:
Hanson Aggregates East
Southeast Region
P.O. Box 13983
Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27709.3983
Tel [phone]
Fax. 919 RRn 2616
I apologize for the lateness in responding back to you regarding a blast complaint
which occurred on July 13, 2000 at our Crabtree Quarry. Please find attached
blast results for the shot which caused the complaint and the shot that occurred on
Julv 10, 2000 and also the subsequent shot on July 18, 2000.
For your information, I'm also enclosing a -sum mmary_repoit--from--Vibra Tech'
Engineers which shows the results�of_three_seismognaph=readings=for=each shot?
You may be unaware_ but we have installpd'-twn` n rmanent SPi�mnnranh lorntinns
in the vicinity of the quarry and also continue to use a portable seismograph in
various locations during blasting.
Althni inh it is gnnarant that tha hin z- inn race iltc Winra wall within etata ni iiAnlinac
the complaint mayrh-ave_been--generated -by- cloud =cover_or_-an-inv_ersion'P In any
event, the quarry did contact the complainant to determine the nature of the
complaint. We will continue to monitor all blasts at Crabtree Quarry;using threew.
Cseismographs arrayed -in -the vicinity of_the7quarry.
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to call.
ery truly yo rs,
James . H. Sprinkle
Area Operations Manager
Cc: Nigel Wills

VIRRATF-CH®_�..
The Vibration Monitoring Experts
July 26, 2000
Mr. Jim Sprinkle
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST
P.O. Box 13983
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
Re: Crabtree Quarry
Dear Mr. Sprinkle:
377 Carnwind -s Boulevard, Suite. 117, Ft, Mill, SC 74708
803-548-3066 FAX [phone]
As requested, we are enclosing a mid -month seismic report for the Crabtree Quarry. The
report includes the first three blasts for July, 2000.
It is my understanding that the quarry received a complaint on July 18, 2000. The cellular
remote seismograph, located near the subdivision on Oak Park Road, recorded an air blast of
1I22%decibels for the blast on July 18, 2000. The peak particle velocity for this blast was 0.030
inches per second. The complaint was probably due to the air blast and not the ground
vibration. As you know, this shot is not in violation of the permit, but may have been loud
enoughto generate thle complaint.
I would like to take this opportunity to let you know that the personnel at the Crabtree Quarry
keep outstanding blast records which they consistently mail to us in a timely fashion. It is
always a pleasure to work with Carey Davis and Ken Kennedy.
Matt Pilz, Regional Manager for ViBRA-TECH, INC., and I will be in the Raleigh area within the
next month and would like to stop by and see you. i will contact you as we firm up these plans.
If I can be of further service in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
VIBRA-TECH, INC. 0
J44AZI ALU-��
Terri Harper
Area Manager
THlmh
Enc.

0
F-I
�VIBRATECH'
The Vibration Monitoring Experts
July 24, 2000
Mr. Kenneth Kennedy, Superintendent
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST -- Crabtree Quarry
P.O. Box 52309
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Dear Mr, Kennedy:
377 Carowinds Boulevard, Suite 112, Ft. Mill, SC 29708
803-548-3066 FAX [phone]
This report contains the seismic data from blasting associated with the Crabtree Quarry as retrieved from data
sent to our office and the seismic activity detected by the continuous recording seismographs located at 3904
Oak Park Road and 5501 Duraleigh Road. Three blasts dated July 1 through July 18, 2000, are included.
The maximum value of the recorded peak particle velocity for this series of blasts wast0=070=inches per second
(ips), which is below the established criteria for ground vibration as recommended by the United States Bureau
of Mines (RI-8507: November, 1980), Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration From
Surface Mine Blasting. This value, recorded from the blasts dated July 13 and July 18, 2000, represents seven
percent (7%) of the allowable vibration limit as stipulated by the North Carolina Mining Act of 1971.
• The maximum recorded air blast level for this series of blasts was'e1,22=deci6els (dBI), or 0.00365 pounds per
square inch (psi), for the blast dated July 18, 2000, which represents twenty-eight percent (28%) of the 133 dBl
criteria for seismographs possessing 2 Hertz (Hz), high-pass acoustic response capabilities, as stated in the
United States Bureau of Mines (RI-8485, 1980), Structure Response and Damage Produced by Airblast From
Surface Mining.
Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding the contents of this report, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
VIBRA-TECH, INCp
Terri Harper
Area Manager
/7116,�,�IZtom �, n
Matthew J.J. Pilz v
Regional Manager
THlmh
Enclosures
411 cc: Mr. Jim Sprinkle

%1lMDA_TCr'W entr EVENT SUMMARY
V ILJ1%J% 11...VI 11 11-v.
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST
CRABTREE QUARRY
Raleigh, North Carolina
JULY 1 through JULY 18, 2000
Page 1 of I
HIGHEST
£VENT
O_
TO
PODREADING
SEISMO
SEISMOGRAPH,
DISTANCE
.
VERTICAL
:f-
LONG.
TRIG.:LEVEL
>"
FRODT
PPV
FRO;
PPV
046
07/10/00
11:17
NIA
7274
Weaver 8. Kilkenny
1,500
119
0.00258
Ohs ?D4U
19
0.030
20
0
1, 88
0,0550
N:A
046
07/10/00
11:22
NIA
3354
3904 Oak Park Rd
N/A
116
0.00183
0.013
43�
a0!020
39
0.015
43
0.020
N/A
046
07/10/00
1121
N/A
3197
5501 Duraleigh Rd
N/A
117
0.00205
0.033
85
0,053
57
0.038
47
0.030
NIA
047
0
0711310
12:55
NIA
7274
Weaver & Dundee
500'
11n
0.00092
ss01040i
fill
3 0
OWN-tzy
0.020
301
A0.0 07 1
34
0.050
NIA
047
07/13/00
13:00
NIA
3354
3904 Oak Park Rd
N/A
117
0.00205
0.025
28
0.015_
21
N025$
23
0.020
NIA
047
07/13/00
1259
NIA
3197
5501 Duraleigh Rd
NIA
117
0.00205
0.028
21
0 �
57
.
0 035
64
0.030
NIA
048
07/18/00
13:06
N/A
7274
Weaver 8 Kilkenny
1,500'
114
000145
0.030�
`3'0
0.040
35
g,01070
50
0.050
NIA
#
048
07/18/60
13:10
NIA
3354
3904 Oak Park Rd
NIA
122
0.00365
i0:u3u�
43,�
0.020
57
OA15
»'
0.020
N!P.
048
07118/00
13:09
N/A
3197
5501 Duraleigh Rd
N/A
114
0.00145
0.040
24
055>
>100
OA48
64
0.030
NIA
I
�0
GREATEST PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY (ips) READING FOR THE MONTH
# GREATEST PEAK OVERPRESSURE (dB!) READING FOR THE MONTH
— SEISMIC ACTIVITY NOT SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER SEISMOGRAPH INSTALLED

377 Carow'rnds Blvd., Sulte 112 VIBRA•TECH ENGINEERS 803-548-3066
Ft.-Mlll, SC 29715 BLAST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
Clieyit
Job Location Z) /,Z K"7�
Date -2 ` Blast No. 1 v Time
B
L
A
S
T
D
A
T
A
S
E
S
M
0
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Exact Blast Location
No. of Holes J s74/ Diameter
Spacing 1/ ft.
F
�a+ ! In. Avg. DepthL �_Y� �' tft. Subgrrade ft.
Burden C% _ ft. Avg. Stemming'G ft.
Make & Type of Explosives: Delay Make
In
5 O0?t lbs. Delay Type & Nos. _ -s�� /Z.�-gyp
�ri�L.r'f
6;lbs. Min, Delay Period _ a S f a _ ms.
lbs. Max. Lbs./Delay Period WIV, , lbs.
��DOSTc �XR r a lbs. Blaster
lbs. Weather
Total Explosives
Seismograph No. a_Z
Exact Seismograph Location
Ibs. Wind Direction & Speed S jy / y
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast
Peak Overpressure ��''�'- dB
Meters ��"-`"� �►,.
Peak Particle Velocity ' 'D� ips
J
Comments:
Everlert On!
Range/Gain Setting ips Trigger Level
t
l,I
�Yi I .lrrl)1lti � .. i s
Operator
Cassette No.

•
HAN5VN %P►IyC�KtU I tj C/Hj I
CRABTREE QUARRY
P,O. BOX 52039 • RALEIGH, INC 27612
BLAST REPORT
Project- Zs�� Location: r,,/CA/ 150 Joe Date: 7-
Shot No, Seis. No._ 7c,) 7 1/ Time Fired //"/%f,)/;1
Scale Distance % 7-N Particle Velocity 7 , o V L r , 66
Dist. To Neighbor �/��JD ' Max. Lbs.IDefiay
Type Rock GRANiTF_ 7. Sub -drilling 12
2 Type D01_ yD, 8. Height of Bench 93-351A . Z'5- VC,
3 Bit Size `' y. Stemming
No. Holes - Q�1.1.� - T 10. Burden
5 Total Drill Ft. 12 X ti 11. Spacing
o Drill Hours ,2 2, Open or Buffer
EXPLOSIVES
CAPS
Type
Pounds
Delay/No./Ft.
DelayJNo.IFt,
o- `
A)Fi
3 b-aa
�1?S-�sv �9 441�
4s �q ,
TPk)
,
nS- 17 Z /Ze
TW'
Z�cg ir/ 2
S
mS-as
S - �2 ?
Total Pounds ��9a
Total Tons or CY
Powaer Factor
BA.CKBREAK
FRAGMENTATION
ZD-Fair-Poor
NOISE
Loud- era Quiet
t:linor<EDSevere
WEATHER DATA
t Inversion below 5,000 ff. (AGL)
Base
Top of�
2 Temperature to wipe out inverson
�l
q,3n
3 Expected High
4 Temperature at time of shot
-
5 NJinds.
Surface 5 k) 1
14
5,000 ft.
w6 �%
!
2,000 ft. 5 �,J 1
1-7
10,000 ft.
G�J
1 c3S
Blaster:
ForemaT
Superintendent: -A-)
{

41
Anyl
MUTT
7 -77 7
APT
jER
ms
-Ag
Mop
Sol
Ze
Ful
LITT�
I -�' T
ERE
i L
i4
4 -
I
lh'
R H-1
WIN
F11
din
HT
I
I
F�f
i U-
too;
J
hill
UP
4'[Hwl"Alr
mail
LLI.
most
"solid
111a
may
pump
INS
Am
i1ii
I
7111
. ...........
i:s I

07/20/2000 10:01 15704550626
VisRA -TECH Event Report
I:. Vlkntion M.oia,:.. IY►pv
PAGE 02
Danimo '
Vert at 11:22:17 July 10, 2000
Serial Number
3354 V 2.5 MuIbSeis V
Trigger Source
Geo: 0,0200 in/s
Battery Level
7.0 Volts
Range
Geo :5,00 in/s
GAllbration
March 16, 2000 by VIBRA-TECH
Record TIm*
4.0 sea at 1024 sps
File Name
E354830V.1-51
Notts
LocatlW CRABTREE QUARRY, RALEIDH,NC,
Cl?vr+t HANSON AGGREGATES EAST
User Name: MBRA-TECHICONT.CELLULAR RECORDER
Converted- July 10, 2000 16:63,01 (V4.02)
Ended Notes
RECORDING LOCATION: SET UP ON GROUND APPROX,100 FE
ET WEST OFTHE RES. AT 3904 OAKPARK ROAD, RALEIGH. NO
ATH CAROLINA.
Post Event Notes n
I
Microphone L•ine_ar_Weighting
PSPL1,t6,dB(k) at 1.485 Sec
ZO Froq 5.0 Hz
Channel Test Passed (Fraq = 20.0 Hz Amp = 481 mv)
Tran
Vert Long
PPV
0.0125
0' 20 0.0150 INS
ZC Freq
_00r
�43��-39:; �_4_3—Hz
T1me (Rai. to Trig)
0.003
4;Q0D-�0.1(2�se0
Peak Acceleration
0.0133
0,0133 0.0133 g
Peak Displacement
O,OC404
0.00006 0.00005 In
Dynamic Geo Cal.
Passed
Passed Passed
Peak Vector Sum 0.0215 1n/s at 0.000 sec
I-
z
MILL ir7120L ' U7—�„r rr--mrCmoa �- f�nl.. � �r "4
j_ IYY �nr
U$SM R18907 And QSMRE
n _ No velocity above 0.04 inla
i
I
L. 01 '
I
a.oa�
1 II 6 10 Zn 50 100 y
Frequency (Ha)
Tram + Vert: x Long: o
Long
Vert-
T �
2.0 3.0
Time Scale: 0.20 3oc)dIv Amplitude Scale: Geo: 0.0200 in/g/div Mic: 0.00050 pai(L)/dlV
Trigger ■ 111— — -4
Printed: July 10, 2000 ly 4.02.4,021 Format Copyrlghud 1HO-1 619
0.0
•-nr-
.......... I
4.0
0.0
0,0
0.0

07/20/2000
10:01 15704550626
Vmaa .TF,cH
T1V Lad., brnloriy E�rta
DatalT!,ne
Vert at 11:21:26 July 10, 2000
Trigger source
Geo: 0 0300 role
Range
Geo '.5.00 inls
Record Time
4.0 sac 8t 1024 9pS
Event Report 0
Serial Number 3197 V 2.5 MuIOSeis V
Battery Level 6.9 VvltS
Calibration March 18, 2000 by VIBRA-TECH
File Name E19783OV.JP1
Notes
Location•.
CRABTREE ©UARRY.RALEIOH,NC.
Cllenk
HANSON AGGREGATES CO.
User Name;
VIBRA-TECH/CONT,CELLUL-AR RECORDER
Converted:
Jufy 10, 2000 16:52:44 (4.02)
Extended Notes
Post EVAtIt Notes
w
Microphone Linear Weighting Z
PSPL •1.1s74fdB(L) at 0.541 sac
ZC Freq 2.0 Hi
Channel Test Passed (Freq = 20.0 Hz Amp = 575 mv)
Tran
Vert Long
PPV
0,0325
0'052_5901 0.0375 inls
ZC Freq
"5ha—_jR57 47--QhHz
!'ms i0el. to Ttin)
0.35-A
0.174 v.1'—A
Peak Acceleration
0.0464
0.0729 0.0398 g
Peak Mplacoment
0.00012
0,00014 000012 in
Dynamic Goo Cal.
Passed
Passed Passed
Peak Vector gum 0.0588 inls at 0.185 sec
Micl-
Long `}
I
I
Vert
I
I
Tran >i
USBM R18607 And OSMRE
PAGE 03
t
6-� 1
Frequency (Hz)
Tran: + Vert: x Long: o
4.0
Tlme Scale; 0.20 secJdiv Amplitude ScOW Goo: 0.0200 InJSIdiv Mlc: 0.00050 psl(L)/div
Trigger = ►— — --4
a-:...,,. ,—.. n ,nnn Oki A nl'- a rrn Format CoovrtuhUd 1990.1909
0.0
1
I
0,0
I

•
377 Carowlnds Blvd., Sulte 112 VIBRA-TECH ENGINEERS
Ft. MITI, SC 29715 A! AST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT
B
L
A
T
D
A
T
A
S
E
S
M
0
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
803.548-3066
FAX. 803=541T30V.'1j
Client h -- -- _
Job Location
Date _-? " 12 " U 12 __- Blast No. _ 'Y- -)-- Time
Exact Blast Location ti G h 1 to
No. of Holes J`d Diameter —L in. Avg. Depth 3� " �S ft. Subgrade 3 ft.
111
Spacing _ 1 ft. Burden ft. Avg. Stemmin ` 9 ft.
,gyp �S y-915-q ,7
Make & Type of Explosive Delay Ma a 44A a 1 1 y 0 -1-2 h __
L� lbs. Delay Type & Nos. d `OD
VD 14,4 94!57 lbs. Min. Delay Period -oZ %Q UU _ ms.
lbs.
lbs
lbs
Total Explosives lbs.
Max. Lbs.IDelay Period —. 0 7 - lbs.
n1—_j
I�iaster
Weather.—_
Wind Direction & Speed
Evarleri Only
Seismograph Na. Range/Gain Setting vv�/ ips Trigger Level
Exact Seismograph Location Y1 i s
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast
Meters Peak Overpressure , 1 1 0 �T dB
Peak Particle Velocity ► D 7 ips
Comments:
Operator
Cassette No.

!C�1l�!�►
rr..�
1�r�.1�F.1!
�
tm�
1WFIR�
■
■■■■ems■■.
NONE
ONE
.
NOON
.■■
��■��IEEI_I■EOEi/I_QE■■■E■.ME..
NEON■■
■.■
f�ri.EE�lE■.N�■�■E�11■EMOE.O■
..
No
..
MEN
SIN
FA■■.■■.E
■
NOON■■WrJYMAN
.■
kFgAIL
■■■
■�.e
:.�E���■���a■■Nfs■■ENE.■
■
.■.■
■■■.
EN...a■■�■■�■,
er■`■■EE■■E■■■■N
■■e.i■
■.
■■.■.■
■
.......,�,
.0.I.
R■■.....■.....
■
a..
.....�
o�
.MINE
■■m■■.■■...
MEN
..
■.■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■
ONE■.
■■■..!!�!■■!�12'E■
�
"
■
.■...■.■■
.
■■N■■.E■
.■■E�i■i
■
SEE■
MOM
OE.■..■■..■
E
■■E■■■■E.■NNE*
ME
■
MEN
E■■
■■■■■■■
n0
i
i■
Immommol■■iiE
.
i
Drawing will show following: (1) Square or staggered pattern. (2) Hole layout (3) Timing (4) North Direction (5) Any unusual conditions (6) Avg. burden front line (7) Open face
(8) Location of any angled holes (9) Bore holes can be used to show typical front line or wet hole and typical dry hole showing stemming &
primer location.

rr 1I
•
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* denotes fields where innut data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: HANSON AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: CRABTREE QUARRY
Blast Report No.*: 46
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 07/10/00 Time of Blast*: 11:17
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1500.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 141.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = DNV10.5 SD = 126.32
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)A-1.6 V = f 0 7
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips) ((�1
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level ran be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.08
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1500.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 1500.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)"1.5 PPV= 0.0600
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (DNV^0.33)"-1.2 P = 0.089866
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P12.9 x 104-9)log x 20 P = 149.82
R ^" r
AB = Confined Airblast/Overpressure (dBL): AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= r� 14.825
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB - . �a� dBL)

....-,�..:�:u.-
.a=:��•

0
•
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1 * 5800.00
Total hounds of Exr)los. #2* = 600.00
Ratio between explosives = 9.67
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 138.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = 123.72
Explosive #2 = 14.28
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1 * = 0.85
SPD for Explos. #2* = 125.00
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)12
LD for Explos. #1 = 4.62
LD for Explos. #2 = 680.00
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 26.76
Explos. #2 = 0.02
Total explos. column height = 26.78
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 10.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = �3r78,
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* = �3�00O
Analysis Completed By: Date:

0
0
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* = denotes fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: HANSON AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: CRABTREE QUARRY
Blast Report No.*: 47
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 07/13/00 Time of Blast`: 12:55
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1500.00
W T Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 287.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = DNV"0.5 SD = 88.54
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)"-1.6 V = 00:12
(*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.07
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1500.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 1500.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)"1.5 PPV= 0.0700
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W"0.33)"-1.2 P = 0.119076
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10"-9)log x 20 P = 152.27
AB = Confined Aftlast/Overpressure (dBL): AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation)
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = 4M_ dBL)
AB= �r11.27t1

0
4D
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
refer to Dupont Handbook for actual SPD, otherwise use the following:)
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1* = 7360.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = NIA
Ratio between explosives = NIA
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 149.00
O�onl"Jo ..o of a ends of o ploni..nn nnr tinln 4n rn4in•
W. nv�mi �� arcraoac pvi�nU v� vxN,yorrca Noi nvIc UUa w Nmw.
Explosive #1 = 7360.00
Explosive #2 = NIA
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1* = 0.85
SPD for Explos. #2* = NIA
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LID = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)12
LD for Explos. #1 = 4.62
LID for Explos. #2 = NIA
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 32.22
Explos. #2 = NIA
Total expios. column height = 32.22
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 8.00 ki
ex n A
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = 40.22�,
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* =' X00,
15V'15� e
Analysis Completed By: Date: 1

E
LAND QUALITY SECTION BLASTING ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
(* = denotes fields where input data is needed)
Permit No.*: 92-03
Permittee*: HANSON AGGREGATES
Mine Name*: CRABTREE QUARRY
Blast Report No.*: 48
Peak Particle Velocity Check:
Date of Blast*: 07/18/00 Time of Blast*: 13:06
D = Distance to closest offsite occupied structure (ft): D* = 1500.00
W = Maximum pounds of explosives per delay (pounds): W* = 319.00
SD = Scaled Distance: SD = D/W^0.5 SD = 83.98
V = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second): V = 160 (SD)"-1.6 V W0:13
. (*max. limit in mining permit is: V = 1.0 ips)
Based on known distances from the blast to the seismograph and any additional location,
the expected vibration level can be estimated at the second location as follows:
V = Particle velocity measured by the seismograph (ips): V* = 0.07
DS = Distance from blast to seismograph (ft): DS* = 1500.00
d = Distance from blast to second location (ft): d* = 1500.00
PPV = Theoretical peak particle velocity at the closest offsite occupied structure (ips):
PPV = V(DS/d)^1.5 PPV= 0.0700
Airblast (Overpressure) Check:
P = Unconfined Airblast/Overpressure (psi): P = 82 (D/W^0.33)^-1.2 P = 0.124167
To convert (psi) to (dBL): (P/2.9 x 10^-9)log x 20 P = 152.63
AB = Confined AirblastJOverpressure (dBL): AB = P (dBL) - 35 dBL (for quarry situation) AB= D117'N61
(*max. limit in mining permit is: AB = QA_ dBL) V,

0
E

0
0
Explosives Column Check:
(this is a very approximate method based upon numerous assumptions;
specific densities may vary greatly depending upon the type and manufacturer
of the explosive products used in the shot; must consider each explosive used;
rPfPr to nunnnt Hanrlhnnk fnr ar:firal RPr) nthPrwi-qP imp ihP fnlinwinn•1
Assumptions (per Ireco):
If "straight" emulsion is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.20
If a "blend/slurry" is used, use SPD (specific density) = 1.25
If "straight" anfo is used, use SPD (specific density) = 0.85
Ratio between explosives:
Total pounds of Explos. #1" = 5000.00
Total pounds of Explos. #2* = 4000.00
Ratio between explosives = 1.25
Average pounds of explosives used per hole (pounds)* = 155.00
Breakdown of average pounds of explosives per hole due to ratio:
Explosive #1 = 31.00
Explosive #2 = 124.00
SPD = Specific densities for each explosive:
SPD for Explos. #1 * = 0.85
SPD for Explos. #2* = 1.25
HD = Hole Diameter Used in Shot (inches): HD* = 4.00
LD = Loading Density (pounds per foot of column): LD = SPD(.34)(HD)^2
LD for Explos. #1 = 4.62
LD for Explos. #2 = 6.80
Explosive column height for each explosive (feet):
Explos. #1 = 6.70
Explos. #2 = 18.24
Total explos. column height = 24.94
Stemming height used in shot (feet)* = 6.00
Total height of explosive column(s) and stemming in the hole = CiO:��4IIJNj
Total depth of hole denoted on the blasting report for the shot in question* =. 33r001)
Analysis Completed By: Date:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
September 18, 2000
Mr. James R. H. Sprinkle
Hanson Aggregates East, Inc.
P.O. Box 13983
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
RE: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry
Permit No, 92-03
Wake County
Dear Mr. Sprinkle:
The review has been completed on the shot records you previously
submitted for the July 10, July 13 and July 18, 2000 blasts at the Crabtree
Quarry. Your company has been found to be in compliance with the blasting
requirements of your mining permit. I have already notified the complainant,
Mr. Joseph Hail, of our findings.
Based on the descriptions of the blasts you provided and on our
review of the shot records it appears that adverse reaction to your blasting
operations may be related to elevated airblast readings. While these
readings are within the maximum limit specified in your permit they are
sufficiently high enough to produce "nuisance" complaints. I strongly
recommend that carefully review the blasting procedures employed at this
facility and make adjustments to reduce offsite airblast levels, such as
increasing stemming lengths and avoiding blast on cloudy days.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Sincerely,
Judith A. Wehner
Hssistaf t Jldle IviiniI g Specialist
Land Quality Section
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.
Mr. Nigel Wills - 100 Crescent Centre Parkway, Suite 1240
Tucker, Georgia 30081
LANs QUALITY SECTION (91 9) 733.4574 FAX I91 9) 733-2876
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P.O. BOX 27697, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1 -7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUN}TY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/109a POST -CONSUMER PAPER

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
September 18, 2000
Mr. Joseph Hail
4008 Oak Park Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry
Permit No. 92-03
1 h 1.. I P` .....-.4. .
V V alKe %Cou IIj/
Dear Mr. Hall:
Our office has completed its review of Hanson Aggregates Carolina,
Inc.'s shot records related to the July 10, 13, and 18, 2000 blasts at their
Crabtree Quarry, It was found that Hanson Aggregates Carolina, Inc. was
within the blasting requirements of their mining permit.
All peak particle velocities, a measurement of ground vibration with
units in inches per second (ips), were well below the maximum allowable
limit of 1.0 ips specified in Hanson Aggregates Carolina. Inc.'s mining permit.
More specifically, all recorded values were at or below 7 per cent of the
maximum limit of 1.0 ips. According to extensive research by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines and others, particle velocities below 0.5 ips effectively
eliminate the possibility of any structural damage.
All airblast readings, a measurement of the atmospheric pressure
wave (overpressure) with units in psi or dBL, were below the maximum
allowable limit of 128 dBL specified in Hanson Aggregates Carolina, Inc.'s
mining permit and well below the U. S. Bureau of Mine's recognized level of
164 dBL for prevention of glass breakage. A key point worth noting is that
glass breakage -occurs at much lower levels of overpressure than structural
damage, such as cracking plaster.
However, we did note that airblast increased with distance. We have
brought this to Hanson Aggregates Carolina, Inc.'s attention and have
suggested that they adjust their blasting practices to further reduce noise.
LAND QUALITY SECTION (91 9) 733-4574 FAX [phone]R76
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]
P_O_ Box 2705A7. RAI EIGH NORTH CAOnr INN 2761 1-7697 TELEPHONE r91 9) 733.3a_33 FAX ..,
AN EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% 'RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSYUMSR PAPER

0 •
Mr. Hall
Page Two
Thank you for your interest and patience in this matter. Hopefully we have answered
your concerns adequately. If you should have any additional questions or concerns please
advise at [phone].
Sincerely,
jl�6001-tv
Judith A. Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.

�y]yA
fa
o 1 0
I
ji,
�Spp'
v�
l�
17

,,, lit

HANSOM AGGREGATES EAST
CRABTREE QUARRY
R.O. BOX 52039 - RALEIGH, NC 27612
BLAST REPORT
Project: & UC;7, ,'o?^ Location: &a' / g� Date:
Shot No. Seis. No. �a �` V Time Fired
Scale Distances Particle Velocity
Dist. To Neighbor /1 Max. Lbs.IDelay
1. Type Rock L-Z'-X-, 7, Sub -drilling 3
2. Type Drill a �� /, i _ 8. Height of Bench
3. Bit Size9. Stemming
4. No Holes .5- 10. Burden
5. Total Drill Ft %' 94.t i � _ 11. Spacing /
5. Drill Hours oL 3` 12. Open or Buffer
L_nr- L^vSIVES
CAPS
Type
Pounds
Delay/No./Ft.
Delay/No./Ft.
c.
To--,
IF��od -I
- c ,
CA lei
S
3:>
i
Total Pounds
Total Tons or CY
0 11 Pnrfnr
BACISB�EAK FRAG�N
Minor{�air-_�evere Goo -Fair- Lo ���odar�a�te-Qk
WEATHER DATA
1. Inversion below 5,000 ft. (AGL) Base ,- /0 o
Top -
2. Temperature to wipe out inverson .
U
3 Expected High
4. Temperature at time of shot
5. Winds:
Surface __, 7 5.000 ft.
'2,000 ft 1 10,D00 ft. 1
Blaster:
Foreman Superintendent:

07/14/2000 07:31 15704550626
VIRRA -T EcR •
11�V11.tioo Adndawan� Lpau
PAGE 02
Event Report •
Vawr r nne
Vert at 12:59:57 July 13, 2000
Trigger source
Geo: 0.0300 in/s
Range
Geo :5.00 In/6
Record Time
4,0 sec a1 1024 sps
9arlal Number 3197 V 2,5 MulVseis V
Battery Level 0.9 Volts
Calibration March 16, 2000 by VIBRA-TECH
File Name E19783UK,3X1
Notes
Locatlw—n:
Client;
CRABTREE UUARRY.RALEIGH,NC,
HANSON AGGREGATES CO,
Veer Name:
VIBRA-TECH/CONT.CI;LLUTAR RECORDER
Converted:
July 13, 2009 14:04:3a (V4.02)
E>dended Notes
Post Event Notes
AAlcrOPhoro Linear Weighting
PBPL tl17,c B(L) at 3,833 sec
ZC Freq 2.0 HE
Channel Teat Passed (Freq 4 20.0 Hz Amp = 580 mv)
Tram
Vert
Long
PPY
13.027.5
~21—•"5�1-
0.0450
0.0350 lnls
ZC Freq
gq �Hi
Time (Rol, to Trig)
0,324
U58
0,200 sec
Peak Acceleration
0.0398
0.0530
0.0331 g
Peak Displacement
0.00014
0,00016
D.00016 in
Dynamic Goo Cal.
Passed
Passed
Passed
Peak Vector Sum 0.0488 lNs at 0,304 sec
MIcl-
Long
Vert
Tran
! SSM RM10507 Ai,W vaitiiRE
Frequency (KX)
Tran: + Vert: x Lang: a
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Time Scale: 0.20 see/dly Amplitude Scala>, Geo: 0.0200 In/s/div Mic 0.00050 psi(L)Idiv
Trigger - ►-- — —4
PAAfAA•. I.A. 11 Min MAa2,A(PI1 Format Coovriahted 11146.190
nn
0.0
0.0
0.0

07/14/2000 07:31 15704550626
ViBRA -TECH Event Report
PAGE 03
Th. YlbraNw Mratmrinl IMAM .
DatalTlms Tran at 13:0C:46 July 13. 2000 Serial Number 3354 V 2.5 Multi5ais V
Trfgggr source Gao: 0.0200 iris Battery Level 6.9 Volts
Rafkga Gee ;5,00 in/8 Calibration March 16, 2000 by VIBRA-TECH
Record Time 4.0 sec at 1024 sps ffi8 Name E35483UK.5A1
n9C@O
Location, CRABTREE QUARRY,RALEIGsH,NC,
Client; HANSON AGGREGATES EAST
User Name. VIBRA-TECHlCGPtT.CELLU_AR RECORDER
Converted: July 13, 20M 14:04'AS (V4.02)
Extended %ot60
RECORDING LOCATION' SET LIP ON GROUND APPROX.100 FE
ET WEST OFTHE RES, AT 3904 OAKPARK ROAD, RALEIGH. NO
RTH CAROLINA.
Post Event Notes
u
Q
d
Microphone Llnear Weighttng
PSPL kfi7. B(L) at 1.593 sec
2'C Freq 3,0 Hz
Channel Test Passed (Frmq = 20.0 Hz Amp = 480 rnv)
Tran
Vert Long
-
PP'V
0.0250
0.0150 S6. O. Q2Sr0" iNs
zc Freq
�28 2 " 23�Hz
Time (Rai. to Trig)
`6.'883
0.000'"`""0:3181"-6sec
Peak Acoeleration
0,01W
0.00583 0.0133 g
Peak Displacement
0.00013
0.00011 0.00016 in
Dvnamlc Goo Cal.
Passed
Passed Passed
Peak Vector Sum 0.0300 in/s at 0.083 sec
WeL
Vert
Tran
,
1.0
Ui9BM t't 8507 And OSMRE
s T. No velocity above 0.04 In/s
i
I
4� _.
2.0
Frequency(Hz)
Tran•. + Vert: x Long, o
Time Scats: 0.20 secldiv Amptitude scale; Geo: 0.0200 in181div Mic: 0,00050 psi(L)Idly
Trigger - 10-- — --411
Printed: July 13, 2000 IV 4.D2.4.021 Famiat Capyrighted 1998.1990
3.0
4.0
t
0.0
0.0
010
0.0

377 Carowfnds Blvd., Suite 112 VI -BRA -TECH ENGINEERIS' 803-548-3066
Ft. Mill, 5C 29715 BLAST AND SEISMOGRAPHIC REPORT FAX: [phone]
nClient _^[y 1�r3-f o -7_
I I Job Location O
B
L
A
T
D
T
A
S
E
S
M
0
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Date - O J Blast No. Time— 41
Exact Blast Location __d «!Jc_ r Fe?-
No. of Holes Diameter �� u� in. Avg. Depth }'ft. Subg'rade
7f
Spacing _ I _ ft. Burden ft. AVgg.. Stemming � 0�
_ M 3.y S O14e>1 /" t y7 31�" /hS
Make & Type of Explosives:
f � Qu-rt� .*,a
Ibs.
�i a As -- - lbs.
I A5P)4 to 13'pej 7x<A _. _ o lbs.
Ibs.
Total Explosives
Seismograph No, 7 V, _
Exact Seismograph Location
Ibs
Delay Make MS
f x
/
Delay�pe t dos.l�t..sl�y�-2
a op- f,
Min. Delay Period_ 02 5'~
% D O O ms.
Max. Lbs./Delay Period ._ , ,1� Ibs.
ti
/
Blaster--��S r�
Weather ��r'�•E�_
_ _ -
Wind direction & Sri 4
A)
Seismograph Distance & Direction fromi6la t
Peak Overpressure . dB
Meters+'.
Peak Particle VelocityQ'1_ ips
Comments:
LEverlert Onl
Range/Gain Setting ipsrigger Level
41N
Operator
Cassette No

n
f�
E
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST
CRABTREE QUARRY
P.O. BOX 52039 - RALEIGH, NC 27612
BLAST REPORT
?roIect p,^ Locations_ A 4 1,kU bate: G�7
Snot No. / jS®ist•No Time Fired 14 /9_2
Scale Distance g�`/r _ Particle Velocity o U
Dist To Neighbor /.;fbD ° Max. Lbs./Delay
Type Rock�,�,r�,;7t 7, Sub -drilling
Type Drill /iwr)r4v 1,
8,
Height of Bench
_ 3a - 3
Bit Size `/'
9.
Stemming
Co -:iu`
No. Holes ST! _
10.
Burden
e?
Total Drill Ft. 2 !
11.
Spacing
Drill Hours ��'�15E
12,
Open or Butler
EXPLOSIVES
CAPS
Type�
Pounds
DelayfNo./Ft.
Delay/No.IFt,
n
c Ve V 3,�y XA
�f
T oial Pounds
Total Tons or Cy
Powder Factor
SACK EAK
k,lino atir evere
F�NTATION
od- air -Poor
WEATHER DATA
Loud-Q,od'eratp buiet
1 Inversion below 5,000 ft. (AGL) Base i/41U
Top
2 Temperature to wipe out inverson
3 Expected High
Temperature at time of shot 9�c
".indS.
-Surface CG 47 ! 5,000 ft. 4140! s-
2,040 ft. 10.000 ft. !
Blaster:
Foreman. Superintendent:

0
t
a#i
-_}.•'F
I ;l.
{�..
._Y.
I
Y+_.:'�'5.'�ri•i
It
r
�..
11
-,-irr
.I-�-1' -r-•rir
I r T' ,� • •],-I
r,-', .:
r i ,
i r^—
.I.-•.:.
I
1
.-
�.1:P1mr1
.r_«„�'
.�-t-rt
1"S
I - .I ,'I
-
Mf
Tr
i
�.._'i-i_'
I
_
!'IL
rt
.
r t
-rrr
r,'
}•+T .i ..{ 1-
I.,-.: I ,
{ . L.. L.
I
t
�r
i111
1ltl
I,',-'•l
T..rrrrr
#
1- -r
r.,
...
1
- i
r f f
--
I
Tj
rryr1'
!:
I
�_
{ r
-I
-}-
i {. -}
i r #, n
-{-
I
�-:
'-;.
r:i-rl.r 1
'.'y
1.r.r.
,,.,..,._•.�.__
rl� :!',
I
?7 ,..
- _ •'
�:;
.1-.:
r T
,
t ,�
f
�r
�'
- 4 �1'
77
a
1
r,
r.
t
I..It
.,,
, .. .... .::
�. ...
..... .......
1
. . I -'-I-
, .,
�}}
iT
..� . 1
�.,
r''7r,�.'y.
-m -I-t.
Y:t-
�
�n•1
'r.
!
rl ._
,.rl-,.. ..I
: :.�
I -. _.... --""•
....
I'
I�'•r
I : - I:: I
r
11
.�'•=ii-
'I'I'
-rT
�'
..
L-I-
rTTT'1'-f-.j
�r�-l�'
:
�'
„'
t I ?-'-
-11'r1
-. -, �F
-
_ _
-
..L�:
L-:
f r
I11II.
R
i1
f
' .. V- - ...
- ..
1-^-•--'
i
i
I
Tr
L
'Yr
11 77
'
-r
i
-
•rr
rr
Yt.-._.-
r r
-t-
r ' ' I I'
rT•'
I - I
I
I. ,
'..1-�
:{..
I'
rl {.,•,',
I r
:I:t
T
+
y
Y I'
Y
'• 'I,
-
.p
d
r .r
1-„I -
y111
'I'1-t'T
4,,
,
I
+-�'-'I�•-,
1'' 1
i 1
i t
'
r
h
't
r f i
i'J"�.>.'
TY"i
i
I
I
I I i'
r1'i I
�T1
: y#.
;..l-T
I
-F
f.+'1 ,-
T
i..
.....:.... I -
}
f
1 '
f r
'F
-
h-.
-tTr'.•'
' ± -r
1r
-, r, r
rT t _
-
.
..........
1 1
..ay.
r
- -I'I'
• 'r
' 'I'
rr7
'I""Il'
•, 1
-t I
rr , 1�
I 1 :T i
r I I
T
r
'I
. . . . . . ..
..... ...
...
t:�!
rt I i-
L I
J I-11
+
'1.T.«
t... r
t
.. .. I
_ �-
r-
.
_-
�..4.Lr
,
- U-.-
-
--
1'
T
s
-
a
1
1I i
i 1
1.T1-L.
TI
I I
I'�'
T
. �.
..........
II:
�
`.
.
I�
..I�
#
r
!
I
f
T
11 {
r{ 1 ! I
,
........
{ ... � • v
....
•'1.
' I:..._...._.
.
': , r-
I-
.
r.t.l
.
..i j"
-{"
y
�
�
.:.:
T
:�
'T :1: t
{ I -'
1 V • r
I,.:,',..,
IT'
' ..
r ..
:::...'..
,
,
r'•
�...
r
1,#r
-r.j.}L.r}
irlr{riii
i+Ii
I-,.:',•,
...,
I.. ..
-
1
rP_
r r ,
,
t�-�::,y
.
_ .
--'1'•
..
_
#
-'!r
i-
Y ` +�
-I-Itf-
,-•-rr,
- r
I-'-1,
T
'I'
Y 1 III-
........,
-I
1
... ._.�
.. :
..
I -tom.
:
}!. - -P
i1
I "r
..t t��
..r
'1
,1�
1
��."
ti• -Y
.r
Ii
»ri
-, r7-!
-7�r r
I I-Lr
7-I
I I r...l.
I
r'
.
T I
�_1'..-'.,.'
...... _
}4
L
4
1_
1 i .,
_.
11
T•
"i,-}'+"t'i
i'
'rY'
_ _'
-}
11
'1'#'
•".Y
Yt
1' -1
_
#1I
I I
- I
1 1
t
I
Ilt
I
r r
T.
k
1
#
i{ is
,7+I
t
#
�I
i
V
t
-,
Y
...
r,
r r i-
I
f r
I: -
_
r
_--*~�
-Y».T
.-
'i[-1„i
r r
i,
�:
. r
t•
I..
..
......_.::.:� ...{...,...�.......t-•.'rn
rrt,'1-i'Irr
ri�i
I i
r-'
I
....+
-
.�
_� -�•-
_....
- r
-
I
I
I
I'
I
- •_
tilt
- t
t•}. Yi.-...
rT
r rr_
�.r
7
.,.T�•
.T.
,. 4
r
77
.: I
_77_
I'
�
-
r
r L"r
t
:.
'�'-I•'
1
TI
+•�
1
t�I
T..
- -t' T
i-r.:
,
"' t
iT
r
}
I
r
I
- . .... ..:......
...... . I'...
......_,
.. ..-
i-4C,'k-1-,.r
•
.{'t-
'r
-
,'�
t• ,..,.
.r
..
t-r
' ,',Y
-*x� 1
I- " I:I,I
i.�.l.:I
g1:I.I„ ::
.,. .Li....: ;
.'....... V
I. :...,....
�
I'I
iI.I''•.#
#
,Y�
I
I.
r
,T
i
1 I I
II
x
L7.
-
a.
j
• _
_
"I
;
Ijjr
1 !
-
-�I
I i
..
..:..:._.._
.:-{-r
,:
$
�-I-r
•' i
, rt
..I1
.........
..........
'
Y-
I
'rri* ,
T 4-,
I
1
1 J �r..�
'
,-�
T 'R
t--S
..
r
.YY'.�
!-{-t-
1 i i I -
'I_�I
•-... ....
I
t—r^I—L-
-'I--•-c
i i
1 r
-
t
�' - -
- r
-
I I'
1
,�1
�-
ri,
...},
'-rf-
-}-..'
.�
t
'Cj"j.
•t-t
I
I
1
I7-•
I-.
.r
:.
I
IT
I r
I
. I
.
4r
I
"
i
�'it-t
......
\
C /�
Y. :_r•
I #
L:
1
I
- r{I
'I I
r.
'r-i
�-{ tT
t fI . _
'r-r
!
�.
'a't Y:f
«
.1 1 .-I-
i'',rr
.�+�-{.
,•r-+-r
'r'T
'�{!r
:i-r7
,
S-..•..
1 f
I 1
.
.........
_: r I
...::....:'.
.. ......
,-
1
.*.,
1
_—
I
I I
1....
77,
_.. .:-.,-
--.-..
trr«I
7.47lt4t-;L-�.I-Ir'.,'•r.�.:.::.,I
....I.....,
..
j
-
I
� i
_I
,-.- , rt
- -1�
L
1,
-•--•-__I
r
I�1
I
�-
tiTFI:,
_elyY rr-r
r7#It
77
i_i
r

07,120/2000
10:01 15704550626
VIBRA -TECH
iv %Ontinn m—b. y 13wu
DaterTime
Tran at 13:10:40 July 1 B. 20DO
Trigger Source
OvQ 0.0200 In/s
Range
Get :5,001nis
Record Time
4.0 sec at 1024 sps
Event Report
Serial Number 3354 V 23 MuMeis V
Battery Level 7,0 V¢Its
C44ttsratiw March 16, 2000 by VlBRA-TECH
File Name E354843T.XS1
Notes
Location:
CRABTREE QUARRY,RALEIGH,NC.
Client:
HANSON AGGREGATES EAST
User {dame:
ViBRA-TECNICONT.CELLULAR RECORDER-' -
Converted:
July 18, 2000 14:00:33 (V4,02)
Extsn"d Notes
RECORD4NG LOCATION: SET UP ON GROUND APPROX.100 FE
ET WEST OFTHE RES. AT 3904 OAKPARK ROAD, RALEIGH, NO
RTH CAROLINA.
Poet Event Notes
k
u.Mrv..ti....w�hl�iny„l•,tin„n
�IIwI ,mooZY ub
PSPL 122 dB(L) at 1.797 sec
ZC Freq 28'Hz
Channel Feet Passed (Freq a 20.0 Hz Amp = 474 mv)
Tran Vert Long
PPY 0.0300 0 200 0.0150
WS
ZG Freq �4357� �_ 47�
Hz
Time (Rol, to Trig) 0.229 0.265 0.096
sec
Peak Acceleration 0.0205 0,0133 0.0133
g
Peak Diaplaeement 0,00011 0.00009 0,00011
'n
Dynamic Goo Cal. Passed Passed Passed
Peak Vector Sum 0.0319 inls at 0.229 sec
USSM R1860T And OSMRE
s 10 20
Frequency fl-&)
Tran; } Vert x Lang: e
PAGE 06
K
MiCL
k ,r
i.ao•. .- ,.,.wcrs—�c...�.-.--� 1 I r
� _r-�v"--o•r-1
0.8
Long
T
Vert
y jc �l t �,..-- ,. - -...� .� _
T.. _ _ _.. ---
0.0
T
Tran
7 TM.A .�,�). � *dbr+.�..�« ....-� - .-.-�..-.�___-__r...w...�.,
.__..
0.0
1.o z.o 3.0 4.o
Time Scale: 0.20 socldiv Amplttude Scale: Goo: 0.0200 inlsldly Mic: O.00t00 psl(L)ldiv
Trigger n 1~ — ---4
Printed: July 18. 2000 IV 4.02 • 4,02) Format Copyrlghtad tHS-1 Dog

37/20/2000 ?0:01 15704550626
VtBPA T>E;CH
Ike R.".4
Dati0ims Vert at 13:09'.49 July 18, 2000
Trigger Sourca Geo: 0,0300 inla
Rang% Geo -.5.00 inls
Record Time 4.0 seC at 1024 aps
Event Report O
Serial Number 3197 V 2.5 MultiSais V
Battery Level 6.9 Volts
Gallhration March 16, 2000 by VIBRA-TECH
File Name E197843T.WD1
Notes
Location; CRABTREE QUARRY,RALEIGH,NC.
Cllent, HANSON AGGREGATES CO.
User Name: VIBRA-TECHICONT.CELLULAR RECORCITR
Converted: Jury 18, 2000 14:00:32 (VCO2)
Extended Notes
RECORDING LOCATION: SET UP ON GROUND AT THE SOUTH
ERN CORNER OF 5501 DURALEIGH ROAD,THE COMMONS AT
CURALEIGH RIDGE,RALEIG H, NORTH CAROLINA
roar QVen[ rrotee
Microphone inea fWelghting
PSPL �1,1'4+dB(L) at 0.309 sec
ZC Freq WA
Channel Test Passed (Freq = 20.0 Hz Amp = 584 mv)
Tran Vert Long
PPV
0.0400---0 0660-0.0475
inls
ZL Freq
�2!i ' ~-�tc30 -
Hz
Time (Rel. to Trig)
0.288-6'3jr, '0.417
seC
Peak Acceleration
0.0597 0.106 0,0597
g
Peak Displacement
0.00020 0.00014 0,00008
in
Dynamic Goo Cal,
Passed Passed Passed
Peak vector Sum 0.0806 Inia at 0.311 sec
NIA: Not Applicable
USSM RISS07 And OSMRE
PAGE 07
0 05-H K I x
i s 10 is sa 100 }
Prequsncy (Hr)
Tran: + Vert: x Long: o
MicL
F �
i
LongI.�ar1..N,y.wSµ+rw..ww...,.....,,.«.....,+�w....,.«.....w� ....
, ' 11
I •
T
Vert Ll iij�MIA ��1'1111�}}YJ��f;VMki+h4,MM�h�1Wh1NJ1�Ji�4�11'+1'rl�'M+W4'iHA�..............
AWhi4W,t44A41 W�VWHL4W�14Wd4WAW�WrW+�1V�41A`..._�
Tran
— ---- -- }— ; -i-
�� t .6 2.0
Time Scale: 0.20 sec/div Amplitude Scale: Geo: 0 0200 in/s/div Mia 0.00050 psi(L)/dIv
Trigger a ►-- -- --4
PnRUO; July 10. 2000 (V 4.02 • 4,02) Format Capyrighted If"-1040
s.0 a,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0'�v 0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
July 14, 2000
Mr. James Sprinkle
Hanson Aggregates East, Inc.
P.O. Box 13983
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709-3983
RE: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry
Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Sprinkle:
.This office recently received a complaint directed at blasting practices
conducted at the above referenced quarry. According to the complainant,
Mr. Joseph Hail, the blast at Crabtree Quarry conducted on July 13, 2000
was excessively loud.
As provided in the mining permit for this site, you are requested to
provide to this office duplicate copies of all shot records related to the blasts
conducted on July 13, 2000 including any seismograph records made.
Furthermore, please forward all shot records for one production shot
conducted immediately prior to and one production shot after these blasts for
review.
I I^I Irsnoe4 w I I rlierI tee Fhio moor Lari+h I1Ar W-mil Wie 7rir1roee 7nr"i
1 2%A �Jj JGJL YOU UIJLiL.iJJ U 110 11 IGILLGI •1ILt 1 ITII I. 1 IGI I1. 1 IIN U""I V u11V
telephone number are as follows:
Mr. Joseph Hall
4008 Oak Park Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
(919) 7.87-5235
LAND QUALITY SECTION (919) 733-4S74 FAX [phone]B76
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SECTION [phone] FAX [phone]oo
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1-7687 TELEPHONE [phone] FAX (919) 71 S-8801
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER- SO% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER -PAPER

Mr. Sprinkle
Page Two
I look forward to receiving the requested information in the near future. Your
continued cooperation will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Judith A_ Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
rrrr• hAr inhn Wr%llnir D C
vv. 4rn . kiwi n 1 a w11c—Y I . �.
Mr. Joseph Hall
U

�4
&,-du V-
1:
1I �f�'JVJ�(///1//_/J�J�I //l'I /7 A'-l^r
- /. V V�
1
dr
'Jot � rQF
EI A � � • /� l � ��w
1 / A
1
I
' Jf1f1

, i rr.

9
CREEK CREEFC W^TER,E3HEQ
PROJECT SPONSORS County of Wake (funding sponsor)
Wake Soil & Water Conservation District
Durham Soil & Water Conservation District
City of Raleigh
ASSISTED BY USDA Soil Conservation Service
N.C. Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 11 Floodwater Retarding Structures
. 3.2 Miles of Channel Excavation
PROJECT STATUS 9 Structure and
All Channel Work Completed
Structure
23 Under Construction
(92% Complete)
Structure
25 Remains to be
Built
PROJECT COSTS
SCS
Wake County
State
Total
million
dollars
Completed Structures (9)
4.0
5.5
-
9.5
Structure 23
3.5
1.1
0.5
5.1
Total
7.5
6.6
0.5
14.6
Structure 25
4.5
4.3
0.3
9.1
Total Project
121'0
10.9
0.8
23.7
PROJECT BENEFITS Flood Protection
for urban
and
industrial areas
in Western
Wake
County and
the
City of Raleigh
Recreation with over 650 acres of lake surface
SITE 25 AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED
Tome a F anne ' i I he I nra+gad off 1),ira I g i gh Ro
G` � � rJ � I r� :;' i
i ii � t�aiii i yr .� i �v 4.v �.v p � ad
adjacent to the Nello Teer Quarry. The structure will control
stormwater runoff from a drainage area of approximately 15,590 acres,
which represents roughly 26% of the controlied drainage area for the
entire Crabtree project.
As originally proposed, Site 25 will function as a "dry"
structure. A dry structure refers to a dam that retains no permanent
impoundment behind the embankment. Floodwaters are impounded only
temporarily during and after a significant rainfall es_eRt_ FnIlowing
the accumulation of stored runoff, the entire volume of storage is
released .in a controlled manner to prevent downstream flooding. This
type of structure provides for use of the entire reservoir area
(retarding pool) for activities capable of tolerating temporary
flooding.

r
2
During a 100 year storm event, the temporary impoundment area
behind Site 25 will encompass 390 acres, 292 acres of which lie within
the boundaries of Umstead State Park. In order to facilitate the
construction of Site 25, it will be necessary for Wake County to
obtain a flood easement from the State of North Carolina over the area
lying within Umstead Park.
In an effort to secure certain flood easement privileges over
park land, Wake County and State administrative representatives agreed
to a specific plan of action. This plan called for joint financial
participation of the County and State regarding the acquisition of
approximately 97 acres, adjacent to Umstead, earmarked for inclusion
into the Umstead system. The County's portion of this priority
acquisition was intended to serve as mitigative lands necessary to
fulfill certain "conversion" requirements as prescribed under current
provisions of the deed for Umstead Park. Immediately following the
acquisition of this tract, the conversion proposed was forwarded to
the Department of Interior-•- National Park Service for review and
approval.
Recently, several questions have been raised concerning the
environmental impact this flood control structure could possibly have
on the flood pool area lying within Umstead Park. The National Park
Service has requested that these concerns be addressed before an
option can be rendered concerning the adequacy of the current
conversion proposal.. -
ALTERNATE OPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SITE 25
As part of the evaluation process relative to the environmental
concerns, a promising option concerning Site 25 has emerged — the
possibility of using the existing Nello Teer quarry in lieu of
constructing a standard embankment structure. A sizable portion of
the runoff from significant storm events would be diverted directly
into the quarry for temporary impoundment and storage. This diversion
action is to be accomplished by the 'installation of a diversion
structure or weir in.Crabtree Creek. Immediately following a storm,
the stored runoff will be evacuated via an elaborate system of pumps.
The pump system will provide for a controlled release or discharge of
accumulated floodwaters. The quarry will be pumped down in a timely
manner to provide sufficient storage for subsequent rainfall events. -
This concept is contrary to the original design for Structure 25.
The original design called for an embankment structure which would
temporarily impound relatively shallow floodwaters over a 390 acre
area behind the embankment. With the quarry option, floodwaters would
be _s to r ed w i -it Ike i n tho 1 1 i is wf the q;aa rry, ,�, ,�����. I I %ut V. ry Ae ep area
-- 14 acres - top surface area by 270 feet in depth. Using the quarry
virtually eliminates the temporary inundation of lands upstream of the
quarry site, subsequently eiiminating•the need for certain easement:
over privately owned lands and lands within the Umstead Park System.

3
Listed below are brief comparisons of the original design and the
quarry alternative. Key components to the development processes are
compared and briefly evaivated.
Feasibility Study — Preliminary results of an engineering evaluation
of the quarry option.by the USDA --Soil Conservation Service indicate
that use of the quarry in lieu of an embankment structure,is a
reasonable alternative. Information regarding the proposed maximum
expansion limits of the quarry reveals that, upon its completion, the
quarry will have a flood storage capacity equal to or slightly larger
than the capacity originally planned for Site 25.
Although the system of pumps that will be needed to evacuate the
quarry is expensive,'the Soil Conservation Service is estimating a
significant decrease in construction costs if the quarry option is
pursued. Preliminary cost projections for the quarry option are
estimated at $2 — 3 million dollars as compared to the original cost
estimate of $4.5 million.
Landri_ghts Acquisition — As originally planned, Site 25 would require
that certain landrights be acquired over approximately 390 acres.' The
quarry option eliminates the need for any flood easements or fee
simple acquisitions since there will be no significant impoundment of
floodwaters beyond the perimeter of the quarry.
Landrights costs originally estimated at $2.S million would be
reduced to a nominal fee since the Teer Corporation is prepared to
donate the quarry to Wake County immediately following abandonment.
Teer plans to exhaust its resources at this pit within 3--4 years.
Road/Utility Modifications_ — Subsequent road and utility modifications
will also be necessary if Site 25 were implemented as initially
planned. Said modifications include the concrete encasement of any
existing sanitary sewerlines as well as the upgrading of Ebenezer
Church Road.
Costs associated with these modifications are borne by the
primary local sponsor, Wake County. The costs are projected to be
slightly above $2 million dollars. With the elimination of the
embankment and related temporary inundation around Ebenezer Church
Road, these modifications are no longer necessary.
Assessment or c.nv iTonmeni tal impacts — With respect to the initial
_mp,..a�_ _
design of Site 25 and the temporary inundation of park lands,
environmental concerns have recently become a controversial issue.
Although the State and County have reached a understanding regarding
the environmental issues, the National Park Service maintains that
additiona•I environmental concerns must be addressed before they will
grant the conveyance of a flood easement over park lands. Such
information is to be presented in the form of a supplemental
Environmental Impact -Statement.

4
Even with the timely completion of a supplemental EIS, there are
no guarantees that,the necessary easements within Umstead Park will be
conveyed. NPS could rule that the current conversion proposal is
inadequate, thus denying the flood easement so essential to completion
of the project. This type of action on behalf of NPS would force the
local sponsors into an extended period of litigation with the
Department of Interior.
The quarry option eliminates the temporary impoundment of
floodwaters within Umstead Park, thus eliminating most environmental
concerns.
Additional Benefits - The proposed quarry option features additional
benefits which deserve mentioning.
First, using a pumping system to evacuate the pit after a
significant rainfall will allow for increased control over the
discharge of stored floodwaters.
Second, additional flood protection benefits can be derived,
particularly with smaller storm events, should this design change be
implemented.
Third, regulated discharge of stored runoff could be - used to
Rummnnt flow in C=rabtrgA rrank during extended parinri� of rirniigh+ hr
low flow conditions.
The Teer Company has also expressed the willingness to entertain
offers on behalf of the City of Raleigh regarding the acquisition of
additional acreage north of -the existing quarry for the establishment
Of a city park.
Related Issues -'One very important issue -of this proposal is that the
Nello Teer Company be permitted to establish a new quarry operation on
the portion of the Teer land south of Crabtree Creek.
This mining operation would necessitate the realignment of the
Duraleigh Road Extension Project. As originally planned, the roadway
project would bisect the tract Teer intends to mine.
Nel'lo Teer has presented two alternate alignments for this
roadway project and has offered to dedicate the right-of-way to the
City. The right -of --way is currently valued in excess of $0.5 million
dollars.

5
SUMMARY
uvera i { , using the IVe I I O leer q:iiarry in { I eU of d Vdlll for Site LJ
is a very attractive design •alternative. The following table provides
a brief overview of both development options.
Development Phase
Structure Design
Landrights Required
Landrights Costs
Construction Costs
Original Design
"Dry" Dam
flood easements
and/or title to
approximately 390
acres (292 lying
within Umstead
Park)
estimated @ $2.5
million
estimated @ $4.5
million
Utility Modifications $60,000
Road Mod i f i cations
Environmental
Assessment
estimated @ $2.0
million
highly controversial,
will require
supplemental EIS,
will probably result
in an extended
period of litigation.
Quarry Option
"Retention" Structure
all landrights
(including quarry)
will be donated by
Teer Corporation to
Wake County.
$2 -- 3 mi I I ion
virtually eliminates
the environmental
impact on Umstead
State Park, less
controversial, will
require a significantly
reduced environmental
assessment.
The quarry option could prove to be a viable solution to a highly
controversial project. Wake County and the Soil Conservation Service
are actively pursuing the quarry option. Potential environmental
concerns are being investigated. In addition, engineering evaluations
of the hydraulics of'the quarry system including the channel,
'
diversion structure, allya evacuation pi.iliipa are coin{ iru { irg. If, ,:pv••
compietioR of these studies, the quarry option proves to be a viable
alternative, the final design of Site 25 quarry option will begin.

CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED
STRUCTURE No. 25
_a DAM
CHEEK
AV
ice\ � J oJQ�
I� SRO CLEARED 1
O

CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED
STRUCTURE No. 25
QUARRY OPYtON
__ CREEK
!I
DIVERSION STRUC
WEIR
o �\
Y

I
Crabtree
Creek.
Watershed
{QUARRY PIT ALTERNATIVE
T4 STRUCTURE 25
II
y
i
n APRIL, 1988

INDEX
PAGE
SECTION
1
CRABTREE CREEK PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . .
3
SF.CTTON
2
QITARRY PTT VP.RSITS GTRTTrTITR17 25, DAM . . . . . . .
3
SECTION
3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF QUARRY PIT IMPOUNDMENT
OF WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
SECTION
4
SITE GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
SECTION
5
METHODS OF HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . .
8
SECTION
5.1
HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
SECTION
5.2
CHANNEL HYDRAULICS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
SECTION
6
PLANNED QUARRY PIT STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . .
10
SECTION
6.1
WEIR OUTLET CHANNEL . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
SECTION
6.2
QUARRY SPILLWAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
SECTION
6.21
EFFECTS OF DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS . . .
. 14
SECTION
6.3
QUARRY PIT STORAGE REQUIREMENTS . . . . . .
15
SECTTQN
A A
CITTARRV PTT PTTMPTNC_ RPf11TTPm_4ENTC
15
SECTION
7
COST ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
SECTION
8
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
MAY, 1988
PAGE l

APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . CRABTREE CREEK CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WATERSHED MAP
APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . MAP OF NELLO L. TEER MINING PLAN
APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . PLAN VIEW OF QUARRY PIT STRUCTURE
APPENDIX E . . . . . . PROFILE OF CRABTREE CREEK WITH DESIGN STORMS
APPENDIX F . . . . . . . MIXING RATIOS FOR QUARRY PIT WATER QUALITY
FIGURES
PAGE
FIGURE
1
WATERSHED RESPONSE TO THE
LARGEST FLOOD
OF RECORD
4
FIGURE
2
PLAN VIEW OF QUARRY PIT
FLOOD CONTROL
STRUCTURE
11
FIGURE
3 .
. . . . PLAN VIEW OF WEIR
AT QUARRY PIT
STRUCTURE
i2
FIGURE
4 .
. . . FLOOD FLOW DIVISION
AT QUARRY PIT
STRUCTURE
17
TABLES
PAGE
TABLE 1 VELOCITIES AND ELEVATIONS IN CRABTREE CREEK AT 9
QUARRY PIT SPILLWAY FOR THE 100 YEAR DESIGN STORM
TABLE 2 . . . STAGE VERSUS STORAGE FOR THE QUARRY PIT 16
MAY, 1988 PAGE 2

1.0 CRABTREE CREEK PROJECT OVERVIEW
In 1964, the Crabtree Creek Work Plan was approved by both the
Sponsors and Congress. Since then nine floodwater retarding dams have
been built, one is under construction and the last, which is discussed
in this report, is in planning. See Appendix A for a chronology of
events for the development and implementation of the Crabtree Creek
Work Plan. Currently, Structure Number 23 is due to be completed in
May of 1988 and Structure Number 25 is the only one remaining to be
built. This will complete r � l ( 1 1) F1
t+ a system o� eie'v'eia \i1� &t u`wuui L
retarding dams which will benefit the City of Raleigh and surrounding
urban areas (See Appendix B for map of watershed).
Structure 25 was originally proposed to be a dry dam in the Work Plan.
This Structure has met with considerable local opposition due to its
storage of flood waters on Umstead State Park land. It has been
proposed that a local Quarry Pit owned by the Nello L. Teer Company be
used to store floodwaters and thereby replace Structure 25. This
proposed change to the Work Plan is the reason for this report.
Figure 1 shows the effects of this project on flood elevations at Blue
Ridge Road and Crabtree Valley Mall for the largest storm on record.
Crabtree Valley Mall, which is the largest mall in the area, is about
two miles downstream of the Quarry Pit Structure site. The bottom line
Ir ed) ill Figure 1 g-L the rise and Ldll UL �7 trC d7Tl WcltC1 4u1111 �' this
flood if all structures, including Structure 25, were installed. Note
that the Quarry Pit Alternative and Structure 25 will function
similarly and this plot will still be valid. The blue line above the
lower red line shows the flood elevations for this storm if Structure
25/Quarry Pit were not installed.
2.0 QUARRY PIT VERSUS STR 25 DAM
The Quarry Pit Structure will be designed to function like the
originally planned Structure 25 dam except that it will not raise the
level of floodwater in Umstead State Park above that experienced
MAY, 1988 PAGE 3

236
cn
Lu
:::- 232
0
co
224
w 220.1 -
0
0 216
u-
i
i
C FIGURE 1:
fn- '\vcad\data\largefld.2d' spool fn- '\vcad\spool\largefld.spl'
CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED
(Data Supplied by SCS, 4/i9B7)
(P-tot=10.01 in., P-i day=5.7 in., AMC III, 8/2411908)
I j W/0 PROJECT �-
_� W/O STR 23 & 25—
i � W/u Z3 1 m do�—
T
1U" ` " 2u 30 �..� 4U .� 60 t..� 60 i 0 I��
III'b III"b III"b Ep"b I11 b Ili"D iH b
ULUE RIDGE ROAD AND LLWER MALL AREA to-72j
WATERSHED RESPONSE TO LARGEST STORM OF RECORD

without the Quarry Pit Structure. The release flow from the Quarry
Pit Structure will be equal to that of the planned Structure 25 dam
release rate (3046 cfs). Therefore the original Work Plan economic
analysis of downstream benefits will still be valid and need not be
modified by this change to the Work Plan.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROCEDURES
There are no known adverse environmental impacts to this alternative
at this time. Preliminary concerns were expressed during initial
consideration of the alternative. Subsequent review of baseline data,
dilution computations, and on -site inspections indicate these initial
concerns will not materialize into adverse effects.
The first concern was the effect of a waste water treatment plant,
located about 5 stream miles upstream of the Quarry Pit site, on
surface water quality. This waste treatment plant at Cary has an
average daily release rate of 3.04 (4.7 cfs) million -gallon -per day
(mgd) at present. They currently are permitted for a release rate of
4 mgd (6.2 cfs), but have applied to increase that permitted rate to
16 mgd (25 cfs). The average mixing ratio for the 100 year storm is
523 to 1, for the 5 year storm is 502 to 1, for the 2 year storm is
389 to 1, and there is no flow into the Quarry Pit for the 1 year
storm. The above mixing ratios indicate the number of parts of flood
water that would be combined with 1 part of effluent discharge from
the Cary waste treatment plant during the described storm frequency.
These mixing ratios use the current average daily release rate and are
given in Appendix F. The large amount of mixing combined with pumping
the pit dry after each storm should assume no detrimental
environmental effects to surface water quality.
A second preliminary concern is centered around the effects of this
same waste water treatment plant on groundwater, should seepage occur
during storage in the quarry pit. Preliminary on --site investigations
and historical records of groundwater seepage into the pit during
quarry operations indicate no groundwater seepage to or from the
MAY, 1988 PAGE 5

quarry pit. Prior to final actions on this alternative determinations
of potential seepage as a result of increased "head" will be made.
Should these investigations indicate areas, stratas, etc. which would
yIle yuVJV 4V Vt�, py VG aeepP.b4, appropriate measures W1L1 VG -GY UpCu
to minimize seepage as necessary to protect groundwater quality.
A third preliminary concern deals with public safety with and without
the quarry pit alternative. The present scenario is that quarry
operations will cease in the next few years resulting in an abandoned
quarry with depths of up to 250 feet. The mere presence of such a
site is a potential public safety hazard. Should the quarry be used
as a temporary flood storage reservoir, it seems reasonable that the
A J.VG WV4IA J. VG illy lLLLVLGt+ more �.LVaGLy than it would VG if abandoned.
Frequent visits by people responsible for operation and maintenance of
the site would provide an official "presence" at the site and would
serve to discourage public trespass. Use of site as temporary
floodwater storage reservoir should have positive impacts on public
safety by these frequent visits.
Effects on environmental issues including fish and wildlife habitat,
riparian vegetation, water quality (sedimentation during
,tr ction% i nd si and 0mot. J 11.
call iJ LLul.LlVll J, l U use ITV LLVerJtVll, al1LL VLL,er Lssues generally
associated with impoundment construction should also be positive as a
result of the Quarry Pit alternative. Construction activities and
other disruptions associated with large impoundments would be
unnecessary if the quarry were used as a temporary reservoir.
The environmental review proceps planned for this project entails the
following:
1. S C S Will serve as environmental coordinator among
participating groups and agencies. These include Nello Teer
Company, N.C. Department of Transportation, N.C. Department
of Natural Resources, and others.
MAY, 1988 PAGE 6

2. Meetings with various groups and agencies will be conducted
to gather respective environmental concerns, issues, and
resolutions.
3. These will be incorporated and compiled into the
environmental assessment for the Quarry Pit alternative.
4.0 SITE GEOLOGY
Crabtree Creek watershed lies in the Southern Piedmont Physiographic
Region. The Quarry Pit is located about 4.5 miles east of the
inactive Tnnesboro fault in a se-uence of rock k^ the C 1 . Carolina .. �.
slate belt. These rocks are a complexly interlayered sequence of
high- to low-grade metamorphic rocks. They are orientated in a
northeast -trending belt that is locally known as the Raleigh belt.
The low-grade metamorphic rocks are located close to the Jonesboro
fault. The Quarry Pit is located in a high-grade metamorphic rock.
The rock unit is a felsic gneiss and schist and is of late Precambrian
age. Generally, the rock which is mined at the quarry is
light-colored and medium grained felsic gneiss. It is a durable, high
grade constLµction quality crushed stone.
The walls of the Quarry Pit appear very stable and stand at vertical
slopes. The wall rock is rough and there appears to be tight joints
and random fractures. Primary porosity is estimated to be low and the
fractures are probably surface features originating from blasting in
the mining operation.
Presently, the Quarry Pit bottom is approximately 130 feet below
n�_'t�__ Creek »�_y __d,_ry _4 do and with
LLGULI.CC Creek. L ♦. L__L_L _L Llq L�/ V11-may �Le 1l[jpe[..L1Vll G111U conservation W�LIl
Nello Teer personnel indicate that groundwater is not a problem at the
Quarry Pit. Very little or no groundwater seeps into the Quarry Pit.
Further investigation may be needed to confirm this seepage potential
and determine the extent and nature of the joints and fractures of the
Quarry Pit walls.
MAY, 1988 PAGE 7

5.0 METHODS OF HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
5.1 HYDROLOGY
Floodwater peak flows and hydrographs were developed for this
watershed using the Soil Conservation Service TR-20 computer program
for project formulation. This program uses output from the WSP2
computer program as discussed in the following section along with
other input data such as drainage area, curve number, and travel
timaa to rlayelnn riinnff lhvrlrnnranhr fT-nm g+ub=watersheds a::d channel
route the runoff to an outlet.
This structure will be evaluated with the 100, 5, 2, and 1 year 24
hour series of storms. A Type IT rainfall distribution, Antecedent
Moisture Condition of 2, and a Dimensionless Hydrograph peak factor
(K) of 256 were used. Four historical storms to which flood
elevations were known were used to calibrate the TR-20 model used in
this study. The four historical storms are:
HISTORICAL
STORM
#1 -
MAY 11th & 12th of 1957
HISTORICAL
STORM
#2
- FEBRUARY 2nd of 1973
HISTORICAL
STORM
#3 -
.TUNE 29th of 1973
HISTORICAL
STORM
#4
- AUGUST 20th of 1986
J.2 CL�l- L HYDDAViICO
The Soil Conservation Service Water Surface Profile computer program
(WSP2) will be used to compute water surface profiles in open
channels. It uses the Standard Step Method for running backwater
profiles as described in Ven Te Chow's "Open Channel Hydraulics,"
McGraw Hill Co., New York, 1959.
Surveyed valley and channel cross sections, bridge data, and channel
roughness factors were input into this program along with a range of
flows. A range of Manning's "n" values will be used to check the
effects on the Quarry structure. This program uses Manning's equation
MAY, 1988 PAGE 8

MANNING'S "n" 0.04
MANNING'S "n" = 0.07
X-SECT
DIST FROM
FLOW (Q)
END
VELOCITY
VELOCITY
ELEV
END
VELOCITY
VELOCITY
ELEV
DOWNSTREAM
AREA
Q/A
HHAD
AREA
Q/A
HEAD
SECTION
(ft)
(cfs)
A
(fr2)
V /2G
(ft)
(ft)
A
(ft2)
(ft/s)
. ��u
(ft)
(ft)
o�
3046
2113
1.44
n.n3
235.0
2113
1.44
0.03
235.0
87
2180
3046
2066
1.47
0.03
235,5
2066
1.47
0.03
235.5
88
1670
3046
1392
2.19
0.07
236.3
1392
2.19
0.07
236.3
89
890
3046
1280
2.38
0.09
236.7
12BG
2.38
0.09
236.7
90
560
3046
1274
2.39
0.09
236.9
1311
2,32
0.08
237.1
DURAL RD
30
3046
1291
2.36
0.09
236.9
1320
2.31
0.08
237.2
91
35
3046
938
3.25
0.16
236.9
974
3.13
0.15
237.2
911
630
3046
735
4.14
0.27
237.2
803
3.79
0.22
238.0
911AW
5
3046
655
4.65
0.34
237.1
723
4.21
0.28
237,9
WEIR1
5
3046
366
8.32
1.08
236.6
407
7.48
0.87
237.5
WEIR2
1
1046
366
8.32
1.08
236.6
407
7,48
O.17
237.5
911 A
7
3046
672
4.53
0.32
237.3
741
4.11
0.26
238.1
911 B
LO
3046
2767
1.10
0.02
237.6
2963
1.03
0.02
238.4
911 C
37.5
4389
2794
1.57
0.04
237.6
2996
1.47
0.03
238.4
911 D
37.5
5733
2-6
2.1,10
0.07
237.6
2947
1.95
n.nb
238.4
911 E
37.5
7076
2792
2.53
0.10
237,6.
3016
2.35
0,09
238.4
911 F
37.5
8420
2809
3.00
0.14
237.5
3038
2.77
0.12
238.3
911 G
40
8420
1701
4.95
0.38
237.2
1890
4.46
0.31
238.2
911 H
25
8420
1224
6.88
0.73
236.7
1409
5.98
0.55
238.0
911 I
25
8420
1004
8.39
1.09
236.4
1182
7.12
0.79
237.9
911 J
25
8420
860
9.79
1.49
236.0
1051
8.01
1.00
237.8
911 K
25
8420
889
9.47
1.39
236.5
1048
8.03
1.00
238.0
911 L
50
8420
816
10.31
1.65
236.4
986
8.54
1.13
238.2
911 M
50
8420
718
11.73
2.13
236.1
937
8.99
1.25
238.4
911 N
55
8420
676
12,46
2,41
236.2
901
9,28
1.34
238.7
913
62
8420
511
16.48
4.21
236.2
678
12.42
2.39
238.6
913 A
250
8420
845
9.96
1.54
240.9
942
8.94
1.24
242.2
913 B
300
8420
972
8.66
1.17
242.6
1101
7.65
0.91
244.2
92
400
8420
2412
3.10
0.15
744.`2
2831
2.97
0.14
245.5
93
270
8420
2311
3.64
0.21
244.6
2571
3.28
0.17
245.7
94
80
8420
3180
2.65
0.11
244.9
3502
2.40
0.09
245.9
TABLE 1: VELOCITIES AND ELEVATIONS IN CRABTREE CREEK AND ADJACENT STILLING BASIN AT QUARRY PIT SPILLWAY FOR THE 100 YEAR DESIGN STORM

and the Energy equation to determine the channel water elevation given
a f low.
Appendix D shows the location of cross sections used to model the
Quarry Pit Structure in WSP2. Output flows from TR20 were used to
run the final flow profiles in WSP2. This is necessary to insure slow
water velocities and flat water surfaces in the stilling basin
adjacent to and feeding the Quarry Pit Spillway. See Table 1 for the
final results from WSP2.
6.0 PLANNED QUARRY PIT STRUCTURE
The purpose of this structure is to reduce the outflow to that of the
originally planned structure 25 without impeading normal flows. A
side discharge channel/spillway with its crest 9.3 feet above the
channel bottom would only allow flow into the Quarry Pit when channel
flow was at least 9.3 feet deep. A positive control of downstream
flow amounts will also be needed to ensure proper division of
downstream flow with flow into the Quarry Pit. Flow into the Quarry
Pit begins somewhere between the one year and two year 24 hour storms,
or at approximately 1400 cfs.
A plan view of this structure is shown in Figure 2.
6.1 WEIR OUTLET CHANNEL
The weir outflow structure will be installed for positive control on
the flow which continues downstream past the quarry apiylway. a
proper division of flow into the Quarry Pit and down the channel would
indicate a need for this structure. This weir type control structure
Will ais0 reduce the eSteCt$ OL cnanges in uUWII$treal[I Cv[lut[.ioll5.
This is necessary since Hare Snipe creek which enters Crabtree creek
immediately above Crabtree valley Mall causes a backwater effect
which continues upstream past this proposed Quarry Pit structure.
Also the bridge at Duraleigh road is planned to be relocated which is
about 1000 feet downstream of this proposed structure. These
MAY, 1988 PAGE 10

0
w
U]
m
w
H
Q
Y
w
w
m
U
w
w
ED
U
to
CV
0
Z
w
U
CREST OF PROPOSEQ
j� - .
b�
6�
CHANNEL WEIR TO CONTROL
�� DOWNSTREAM FLOW
R
STILLING BASIN
off\
so
d
0
z
d
a0��T�
0(L
cr
� Q�l
cr-
A01-
S�OAµORE C,
a
0
FIGURE 2= PLAN VIEW OF OUARRY PIT FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURE

CONCRETE WEIR STRUCTURE
ORIGIONAL CHANNEL CROSS SECTION
4I' A
r _ 1 SLOPE
I I 1 1
EL 224---I----------r
I ! 1 f 1 f
k I f ! f 1
! I f f 1 !
1 35' I 15' ! 20' , ' 15'
I f I I 1 I
- - - - EL 240
------- EL 225
FIGURE 3: PLAN VIEW OF WEIR AT QUARRY STRUCTURE

downstream conditions necessitate a positive control at the Quarry Pit
structure.
A stilling basin will be used to slow channel flow velocities to less
than four (4) feet per second prior to reaching the spillway crest or
the weir outflow structure. See Table 1 for these velocities and note
that the stilling basin/spillway are between cross sections 911B and
911F.
The proposed weir outflow structure will be aligned with and across
the channel. It is twenty (20) feet wide, crest elevation of 225 feet
(the channel bottom is at elevation of 224 feet making this a
submerged weir), sideslopes of 1:1, and a top elevation of 240 feet
which is two feet above the 100 year 24 hour flood level. The weir
will be of concrete set in bedrock and at least one (1) foot thick.
The weir structure was designed using WSP2 due to its large degree of
submergence at which point weir flow equations break down and channel
flow profiles become the most accurate.
See Figure 3 for a plan view of this weir outlet control structure.
6.2 QUARRY SPILLWAY
The proposed Quarry spillway crest elevation will need to be enough
above the Crabtree creek channel bottom so as to keep Quarry pit
pumping cosC s at a minimum but yet not induce any increased flooding
upstream into Umstead Park. To accomplish this will require a spillway
of considerable length. The spillway will be cut through a hard
massive sandstone which will resist weathering and other erosive
actions.
A stilling basin will be used to slow channel flow velocities to less
than four (4) feet per second prior to reaching the spillway crest or
the weir outflow structure.
MAY, 1988 PAGE 13

The Quarry spillway will be 150 feet in crest length, 50 feet crest
width, crest elevation of 233.3 feet (the channel bottom is at
elevation 224 feet), inlet slope of ten (10) percent, outlet slope
greater than one (1) percent, and sideslopes of 1:1. See figure 2
and Appendix D for a plan view of this spillway.
Flow into the Quarry Pit via this spillway begins when channel flow
reaches 9.3 feet in depth/elevation 233.3 feet. At this depth the
channel flow would be 1400 cfs and equal to the peak that is a little
more than that of a 1 year 24 hour design storm. For the 100 year 24
hour storm the flow would be at elevation 238 or six feet deep in
this spillway.
6.21 EFFECTS OF DOWNSTREAM CONDITIONS ON QUARRY PIT STRUCTURE
There are two downstream conditions which could affect the operation
of this Quarry Pit flood control structure.
The first, Duraleigh road, is not at present causing any backwater
problems since it is a pier type bridge with a large flow area.
However, this bridge is to be replace and realigned in the near future
which could change this scenario.
The second is about 8000 feet downstream of the Quarry Pit where Hare
Snipe creek enters Crabtree creek immediately above Crabtree Valley
Mall. Hare Snipe creek has a large uncontrolled drainage area which
enters Crabtree creek and causes water coming down Crabtree creek to
be several feet higher than it would without this backup at the
confluences of these two creeks. If in the future there was channel
work in this Crabtree Valley Mall area it would affect flood
elevations to up beyond the Quarry Pit structure.
The two above conditions necessitate a weir outlet control structure
at the Quarry Pit to limit the effects of changes in downstream
conditions on the ability of the Quarry Pit flood control structure to
divide pit and downstream flows as planned.
MAY, 1988 PAGE 14

6.3 QUARRY PIT STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
The storage capacity of the Quarry Pit will be taken from the Nello
L. Teer mining plans. They plan to operate this pit for two to five
years or more, depending on the outcome of this proposal. See
Appendix C for this map. The storage capacity of the Quarry Pit just
below the crest of the spillway, elevation 232 feet, is 6458
acre-feet. See Table 2 for the stage -storage curve for this Quarry
Pit.
The SCS drawdown requirements for a dam to empty its retarding pool
from a 100 year 24 hour storm by a volume that is sufficient to
contain Second 100 year 24 hour flood applied tell (1U) days after
cessation of the first will be met with this structure. Two
successive 100 year 24 hour storms were applied, ten days apart, to
this
-quarry Pit
L1VVU storage structure to insure there
hCie 1$ sufficient
eIt
capacity. The 100 year 24 hour storm has a volume of 4855 acre-feet
which would be diverted to storage in this pit. See Figure 4 for a
plot of flow vet �S"U till[e into the pit. A ,7ecolld 1VV YUUL L4 UVUL
storm would have a required storage volume of 4200 acre-feet in this
pit. The reason for this can be seen in Figure 4, where at 29.5 hours
into the storm the total channel flow is less than 3000 cfs, which is
the maximum allowed discharge for this structure. Therefore, the
Quarry pit could be full at this time and still be less than the
maximum release rate of Structure 25 dam.
From above the storage available after the first storm is 1603
acre-feet (6458-4855). Therefore 2597 acre-feet must be evacuated
from the pit in ten days in order to have a volume of 4200 acre-feet
available for the next storm.
6.4 QUARRY PIT PUMPING REQUIREMENTS
Pumping is required to meet the ten (10) day drawdown of the Quarry
Pit after a 100 year 24 hour storm. The pumps will be sized so as to
be able to evacuate enough volume to contain the second 100 year 24
MAY, 1988 PAGE 15

Use data supplied by Nello
L. Teer Company for the
projected Quarry
pit size.
DATA GIVEN
Desc
Elev
Area
Pit
Bottom
- 35 (Below MSL)
14 to 17.5 ac
Top
of Pit
240
35 to 38.5 ac
Min Stage
Storage Curve Would Be:
Elev (ft)
Area (ac)
Incre. Vol. (ac-ft)
Total Vol (ac-ft)
- 35
14
0
0
0
16.7*
537
537
50
20.5*
930
1467
100
24.3*
1120
2587-
150
28.1*
1310
3897
200
31.9*
1500
5397
232
34.4*
1061
6458
240
35
1338
6735
* Assume linear increase in area from top area (35 acres) to bottom
area (14 acres)
TABLE 2: STAGE VERSUS STORAGE FOR THE QUARRY PIT.

I ME
0
ft, qft wom—
,', 10
20
30
40 50 60
70
:
5 90
TIME IN HOURS
FIGURE 4.' PL OT OF FL OOD FL OW DI VISION A T THE QUARRY PI T STRUCTURE
FOR THE 100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM (P=8.08 inches)

hour design storm as discussed above. This will require a pump
capable of pumping 2597 acre-feet in ten days. The average rate that
must be maintained for ten (10) days is 260 acre-feet per day or 131
cfs or 58,838 gpm. Pumping will continue until the pit is empty,
which should take less than 20 days for complete evacuation of the 100
year 24 hour design storm.
7.0 COST ANALYSIS
The estimated installation Costs of this proposal are:
Outlet Weir $ 100,000
Quarry Spillway 400,000
Pumps 1,500,000
Total Installation Costs $2,000,000
Amortized over a 100-year period at the applicable rate of interest
Ok percent), the average annual cost of installation amounts to
Js
Y V / , ! V V • LLe es trrilimateu annual cost of operation a d LLa-L to LQl ce A.
$150,000, making the total average annual cost of this proposal
$217,760, compared to 310,000 for planned structure 25. The average
annual benefits of the proposed quarry pit operation amount to about
$500,000.
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
This Quarry Pit Alternative is recommended as the most viable in
economical, environmental and safety terms. It is the least costly
option by about 100,000 dollars per year and can perform as well as
the originally planned dry dam structure. It alleviates concerns of
environmental damage to Umstead State Park and does not appreciably
impede channel flow. Safety would be enhanced as all risks related to
a dam would not exist.
MAY, 1988 PAGE 18

APPENDIX A
\ ' ` CRABTREE.CREEK. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

CRABTR£S CREEK WA=HED PROJECT
Wake and Durham Counties, North Cazolirna
PROXE= SPONSORS
Wake Soil and Water Conservation District
Durham Soil and Water Conservation District
City of Raleigh
County of Wake (primary responsibility)
PHYSICAL DATA
Watershed Area 90,750 acres, with about 8,900 acres of this in
Durham County.
Population (1975) - 115,000 (80% urban).
Cropland approximately 4,000 acres.
Pastureland approximately 42,000 acres.
Urbanland approximately 42,000 acres.
Floodplain cropland approximately 250 acres.
Within the watershed are:
-- 70% of the City of Raleigh.
_ 25� �f rile T�wZ ui Cry.
All of the Town of Morrisville.
A regional airport (RDU) .
Part of the Research Triangle Park.
Interstate Hichway.
Rack Quarry. +
A state park protecting nationally significant wooded areas.
- Major ecnur-rcial and industrial areas.
- Agricultural research farms.
- A nationally recognized memorial forest.
- Significant wildlife habitat, including wild turkey and deer
range-
- Part of the Triassic Basin.
IMPORTANT DATES
- May 7, 1957 - Major flood caused extensive damage to farm and
urban property.
- September 23, 1957 - Shull watershed project application submitted
to N.C. Soil and Water Conservation Crannittee.
- February 6, 1958 - Application approved by Soil and Water
Conservation Service.
- April 15, 1958 - Authorization for planning by Soil Conservation
Service.
- May 1, 1964 - Final approval of work plan by sponsors.
- September, 1964 - Congressional approval of work plan.
- September 25, 1964 - Soil Conservation Service approval for
operations.
- November 2, 1965 - Wake County voters, by a' substantial. margin,
approved county wide watershed organization with power to levy
watershed tax.
Ild�.s 1 OC O r.T-L.. .... �+..—.. ....i �� 7 s watershed
....I, i�%aU _ ++a+% uauia�.�r 4vters approved a at MUJ '�L wS ,ru
bond referencbm.

_ - August, 1968 - Landrights carplete for fi•-st ocnstrvction.
September 8, 1970 - First const-uction contract- awarded.
June 8, 1972 - First structure acapieted.
- 1973 - Two stow of 5 to 10 year frequency produced damages in
excess of $10,000,000.
Novenber 18, 1975 - Fo=nal agreenient between County of Wake and
City of Raleigh allowing limited public recreational use of
Structure 13. (Shelley Lake)
May, 1976 - Final Envi==rental Impact Statement.
July, 1981 - Conveyance of property rights to Town of Cary to
allow development for public recreational use (Fred Bond Park).
PRGUFL'T STATUS
The project i.nwlves ccnst_-vction of eleven floodwater retarding
struc=-es designated as Site Nine 1, 2, 3, SA, 11A, 13, 18, 20A, 23, and
25, and 3.2 miles of cha ne i zation work (see Project Map) .
To date, Structures nmber 1, 2, 3, SA, 11A, 13, 18, 20A, and 22B have
been c=pleted.
Landrights acquisition for Site 23 has been earpleted and construction
was begun in April, 1985.
Annual flood darmge sho-u. r9 be reduced I— 0"M withems. A..— "
all 11 Structures. $1,020,900 (6 struc==P-s) (1977 estimate) annual damages
reduced to $175,800 (11 structures) annually.
PF,C=-
SUMMARY
(6 /30 / 84 )
Site Per$.
Pool Flood Pool
Date
SCS
Spanscr
Total
No.
Acres Acres
Carmleted
Cost
cost
Cost
29
64
5 21/76
$240,918
$ 92,039
$ 332,957
2
27
57
6/9/82
89,954
7,890
97,844
3
45
•80
6/2/72
117,999
13,594
131,593
5A
71
404
11/19/81
598,136
2,174,462
2,772,598
11A
45
118
7/17/80
381,286
561,164
942,450
13
53
143
5/22/75
476,292
506,153
982,445
18
22
77
8/22/73
242,481
23,812
266,293
20A
148
361
4/85
1,186,322
2,314,534
3,500,856
22B
56
94
6/9/76
296,117
173,714
469,831
23
519
1,157 (£stun.
Costs)
2,550,000
2,750,000
5,300,000
25
dry
392
Channel
3.2 miles
1972
36,700
11000
37,700
Totals 1,015 ac. 2,947 ac. $ 6,216,205 $ 8,618,361 $ 14,834,567

CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED STRUCTURE NAVES
SITE NUMBER
NAME
1
Sorrell's Grove Reservoir
2
Hatcher's Grove Reservoir
3
Hi -Fuse Lake
SA
Page Lake
11A
Richland Lake
13 ;.
Shelley Lake
Coles Branch Reservoir
20A
Briar Creek Reservoir
22B
Lake Lynn
23
Lake Crabtree
25
Ebenezer Church Road Impoundment
L

�� •r,u� ••SSA' :1 i; .4 �. - � _ .'
f ` iJ .,• •4
'PENDIX B,.
rti r �{ 7 �-}4. ti �,�. Rl rry-r! jS' I r rl, •f•d' .6 t• f; :pr "�•' .. r ,1 '
R''�r� r .`io _I'• try eIt . / � : ,•
5l'' .k'•'>�i• � Vie, -� k, 'f r• tt • t 'i., ••w.1 '
'��1 r'F•.lf_1>5��:j�� t7,,,A� ti 1� _�'.•,r' ,1 •� � 1
�' '4! � ` 'µ ,�+rtti _- �YN �..1 F K bJ ' 4 t , '.�; - , t•,' • : �,,.. ti : r , ry
by � ✓i[! , '.. 1 i f ,
Jli5 y�r,V n� -sy lrf �r�� Is �` 4 `1' :r i - --� •, ... -
�y6: r, s f' � � �'.I . q r i r � • M • t' •� 1 „ • „ . , r ..
t 1 jn 1- 4r -r1S r{••r t 3y '•r -•
'14 `4�1'4.,/L 1�1 Fri f+F FA ,1.r1` 1, r.. ,� ti A t( ]� � '• ". :S r'' i f I `r'
,tij' 1„4 i•QY1t to � � � - 1\ Y. r s � +s r ' , r
'� � i ir•1 r��ls�,!�ye ; � �•�- } r- t+�, y 'x , • s`t ^' _ ., 1 1 1 . - .
�'�: 1 ; l^ ti r' ,1'r ��y,� rr r ; r � I i { , ' ? wa '' S' }. 1 - .. 1• ,' rL . •, - .
fsty l✓ ti Ill�f, t`, r _ # 's- l
W A'
1 e>�,F',� �S,tl���i 4�y�!{Ja 1�,� v,•s 7rd ,a � �t� }, i ,5. ,5i -1;. _ �'s •�t � �- -1
��� 1°��zu'{�1'�J�r'•sryl•'{T�.f?�i � ` .1�r°rti` � l�� r�.,,� • %'.{ MAPr,
ERSH ED
+4,i' kr}•''.7.i'+<�fr `'Tf ,yr,,�d'r�', ;11 4 ; .. •111. ,, •. +
f ..'1 1 u•1,' � F
is
i

SUMMARY ANALYSIS
SITE 25 - CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT OPTION - NELLO TEER QUARRY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION - The Crabtree Creek Watershed Project as planned calls
for the construction of eleven (11) floodwater retarding structures
positioned in series along Crabtree Creek and its major tributaries as well
as approximately 3.2 miles of channelization work (see Attachment A). The
primary purpose of the project is the provision of necessary floodwater
protection to portions of western Wake County and highly developed areas
located within the City of Raleigh.
PROJECT STATUS - To date nine of eleven structures have been completed and
are presently providing the function and effectiveness expected. The tenth
structure, Site 23 - Lake Crabtree, is currently under construction and is
approximately 90% complete. Wake County, serving as the primary local
sponsor for the project, is in the process of gathering the landrights
necessary to facilitate the construction of Site 25, the eleventh and final
structure of the Crabtree system.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Site 25 Description - The dam for Site 25 as planned will be located
off Duraleigh Road adjacent to the Nello Teer Quarry, downstream of the
eastern boundary (Ebenezer Church Road) of William B. Umstead State Park
(see Attachment B). The structure will control stormwater runoff from a
drainage area of. approximately 15,890 acres Which represents roughly 26% of
the controlled drainage area for the entire Crabtree project.
As originally proposed, Site 25 will function as a "dry" structure. A
dry structure refers to a dam that retains no permanent impoundment behind
the embankment. Rather, floodwaters are impounded only temporarily during
and after a significant rainfall event. After an accumulation of stored
runoff has been achieved the entire volume of storage is released in a
controlled manner to prevent downstream flooding. This type of structure
provides for use of the entire reservoir area (retarding pool) for
activities capable of tolerating temporary flooding.
The temporary reservoir or impoundment area behind Site 25 during a 100
year storm event will encompass 390 acres, 292 of which lie within the
boundaries of Umstead State Park.

4
Project Costs
Estimated costs for development of Site 25 are as follows:
Survey
Appraisal
Landrights Acquisition
Utility Modifications
Road Modifications
Construction
Site 25 - Cost Estimate
County SCS
33,400
20,000
2,500,000
60,000
2,000,000
4,500,000
4,613,400 4,500,000
9.1 Mil. Total Estimated Cost
* includes additional compensation for "full" conversion if necessary
(Umstead Park Easement).
** includes modifications to Ebenezer Church Road if temporary road
closing permit is denied by N.C. DOT.
Umstead Park Issue - In order to facilitate the construction of Site 25 it
will be necessary for the County to obtain a flood easement from the State
of North Carolina over the previously noted 292 acre area lying within
Umstead Park.
In an effort to secure certain flood easement privileges over park
lands, Wake County and State administrative representatives agreed to a
specific plan action. This plan called for the joint financial
participation of the County and State regarding the acquisition of
approximately 97 acres, adjacent to Umstead, earmarked for inclusion into
the Umstead system. The County's portion of this priority acquisition was
intended to serve as mitigative lands necessary to fulfill certain
"conversion" requirements as prescribed under current provisions of the deed
for Umstead Park. Immediately following the acquisition of this tract the
conversion proposed was forwarded to the Department of Interior - National
Park Service for review and approval.
Recently several questions have been raised concerning the
environmental impact this flood control structure could possibly have on the
flood pool area lying within Umstead Park. The National Park Service has
requested that these concerns be addressed before an opinion can be rendered
concerning the adequacy of the current conversion proposal.
Alternate Option for Development of Site 25 - As a part of the evaluation
process relative to these environmental concerns, alternative options
concerning Site 25 have been considered (i.e. relocation, design
modification, abandonment).

3
One such alternative which has recently received strong consideration
is the possibility of using the existing Nello Teer quarry in lieu of
constructing a standard type embankment structure. In general terms the
quarry would serve as a large holding basin or detention structure. The
runoff from significant storm events would be diverted directly into the
quarry for temporary impoundment and storage. This diversion action is to
be accomplished by the installation of a diversion structure or weir in
Crabtree Creek (See Attachment C). Immediately following a storm the stored
runoff will be evacuated via an elaborate system of pumps which will provide
for a controlled release or discharge of accumulated floodwaters. The
quarry will be pumped down in such a manner as to prepare it for any
subsequent + �infa] i
..�1: rainfa] events .
This concept is contrary to the original design for Structure 25 which
called for a embankment type structure which would temporarily impound the
floodwaters over a widespread area behind the embankment. With the quarry
option floodwater would be stored within the limits of the quarry
approximately 270 feet deep as opposed a relatively shallow depth spread
over 390 acres. Utilization of the quarry virtually eliminates the
temporary inundation of lands behind the dam subsequently eliminating the
need for certain flood easements over lands within the Umstead Park System
as well as privately owned lands.
Listed below is a brief summary comparing the original design and the
quarry alternative. Key components relative to the development processes
are compared and briefly evaluated.
Feasibility Study► - Following a detailed evaluation of the quarry option the
USDA - Soil Conservation Service has determined that utilization of the
quarry in lieu of an embankment type structure is soundly justifiable.
Information regarding the proposed maximum expansion limits of the quarry
reveals that upon its completion the quarry will have a flood storage
capacity in excess of that originally planned for Site 25.
Although the system of pumps that will be needed to evacuate the quarry
is expensive, the Soil Conservation Service is estimating a significant
decrease in construction costs if the quarry option is pursued. Preliminary
cost projections for the quarry option are currently estimated at $2 - 3
million dollars as compared to the original cost estimate of approximately
$4.5 million.
The natural alignment of Crabtree Creek, the topography of the channel
itself, the estimated flood storage capacity within the quarry and a
significant reduction of approximately $1.5 million dollars in construction
costs alone make this a very attractive and easily justifiable option.
Landrights Acquisition - As originally planned Site 25 would require that
certain landrights be acquired over approximately 390 acres. The quarry
option eliminates the need for any flood easements or fee simple acquisition
as there will be no significant impoundment of flood waters beyond the
perimeter of the quarry.
Landrights costs originally estimated at approximately $2.5 million
would be reduced to a nominal fee as the Teer Corporation is prepared to
donate the quarry to the County immediately following its abandonment. Teer
plans to exhaust its resources at this pit within 3--4 years_

4
Road/Utility Modifications - Subsequent road and utility modifications will
also be necessary if Site 25 were implemented as initially planned. Said
modifications include the concrete encasement of any existing sanitary
sewerline as well as the upgrading of Ebenezer Church Road.
Costs associated with these modifications are borne by the primary
local sponsor, Wake County, and are currently estimated slightly above $2
million dollars. With the elimination of the embankment itself and the
related temporary inundation around Ebenezer Church Road these modifications
no longer remain necessary.
Assessment of Environmental Impacts - With respect to the initial design of
Site 25 and the temporary inundation of park lands, environmental concerns
have recently become a controversial issue. Although the State and County
have reached a understanding regarding the environmental issues, the
National Park Service maintains that additional environmental concerns must
be addressed before they will grant the conveyance of a flood easement over
park lands. Such information is to be presented in the form of a
supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
Even with the timely completion of a supplemental EIS there are no
guarantees as to the conveyance of necessary easements within Umstead Park.
N.P.S. could rule that the current conversion proposal is inadequate thus
denying the flood easement so essential to completion of the project. This
type of action on behalf of NPS would almost certainly force an extended
period of litigation between local sponsors and the Department of Interior.
The quarry option eliminates the temporary impoundment of flood waters
within Umstead thus eliminating most environmental concerns.
Additional Benefits - The proponed option r��r�-�Lu quarry o�Jt1UL1 features a few additional
benefits which deserve mentioning.
First, utilization of a pumping system to evacuate the pit after a
significant rainfall will allow for increased control over the discharge of
stored floodwaters.
Second, additional flood protection benefits can be derived,
particularly with smaller storm events, should this design change be
implemented.
Third, a regulated discharge of stored runoff could be used to
augment flow in Crabtree Creek during extended periods of drought or low
flow conditions.

E
SUMMARY - Overall, utilization of the Teer quarry in lieu of a dam for Site
25 is a very attractive design alternative from several aspects. The
following table represents a brief overview of the characteristics of both
development options.
Development Phase
Structure Design
Landrights Required
Landrights Costs
Construction Costs
Utility Modifications
Road Modifications
Environmental.
Assessment
Orisinal Design
"Dry" Dam"
flood easements
and/or title to
approximately 390
acres
(292 lying within
Umstead Park)
estimated @ $2.5
million
estimated @ $4.5
million
$60,000
estimated @ $2.0
million
highly controversial,
will require
supplemental EIS, will
probably result in an
extended period of
litigation.
Quarry Option
"Retention" Structure
all landrights
(including quarry)
will be donated
by Teer Corporation to
Wake County.
$2 - 3 million
virtually eliminates
the environmental
impact on Umstead
State Park, less
controversial, will
require a significantly
reduced environmental
assessment.
With this proposal it would appear that Site 25 could be built at a
reduced cost of $2 - 3 million as opposed to the initial estimate of $9.1
million, a reduction in development costs of approximately $6.1 million.
The installation of Site 25 would complete the Crabtree System, thus
providing the necessary floodwater protection to western Wake County and
Portions of Raleigh:
The quarry option provides a viable solution to a highly controversial
project and is currently endorsed by CDS staff representatives and USDA -
Soil Conservation Service officials. Should the Wake County Board of
Commissioners concur with staff recommendations it is anticipated that
County staff will be directed to actively pursue this option by finalizing
design and Landrights acquisition as well as addressing all related
environmental concerns.

l,- ,�\• FDA _Si63_AG �. t' •� - - ` 1 -.:.� � P +- r
DA 73B6,AC.- = i-•�� { :ice �'�- f _'�� �'�,T _
�', - '� /"" a'1``��., i r�'\ •[-_1l•r'�,. -:M r :�%'-D%1:.219 AC/• � f_• 1 .�.. .... ...
�pr1320 A� - li . �_�\��.. ,.� , \� � :.',, ,-� � J - � �• `j .' � '•T' �' �L1i-1i, % .J: j ,�-- j J � ..1 =
D-A t•7E0 AC / : //.1 yi
\`�1-'_ ''�"-r'��j •, ~ ,� Y, •`~ f •••`•' j �f 3
3A
�iE SC AC. ��._:y,:'�= -`�_���' --- 'l� .\ ♦ �! D:7320.AG _ f,•�'—•—�t—•: �% ...` I �' �`• •' 1 _ 1 =
PFORCT MAC , ` '1• ^ -�-
CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHEDAIA
ACV(�� DJFHAM AND M'a,(C COaNTXS
y
NORTH CwROLJNA
. ... .:ram. •l �. . -. .. ....... ......
- _ n ^+.♦y_ t -.I. ✓�"� � 1� �[�'IffO wTR)17h1t •t:

CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED
STRUCTURE No. 25
1l� Fpt'E�G
j1 c0 Arl r RP n
--- N

LAL
0

l�
J
III
(�I
t
-rw
f
'z1sb-7 oL
_i
�I
f
fll -'

A
f
i1J� '• -
�\;\`,-<
1�.. �t` � r 11t, � -, y j3]yI
� .
_ �. .\_ * ��,,� � , .��
� S � yi "4 ��' _ �4I; � •� .� `\J�y.
� J \;
�4tjyF�' } � l _ .� "'�, -�' 1'l1
`J
1
II
t ! +
F`
i
IF
4

i
i
SEA TuRTLE INN
4
One Ocean boulevard
Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
[phone]
Fax: (904)2,47-1517

r
li r
1

Neigl hors
fight plans
for quarry
Continued from page t B -
ulations because the pit was there
before the area was zoned resi-
dential. Company officials con-
tend the exemption also applies to
99 acres on the south side of the
creek, .which have large deposits
of stone.
But city leaders say opening
dnotherquarry south'of the.creek
is an illegal expansion :of the
mining. The council fired a warn-
ing broadside in September.
urges oy resroems, ine councu
passed a resolution alerting the
company that the council intends
to Pnforce tl!e zoning ,zoning
The permit is contingent on the
company's meeting local Toning
regulations
If both parties maintain their
present position, we may be on a
collision course," City Attorney
Tom McCormick said.
Wayne Phears, an Atlanta at-
torney- for Teer, declined to give
the company's timetable for open-
ing the new quarry, but said the
city's action will not alter it. In its
permit application, a company
official said-Teer plans to mine
north and south of Crabtree Creek
in the next 10 years.
"Tcer's plans are no different
than they have been — to mine the
full extent of mineral resources on
the site," Phears said.
Phears said he is puzzled that
Teer is encountering opposition
from the council, which supports a
Wake flood -control project that
acquiring � e existing
quarry. He said the council is
protecting the interests of a small
group of residents at the expense
of the larger community that
would benefit from acquiring the
-quarry for free.
Teer has offered the quarry to
Wake County as a gift — but only
if the company is allowed to mine
south of Crabtree Creek. The City
Council endorsed the flood -control
plan last year, but included the
caveat that it did not imply rights
to open a new quarry, McCormick
said.
Meanwhile, county officials
have begun design work for flood
controls at the existing quarry.
But they are adamant that they
are not working behind the scenes
to pressure the city to !et Teer
open another quarry.
"The actors have attempted to
pull the county into the battle,"
County Manager Richard Stevens.
said. `We have resisted vigorous-
ly.,,
The existing quarry is 400 feet
from the nearest house. The pro-
posed quarry . would be 750 feet
from the nearest residence, Teer
officials say. Because of the in-
creased distance, the company
does not expect to change its
blasting procedures.
Residents fear blasting at a new,
quarry would disrupt their lives "
and damage their homes. They
would like to settle the dispute
before the first fuse is lit.
Still, most n.rticinanfs
the dispute will end up in court,
Whether that occurs before or
after Teer begins miring new
ground remains the question.
"We are now in the city limits of
our state's capital ,and it is time
to put an end to this nonconform-
ing use," Heaton said. "The land
surrounding the quarry is all
residential and it's time that the
residents get some peace." ,

Hayes gaIle theamenihis watch,`
f}v0 bracelets and his wallet con
lhining $300, according to reports
found a car matching
;
•°�'Officers
R Nissan's description in Carr
born soon after the robbery and
arrested three Durham men. A
fourth man in the car was not
thought to be involved in the
rybbery, Thompson said.
f1
Arrested were Carlos Toraln
j
2P, of 17D5 Collier Drive; Charlie
ROi
tJunior" Artis, 29, of 3230 Jackson
t.; and David Lee Marley, 20
ias A&eal Jamahal Lunsford, of
k6 Kent St.'Artis works as a cook
at Meadowbrook Manor on Mount
Sinai Road and Marley is a
t r
student at Durham Technical In
Aitute• according to the arrest
report.
Jewelers and Silversmiths Pst W hed 1881 '
Certified G-1.gL— • AonA— Gem Society
Cameron
Village in Raleigh, North'CaroU— • Phone [phone] .
------------------*— —
[ would like Specialty of the House Recipe
Book(s) at a cost of 18.95 each.
Specialty of the House Recipe Book (each) $8.95
Postage (each) 250
N.C. Sales Tax @ 1.06 (each) + 54
TOTAL. (for each copy) ' $11.99
(Number of Copies) x
Total Amount enclosed $
NAME
:LPLEASEPRNn
ADNESS
MY ST zi . . ` ' ENONE .. ..
` Y

Plans o i new
y �" ti � k
i
4P
pit T..,eer against' city
By WADE RAWLIN .
Staff writer
RALEIGH --- The first-time Jill
Rurngarner Heaton's daughters
felt the blast, they fell to the
ground and put their hands over
their heads as they were taught in
earthquake drills in California.
It wasn't an earthquake,
though; it was life as usual for
several hundred Duraleigh Road
residents whose floors vibrate
routinely from dynamite blasts at
the nearby Nello Teer quarry.
Wow n ctnto nArrnit thnt wmild
}
y
- r
�„ -
t
allow Nello Teer to dig a second,ik� 'l
quarry at Crabtree Creek has. h �
rekindled concerns in Oak Park
and Laurel Hills. Raleigh City
Council members are plotting
legal strategy to stop it,
"The neighbors are, somewhat".
nervously watching,' } Heaton
said. "It's definitely a tense atni&..
sphere, A quarry is really very+ .4.4
incompatible with residential)
neighbors.77 w
Nello Teer operates its quarry-
North of Crabtree Creek under an ­'-'i
exception to Raleigh's zoning re =:.�I {
See NEIGHBORS, page 3B

i nompson saia.
+Although the victims and suspects were acquairio-0 , Thtthpson.
said that the case is not "the traditional acquaintance -type rape"
-for several reasons.
x . In a typical case,only two people are involved and the victim
and suspect know each other and may be. dating,. Thompson said.
Police think the two women met their attacke' rs Saturday night.
Police would release only limited information because investi-
gators are still interviewing the victims and'talking to suspects
and passible witnesses, Thompson said. He did say, however, that
neither the victims nor the suspects are students. `
-, The women met their attackers outside Chapel Hill shortly
before the incident, Thompson said. They then went to the
apartment at Walden at Greenfields on U.S. 15-50I, which police
thinly was rented by one of the suspects. The rapes occurred about
a.m. Saturday, according to reports, but the entire incident
lasted several hours, Thompson said..
"I would think that there wa&a' -good probability that they were
not free to leave at any time," he' said. '
Police would not'say how the women escaped, but said that they
bath reported. being raped to a separate -agency, which referred
fhe ease - t o the Chapel Hill police Sunday.

Ik NEWS & OBSERVER
B"i
!! - THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1994
vuarrynei
nDors ask...-cit. to ue,
tt
_
aWake
Northwest Raleigh residents
g
Count wants to use
y
council to settle the old controvert
the cannot ex ihd U City At-
y p y
Ijl2�tl�Z!
li# i"I7 ',37 �' `' _
don't Want the leer Co. to
Teer's existing pit to [rap storm-
water in the event of a major
Sy once and for all.
"We want the city to push for'
torney Thomas McCormick said .
'Wednesday
ixr�9rj':Sfila
dig a second on
Crabtree Creek flood that other-
legal clarification, instead of just
McCormick said he doubts a
'!
pit
Duraleigh Road.
wise would submerge major roads
allowing them to creep across the
judge would lake the case unless
and inundate creek -front property
creek and continue to industrial-
Teer begins quarrying south of the
9YMATPHEW EISLEY
throughout Raleigh.
ize the site," said .lilt Heaton, an
creek and city inspectors cite the
sTA W M
Teer says it needs to open a new
Oak Park resident and neighbor-
company for it, forcing a legal
'
pit across the creek first so it can
hood organizer. "There's a fear
confrontation.
"
RALEIGH — Northwest Raleigh
continue to do business. It has the
that there will be a big hole there
Should the city sue, Tecr lawyer
residents are fighting a compa-
required state mining permit.
before anything will be done."
Ward Nye said, "I'd feel comfort-
ny's request for governmental
That's the last thing neighbors
The flood control plan has
able with the case."
blessing of a second rock quarry
in Laurel Hills and Oak Park
washed up'an old disagreement,
Raleigh's City Council warned,
next to Duraleigh Road.
want. They're pushing the City
centered on whether Teer has the
Teer two,years ago that opening ajh
in a recent letter to city and
Council to take Teer to court to
right to expand its operation to the
pit south of the creek would-r
Residents along Duraleigh Road don't care to have another Teer
county officials, the Teer Co. said
it wants their OK this year to
keep it from opening the second
quarry.
south side of Crabtree Creek.
So far, the city has been on the
violate the land's residential zon Py_
ing — a classification the city'n"",
Quarry; shown here, near their properties.
-' •'
complete plans for'the transition
Sixty of the neighbors met Tues-
neighbors' side:
__... _.._..,-......�. _,.....:
•^Phe riW. —ifinn is still that
Srr 01-2V enra 5B i

ZB
'�{�p�` Try,
l l lJl ll 11�111.J
THE ND'S S 6MEHv�e .
THURSDAY, OCTOBER I ill 994 '
Good rnaaners can . take ou far
y
and save
y our face
id 1 ever tell y'all-about the time
to return to the right side of my face... -
Poor table manners, folks, is a national
'slice butter or dip gravy.'In fact, I think
toothpicks. Or brooms.
`my Aunt Lot shot me?
_
I ' Then I started laughing. No, she hadn't
I crisis. But you don't have to take my word
the bell that opens the gate to hell is not a
Which got me thinking: What is the
f Well, at least I thought she had.
knocked me senseless. I was just so glad
far it. Oprah, that national�arbiter of
bell after all, but a loud, obnoxious burp.
proper way to get rid of a piece of al-
li! - -See, she was from up North =
- —. to be alive after that
what's important and what ain't, liad a .
- A businessman once gave me some
ready-beenporkchop.stuck in
iWashington —and was visiting us, her
r
- horrific sock on'the
whole show dedicated to good and bad
good advice, after I'd asked for a loan:.
your teeth? Do you swallow it? Spit it out?•
,country relations m Roekmgham, for the
t. _ _ jaw. For the longest
manners. - :
' Never let anyone know you're broke, and
'.you
Askfor a doggie bag and take it home for
;summer. Somehow she goi ii inio her .
head that she'd teach my.9-YZ-eld self
!propere tiquette —the correct knife and
t lime afterward, f
6{�''/�'�� .would duck every time
1�� :she entered a room _
Now, f am no Miss Manners or.Letitfa •
Baldrige, a couple of prissy busybodies
who spendtheir days worrying about
can go far with impeccable [able
manners. Accidents will happen, though.-
Like when I dropped my spoon and
a midnight snack? - -
I went to dinner at a pricey restaurant
recently with a very rich businessman.
.: v.,.., ...-
and feet on the table, how to sip soup
�� And 1 haven �., .:, a-
i ;.. 2y about creamed corn
r.,,r, .,,c „apnu, �, � .,� p,ac � ,,,
your collar or on your lap. I've never giv-.:
splashed soup on the',.... a......15,roxt to
me at lunch after hearing that my pal,
..,......a.,..,bows
T. Bass look polished by comparison - c�
iwithout slurping.' •-
since. `. '
en such inanities asecond thought. Shoot,
, WTVD-1 l sportscaster DwayneBallen, is
Right about the time he cut loose with a '-
$ On this fateful day, I was hunched oveim,
UU .But I'll tell you one -
U.•ii�i�-
.I used to think a person was pulling on ..
leaving the station.- . -
belch that sounded like the foghorn on an
;elbows on the fable guarding the plate the
.Thing: Whether or not �
- SAUNDERS
airs if he just wiped off the top of the wine
�. There are three things I can think of
ocean liner, I vowed never to be seen in --
nvay you've seen inmates do in i million I
she was in the room
bottle before passing it on.
that should be done in privacy. Modesty
public with him again. But when the wait.
:prison movies. (Me, I can usually tcli ii a
tfellow has been a guest of the state: justby
-
- (room, hell, the state is
. more like it), fnever let my food gel near
But I've changed in my old age. Now I
-,know there has to be a special place re
prevents me from mentioning two of
"them. The third, though, is picking your
er arrived, my companion did something;
that changed my mind — briefly. He
watching him cat.). - '
'the e.dgebfa plate again. '. -
served in hell - or at least on thefront ` •
teeth. It used to be that only the most
. reached for the check.
• I admit my creamed corn was perched
No way am I championing better eli-
roivof a Michael Bolton concert— for
common, low -born person would even
Unfortunately, he only wanted to tear
-perilously close to the edge of the plate,
quette'through child abuse, but it is obvi-
people who talk with their.mouths full of a
'think of employing a toothpick — or the
off a piece to dislodge some chicken from
his
about to tall off. I saw it: but before I
?us some people could benefit from hav-
half -chewed piece of pork chop; which
strawfrom a broom — to publicly dis-
teeth.
- could push it to,the center— POW! -she
ing had an Aunt Lottie or somebody who
they invariably spray onto your plate.; Or
'lodgi �ineat that got stuck in his or her
- Got a tip for a story? `Kant to talk to.
sof me. 1 heard the blow -before I. felt it,
ince it took a few minutes for the feeling.
was interested in leaching them proper...
I table manners. - I
who use their torks to spear a piece of
roast beef from the serving platter or to
teeth.�Now restaurants actually encour-
I ' age theabominable practice by providing
Barry about this topic — or an bin
I else? Call him at 836-2811. 9

r
J
'_k-..'QUARRY'
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 S
gave the land after Teer already
V TT ►{VM
But the city has grandfathered
the northside pit because it exist-
ed when the city's planning juris-
diction first encompassed, it in' the
1970s.
';r tl+at +hP sntith-
side quarrying should be . grand
fathered, too. This summer the
company rebuilt old sediment -cal-.
lection ponds there, which it con-
siders extensions of its. mining
operation.
The company can keep digging,
out rocks in the existing quarry
for another 25 years, but it would
like to switch sites soon so it Can
let the county use the first pit, Nye
said. ' The company has about 64
million tons oIL f -Lone ►GLL, ind %A.ulr,
both sites. The northside pit al-
ready is. deeper than sea level.'
The conflict puts Wake County
in a bind, because it wants the
existing Teer pit for flood control-
The News & Observer
but doesn't want to get involved in
the zoning fight.
Ruleigl1. w­ nntc; to nrntect, the
neighborhoods - it let spring up
Around the quarry, but the city
may not. be able to stop Teer's
expansion. -
"If there is. any quarrying al-
lowed on the south. side, these
neighborhoods will be made unin-
habitable," quarry neighbor Anna
Wooten -Hawkins said. `
Council members Paul Coble,
Mary Watson Nooe, Charles
Meeker and Geoff Elting attended
the neighborhood meeting' Tues-
day.
The council's Public Works
Committee plans to discuss the
matter Oct. 26. Thelbree-member
committee will ask to tour the
site, Meeker said.
Teer officials say they have the
right to dig a'second quarry, but
they'd like to .work out a flood -
control agreement. with Raleigh
and Wake County.
A federal program that could
help fund the, $3 million flood -
control project is winding down,
county and Teer officials note.
"It's a hell of. a chess game,"
said Don - d'Ambrosi, executive
vice president of Envirotek,. a
Raleigh land -planning consultant
working for Teer. "It will be a
crap shoot if it becomes a legal
confrontation, because there's a
lot at stake on both sides."

ROBERT M. WILEY JR.
NEW YORK — Robert Mason Wi-
�y Jr:, 39, died Friday, Oct. 7, 1994.
e is the sun_ of Mr. and Mrs' Robert
i. Wiley of Rocky Mount, N.C. and
randson of the late Mr. and Mrs.
rancis E. Winslow, also of Rocky
►aunt.
In addition to his parents, he is
)rvived by his companion, Gilbert
ole'of New York City; sisters, Mar-
Wfley Kennett of Durham, N.C.,
elen Wiley of New York, N.Y:, one
lece, Katie Bennett; aunts, Mrs.
A ion Sobbitt of Rocky Mount, N.C.,
irs. Oliver Crawley of Raleigh.
.C., Mrs. Wroe Lynch of Brackett -
Ile, Texas; uncle, Dr. Francis E.
linslow of Raleigh, • N.C.; many
wsins and friends.
He graduated from The Episcopal
igh School in Alexandria, Va., in
773, Columbia University in 1977,
id'the Columbia School of Journal-
m in 1978. He was the co-author of
any books, among them The Prep-
r Handbook and, more important -
Inside Oscar: The Unofficial His-
ry of the Academy Awards. He also
as the author of many articlesin,
agazines and newspapers on sub-
cts connected with films and re-
ews of videos:
In lieu.of flowers, donations in his
CHARLES F. KOLB
June 24, 1914 - Oct. 12, 1994
GARNER —, Charles Frederick
Kolb, 80, a retired professor of Histo-
ry and Political Science at N.C.S.U..
of 313 Loop Road, died Wednesday.
Memorial service 2 p.m. Friday at
Bryan -Lee Funeral Home, Garner.
Surviving:. wife, Leah Myatt Kolb;
daughter, Carol Kolb Greene of
Cary; sons, Charles F, "Kalb Jr, of
Berwick, Pa. and James. Lawrence
Kolb of Kittrell; brother, Dr. Law-
rence C. Kolb of Albany, N.Y.; four
grandchildren.
Visitation 1-2 p.m: Friday at Bry-
on -Lee Funeral' Home.
In lieu of .flowers, the family re-
quests that contributions be made to
Hospice of Wake County, 4513 Creed -
moor Road, Raleigh, N.C. 27612; or
to a charity of one's choice:
CHARLIE FRANKLIN EARLEY -
WAKE FOREST — Graveside ser-
vice 11 a.m. today Bethany.Baptist
Church Cemetery.
Service by Bright Funeral Home.
OLIA BRYANT ZONES
WAKE FOREST — Funeeml 2 N.I I F•
today Beulah Church. Burial, Roles-
ville Baptist Church Cemetery.
Service by Bright Funeral Home.
HENRY D. HARRISON
JAMES OLLIE MASSENBURG J
WAKE,FO.REST—Mr. Jp mel--
lie Massenburg Jr., 51, of AI N. Ai %n
Street, in Wake Forest, N.C. expired
on Monday at Wake Medical Hospi-
.tal in Raleigh, N.C.
The service wilt be `professionally.
conducted on Friday at 3 p.m. at
Friendship Church in Wake Forest,
N.C.
The. family will receive 'friends
from 7-8 p.m. on Thursday evening at
Feggins-Feggins Funeral Chapel- in
Wake Forest, N.C.
Surviving: wife, Eleanor _M_ rrccen_
burg of the home; two sons, Anthony
Massenburg Sr. of Raleigh, N.C.;
James Massenburg I I I of Wake For-
est, N.C.; three' daughters, Angela
Brodie of Wake Forest, N.C.; Mor-
zurika T. Massenburg and Marzurri-
ka T. Lucas, both of the•honne; one
brother. Ale-mander Mhysenburrt of
Wake Forest, -N.C.; grandmother,
Lydia Hayes of Wake Forest, N.C.;
seven grandchildren; and a host,
nieces, nephews other relatives and
friends.
Professional arrangements by
Feggins-Feggins Funeral Services
Inc, in Wake Forest, N-C, ,
ANN "SUE" W. HUMPHREY
RALEIGH —.Ann "Sue" Washing-
ton Humphrey, 85, of 6500 Litchford
Road', died Wednesday, October 12,
1994. Funeral ,will be • held 2 p.m.
Friday at Millbrook United Method-

TEER GOMpANY
P. O. BOX 13983
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC.27709-3983
October 5, 1993
Mr. Tony Sample
NC Dept. of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources
Land Quality Section
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Re: Blasting Complaint
Crabtree Quarry, Wake County
Permit No. 92-03
Dear Mr. Sample:
Please find enclosed Vibra Tech analyses for blasts dated
July 30 through August 12, which includes the shots immediately
prior and subsequent to the August 9, 1993 blast which Ms. Gates
rriiacti nnar� The 1ii rrhPet rrrniinr� Sri hrati nr1s for these hl acts :•.^, —
"1...
.10 ips, and the highest air blast reading was 113 decibels. Also
enclosed are the field blast reports for the shots in question.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please do not
hesitate to call me at [phone].
SSE/dg
Enclosures
ADMINISTRATION ACCOUNTING
TEL: [phone] TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Sincerely,
TEER COMPANY
(f.k.a. Nello L. Teer Company)
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
MATERIALS
MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
(OPERATIONS)
(SALES)
TEL: [phone]
TEL: [phone] TEL: [phone] TEL: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]

0Y1113RA--Ti1mECH 377 Carowinds Boulevard, Suite 112, Ft. Mill, SC 29715
The Vibration Monitoring Experts 803-548-3066 FAX [phone]
September 8, 1993
Mr. Kenneth Kennedy
Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Post Office Box 52039
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Dear Mr. Kennedy:
The following report contains the original seismic data from blasting operations
associated with the Crabtree Quarry. A total of four blasts, dated July 30, 1993
through August 12, 1993 are included in 'this report.
The maximum value of the recorded peak particle velocity for this series of blasts was
0.10 inches per second (ips), significantly below the established criteria for ground
vibration as recommended by the United States Bureau of Mines (RI-8507: November,
ryy ,.. , a -a r,.,,,,, �kn Wn�r dated TiOu 3fi 1993 and Ai gust 9; 1993,
1701J). lliis VaIUC, re%vrucu 1LVlil LAL. V. & j. .1 ., v_
represents ten percent of the allowable vibration limit as stipulated by the North
Carolina Mining Act of 1971.
Recent studies into the effect of ground vibration on nearby structures has proven t1he
correlation between particle velocity and frequency in assessing the impact of blasting.
In order to properly assess the effect of the blasts included in this report, Response
Spectra Velocity Profiles (RSVP) have been performed on each blast record.
The RSVP is a computer derived simulation of the response that a typical structure
exhibits when exposed to the recorded vibration waveform. Response spectra analysis
is a powerful analysis tool for diagnosing potential vibration problems before they
actually become problematic. Response analysis, such as that utilized in the RSVP
technique has been recommended by the United States Office of Surface Mining as the
most effective method of assessing the impact of blast vibration on nearby properties.

Response analysis has been performed on each vibration record associated with
blasting operations for this time period. A copy of the associated data is graphically
represented in this report: A review of the RSVP data shows particle velocities well
within the recommended limit for all frequencies between 3 Hz and 40 Hz for all blast
events included in this report.
In addition to analyzing ground motion, the sound levels produced by the initiation
of the explosive charges have also been reviewed. The maximum recorded air blast
level for this series of blasts was 113 decibels (dB), recorded from the blast dated July
30, 1993 and August 9, 1993. This value translates to a peak overpressure of 0.00131
pounds per square inch (psi). Since even a poorly installed window glass can
withstand a pressure of 0.1000 psi, it is evident that the air blast associated with these
blast events posed no threat to nearby structures.
Based on a review of the response spectral analysis of each blast vibration record and
the comparison of ground vibration and air blast levels with all applicable state and
federal vibration criteria, we find no evidence that the blasts included in this report
pose any threat to properties located adjacent to the quarry.
Should you have any questions or require additional information regarding the
contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at once.
Respectfully submitted,
Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.
(�Vv U`
J A. Rodgers
Area Manager
Geologist/Seismologist
JAR:fv
nit crabtree 7/30.819

Suite 112 - '_�t3U3=54t3=30�ir;'
Ft. MITI, SC 29715 _ 1
B
A
S
T
A
A
S
E
SA
O
G
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client
Job La
unto �_�•} L/ ` r.� Blast No. —ev? _— Time I '_/
Exact Blast location
No. of Holes ._/ 0 Diameter � � in. Avg, Depth _ _ ft. Subgrade ft.
Spacing 11 it. Burden _7- tI. Avg. Stemming
Make & Type of Explosivess-
`� lbs.
�!JGL(r SS Ibs.
jz� Ibs.
Total Explosives
Seismograph No. -�71
Exact Seismograph Location
Delay Make a/jJS- 1 j::_6 MS , ,S- ailsell
yams- yes
Delay Type & Nos��� �
Min. delay period _ l/11 Q ms.
Max. Ibs./delay period
Ibs. Blaster
Ibs. Weather
tbs. Wind Direction & Speed
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast _
Peak Overpressure 1/, 3 —_ dB
Meters
(Peak Particle Velocity__. f/0 _ips
Remarks:
Vibration Analysis by:
lbs.
Everlert Only
Range/Gain Setting �C/ ips Trigger Level
ips
Operator Q�%%atee _')
Cassette No.
Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.
Date:
,;;,: Blast Diagram

NELLO
L. TEER
CRABTREE QUARRY
Seismometer at WEAVER & KILKENNY
Blast
34
Date:
7/30/93
Time:
13:18
Instrument
7171
0.0014
Airblast = 113 dB
0.0000
-0.0014 1
0.0
0.2 0.4
0.5
0.7 0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8
0.25(-
Transverse = 0.10 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
i
-
-
0.0
02 0.4
0.5
0.7 0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8
0 25
Vertical = 0.05 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
1 1
1
1
0.0
0.2 0.4
0.5
0.7 0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 L6 1.8
0.25
Longitudinal = 0.08 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
0.0
0.2 0.4
0.5
0.7 0.9
1.1
1.3 1.4 1.6 l.8
0.013
Transverse
10 50
Response Spectra
Vertical
1.0
0.1
0.013 10
vibra,-tech, engineers
50
1.0 50

$t1ftA 112 vw-two-aver.
Ft. Milt, SC 29715
B
A
S
T
D
T
A
E
I
S
.,
nn
O
G
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client
Job Loi
Date Q — ._1 Mast NO. c�t1
Exact Blast Location
lime
No. of Holes Diameter 3 ,- in. Avg. Depth _ c� ft. Subgrade _ T f1.
Spacing �� ft. Burden ft. Avg. Stemming -- 4'tt.
Make & Type of Explosive; / �v
lbs
lbs.
lbs.
lbs
lbs.
Total Explosives Cv �v _ lbs.
n r A /
Seismograph No. . /-J / /
Exact Seismograph Location
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast _
Peak Overpressure dB
Meters
{ Peak Particle Velocity ips
Remarks:
Vibration Analysis by:
Delay M a k
1;s- `/-
D b
Delay Type&Nos. 4EC42
.__...
Min. delay period sue!//_�ms.
Max. Ibs./dela period /-' 4 CF- lbs.
U la Jll.il
Weather
Wind Direction & Speed
Everlert Only
Range/Gain Setting_._ Trigger Levei
--- ips,
Operator _
Cassette No,
Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.
Date:
:�: Blast Diagram

N
Ft. Mill, SC 29715
B
A
S
T
D
T
A
S
E
S
M
O
G
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client cz L o L . /Ec 2 .., PAN _
Job Location_c/,m 2 2Aari+DE��2�f
Date 919 3 Blast No. ,3(C2 Time
Exact Blast Location 5,6NC�{
r
No. of Holes__ Diameter 3 ��- In. Avg. Depth 'z g It. Subgrade 2' fL
Spacing
Make & Type of Explosives:
1 L � �oosT��S 4 c7
-p6-L 1 T L Al I
Burden ___ ft. Avg. Stemming ra / ffl ft.
Delay Make �,+;s �'? , b ms 25, 3 a was tPo,_ L10 „"
_ 9 lbs. Delay Type b Nos._-Z --LC r,?PS- -
_��_� lbs. Min. delay period 5-
•2o S01bs. Max. lbs./delay period 7 I .Ibs.
lbs. Blaster L� L / Pz5C0 r , 7�_
lbs. Weather
Total Explosives lbs. Wind Direction & Speed /V02 l/ -
E;verlert Only
Seismograph No. rl / �f Range/Gain Setting _ �� `^� ips Trigger Level
Exact Seismograph Location s'&1_4 VE K IL ips,
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast 1000 FeGT
Pe
ak Overpressure , 11 3 __dB Operator M IIA+ C
Meters
Particle Velocity ips Cassette No.
Remarks:
Vibration Analysis by: Date:
Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.
'k. Biast magr a1m1

._..,..z":'!.`.��...�r.kv��,..s�``'K'.v .'ter �•hu...
Idello L.
Teer Co.
Crabtree Quarry
Seismometer at Weaver & K111kenny
Blast
36
Date:
8/09/93
Time:
13:08
Instrument
7171
0.0014
Airblast = 113 dB
0.0000
-0.0014
-
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.25
Transverse = 0.04 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.25
Vertical = 0.10 in/sec
0-00
-0.25
_
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8 1.0
1.2
1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.25
Longitudinal = 0.07 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6 1.0
1.2
1.4 1.6 - 1.8 2.0
0.01�
Transverse
10 50
Response Spectra
Vertical
10 50
vibra-tech engineers
Long3LUU111 a1
0.1
0.013 1.0 50

Ft. Mllf, SC 297
B
A
T
D
T
A
S
E
I
M
G
R
A
P
H
D
A
T
A
Client
Job Loc
Date —K7-1v — Blast No.
Exact Blast Location _ q�-40d4o
No. of Holes _J F Diameter_ in. Avg. Depth
Spacing __._!J ft. Burden 7— __ it. Avg.
Make & Type of Explosives:
7 �3d/ lbs.
.c Ie--L-LG_.f�y�a Ibs.
eJQd 4 lbs.
lbs.
Ibs
Total Explosives Ibs
Seismograph No. �'
Exact Seismograph Location
Seismograph Distance & Direction from Blast _
Peak OverpressuredB
Meters
Peak Particle Velocity Q E —ips
Remarks:
Vibration Analysis by:
Time I. J `%
ft. Subgrade-.._ignft.
Stemming ii.
Delay Make/�ISI��`L1t�lt!-S=5!p1t1�/Q_.Q
Decay Type 8
Min, delay period r l�� — ms.
Max. Ibs./delr y period _LL¢ Ibs.
Blaste
Weather
Wind Direction & Speed •vim "
�� Everlert Only
Range/Gain Setting r_lt! ips Trigger Level
"'rips
--
0perator
Cassette No,
Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.
Date:
*� Blast Diagram

Nello L. Teer Co. Crabtree Quarry Seismometer at Metcalf & Oak Park
Blast 37 Date: 8/12/93 Time: 13:33
Instrument 7171
0.0007
Airblast = 108 dH
00000
-0.0007
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
0.25
Transverse = 0.08 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.B
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
0.25
Vertical = 0.03 in/sec
0.00
-0.25
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
O.B
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
0.25
Longitudinal = 0.08 in/sec
0.00
-025
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
2.0
0.0 1�
Transverse
iv I'll
Response Spectra
Vertical
1.0
0.1
vibra-tech engineers
0.013
10 50

GENES
NEL,LO L. TEER COMPANY.,
A MenA,r 4 y'IHIE RE4ZER GROUP
Bleat Repor
J. Proect: 4-
4242a-- Location j
Bela. No. 1 0
Shot No. Time Fired
Scalfe• Distance Particle Velocity 1/0'
;'.'.''`'Dist, to Neighbor L's."elay 774 49
4�
I.Type­KDck 7. Sub -drill
.77
2.,-1-,;Type- Drill Bench-
8. Height of Be ;2
f. 3 "::,)3it Size/43,L�K9- Stemming T
6
o. 11oles N 10. Burden
5., -,-Total Drill Ft. 11. Spacing
12, Open.,or Buffer
r:.7
EXPLOSIVES
CAPS
Type'
Delay/ho./K
Deley/MaJ FL
rL_
1*7-f Y,2
J
Zez
Ta4l' Fonda
lJons CY
or
Powder Factor
&0
.jVi
BAC
ON
V. 74- ralir�_T_�T wars I1W-4
WEATHER DATA"
JrInversion Wloiy 4,000 f L (AGL) Base 1 t 1
`
Top 3
2 Temperature _W wipe out inversion
,
Expected High 14
+
C Tern perature at time of shot ZL
Winds;
'",.Surf/ace• I 51000 ft. 009 ft. 10,000 fL
tj
4 Superintendent
I, V

F
NFLLO L . TEER COMPANY,
A Mrrrrhrr r f' HE BE aR GROUP
Boost Report
r'
4
LigD%�TG
Location:
Ate;
ShotNo: "-��s—�,-.-.—,,
Sei& No. 7z Z/_ ._ Time
Fired of 'I
<? Sca a"Distance
Particle 'Velocity"
'ia.Neighb.or - tQr,42
Max. Lbs./Delv.
;
t s Mypd„ Rock �
7. Sub-driiiing __.�,,,�.—
,:'I•"
8. Height of Beli�h
, t .:
Bit;Aize • :
9. Stemming;'
"Ole$ .
�'' —10. Burden,,i,ti;,.,,
��,,r�►
Drill Ft., ,y
...� ° J_21. Spacing .,
, . , ' ►.: '
h •r, 1� • • EXPLOSIVES
pourift
'';2 : a ' {�' Icy _' .,. . � r . � •-
.77
.Tpta..Pounc
it' �otaj Taas ar CY .. �
I 'Tow¢er. 1~' cto 1Z.'. �... L
RACK A EN
,i Adi�1q era ood- it-P
-
i WEATH
Inve;l9q `#glow 6,000 ft. (AGL)
r
` 2. ',•r,Temperature to wipe out inversion FPO
Expected
Tjemperatur6 19time of shot Z3
F4 � �jiy�: RT �AL�6 : ' '+ x � •
Surface
'Fareman.. '
12. Open or Buffer' , IPA
•CAPS
DWay/No.lFL
ey
TATION , ;;;r NOISE''' �! .
oor
ER DATA , + I , ? i t �a;'•?� c`.
:...,. N
Base
Top:>.xu`}
1, 'h� ` ,•� i � ' Y {
..i .. .. , � �w.)S�•1i 4..y t it >f tti _�
LL !!gyp
i�.j
6,000 ft,
/ ] Sir . i
1 1Tyryi �•V,•i i 44 i i
�/ , r.� �1 .r . .r •1
10,000 ft.
Superintendent's :'..�

f m../sots. �■MMw
wr�w....r...ir.
■u.rr.rurrf.■
srrr...a./rrw.■
s...a...,..wwow
r...r..rrmsauw
■rraaorw...rr.
oiwiw.w.0 w■/.
rsw..s.mu .rrw.
rusawwur rrsu
rh.�m u..a..w..
w...srr.r...i.r
o■►.u. wow/.
i�.•w/••aa■ ■orw
ur•.:Yi►.w. ruma
iawrmr...a/wits
ro.a wwo..r. n
rr....r.a..ram►
ur...uo ■irr.

NELLO L , TEER COMPANY
A Mradprr of' T HE BEAaR GROUPsl
,µ.,r ,, X, $ .
aot Report
r=ojeCL: (1 ""t Location: (`�! Vote.,
Shot No. 7 Seis. Na.. T/ 7z _ Time
Scale • "�;Distance Particle Velocity L• t r r. ,'Ilist, to Neighbor //DO Max. Lbs./Delay..
771
...Type.Rock 7. Sub-drillingPri
TF
_ T*
Type Drill 8. Height of Bench ;$
9. Stemming
Holea`vna610. Burden
,Total Drill R. 11. Spacing /� ?'
t h ti
f r_ r..r1Ll HQIi�'S 12. Open or $uf#er -�*
i '
'S-
y .
IA
',RA51.5•.
tL
~ 30
BAC A FftA ATION NO
A4.i Ai Vero G a oar ud-Xo 77 ,
.1
WEATHER DATA ' ° r
%; �m it
fs a
1. .Inv erei it below 5,000 ft. (AGL) Bane
14< i
{ ,; _.Temperature to wipe out inve Son % 1 Op
3: L' Expected High
:.+4. Tent er tfar e •et time of ahot
- F 8
Surface---: �— 5,000 ft.
4.000 ft.
arman ' ✓` Superintendent
3 EXPLOSIVES
I r a
vQ
Typo' ._
pou"s
Dolan/No./R
3o ^51e)d
= .'a '
r:
Total. Pound$+ ^.,,`�-3
a
Tons Z.1
otsl ar CY

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCSES.& COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LAND RESOURCES DIVISION
LAND QUALITY SECTION
TELEPHONE LOG
Sheet
Date �� a
County
Cali received )C Call placed
%
1. Project: (
Q-L.r
14wv
2. Conversation with: CY'dawnuma)
Q. s
3. Content of conversation: fV.,VS&-vtct�
C44- 11t0` '_41'r- mtws .
4.
C .✓� 4Ce-.. a � Y-s'f+�-�
_ _ 4'
%«�gGe°c�,,�c cY
T �ere
jr
Ut"� ra 1 .w
.5.� +F cX %Q firs '%,' r' c �r
V �✓'l �w� 11C i b�
�-ty k lit-
4A" 1,01 0.4c 6
mod,•- rC.�irC.so.�� `f-ikP f � r 7�e. S, �.-� - - -
ckl
e &tww AS J9R c- - - --�
C./ col
rug- �s � . �G.•..�le�,r �e s� �%l �e � --odl .
Filled by:

EC EIV E D
)'Omkl�n
ELLO I-. TEER GOA Alember of THE BEAZER GROUP
so
_V4I�9111i70 P.O. BOX 1131 DURHAM, N.CLAW.
OFFICE TEL: [phone] • TELEX: 6711650 • FAX [phone]
July 14, 1992
Mr. Tracy Davis
NC Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Tracy:
Pursuant to your request of July 14, 1992, please find
enclosed a hard copy of the fax which was sent to you this date.
This letter to Hr. Testerman addresses the concerns that the
Groundwater Section had concerning the Crabtree Quarry
underground storage tank removal.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call me at 1-800-999-6356.
SSE/dg
Enclosure
CC: File
Sincerely,
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
t� � I fj
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
FOUNDED 1909

r. .
dy1 C/P r�P rPSS �
Al
oi damn
1h1 ,
n0
®m _ ang®
r79 IL' "' n ® ®®
s
N ELLO L_ 'TEER COM PANY
A Alember of 7HE BW-ER GROUP
P.O. BOX 1131 DURHAM, N.C. U.S.A. 27702
OFFICE TEL: [phone] • TELEX: 6711650 • FAX: [phone]
July 2, 1992
Mr. Nile P. Testerman
Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Re: Review of UST Closure Report, Nella Teer Company's
Crabtree Quarry, Wake County
Dear Mr. Testerman:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 18, 1992 concerning
the UST closure report for the above facility. I have reviewed
all of our records on this subject and submit the following
information in response to your inquiry:
1) The Hello Teer Company has been very careful and dedicated to
following prescribed procedures of UST removal and 'soil
remediation. The three tanks (10,000 gal. diesel, 6,000 gal.
gasoline, and 4,000 gal. gasoline) were removed on March 26,
1991.. Proper notification and approval procedures were followed.
Mr. Tom Will, of your office, visited the site on two occasions
and remarked that our dedication to following proper procedure
was "exceptional".
2) On April 11, 1991, a report was submitted to your office
describing the closure procedure (see attached copy). Lab
results from Geochem, Inc, were included in this report along
with a location map and a detailed sketch showing sample
locations. This sketch clearly indicates the limits of
excavations with the dashed line, as well as the former locations
of the tanks. Eleven samples were taken from the excavated area
(sample numbers NTCQ-1 - NTCQ-11). Samples 1-8 were taken
immediately upon removal of tanks. A slight presence of "waste
oil" was found in one of the samples and Mr. Tom Will of your
office was immediately informed. As per his instruction,
additional excavation was performed in the area of that sample.
While Mr. Will was present at the site, three additional samples
were taken in this area (NTCQ-9 - NTCQ-11). Each of the samples
were cicai�. The excavation remained open until we received
confirmation from your office that no additional sampling was
required and the excavation could be refilled..
FOUNDED 1909

Page 2
3) The sample marked NTCQ-12 was taken from the stockpile of
excavated soil. We simply wanted confirmation' of the
contamination in the excavated soil.
4) There has never been a waste oil UST present on this site.
The source of the "waste oil", in our opinion, is simply a
derivative of the gasoline or diesel from these tanks. There was
no noticeable contamination at or near the surface upon
excavation and the odor of the hydrocarbons was only encountered
at or below the tank level. These tanks had contained only gas
or diesel throughout their history.
5) At this time, we have stockpiled on site approximately 750
yards of contaminated soil to be remediated. On August 23, 1991,
the Nello Teer Company made application with the NC DEHNR
Fayetteville Regional Office for a permit to landfarm at a
minimum thickness the above contaminated soil at our Elliott Sand
& Gravel Plant in Harnett County, Erwin, NC. Mr. Jim Bales of
that office reviewed the application and visited the remediation
site before approval. On August 28, 1991, Groundwatear Permit No.
SR0600003 was granted to the Nello Teer Company for remediation
of the 750 yards of contaminated soil from the Crabtree site at
the Elliott site. Please find copies of the applications and
permit attached. In addition, the State Division of Land
Resources granted approval with a modification of Mining Permit
No. 43--03 to allow the landfarming. We anticipate the
landfarming/remediation process to commence by the end of July
1992, as the weather will permit.
I trust that this information will answer any questions you
may have. I assure you that the Nello Teer Company has taken
every precaution to follow the guidelines and reaulati.ons in this
matter. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely.
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
James C. Izzell, P.G.
Enclosures
cc: "File

•.=
'N
v
O
X
to
m m
m
?
n
U
Q
y0
�
W p
U
W
"
o
N ?
E
c
) cc
3 N
a
CD
o
C7,
❑
❑ ❑
O
❑
ElA
a
0
N
N
O
N
7
C
E co
x
T
F b
0 T
U
CO
U N
N
Cl
-5 N
= m
m
`m
Q
I,
N
CC
U LU
H � m F+
c
m
m
N
m
o I'm 6 1ao,3
a Q
U
T
U
O
p
uJ
�o
O
y N VVe gh Regional Office
o
= O
° L r G N
f0 c a v
a o
a $
� m `vc itl r Q m� a
N N m 0 Q
d m C'V N? Y Q
--
a
daa��
Z a o c G c my Q
W U U a`
ui...a.D..s
r
-1 A N
rn u
0j 4-1
H al %.
N N O
P toz m •�
• a H-
u w 00 ;:j t
ArnW w
m
m
V
Q
co
C
M
n
C
47
Q
io
C
rn
in
to
W
LLU '
e
•; C> II—. TEER COM PANY
ix A hlemkr of 7111 BEAZI;H GROUP
f=U" 1131 DURHAM, N.C. U.S.A. 27702
W
W
2 :E TEL: [phone]
O
0
TELEX: 6711650 - FAX: 688AS98
i July 2, 1992
o ;d
:J
-il Management
m e 101
m 27609
E re Report, Nello Teer Company's
z° " ,ke County
W `
E
o I your letter of June 18, 1992
for the above facility. I have
a
this subject and subm1t the
Ito your inquiry:
concerning
reviewed
following
1) The Nello Teer Company has been very careful and dedicated to
following prescribed procedures of UST removal and soil
remediation. The three tanks (10,000 gal. diesel, 6,000 gal.
gasoline, and 4,000 gal. gasoline) were removed on March 26,
1991.. Proper notification and approval procedures were followed.
Mr. Tom Will, of your office, visited the site on two occasions
and remarked that our dedication to following proper procedure
was "exceptional".
2) On April 11, 1991, a report was submitted to your office
describing the closure procedure (see attached copy). Lab
results from Geochem, Inc. were included in this report along
with a location map and a detailed sketch showing sample
locations. This sketch clearly indicates the limits of
excavations with the dashed line, as well as the former locations
of the tanks. Eleven samples were taken from the excavated area
(sample numbers NTCQ-1 - NTCQ-11). Samples 1-8 were taken
immediately upon removal of tanks. A slight presence of "waste
oil" was found in one of the samples and Hr. Tom Will of your
office was immediately informed. As per his instruction,
additional excavation was performed in the area of that sample.
While Mr. Will was present at the site, three additional samples
were taken in this area (NTCQ--9 -- NTCQ-11). Each of the samples
were clean. The excavation remained open until we received
confirmation from your office that no additional sampling was
required and the excavation could be refilled..
FOUNDED 1909

TON�GL �.[�.LG, DATE'
SPEED ER®
FROM DATE Z�
SUBJECT
—1 N 9aC
M ij
REPLY
35
SIGNE
SENDER: DETACH AND RETAIN YELLOW COPY, SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES

.
• �
' �
_
• +
� �
` •
t �
�
� •
. '
,
r
I
,T
f
�
' �
� 1
�
r
� ,
��
,.
.,,
' �
•
,,
..
- �,
a -
i
� `
r
r
� �.
f
a w
I
LJ

f7
Ir
rr
cr-
y,
r
R

L dam,CAL� AA
1 '
CkrOol Pk-40q4- ��j �CW-e_
r ►o,f

x ,3UL-14-19 J2 16: 31 . FR0 FH'JR PRO
P . 61
�.0 E 1, VI
JUL 14 192
r
/ C Q[�ALITY SECTION
/4
e / .
/tl'e.!/�
'
._ .. _ Gt� � . r,.. -i r,E /•' v sv� �.� +•{' � � !.�.�/,;J�_4:•� �
/ J •r
V
k4-
1750
if1.� .� � r✓ 7-4 /I.4✓ C�' L.�t 1. � �... � /.�-,� =� GAS ~l_-i / i�T.i%�.f ..mot>VJ'/ �.r
- _L�i�.r�.r �-!�' -�� .J'i�j %� j _�/ !�.�,..�•-f 4.�1�i G�.c � 4_r-•-ti- (.' .-`�'�-��•� �c.�`i'C.G_-f
� % GLQ �� 7 ��d tk-.. �^''� . �` mil.° i�..'�-r' /1, �G( 7��f1..•� :17� !a F �tt � ze.-�� � ... �• f1"s' /��t —
_.. ... % . ..4-.1�7.f-� -/�`li�.1.2..{-�-L r /� {J/,u(/1i � /,v/ �-. �fI l/�.rr+.1J �� �';..r1.+-•� � i;� � � �' �
rf �'.. �:'�.� l:-�1--'C1 L.<f�.� LIi�S+�� . LIC. G�^--" t_ I�r�'-�--C-f' �'-+' A� cif G_. �1`-I�J •
.. ..- . ..� � C+J�' ! ��.. /.LS� f'!�C� u �..:�a�.�,f�rs.� r�•-;.re �,r �i.�.. .,C,j. �...� J : �-z rr/,
• .� ..�'''�V-7 j�9zt L'.�.�'�.?.� lti�,i�•�' �i.�/,�f lr-�tE.�-Cr .�� I��'-�/� t.�
l
�®t`' �..- r.••t�tf =.�7` ►L�-r..p� f --�.G 1-�--.;r"..� f=4f rG'-f' r
F' St•14" brand tax trans intttmi�7 aa meu
�(t j ofopg��a.
From
rs' o
Ir � � 14
TIDTAL' R. o1 ,

HELLO L. TEER COMPAf"i`'i'
A A
f !0. 692 - P002/004
1 ._...I
'iEE:R 4=OMF:MAN'Y
of THE BEAZER GROUP
P.O. BOX 1131 DUA, HAM, N,C.
OFFICE TEt-' (910)
Mr. Nile P. Testerman
Dl v i.K i.on of Environmental
Raleigh Regional office
3800 Barrett Drive, suite
Raleigh, North Carolina
101 - TIFI FX: 671 1 SW
July 2, 199,'
I
Management
101
27609
Re: Review of UST Closure Report, Nello Tee:r
Crat}tree Quarry, Wake County
Dear. Mx. Testerman,
U.S.A.27702
FAX: [phone]
ompany's
T. am in receipt of your lett4r of June 181992 concerning
the UST closure report for the above facility., ;1 have reviewed
all of our records on this sub)ect and aub�it the following
information in response to your in4ulryr
1) The hello Teer Company has beef very careful and dedicated to
fo,ll.owing prcacribed procedureal of UST rimoval and soil
remediation. The three tanho (1$,000 gal. d�ezel, 6,000 gal.
gasoline, and 4,000 gal. gasol.ije) were rem�ved on March 26,
1991. Proper notification and approval procedures were followed.
iir.. Tom Mill, of your office, v.i.silted the aitb on two occasions
and remarked that our dedicationito following proper procedure
was -exceptional.".
2.) On April 11, 1991, a report was submitted to your office
describing the closure procedur (see attacoed Copy). Lab
results from Geochem, Inc. Were �ncluded in this report along
with a location map and a detailed nkesteh showing nnmple
locations. This sketch clearly indicates the limits of
E?YCAVAr_.inng W't.tIt ttzN r1A01►,Ar1 li*�e, pll as t?:r forWBr 1--Catio:.�
of the tanks. Eleven samples were taken from the excavated area
(sample numbers NTCQ-1 -- NTCQ-1i). samplei 1-8 were taken
immediately upon removal of tanks. A alight presence of "waste
oil" was found in one of the samples and Mr. Tom Will of your
office was immediately informed. As per his inectructi.on,
additional excavat:.ion wan performed in the are* of that sample.
Whi le Mr.. Will was present at the isLtt, three additional samples
were taken in this area (NTCQ-9 - NTCQ-11). E4ch of the samples
were clean. The excavation remained open until we received
confirmation :from your office thatt* no additional sampling was
required anti the excavation could be refilled..
I
�r.i 01g
i-�`vlvv�v iauy
I

071W/92 69: 09 h,IELLO LrTEER COMPANY
N0.692 POU3/004
Page 2
3) The sample marked NTCQ-12 w4s taken from the otookpile of
excavated soil. We simply I wanted coifirmation of the
contamination in the excavated soil.. {
4) There has never been a wasty oil UST present on this site.
The source of the waste ollo, in our opinion, is simply a
derivative of the gasoline or Kai& from there tanks. There was
no noticeable cont-amt.nation at or near the surface upon
excavation and the odor of the h*drocarbons was only encountered
at or below the tank Level.. The*e tanks had contained only gas
or diesel throughout their histosri.
5) At thin time, we have stockpiled on site approximately 750
yarda of contaminated soil to be remediated. on August: 23, 1991,
the Nelln Teer Company made application with the NC DEHNR
Fayetteville Regional Office ff r a permit to landfarm at A
minimum thickness the above contaminated soil at our Elliott Band
& Gravel Plant in Harnett County; Erwin, NC. Hr. Jim Boles of
that: office reviewed the application and ulksed the remediation
site before approval. On August jS, 1991, Groundwater Permit No.
SROG00003 was granted to the Neilo Teer Comp"ny for remediation
of the 750 yards of contaminated soil from this Crabtree site at
the Elliott site. Please find ;opies of this applications and
permit attached. In addition; the Statej Division Ox Land
Resources granted approval with i modificatiop of Mining Permit
No. 43-03 to allow the land#arming. We anticipate the
landtarming/remediation proccon to commence 6y the end of July
1992, as the weather will permit.i
I trust that this information will answer any quentiones you
may have. I assure you that the Hello Tee Compooy has taken
every Precaution to follow the guldel.ines and regulations in this
matter. if. I can be of any fuhher assistance, Please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
HELLO L. TEAR COHPAXY
James C. IZIell, P.G.
Enclosures
cc:: File

09:10 NELL.O
o
a
E
b
C
a
Vi Li y L
�uuu_
� 'ro
ai
[IL 6 f"2
� d d
njVe gh Regional We
t'"�•g
}
' k � E ✓� A 0
s
CD
0
Ir r-
a t� N
u
41 14 O
W . i PhD
;ti 4! •rl
O i� Gl
v
TEED COMPANY
Ii
U
LU
a
ee
ca
W
2
Isr �
P004/CQ4
C> 1.-. TEAR j4=C>M PANY
i nVUV
rrcurercr yru.,�... ruww
1131 DIURMAM, N.1G. U.S.A. 27702
;E TEL: (919)'e84-0191 TELEX: e711eau - mom saa4s98
i
July 2, 1992
I
i
r,
il Management
ie 101
27609
ire Report, Mello Teer Companyr a
jke County
L`am��
�
9
.�
�_
a
ILL
your letter of June
18,
1992
� F k L
�.. .� a L. _ 4. .. .... F.. .. � l pia..
facil.4
T
T
..n
have
have
a x
I�
1IUi
I�
Vt l he, above
�.,r.
. . . . • * $IM
i1D
{ this 4ubJett and
submit
the
to yourl l.nquiryt
concerning
reviewed
following
1) The Mello Teer Company has been very cap eful and dedipated to
following prescribed procedures of UST removal and soil
remed.iation- The three tanks (10,000 gal. diesel, 6,000 gel.
gasoline, and 4,000 gaol. gasoline) were removed on March 26,
1991. Proper notification and ipproval prodedurea were followed.
Mr.. Tom W1,11, of your office, VIBILea the ssite vie two occasiois
and remarked that our dedication to following proper procedure
war "exceptional".
2) On April 11, 1991, a report was submitted to your office
describing the Closure procedure (eee attached copy). Lab
results from Geochem, Inc. were .included in this report along
with a location map and a detailed sketch showing sample
locations_ Thim sketch clearly indicates the limits of
excavations with the dashed 11ne, as well ah the former locations
of the franks. Eleven samples wera taken t om the excavated area
(sample numbers HTCQ--1 - NTGQ-11). Saiples 1-8 were taken
immediately upon removal of tanks. A slighIt presence of "waste
oil" found �n one of t�h�i fiamplen and EMr. Tam will of your
Y r. .� nub found ... i.. one vim. ._--- j �-.-.m.-w _" �___ 1__.. - your
was immediately inforged. Are per him instruction,
addi.t:ional, excavation was perfAmed in the area. of that sample.
While Mr- Will was present at the site, three additional samples
were taken in this area (NTCQ-0 - HTCQ-11).i Each of the samples
were clean. The excavation �remai.ned op n until we received
custirmation from your office that no ad itional sampling was
required and the excavation could be refilled..
FOUNDED 1909
i

09: a8 NELLB- L. TEER COMPANY
NO. 692
POCl/W4
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
FAGF : i Gi lT
DATE:
TO.
FROM:
Cr)HMENTS :
i
A Memberlof THE BEAZER GROUP
I
I
i
OUR FAX IRTMBER 1S :
Tr Vr)lf nn mn'Y ocrVt117
( 919 ) 688- 898
AT T MA rrolTAT 'FAAMC2M?T'rVT)
i
PLEAS: CALL US AT i 4 9) 682-6'191.

H
MEMO *
TO: 2 " -
(�x6w-,p wA-�r>fX-
1 +vM 1J6 L,%.,, ,~fZL- S .
•
V. TE t";'t I V t L)
SUBJECJI JAV ��i
,00 (ate)
LAND QUALITY SECTION
Va) .-7W* ;Zp W-HC--
,47- &OL, VIOLeMovJ AT- P66 Sft�— 7?-�Y e4vze—
+�rSSrr�G - HE- /S-
From:
..� STATC
1 North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources Printed nnRecycled Paper
�u�.

FROM , hTE w l �c1 •I���.
SUBJECT.A�—mu
N[l9 ey U y
MESSAGE /
tt �f
ffU. - P-
Zb/17fqiW
i._
X
li��.r�t._
AL��� l .-rt.�i
�I;
C"n�^✓--�`
—rotn vne Hnv , U
—,oto sox r+p m
SIGNED
WilsonJonsS .Cub—k— • MADE IN U 5 A,
444M TrIM"t4 - o wrrwUoow. IM _ RECiP1E
33 SPEED L. T®
iTp•, DATE 46,
i�� rwlv)�
Lz�
--- - -
0
REPLY
•' � !% .e.. �• ,mac..
v U
lUx'k 4 4a,
A.1L. J? f
,r am � - i
{ s , /f z
!�':•734�c,,�„r, f�Vr/�-+ vim" pth�nr,fG /nl�v
SIG r ED
NT: RETAIN WHITE COPY, RCTURN PINK COPY. PL ASE TURN OVER FOR USE WITH WINO ENVCLpPE.
t

TO RETURN 1N A WINDOW ENVELOPE,
PLEASE FILL IN NAME AND ADDRESS HERE AND
FOLD AS SHOWN WITH THIS SIDE FACING WINDOW.
-FOLD

TO �E
�v r•� N r-rr/�.,r, r
SUBIEC7
MESSAGE
� n
h
f�1/IJGJ AAOV.a�` 171w /%1 E /;:In (Ir1�LlQ
. � � r �d•. ��l .,>,....lt.,t .I-X�,1 (f' (•r�'7� �.� ,'1!a �Ifl_
v
SIGNED
WilS0nJOn0* • C-b—i— • MADE 1N U S A. `
14903 Trlplluls • O WholJolln, 1BEY
r -
REPLY
SPEED L.F.�T•T/
FROM DATE
v- I cip. v ;
SIGN
SENDER: DETACH ANO RETAIN YELLOW COPY, SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES

s

AM • A
803-548-3066
TOLL FREE USA 800-233-6181
vibra-tech engineers incorporated
CONSULIANIS TO THE MINING, QUARRYING. CONSTRUCTION AND EXPLOSIVE USING INDUSTRIES
377 CAROWINDS BOULEVARD SUITE 111, FORT MILL, SC 29715
April 28, 1992 MAY 2 11992
Mr. Steve Edgerton
Nello Teer Company LAND QUALITY SECTION
211 W. Parrish Street
Durham, North Carolina
_ t _ f _ Blasting
7 _ _ t _ _ t _ I-
_ the
a3ubjeci: Assessment v= Proposed �sias,Ging operations =vr
Crabtree Quarry Permit Renewal, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Dear Mr. Edgerton,
As requested by Nello Teer Company, Vibra--Tech Engineers, an
independent seismic and explosive consulting firm, has
reviewed the planned permit renewal of the Crabtree quarry
with respect to off site impact of blasting operations. Our
review and recommendations are as follows.
OVERVIEW
Nello Teer company has requested renewal of mining permit
number 92-03 for the Crabtree Quarry in Wake County, North
Carolina. in addition to the current mining site, Nello
Teer has proposed an expansion consisting of the extension
of blasting activities to the south side of Crabtree Creek.
As mining on the south side of the creek will result in the
commencement of blasting operations in an area where
blasting associated with the quarry has not been required to
this date, a review of the impact of blasting in this area
with respect to adjoining properties is required.
IVJ "I*11:4Z4a11dv.%00zLe�K6]4:1"IVIII1111to) ZK
Vibra-Tech has been involved in the blasting program at the
rrahtraa 011a rry fnr near tcan vnarc ni rr i nrr f-h i c t- i mo
considerable changes has occurred both in the actual mining
operations at Crabtree as well as the development of the
nearby area. In an effort to minimize the impact of
blasting on this rapidly growing area, Nello Teer has

•
v#bra-tech
utilized state of the art seismic monitoring and blasting
techniques to insure that properties located near the quarry
have not been impacted by blasting.
A review of blasting operations for the past two years has
been performed to determine the current impact of blast
related vibration on adjacent properties. In reviewing the
previous two years' blasting, Vibra-Tech identified only two
blasts that reached a value representing twenty-five percent
of the vibration limit to be maintained as a condition for
compliance in the current mining permit requirements. In
fact, most blasts show maximum recorded particle velocity
values of less than 0.10 inches per second (ips) or ten
percent (10%) of the allowable limit based on the North
Carolina Mining Act of 1971.
The low values recorded from primary blasts at the Crabtree
quarry are a direct reflection of the Nello Teer Company's
goal of limiting off site vibration values to 0.10 ips or
less as a means of minimizing the perception of blasting
activities by neighboring property owners. Their goal of
reducing the off site impact of blasting operations is
further evidenced in the utilization of response spectral
analysis for the assessment of vibration effects related to
blasting, as well as the continual utilization of various
computer modeling programs such as the VIBRAMAP Frequency
Prediction and Control study currently utilized on an as
needed basis at all Nello Teer operations.
In the past six months, the Crabtree quarry has updated its
monitoring program by utilizing a Series 7000 digital
seismic monitor to record blast events. The Series 7000
unit is a self --triggering unit that allows for response
spectral analysis to be performed internally and displayed
on the monitor's LCD screen. This unit allows the blaster
and quarry staff to review the frequency content of any
given blast immediately after each shot. This data can be
beneficial in planning subsequent blasts and identifying
potential problems areas before they become an issue.
The recorded data from the Series 7000 unit is still sent to
Vibra-Tech on a monthly basis for the submittal of a more
detailed report covering the blasting activities of the
quarry on a month to month basis.

Libra -tech
REVIEW OF PROJECTED VIBRATION VALUES FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF
CRABTREE CREEK
In assessing the impact of blasting operations for the south
side of the creek, it is necessary to rely on commonly
accepted methods of comparing recorded vibration values and
distances with projected distances between the new pit and
existing structures off Duraleigh Road. In utilizing
mathematical formulas to project vibration values, some
important factors need to be addressed.
These formulas rely on the utilization of average values for
various geol na i c rnnctantc fnr -,nil el act i r-i ty Anr3 other
site parameters. Since these values usually deviate from
actual geologic conditions, the results must be treated for
what they are designed�to be, approximations to be utilized
in blast design development.
The data from blasting -operations at Crabtree over the past
two years has been used to provide projected vibration
values for the south pit. Vibration values were calculated
based on the final- pit development and location of
structures existing - as., of this date. A projection of
vibration data from the past two years, based on the minimum
distance from the final south pit development to the nearest
existing structure, has been plotted on a particle velocity
versus scaled distance graph. The average particle velocity
value based on current blast designs is expected to be in
the 0.10 ips to 0.30 ips range. These values represent
values significantly below both the current Bureau of Mines
cr4 te-J a for tryt�rc� r+nco l �t.r frerrrie„`+rr 7 l
ist V4AN4 to Y freg1 enc sce-n .lr J os, Gl �W well
as the conditions for permitting as specified under the
current State of North Carolina Mining Act.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT BLAST DESIGN FOR THE SOUTH PIT
As we mentioned previously, calculated particle velocity
projections should only be used as a means of determining
trends or approximations with regard to transmitted
vibration values. In assessing the potential impact of
blasting for the south pit over the projected "life of the
quarry, it is critical to note that blasting operations will
be moving towards the perimeter of the Crabtree quarry
property as a steady progression of the various benches over
time.

0
vibra-tech
In the course of pit development, data recorded from seismic
monitoring of blasting operations will be utilized to form a
comprehensive database for the impact of blasting operations
on the adjoining properties.
As stated previously, the Crabtree quarry is currently
utilizing state of the art seismic analysis in the form of
the Response Spectra Velocity Profile (RSVP). The use of
the response spectral analysis technique allow for accurate
assessment of the damage potential for any blast event.
This same program will be utilized, along with the VIBRAMAP
frequency control program, in the development of blasting
operations at the south pit.
As pit development continues in the south pit, modifications
to the current blast plan may be necessary to maintain
vibration limits within the goals set forth by Nello Teer.
Based on the approximate values projected in our
calculations, we are certain that the current blast design
could be utilized throughout the proposed south pit without
exceeding the 1.0 ips limit set forth as a condition of
permitting. Given Nello Teer's corporate policy with regard
to minimizing off site impact of blasting, it is our
assumption that as the south pit is expanded over time,
modifications to the current blast design may be required.
S UMNLARY
Blasting operations at the Crabtree Quarry have been
monitored and reviewed by Vibra-Tech for several years in an
effort to minimize complaints from neighboring properties.
Though several complaints have been recorded over the past
years, given the development of the area and the current
density of residential properties surrounding the Crabtree
quarry, we feel that concerns from neighboring property
owners are minimal, a testament to Nello Teers' commitment
to maintaining the quality of life of its neighbors.
The expansion of mining operations to the south side of
Crabtree Creek will result in a change in the perception of
blasting operations for a relatively small portion of the
surrounding community. Given the relatively low human
perception to ground transmitted vibration (approximately

0
0
vibra-tech
0.04 ips), pit development in this area will no doubt result
in the perception of blasting activities for the first time
for some residents.
Based on the existing blast program at the Crabtree quarry,
we feel that these properties that will eventually be
located closer to active blasting areas at the Crabtree
quarry that is the case at this time, will not be negatively
impacted by blasting operations. The utilization of pre -
blast surveys for property owners located within the
projected blast effects zone, comprehensive monitoring of
all production blasts, and the development of a means of
effective communication and education between the quarry and
residents located to the south of the current mining
operation will insure that concerns over the impact of
blasting for the south pit remain minimal.
The utilization of computer modeling programs such as the
VIBRAMAP system and. response spectral analysis from the
initial phase of blasting throughout the life of the south
pit will insure that changes in the content and amplitude of
ground vibration resulting from blasting can be recognized
and changes made to insure that vibration values remain
significantly below established vibration criteria.
Based on Vibra-Tech's knowledge of the current blasting
program utilized at the Crabtree quarry, and a comparison of
projected vibration values with current damage criteria, it
i c niyr nri ni nn that hi act i nri nnprat i nnc wi th i n thin rtirrant
projections for the south pit expansion, pose no threat to
properties located adjacent to or nearby this area of the
Crabtree Quarry property. should you require a more
detailed analysis of the current blast design utilized by
Crabtree, or have any questions regarding the contents of
this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at once.
Respectfully submitted,
Stua#tBrashear, CSI
Regional Manager
Vibra-Tech Engineers, Inc.

0 •
Nello L.
Teer
Co.
vibra-tech
Proposed
Crabtree
Quarry Expansion
Velocity
Projections
Shot
Event
Event
Max.
Meas
Peak
Peak
Meas
Projected
No.
Date
Time
#/d
Dist
PPV
A/0
S.D.
S.D.
PPV
43
6/9/90
13:21
77.0
1100
0.13
111
125.4
85.5
0.23
44
6/7/90
13:00
76.1
1500
0.09
111
171.9
86.0
0.25
45
6/11/90
13:13
75.7
1200
0.44
107
137.9
86.2
0.89
46
6/19/90
10:58
78.2
1100
0.08
110
124.4
84.8
0.14
47
6/20/90
10:15
64.3
1300
0.05
110
162.1
93.5
0.11
48
6/25/90
13:25
75.7
1300
0.20
110
149.4
86.2
0.46
49
6/27/90
15:05
74.0
1400
0.09
108
162.7
87.2
0.23
50
7/2/90
13:10
81.3
1350
0.16
112
149.7
83.2
0.39
51
7/11/90
11:45
75.6
1300
0.13
105
149.5
86.3
0.30
52
7/13/90
13:10
75.9
1400
0.09
110
160.7
86.1
0.23
53
7/16/90
11:28
76.1
1700
0.18
111
194.9
86.0
0.61
54
7/19/90
13:02
76.9
1100
0.16
116
125.4
85.5
0.28
55
7/25/90
13:52
70.3
1100
0.12
110
131.2
89.5
0.21
56
7/30/90
13:28
81.7
1000
0.14
109
110.6
83.0
0.22
57
8/l/90
10:42
83.4
1000
0.09
109
109.5
82.1
0.14
58
8/8/90
12:55
82.0
1000
0.13
113
110.4
82.8
0.20
59
8/13/90
11:37
74.4
1100
0.13
108
127.5
87.0
0.23
60
8/14/90
10:55
78.0
1500
0.13
111
169.8
84.9
0.37
61
8/16/90
11:15
82.4
1600
0.05
111
176.3
82.6
0.16
62
8/22/90
11:56
77.0
1100
0.14
108
125.4
85.5
0.25
63
8/27/90
13:39
82.3
2000
0.08
115
220.5
82.7
0.35
64
8/30/90
14:48
74.4
900
0.21
107
104.3
87.0
0.28
65
9/6/90
11:49
82.0
1500
0.07
113
165.6
82.8
0.20
66
9/13/90
11:44
79.4
1700
0.16
115
190.8
84.2
0.55
67
9/18/90
13:55
77.0
1000
0.16
110
114.0
85.5
0.25
68
9/25/90
14:08
78.3
2100
0.08
114
237.3
84.8
0.37
69
9/28/90
11:39
80.0
1300
0.07
117
145.3
83.9
0.16
70
10/3/90
10:54
78.7
1100
0.07
111
124.0
84.5
0.12
72
10/10/90
14:51
80.0
1500
0.08
105
167.7
83.9
0.23
73
10/15/90
13:11
79.0
1600
0.06
105
180.0
84.4
0.19
74
10/24/90
13:38
77.2
900
0.22
110
102.4
85.4
0.29
75
10/29/90
14:18
80.0
1500
0.07
111
167.7
83.9
0.20
76
11/5/90
14:58
160.4
1300
0.11
108
102.6
59.2
0.25
77
11/7/90
13:20
74.0
1500
0.04
108
174.4
87.2
0.11
78
11/15/90
13:00
82.2
1500
0.09
114
165.4
82.7
0.25
79
11/16/90
14:45
73.5
900
0.08
109
105.0
87.5
0.11
80
11/21/90
13:00
73.6
1400
0.07
105
163.2
87.4
0.18
81
11/28/90
13:00
70.6
1100
0.05
111
130.9
89.3
0.09
82
12/5/90
14:00
74.1
1600
0.06
108
185.9
87.1
0.19
83
i2/6/90
13:00
73.5
1000
0.03
114
ii6.6
87.5
0.05
84
12/10/90
13:03
82.3
1200
0.05
108
132.3
82.7
0.10
85
12/13/90
11:20
73.9
1000
0.07
108
116.3
87.2
0.11
86
12/18/90
13:06
73.0
1000
0.05
108
117.0
87.8
0.08
87
12/19/90
13:07
69.1
1000
0.09
105
120.3
90.2
0.14
1/141''91
13z21
75.4
1nVnn
0.07
t
116
117.2
nr_ A1
ou.4
G.ii
2
1/15/91
13:19
70.0
1800
0.07
111
215.1
89.6
0.26
3
1/16/91
11:34
70.6
1050
0.06
109
125.0
89.3
0.10
4
1/17/91
11:32
66.6
1100
0.06
110
134.8
91.9
0.11
5
1/12/91
11:32
66.0
1100
0.08
108
135.4
92.3
0.14
r
V
1 /7n In
i� Wf w1
19.1 )
1J. 1J
rn 7
V J. J
1Bnn
S' Ww
n nr
V . VV
1n0
1Vu
fro ']
1VV • L
nn 1
7V. 1
n 1C
V . i.
7
1/31/91
11:08
72.0
1000
0.10
112
117.9
88.4
0.15

Nello L.
Teer Co.
vibra-tech
Proposed
Crabtree
Quarry
Expansion
Velocity
Projections
Shot
Event
Event
Max.
Meas
Peak
Peak
Meas
Projected
No.
Date
Time
#/d
Dist
PPV
A/0
S.D.
S.D.
PPV
8
2/5/91
13:16
67.3
1500
0.06
110
182.8
91.4
0.17
9
2/11/91
13:12
65.7
1500
0.10
112
185.1
92.5
0.28
10
2/14/91
11:46
71.3
1000
0.12
108
118.4
88.8
0.18
11
2/19/91
11:55
73.3
1300
0.06
106
151.8
87.6
0.14
12
2/20/91
11:16
76.4
1800
0.05
110
205.9
85.8
0.19
13
2/20/91
13:06
74.0
1300
0.04
109
151.1
87.2
0.09
14
2/28/91
11:55
76.2
1350
0.04
110
154.7
85.9
0.10
15
3/5/91
13:09
72.0
1200
0.04
107
141.4
88.4
0.08
16
3/7/91
14:25
80.6
900
0.16
105
100.2
83.5
0.21
17
3/12/91
13:57
83.0
1250
0.04
110
137.2
82.3
0.09
18
3/15/91
11:35
73.1
900
0.06
111
105.3
87.7
0.08
19
3/19/91
13:15
70.3
1300
0.05
109
155.0
89.5
0.11
20
3125/91
13:21
71.3
1350
0.04
109
159.9
88.8
0.10
21
3/27/91
13:10
76.0
1000
0.07
ill
114.7
86.0
0.11
22
4/2/91
11:31
75.2
1300
0.04
108
149.9
86.5
0.09
23
4/4/91
11:05
72.6
1000
0.08
105
117.4
88.0
0.12
24
4/8/91
13:12
85.3
1900
0.04
107
205.7
81.2
0.16
25
4/11/91
13:14
71.5
1300
0.06
104
153.7
88.7
0.14
26
4/15/91
12:04
75.8
1950
0.04
110
224.0
86.1
0.17
27
4/22/91
13:10
73.3
1250
0.04
105
146.0
87.6
0.09
28
4/24/91
14:31
77.3
1100
0.05
103
125.1
85.3
0.09
29
4/24/91
14:33
66.7
1100
0.06
112
134.7
91.8
0.11
32
5/3/91
13:11
71.4
1950
0.09
105
230.8
88.8
0.38
33
5/8/91
11:55
77.0
1800
0.06
102
205.1
85.5
0.22
34
5/13/91
12:02
75.5
1100
0.05
106
126.6
86.3
0.09
35
5/14/91
11:25
67.4
1000
0.04
105
121.8
91.4
0.06
36
5/16/91
9:30
72.0
1200
0.04
107
141.4
88.4
0.08
38
5/28/91
13:08
72.4
2050
0.04
110
240.9
88.1
0.18
39
5/31/91
9:26
69.2
1050
0.07
105
126.2
90.2
0.12
40
6/6/91
11:58
74.0
1100
0.05
108
127.9
87.2
0.09
42
6/11/91
9:44
76.0
1600
0.05
108
183.5
8640
0.16
43
6/13/91
11:34
77.8
1100
0.05
107
124.7
85.0
0.09
44
6/18/91
11:34
78.9
1300
0.08
109
146.4
84.4
0.18
45
6/24/91
9:58
71.1
1100
0.06
108
130.5
88.9
0.11
46
6/25/91
11:03
71.0
1400
0.04
105
166.1
89.0
0.10
47
6/27/91
11:41
69.7
2000
0.02
108
239.6
89.8
0.09
48
7/1/91
10:14
69.6
1300
0.04
109
155.8
89.9
0.09
49
7/9/91
11:56
77.7
1100
0.03
104
124.8
85.1
0.05
50
7/11/91
11:56
70.0
1150
0.05
109
137.5
89.6
0.09
52
7/22/91
12:03
76.7
1100
0.05
105
125.6
85.6
0.09
53
7/25/91
11:03
97.6
1850
0.03
109
187.3
75.9
0.12
54
8/1/91
10:41
70.8
1000
0.05
105
118.8
89.1
0.08
55
8/2/91
9:46
73.5
1800
0.03
105
210.0
87.5
0.11
56
8/6/91
10:18
74.4
1100
0.04
103
127.5
87.0
0.07
57
8/13/91
11:56
76.7
1400
0.05
105
159.9
85.6
0.13
58
8/15/91
13:12
79.5
1100
0.08
106
123.4
84.1
0.14
59
8/21/91
10:19
65.0
1500
0.04
107
186.1
93.0
0.11
60
8/29/91
14:35
43.6
2500
0.04
109
378.6
113.6
0.24
61
9/3/91
13:05
76.1
1100
0.06
108
126.1
86.0
0.11
62
9/9/91
13:12
76.2
1200
0.04
97
137.5
85.9
0.08
63
9/16/91
13:12
74.1
1500
0.07
93
174.3
87.1
0.20

Nello L.
Teer
Co.
vibra-tech
Proposed Crabtree
Quarry Expansion
Velocity
Projections
Shot
Event
Event
Max.
Meas
Peak
Peak
Meas
Projected
No.
Date
Time
#/d
Dist
PPV
A/O
S.D.
S.D.
PPV
64
9/19/91
13:14
75.1
1100
0.12
97
126.9
86.5
0.21
65
9/24/91
12:01
82.7
1900
0.02
110
208.9
82.5
0.08
67
10/7/91
13:09
72.3
950
0.14
97
111.7
88.2
0.20
GO
V V
1n/OIn1
iW� V% W 1
ll
11 . dC-/7
•i3 5
900
0.07
93
ivy v
87.5
0.09
69
10/14/91
13:27
78.4
1300
0.02
128
146.8
84.7
0.05
70
10/21/91
13:11
75.4
900
0.02
N/A
103.6.
86.4
0.03
71
11/5/91
11:54
72.0
900
0.05
110
106.1
88.4
0.07
73
11/7/91
13:06
66.3
1000
0.05
110
122.9
92.1
0.08
74
11/19/91
13:00
85.8
1900
0.19
97
205.1
81.0
0.77
75
11/20/91
11:49
72.5
900
0.05
110
105.7
88.1
0.07
76
11/26/91
13:06
68.7
900
0.09
97
108.6
90.5
0.12
77
12/2/91
13:07
71.0
1400
0.05
110
166.1
89.0
0.13
78
12/4/91
11:44
83.5
1900
0.05
110
207.9
82.1
0.20
79
12/9/91
13:03
69.6
850
0.05
110
101.9
89.9
0.06
80
12/12/91
13:07
72.5
1200
0.10
105
140.9
88.1
0.20
81
12/18/91
11:46
73.0
800
0.16
104
93.6
87.8
0.18
1
1/6/92
13:05
76.8
1200
0.08
112
136.9
85.6
0.16
2
1/14/92
13:10
82.6
1400
0.06
116
154.0
82.5
0.15
3
1/20/92
13:05
71.8
700
0.08
107
82.6
88.5
0.07
4
1/24/92
13:00
86.7-
1700
0.02
114
182.6
B0.5
0.07
5
1/30/92
11:39
74.6
700
0.08
110
81.0
86.8
0.07
6
2/4/92
13:16
86.7
1800
0.05
110
193.3
80.5
0.19
7
2/12/92
13:09
80.7
700
0.29
107
77.9
83.5
0.26
8
2/17/92
13:22
85.8
1850
0.05
110
199.7
81.0
0.19
9
2/20/92
13:08
74.6
1200
0.09
112
138.9
86.8
0.18
10
2/24/92
11:18
72.6
750
0.03
111
88.0
88.0
0.03
11
3/2/92
13:45
89.6
1900
0.05
110
200.7
79.2
0.20
12
3/5/92
13:07
68.1
750
0.05
110
90.9
90.9
0.05
13
3/11/92
13:05
87.5
1950
0.02
115
208.5
80.2
0.08
14
3/23/92
13:40
102.6
1950
0.05
110
192.5
74.0
0.21
15
3/24/92
13:10
79.6
800
0.05
110
89.7
84.1
0.06
16
4/l/92
13:17
73.5
850
0.05
110
99.1
87.5
0.06
17
4/8/92
13:21
85.5
2000
0.05
110
216.3
81.1
0.22
Notes: Italicized items reflect the maximum
possible values.
Projected
Peak
Particle
Velocities to
closest residence
based
on the
following
widely accepted
formula:
Pp=Pm/((ADm/ADp)^l.5)
Where:
Pp
is the
PPV projected to the
closest
residence
Pm
is the
PPV as
measured by
the seismograph
ADm
is the
Actual
Distance measured
to
the
seismograph.
ADp
is the
Actual
Distance projected
to
the
closest
residence (measured to be 750 feet).

a
v'
Project Peak Particle Velocities
to
PPV vs. Scaled Distance
1.00T
n
?
0 9u-I
•
0.80
vT
0.70
0
m
>
•
m
0.60
U
O
a_
0.50
Y
O
�
m
o_
m
0.40
•
` •
U
N
�
O
0
0.30
�•• •
as ,r •
•
_ • • N"
0.20
+ we •
• • • • •
0.10
• •
i •+ • • f
• •
0.00
50.0 60.0
70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
110.0 120.0
Scaled Distance
ift
Mw
•

• � 11 P�a� r...4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Charles I -I, Cordner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 30, 1992 Director
Larry H. Royster, Ph.D.
4706 Connell Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Dear Dr. Royster:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1992 regarding the
renewal and expansion request presently under review by this office
for the above referenced mining operation in Wake County.
Please be advised that before the Department makes a decision
to grant or deny this request, the criteria outlined by G.S. 74-51
and 52 of The Mining Act of 1971 will be carefully considered (copy
of Act enclosed). A detailed review by this office, and several
other state agencies within this Department, will be conducted to
consider potential impacts of Nello L. Teer Company's (NLT)
oniarati nn nn the neighhnrynrs r,tiuhl it �.T; I AI ; fo t. tc d '
r• i• .y I- v, .x..L ....L y L V-, - u 1. and u u i r
quality. In addition to the comprehensive review of the erosion
and sedimentation control plan for the site, several other aspects
of the mining operation, including a review of visual screening and
potential impacts resulting from blasting and mine dewatering
activities on nearby structures, will also be thoroughly evaluated.
This office requested supplemental information from NLT on
March 20, 1992 to obtain additional documentation and studies to
provide a comprehensive mine file upon which this office can make
a fair and' objective decision. The Department feels that it is the
responsibility of the applicant, not the State of North Carolina,
to incur the time and cost to obtain any comprehensive, technical
reports that may be required in order to address the requirements
of the Mining Act. The Department requires that such reports be
prepared by qualified professionals and that said reports are
evaluated by the appropriate personnel within this agency as well
as other qualified state agencies that have expertise in the
subject matter under review.
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687. • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

.1
Dr. Royster
March 30, 1992
Page 2
Contrary to your letter, this office is sensitive to the
public's welfare and will evaluate any information that pertains to
the requirements of the Mining Act. The Act does not require this
office to notify the surrounding community each time additional
information is requested from an applicant. The public is free to
review any of our mine files during normal business hours provided
that an appointment is made at a mutually convenient date and time
S.ri th annrnnr i at-o staff memhrarc to ensure that thin f i 1 a i S Ava i 1 Ahl P
for review at that time.
Please be advised that noise, as well as off -site truck
traffic and land use/property values, is not covered by the Mining
Act. These issues (and any other issues that are not within the
jurisdiction of the Mining Act and related state environmental
laws) are handled under local zoning authority. G.S. 74-65 of the
Mining Act specifically states that a mining permit does not
supersede local zoning ordinances.
Again, thank you for your interest in this matter. I assure
you that the decision on whether to grant or deny NLT's request
will be made fairly and objectively on the basis of credible
technical information and the law. If you should have any
questions on the above, please contact me at [phone] or Mr.
Tracy Davis, Mining Specialist, at [phone].
CHG/TED/td
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Tracy Davis
Mr. John Holley
Very truly yours,
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.

•
i
P ��T,��
x�"illp�.
02
LA1\1D RUALITY SECT fpt.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
1. Name of Mine Crabtree Quarry County Wake
2. Name of Applicant Hello L. Teer Company
3. Permanent address for receipt of official mail. P.O. Box 1131
Durham, _N. C_._27702_
*Telephone [phone]
4. Mine Office Address P. 0. Box 52039, Oak Parka
Raleigh, NC27,612„_2039 Telephone [phone]
5. Mine Manager Kenneth Kennedy-
We hereby certify that all details contained in this Permit
Application are true and correct to the best of our knowledge. We
fully understand that any willful misrepresentation of facts will be
cause for permit revocation.
**Signature ate 9
Print Name Don A. tLineb!ertrZ
Title Vice -President
*The Land Quality Section should be notified of change in permanent
address or telephone number.
**Signature of company officer required.
G.S. 74-51 provides that the Department shall grant or deny an
application for a permit within 60 days of receipt of a complete
application or, if a public hearing is held, within 30 days
following the hearing and the filing of any supplemental
information required by the Department. All questions must be
addressed and all required maps provided before this application can
be considered complete. Attach additional sheets as needed.
1

'u, 1", 6q 00MU T•.e_ };d'-rOL rt M TOT "a.: 06000 `dr ► GC.,:Gq'
iL,'.!T 3a;q 911 t_T'f"li.Fxzu main ?]T0f3-'05q i•iCTAV vole '{hf7.:Y�wop" SgIT
I z Tr' r:' 4(_ YA. �1 l.�C�Jl 1-' (, fj.� �t:. POF
. 1 fa'SnyO ,
31 , f.rrl: I TO P,.c1 t IOO 72 P _.'; CS fl'.rt:+ TP <Q 4;?A2
;i :.KWICA t_U.iL ? i 4Qi f. � �:y f'i•. ��!]•. i. j. �r-jC+��--'�i !'is
A • it' r-. A i 1 <i : I t PSC KU . .F su; I &PI re �., R'•C'ii. 01 -4 at! ir,
. P W '_RIC tr ;: OL ;"! t Irl :.{mil' :Lr:Ju req-
i : 'qvlqvq : P7 L l 1,1111b ?j•,rOnIq p un q 1 o v or rjiI'_fh.7 . _ t_v'.11ft,w ';.
4.
77
I,") T!. ,"q . 'c-"i 4 i'"put ";A
T Tin ml n r- - -e"_ JCTOP 0 •C'tP,''u
rr-, [ Y'irjr : f �7 c- ) w *
NT;t1 ��. .i «, i' _ � S:',t-is-�..f a �-)� i?- 2! G •'lff !:!7�.�-i [. r � r;
lit .' o r; , ..i it vier `+f f In zoo In Qou row 7 FU OV, iT6LWfC
'}TrVMS- ._A�7�;
isr . r 014, j %e r.4 s' ..:i r y .. —
�. .r .....-........_... ...._ _ _ �....._. _,. �-� -�-._�..., ..._..�--_• .... ,r " .i t: �; i {l �) {1 � - i � {� It ." Ci i i r, -. - '� Y� � .....,._-.._.-„_ .
F .siiigw, O. :. gT!-PU '"4 y v7,oTLr ii f'r'-, T; r 143T-.
Y om y i _ "L- ..�?r 1 � i z TlI�rFL'_�''J FICF 1.. •. ram_-.
k .i, 7 a - Li p a njATMb i'g
S fE'j' •`f•W1% {y4 A2. Is
r TSB :t VDF FOWr 'T. N T u `" T MPH I T Y j,

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
A. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MINE.
1. Total acreage at site covered by this permit application:
Acres owned 212.4 Acres leased 21.1 Property owner
if leased__ N.C. Dept. of Transiortation
2. Name of all materials mined: Granite
3. Mining method: Hydraulic Dredge Underground
Shovel & Truck % Dragline & Truck Self -loading
Scraper
Other (explain)
4. a. Expected maximum depth of mine (feet) 495 Reference
elevation: 350 AHS
b. Expected average depth of mine (feet) 245 AHS
5. Has any area(s) at this site been mined in the past? Yes %
No If no, proceed to Question 6.
a. Acreage of previously affected land(s) at present site
that has not been reclaimed: 69 acres (identify
all areas on your mine map).
b. When and by whom was this activity conducted?
Nello Teer Co. - Under its existing mining 12ermit
c. Acreage of previously affected land at present site that
has been reclaimed: 0 acres (identify all areas on
your mine map).
d. When and by whom was this activity conducted? Same
as above
e. Do you wish to exclude any areas noted in 5a or c from
this permit application?
Yes No % If yes, how much?
acres (identify all areas on your mine map).
6. Present (preminina) use of the land (estimate acreage for
each):
Cropland ac Pasture ac Forestry ac
Fish/Wildlife ac Recreation ac Other 233.5 ac
An existing quarry
7. Proposed land use after mining and reclamation has been
completed (estimate acreage for each):
Cropland ac Pasture ac Forestry 153.5 ac
Fish/Wildlife ac Recreation ac Other 80 ac
Fresh water supply.
B. DETERHINATION OF AFFECTED ACREAGE AND BOND
1. Number of years for which permit is requested (10 years
maximum). Ten (10)
2

r `}'I., i i5i. s' - 4Fr'. ,}T }rf.Tt;,1r� , Fr.-:flJf 'ry.G• � `,i(! `.r.':-i .
�a" I c •fi•'cr�t ,"�,?.' 1: OT �►3,ti.�G!'Y'a) "fi" iI?^�;�' `PD
fa` .
t1TTr.iI L,: _�..w�. k S F 3:4 s'U> _ ..._ ...._ J� � t)•,t•_fiv—.
I_„�,•r f- yrG0 0' :'T;]J,4 r'= Tr ,:b zr �H. !t',
r, 1. r3 ri-i: Ei �' It"!.j .fibY rt' J: rlr"rl 17 ' '3I a?l 7V0 f v
T.Tri' r J J I Crr: ,;. �'.I I:-1 r� +J'^f
L 1 qU Cr_. _.. T '7'�{"JJ f _. 0T.„•ICI-(�
., r.�: ..!•�� { J C-.IPT=.Ji'-rei
ul:ITri.
jC'«_ tic _—n ----- _._. I. J C j•r',`•. ''Itjr;ri _
: Jr;�a: 1.•Ii7 - =J1: la '1']•r: f�.!'')i'�
r1 ? i i". T'7 , JJ ? i) L
�f I:LI. 1' �r '.t-� (< �.r''�r'� �••�•� i�� I: +"t,. �'i,;17',^./1 ..Ci�i :�l:.>r'�,'tW ...._-,ir lrJ�
1 C) rT F. lrJ
_Nr':•Jti7iJJt=,C'f.iJ?CiT
IT I- >. f,F 7 j `3U.. "T t. L f L'V F
tit<, 1:l1}'j'�r.-._.
tigaI J_r T t: t. j r �'1i i ".-- . — - - rrC r 13 ise.. 0 1
-JJ i -1 ;j -d F'•i"i'i�.J !C� r� , _J .i' ixT b iJ .�..�
i
I- IT 3 ? c r ;a t ttr,{'I'
G :r ! J t i G CI j J —'14 1 "ItiZ
s' F� T: I' l . i , • ,.� ti 7 tr.'! ...,. '.f >:7 i }' ! i i } ;JJ ire i {i 4: � '} f !.• - . .... !{ .; ; G T. ' i U
'e. �_, I, . r,� ; . rl•. r� ,F: iJ,_;,c T �.>T3 �c x
I•i Ci C;
3 '
pj .T V l ,•.r� t IJ : a✓ C, -C ] , Gt U''r
-�T'O
441 ' •'f -'r,i �.� r.) ' wT.r ::. T :I r. �.1 �._ �— _-•..—...�Tr. l.3{ 1, i1� ljfTEiJ
}' ,j��}. _ hJ i„ '% I f-!' _.C�r� LCy �:aj r:F.".: r � .f;' '•' �?.I7 j i ..:ii. r.if
t- 'rR• -mil �: i• l JI. 1•j.i i ii .5 �''�'. 1'{Yi'7 •�•
0

•
APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
2. Total affected acreage to be disturbed during initial year
of operation:
--CA
A f o r tailing d� „ �, -- n —_ _a t i-. r
r
retention ponds, spillways
3
acres
b.
Area used for stockpiles
12
acres
c.
Area used for waste piles
5
acres
d.
Area used for processing plants and
onsite haul roads
15
acres
e.
Area of mine excavation(s)
53
acres
f.
TOTAL a-e
88
acres
3. Estimate the maximum amount of land to be disturbed and
unreclaimed at any one time during the life of the permit.
88 acres
4. Check acreage to be bonded*: Total affected acreage figure
from B2f OR B3 (page 2) whichever is larger, equals acreage
to be bonded. (See 15 NCAC 5B.0003 for bond amounts.)
0 - 4.99 acres 10 - 24.99 acres
- 9.99 acres A 25 T acres
S. a. Will you file a blanket bond or other security covering
all of your mining operations in North Carolina? Yes %
No
b. Have you already filed a blanket bond or other security?
Yes % No
6. List any mining permits previously issued to the applicant.
Crabtree 92-3. Durham 32-1. Raleigh 92-2. Neverson 98-2.
Princeton 51-5, Rocky Mount_3_3-13,Elliot Sand and Gravel
43-3. Cape Fear 43-21, North Durham_32-07, North Orange
68-6. Elm Citv 98-13. Holly Springs 92-13, High Point 41-18
C. PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
1. a. Will the operation involve washing the material mined,
recycling process water,
or other waste water handling? Yes X No
If yes, briefly describe all such processes including any
chemicals to be used.
The crushed stone facility requires the use of water to produce
clean stone. The crater is pumped from the secondary settling pond
to the plant. Through the use of spraybars and screens the raw
material is washed and sized. This water is also used at all
transfer points throughout the plant to allay dust. Once used, the
water is collected in a series of ditches and pipes and directed
back to the primary settling pond. Once the water has flowed
through the primary and secondary settling ponds, most of the
3

T3 Cra T. j pe.
T 1;tN, 's .1 1 -
I If, 4'? 3- ij
4
1,
1 Ty. C3
IVA
U 1, 3' G; 0 1,pTZ Z,SfAG,K. 17111 qTn!.,
Ap v r ty G i it,,.
r- T r
I-V
P 9 1: C. T. 17
;j o A
r T
7
7,(j1:
-CC7-
7Tc— -.,t F. i-,5 -6'-i7,-
9 4r_
J t; T i. 6 -J ct l j., r o
I:IT mi.,: ir, c t o- i,. �r 4,,r ),i ;i y j
p. r f.
t
:r U
T ZL f'f
f4
1; J'
(7 4 �f T U!
0 13, It,' I)
r,
ol
T
L: t
n- T
il r 1)
t,
c7
is 0

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
silt -sized particles of material have settled out, and the water is
ready to be reused in the plant. Due to evaporation and loss
through material sales, it is necessary to periodically supplement
the closed circuit system with water from the pit.
b. Will the operation involve dewatering the mine or
discharging fresh or waste water from the mine or plant.
Yes % No If yes, briefly describe the
nature of the discharge and locate all proposed discharge
points on your mine map.
All water encountered during mining operations is storm water with
some minor amounts of ground water encountered during pit
excavation. This water is considered fresh water and does not need
to be treated. Refer to Plan Sheet HP-1 for the location of the pit
dewatering discharge point.
c. If you answered yes to either 1a or 1b, provide evidence
that you have applied for or obtained a water quality
permit from the Division of Environmental Management,
Water Quality Section.
This site presently has an NPDES discharge permit #NC0003590 which
covers pit discharge as well as the closed circuit process water
system. Expiration of this permit is May 1993. During renewal of
our present NPDES permit, it was decided that a separate Non -
Discharge permit is needed and Nello Teer Co. has submitted to the
State for this permit.
*In lieu of the surety bond required by this section, the
operator may file with the Department a cash deposit,
negotiable securities, a mortgage of real property
acceptable to the Department, or an assignment of a savings
account in a North Carolina bank on an assignment form
prescribed by the Department. The amount of land disturbed
and unreclaimed at any one time must not exceed the bonded
amount.
2. a. Will the operation involve crushing or any other air
contaminant emissions?
Yes X No If yes, indicate evidence
that you have applied for or have obtained an air quality
permit issued by the Division of Environmental
Management, Air Quality Section or local governing body.
Crabtree Quarry presently operates under Air Quality Permit Numbers
4149R3 and 4150R2, which expire in March 1992 and these permits are
in the process of being renewed.
4

Ili . w 1.j x -t -F
4 L? c- i:. a a
I RM 1 J V I L I t)
r lus .1
- a i i -, -- in Lit
DIP —i o it) 0 IP. ik"
'r al 110
A"i
f A h 81! Ill 11 4t
c "o, bf r Ri n. LT
J L j.1 6 Q
T r
g f J
1. r

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
b. How will fugitive dust from stockpiles, haul roads, etc.
be controlled?
A wet suppression system for the plant, as filed with the Division
of Environmental Management Air Quality Section, is the primary
control for fugitive dust in the plant area. Spray bars and nozzles
at transfer points in the processing plant allays any particulate
emissions in the plant and stockpile areas. Also, most aggregate
products are washed stone gradations with little or no fines. Haul
roads and site access roads are also monitored for fugitive dust.
As the need arises, a water wagon sprays water along these routes to
further inhibit any dust from becoming airborne.
3. Describe in detail the chronological sequence of land
disturbing activities and reference the sequence to the mine map(s).
Attach additional sheets as needed.
See attached sheet.
4. a. How wide a buffer will be maintained between any mining
activity and any adjoining property or highway right-of-
way? Show all buffers on mine map(s).
It is anticipated that no mining or land disturbing activities will
occur within 50' of the existing property lines. At present, Mello
Teer Company maintains a much larger buffer zone which is bermed and
wooded. The present mining plans also show much of this buffered
area to remain for the next ten year extension of our permit. This
is not to in any way inhibit Teer's right to use the property
outside of the 50' Undisturbed Buffer zone if the appropriate plans
are submitted to and approved,by the State. It is Teer's practice
to maintain as much area as possible in passive use as well as
buffer between our operations and the adjoininq property owners.
b. Describe other methods to be taken during mining to
prevent physical hazard to any neighboring dwelling
house, public road, public, commercial or industrial
building from any mine excavation. Locate all such
structures on the mine map if they are within 300 feet of
any proposed excavation.
To prevent any physical hazard to neighboring houses or buildings,
it has been Teer's policy to restrict all of its pit operations
outside of a 300' zone. Mello Teer Company has always used the most
modern mining methods in existence to ensure the safety of its
employees and neighbors. Mello Teer Company makes it a practice to
use non -electric blasting techniques to reduce the possibility if
inadvertent blast initiation during thunderstorms. Each shot is
seismographed at the closest structure to the site of the blast to

+'+ I, ! k u', �; (' - '�j 34i7 ,, *-A>1: F.�:+`+• ,.`.3'j .Ai .. •lr ,Td�rr• �
i",I A 11 ! •r n y � r�, , 1'iirt ,.L7i�t SEE . %' },'i�i ,� _ •�i -
+ 'I , . - - iS• - ,If. t � ►a r I .r, �" j.. i ,T' 1. F. .y ,. "re l r 3 «'-J t••• f- (�•
Y" ;' � 1'�, L . a ' t, • s �, d _ � i 3 '� 1 E , a :i j r t . - E 1 ry
',• 'f = '-� � z.T•._ _ nr ,.A-.•.i. ,,. ::s, F�=:+.r' u' . I b ii � jy;1) _
' ,I ir-dt .I�l .AI '. '•iA c:'i,. _ .i ..•:.' '- ,. .'[' AI P
y' - • + a' ' !�'' .F ' _7 1 I' r ! �I III. ! T � - I !. � 1
i 1:
tYL- cif- T (i_1(; EJ%1 [ {.
� A a � i- e=fl `73 .' :1.":. •� �t'w� L i .r i f, .•S)i.1lrJ + •'G 1:•1',e `�
+�
{r)1 17A_; r ' '. _ E1'! ui'
Tt,1;
.j
.4,a : ,Cr f'i+{ F .L. 1A'� i :Y1 '.�• rJ' i. .fi.1 rt!:i
1. i d'SE+ + i' , ¢.Alc• J7-rr �•1 ;? 'I: EZ • r 3 �I: �r i ^• ..!;1 -i. -
r'' l; A,r ;.r d [1 T11° 'I{1 f, +! 1[ 17 r,. 0
r 1;, , 1 , VA :.r�-i.
1J, i IA! t I' ..,li`lr•
1� ( y 4 T .!f T i$.` [ 3 I''•UI.}. K4 Z..
;F E. > A•.A:i::',
d. A ,II .. j.1 i i .�F +i.r- `t�F. rii''� r •A-i+? ,,.I "if i i:. ,A � � i � •rryg- { yr 1
Q . J fY I ' . �i r • y i
• l , •♦ ?_ ..y.. j 1 , 1 r 1, ;:., . ' E" S'] C C, :1 T d'
.4 •1:}, Ya
Il s`!'-A r.(lii• 1 d� 1' '. 1.1 l�r f � _d' �] i_ L- i"1
],` •��' -.ire �F.•- �_. �: r - I,•t••E, +,.� r' '_: [:� y..3 ,Jf..'' ..
i f A
l.r, fl :-i I
f3, r L C

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
ensure compliance with approved blast limits. All of our shots are
initiated only as the weather permits so that the inversions will
not reflect the blast wave onto adjoining property. Nello Teer also
leaves enough buffer or passive use area so that there will be no
chance of slides which might affect adjoining properties.
c. Describe what kind of barricade will be used to prevent
inadvertent public entry along any high wall area and
when it will be implemented.
Access to the property itself is restricted by gates and cables
which are kept locked when the quarry is not in operation.
During the life of the quarry, barricades of either oversize rock or
concrete barriers are used and relocated as the pit is developed.
These barricades were established prior to commencement of mining
operations and during the stripping of the pit before the stripping
depth exceeded ten vertical feet.
5. Describe specific erosion and sediment control measures to
be taken during mining to prevent offsite sedimentation
(include specific plans for erosion control for mine
excavation(s), waste piles, access/mine roads and process
areas), and give a detailed sequence of installation. Locate
and label all erosion and sediment control measures on the
mine map. Engineering designs and calculations shall be
required when needed to justify the adequacy of any proposed
measures.
During the life of the quarry, any cleared land not being used in
the mining operation has been seeded for pasture and woodlands.
Within the affected area of the mine site, a series of diversion
ditches (grass -lined or rip -rapped) have been constructed and
maintained to channel all runoff water to settling ponds or sediment
basins prior to its release into any stream.
The sequence of construction and installation of the permanent
erosion control features has been discussed on page 4, question 3,
as well as on the erosion control section of the plans. Engineering
and design calculations are included with this permit application
information.
6

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
6. a.Describe methods to prevent landslide or slope instability
adjacent to adjoining properties during mining.
In order to prevent landslides and/or slope failure adjacent to
adjoining properties, cut slopes have been graded on slopes no
steeper than 1 1/2 : 1 and fill slopes no steeper than 2:1. In
addition, all slopes have been seeded as soon as possible after
grading has been completed and treated in accordance with the
revegetation plan contained herein.
Furthermore, as previously stated in sections 4(a) and 4(b), buffer
zones of varying widths have been maintained in areas of existing
vegetation, and no mining shall occur within 50 feet of existing
property lines.
b. In excavation(s) of unconsolidated (non -rock) materials,
specify the angle of all slopes including specifications
for benching and sloping.
The maximum slope within the pit excavation will be 1 1/2:1 in
unconsolidated overburden with a 15-foot wide bench every 35 feet of
depth and a 20-foot wide bench at the rock/soil interface.
c. In hardrock excavations, specify_ proposed bench widths and
heights in feet.
At Crabtree Quarry, the slope has historically been 1/4:1 in the
hardrock excavations with no bench. This slope has been adequate
throughout
i _ - L _ the
_ history
_ _ f this
S_ the
_ 1_ 3_ _ J
Li1L�01]C,�ilOut GAe i1lStory O1: L111.`i. t3a.te S311IC:e Li1C S1C�]U�1t 1:5 rC1dL1VC1y
uniform and does not have a tendency to slide. The operations on
the south side of Crabtree Creek will have 1/4:1 slopes with a 15'
wide bench every 35' of vertical height.
7. Are acid producing minerals or soils present? Yes No X
If yes, list all such minerals, their relative abundance and
indicate their location(s) on the mine map. How will acid
water pollution from the excavation, stockpiles and waste
areas be controlled?
8. Describe specific plans (including a schedule of
implementation) for screening the operation from public view
such as maintaining or planting trees, bushes or other
vegetation, building berms or other measures. Show the
location of all visual screening on the mine map and provide
cross -sections through all proposed berms.
7

r
. •
J 'Ij .IS
i � f't_ Y, ly
� �' a! ..,
1 j,� '
I
i
r re
1
"
• �
�Lr ��v !J
iili ire i.:�l:r,'i
';i�i :y'j' -r
r s y
"r, f';
��
� �1, �
•lr
'. r- 71e}
.r � ,r' rl' 1
i= •'3�i' F f,l"
-
'j
`. {
- - - �
r
I ,' ' '
'� 7.' — - f (
,� • �. f � �' • � y
�" ? • � ' -
1 1' , i
I r 1
.. ice. '� n 1 •
' it r
• ti• 1
;. 1 i ,
- ti
, ci i° . . �. f ". i.
.� s s .: i i r ''' .
�• �
-
"
, � :'
,
l
rl ' �i•
.

•
APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
Crabtree Quarry presently has a combination of visual barrier berms
as well as natural vegetation which screens this site from adjoining
roads and property owners. Operations on the south side of Crabtree
Creek will continue to have natural vegetation as well as visual
barrier berms. The site is well screened and it is Nello Teer
Company's intent to continue this practice during the next ten year
permit period. Cross -sections and plan views of the screened areas
for the north and south sides of Crabtree Creek are indicated on the
renewal plans.
9. Will explosives be used? Yes X No If yes, specify
the types of explosive(s) and describe what precaution(s)
will be used to prevent physical hazard to persons or
neighboring property from flying rocks or excessive air
blasts or ground vibrations. Locate the nearest offsite
structure(s) to the proposed excavation(s) on the mine map.
1. Ensign Bickford or comparable nonel initiation system.
2. Anfo premixed powder for dry hole shots.
3. A cap -sensitive high explosive emulsion for wet holes and
initiation of Anfo.
4. An electronic initiation system may be substituted for the nonel
system if it is deemed a better overall system.
Since blasting is an integral part of this operation, each blast is
monitored with a seismograph to insure that peak particle velocities
and peak overpressures are within limits established -by local,
state, and federal authorities. A recording of each blast is made
on magnetic tape and is sent to a third party consultant for
analysis using the Response Spectrum Velocity Profile (RSVP)
technique.
As additional precautions, some preliminary seismic studies have
been conducted onsite to determine the preferred direction of
blasting and.pit development to further lessen the possibility of
excessive peak particle velocities during actual mining conditions.
10. a. What is the pre -mining depth (in feet) to the seasonal
high and low ground water tables? High ft.
Low ft. What is the source(s) of this
information?
Since this mine was open in the 1940's, this information is not
available. However, when installing monitoring wells in the area of
the pit, it has been determined that the water table is in excess of
70' deep. These monitoring wells had 20' of overburden and were
drilled 50' into rocks. The water supply well for the shop is 375'
deep and continues to have a production capacity of 5 gpm.
8

i
a1
� i.. •j_
�.. �.: Li-� t)', 'i i' I
t1
� �
}-' ,
.'r' .. .� �t 1
,�
,'1
J' - _i -• A
''
1: . . iE.i r . r i � -lair. +` .'
Lr
t
! � ,
r
r
� :...
„f .-,C
as a I .L "If { '.: i ','s :. ,.
„ Lot
.. .
'!.� 1 .I. �'
� t
3,.'j ... .,-,. (� �:r ! '.�S' .i ,. ` '�(�,�•, tl+� {.. 1 _ ..
� f.l:.
- 1 i, .
1 t+:
Ion
Ask ho
An
3

APPLICATION FOR A MINING PERMIT
b. Will any part of the proposed mine excavation(s) extend
below the water table? Yes X No if yes, do you
int.anA t^ dAtint er tha Ave -must inn( cz I? Yeg X Un Tf
a ,
yes, what impact, if any, will mine dewatering have on
neighboring wells? Locate all existing wells on the
mine map that lie within 500 feet of the proposed permit
area. Provide data to support any conclusions or
statements made.
From analysis of the core retrieved from the exploratory drilling
and the existing pit, the granite appears to have very little
primary permeability. The only means in which water may be
transported will be through secondary permeability (i.e. joints,
fractures, shears, etc.); however, from core analysis, RQD values
are in the 85% to 95% range, below the weathered rock interface, and
these joints and fractures do not appear to be interconnected. The
surfaces of the fractures and joints show very little evidence of
mineralized coatings as a result of water transportation. Removal
of the overburden has very little effect on shallow wells in the
area since the pit for the most part sits on a topographic high and
very little of the recharge area for shallow wells will be
disturbed. The overburden materials in the pit area are silts,
clays, and sand which would inhibit groundwater migration.
11. Will fuel tanks, solvents, or other chemical reagents be
stored on -site? Yes X No If yes, describe these
materials and how they will be stored and show the
location(s) of all storage facilities on the mine map.
Onsite storage of gasoline, diesel fuel, and various oils and
greases is necessary to facilitate the operation of various types of
equipment needed to produce crushed stone. The bulk storage tanks
for fuel, gasoline, and oil,are in approved above -ground storage
tanks surrounded by a berm that would contain any leakage or
spillage. Grease and other oils not required in bulk quantities are
stored in 55 gallon metal drums in bermed areas or at the oil/water
separator pit. All empty grease and specialty oil drums are
returned to the manufacturer at frequent intervals to alleviate the
need for a disposal area.
9

0

0
Is
Chronological Sequence
The sediment and erosion control features which are existing for the
mining area on the north side of Crabtree Creek are adequate to
handle the present mining practices at this site. Nello Teer will
continue to mine to the limits indicated on the plans and in the
annual reclamation reports submitted to your office.
The present mining plans on the south side of Crabtree Creek include
pit development and implementation of a revised sediment and erosion
control plan. This process will require the following construction
sequence:
1) Construct gravel construction pad and entrance pad.
2) Extend existing sediment basins 1 & 2 as indicated on EC1 and
EC8.
3) Construct temporary sediment traps 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 as indicated
on EC1 and EC8.
4) Clear and grub mining area as indicated on MP1.
5) Clear visual barrier berm area as indicated on MP1.
6) Commence stripping operations in the mining area indicated on
MP1.
7) Construct visual barrier berms as indicated on MP1 and EC8 from
materials excavated from the mining area.
8) Within 30 days after completion of stripping activities, all
disturbed slopes are to be seeded with the appropriate seed
mixture as indicated on EC8.
9) In summary, all erosion control measures must be in place prior
to commencement of stripping operations.

Y.. 'I ...

D. RECLAMATION PLAN
1. Describe your intended plan for the reclamation and
subsequent use of all affected lands and indicate the
general methods to be used in reclaiming this land. This
information must be illustrated on a reclamation map.
Reclamation of disturbed areas is an integral part of the active
quarrying operations. As areas are disturbed, revegetation is in
accordance with the Revegetation Plan. Please refer to the initial
reclamation plan found in the reclamation section of the plan
sheets.
The plant site and shop yard will also be graded and revegetated
according to the Revegetation Plan. The primary and secondary
settling ponds will be filled in and treated in a like manner.
The quarry pit itself will be allowed to fill with groundwater and
rainwater and can be used to provide water storage and recreation
for the local area.
2. a. Is an excavated or impounded body of water to be left as
a part of the reclamation? Yes % No If yes,
illustrate the location of the body(s) of water on the
reclamation map and provide a scaled cross-section(s)
through the proposed body(s) of water. Will the body(s)
of water be stocked with fish? Yes No g If yes,
specify species.
It is Nello Teer Company's intent to convert the pits into fresh
water supply ponds upon cessation of all mining activities. This
water will be sold to local utilities as the need for fresh water
arises.
b. Describe provisions for prevention of noxious, odious or
foul water collecting or remaining in mined areas.
Provide details on any permanent water outlets.
In those locations of the permit area which will require final
dressing_ or gradinq of the surface for reclamation, land surfaces
will be graded to lines or grades which will prevent the pooling of
water in shallow depressions. All drainage structures to be
incorporated into the permanent erosion control plan will be cleaned
out and left in a free draining state. Any pipes, culverts, and
conduits to remain will be inspected to insure their soundness and
will be cleaned out and replaced if necessary. The pit water will
be of sufficient depth and size so that noxious or odious conditions
should not be of concern. In addition to size, minor amounts of
groundwater, as well as surface runoff, continue to infiltrate into
the pit maintaining fresh water.

f: r 3
i'+
f
i_Lۥ Er
!; t ' I
r �.. I
• �1 _i 2i i, . r i
' ... r1
l
{- 4�:1' '1.�
4'.Y fi _1} ,
±.. S' .
� 1 ')•'...
:1, A- a •Ja ;� 1. .ti_
.. y
,
..
d. ..1.1 �.� �' +'.
•.1 I�l,
•f .. . 1
.I•� J.J a ?v1
dci f
si C
:1
1
-
-1
fl

RECLAMATION PLAN
3. Describe nrnvicinnQ fnr Gafafu f n narcnnc AnH to AHininin"
property in all completed excavations in rock including what
kind of permanent barricade will be left. The location of
the barricade must be shown on the reclamation map.
As a safety precaution, a 20-foot wide safety bench between the rock
soil interface will be left. Additionally, a permanent fence will
be erected around the pit to prevent unauthorized entry. Danger
signs will be placed at regular intervals around the pit perimeter
to warn of the open pit.
4. a. .Indicate the method(s) of reclamation of overburden,
refuse, spoil banks or other such on -site mine waste
areas, including specifications for benching and sloping.
As overburden is placed in designated waste areas, it is spread and
compacted by dozers and the hauling units. Slopes in waste area(s)
(and in all embankment areas) will be graded to 2:1 or flatter and
revegetated as soon as possible to prevent erosion. Drainage on top
of the waste area(s) will be established to prevent pooling and
stagnation of water, and to control stormwater runoff. Final
reclamation of the waste area(s) will include final top and slope
dressing (if required) and revegetation according to the
revegetation plan as contained herein.
b. Are any processing waste, overburden or other such mine
wastes to be disposed of off -site? Yes No X
If yes, describe in detail what these wastes are and how
they will be disposed. Attach a separate site map(s)
showing the location(s) of the disposal area(s). Include
all specifications for erosion and sediment control.
5. a. Describe reclamation of processing facilities,
stockpile areas, and onsite roadways.
Reclamation in these areas will occur in two stages: first, the
plant and stockpiles will be removed from the site, followed by the
scarifying of these locations and revegetating according to the
revegetation plan as contained herein. In addition, any site access
roads not utilized in the end use development plan will be treated
in the same manner.
The erosion control structures in these areas will also be cleaned
out and left in good working condition, since they will be
incorporated into the end use development of the site.

• I '. 7 r-.I ` 1' "?- ' � 1'Ti F. t '� ti-'C' .i,L� -+i.! jf,Ef 1 � ii",�

RECLAMATION PLAN
b. Will any onsite roadways be left as part of the
recla+l ati on? Yes No V if vec identify fv theca on
mation? riv... iv a. ii j...v, r. ... .. .. ..iij these ... v�. v..
the reclamation map and provide details on permanent
ditch line stabilization.
6. State the method of reclamation of settling ponds and/or
sediment control basins.
Sediment control basins which will be left in place for future
development will be cleaned out and left in good working condition.
The primary and secondary settling ponds, and any other erosion
control structures which won't be incorporated in the end use plan
for the property, will be regraded to the approximate lines and
grades of original ground and revegetated according to the criteria
as contained in this application.
Prior to filling in the ponds, water will be drained from each pond
after all silt has settled out. Once this is complete, backfilling
will occur.
7. State the method of control of contaminants and disposal of
scrap metal, junk machinery, cables, or other such waste
products of mining. (Note definition of refuse in The
Mining Act of 1971). No off -site generated waste shall be
disposed of on the mine site without prior written approval
from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Land Quality Section and either the N.C.
Department of Human Resources or local governing body.
As indicated on the plans, a temporary scrap storage area has been
developed at this site, and the scrap material which is developed as
a result of mining activities is stored in this area until an
independent recycler of these products picks them up. No mine waste
products are disposed of at this site.
The fuel oil storage tanks and oil and grease tanks are stored above
ground and have built in spill containment around them. This is to
guard against any possibility of contamination of the soil or
groundwater in the unlikely event of a spill or tank rupture.

t •i
i
rr
•
- _ `i r
rl
i; ifT
•,LJ I �'.
f� .fir• ,
j 1
E
' ri
..• T r,
s

•
•
RECLAMATION PLAN
8. Indicate the method of restoration or establishment of any
nermanent Hrainarra rhanna7G to a rnnditinn minimi7inn
erosion, siltation and other pollution. Give design
detail's including typical cross -sections of any permanent
channels to be constructed as part of the reclamation plan.
Show the location(s) of all permanent channels on the
reclamation map.
All permanent channels are either lined with rip rap or grass to
ensure that they are stabilized and not subject to erosion. These
channels will be cleaned out and inspected prior to complete
cessation of reclamation activities at the site. Location and
design details can be found on sheets R1 & 2 and EC1-8 of the plans
and also in the specifications related to the design of these basins
and channels.
9. Describe your plan for revegetation or other surface
treatment of the affected areas. This plan must include
recommendations for time of seeding and the amount and type
of seed, fertilizer, lime and mulch per acre and general
seeding instructions for permanent revegetation and, if
necessary, temporary revegetation. Revegetation utilizing
pine seedlings only is not acceptable. NOTE: Revegetation
Plan must be approved and signed by one of the following:
(a) Authorized representatives of the local Soil and Water
Conservation District having jurisdiction over lands in
question;
(b) Authorized representatives of the Office of Forest
Resources, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources;
(c) County Agricultural Extension chairmen or Research and
Extension personnel headquartered at North Carolina
State University in the School of Agriculture and Life
Sciences;
(d) North Carolina licensed landscape architects;
(e) Private consulting foresters referred by the Office of
Forest Resources, Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources;
(f) Others as may be approved by the Department.
LIME - RATE OF APPLICATION: Haximum of 2 tons/acre
FERTILIZER - ANALYSIS AND RATE OF APPLICATION: 10--10-10
standard with a maximum application of 1,000 lbs/acre
SEED - TYPES(S) AND RATE OF APPLICATION INCLUDING SEEDING
SCHEDULE:
See plan sheets for seeding types,
rate of application, and seeding schedule
MULCH - TYPE AND RATE OF APPLICATION: Straw with an
application rate of 2 tons/acre
OTHER VEGETATIVE COVERS: See plan sheet for information

i
i
f
3,i5.1
It
_
r
r
_
_
y I

•
E
n>•rT xfrRmTrtiv nT nv
n E C L71r3(1 '1, Lf 1% r7J(A 1I
Revegetat
S i g n a t u
Title
`�j77frflrrr,�
CA
{Oql
P a U i 1;i t -
Agenoy Moxia.A—ursd, inc..
ion plan approved byt
Date 6A 0 h 1
10. Provide a schedule of raolamation that indicates the
sequence of reclamation and approximate time frame. If
reclamation is to be accomplished concurrently with mining,
then show on the site map segments that are to be mined and
reclaimed during each year of the permit. Add drawings
showing typical sections or cross -sections and layout of
proposed reclamation.
It is anticipated that the affected land covered by this dining
permit application will be used for quarrying operatiohs beyond the
time limit of the initial permit period. It is our intent and goal
to establish ongoing reclamation and revagetation activities ma soon
as possible after land disturbance activities are dompleted in any
phase of the operation.
If, however, site reclamation Occurt8u Y41iHy 4uo aurttw,. i oa_
period, the schedule mould be according to the initial Reclamation
Flan contained in our plans. Basically, the plant site, shep area,
and settling ponds would be restored to the contours shown. The
slain entrance road, which will be paved, is scheduled to be
obliterated at the cessation of raining operations,s bUt--ert—ttra
All areas
requiring regrading would be dloped to drain in order to avoid
groolinq or water and will be revt,getated to stabilize the area. The
approximate time frame for completion would be from six nonthe to
eight months in duration.
The final item involved in reclamation would be the or c tioe of a
security fence around the perimeter of the pit and vottld run
concurrently with the final stages of land reclamation in those
areas previously mentioned.
S. NOTIFICATION Or ADJOINIRd L"DOWNER8
1. The "NOTICE" fora or a facsimile thereof attached to this
application must be sent certified or regintered mail to all
adjoining (contiguous) landowners indicated on mine map
unless another means of notice is approved in advance by the
Director, Division of Land Resources,
The te-4 "ftr4+w.Vj of u_ti*4rwtion" otta�ched'to this
application roust be submitted before the application it
considered coeplate.

NOTICE
Not Applicable
Pursuant to provisions G.S. 74-50 of The Mining Act of 1971,
notice is hereby given that
(Company Name)
has applied on to the Land Quality Section, Division
(Date)
of Land Resources, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
for a surface mining permit to commence mining of
(Mineral,Ore)
on acres located of
(Number) (Miles) (Direction) (Nearest Town)
near road in
(Road Number/Name) .(Name of County)
In accordance with G.S. 74-50, the mine operator is required to
make a reasonable effort to notify all owners of record of land
contiguous to the proposed site, and to notify the chief
administrative officer of the county or municipality in which the
site is located. The property owner may file written comment(s) to
the Department at the above address within ten (10) days following
receipt of this notice or the filing of the application for a
permit, whichever is later. Should the Department determine that a
significant public interest exists relative to G.S. 74-51, a public
hearing will be held in accordance with the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Mining, Mineral Resources
Regulation Title 15 Subchapter 5B, .0011.
A copy of the permit application materials are on file and
available for public review during normal business hours at the
above listed address. For further information call [phone].
(Date Mailed to Addressee)
(Address of Applicant)

• .1 ., _ r
Y 1 �
J z � �
c � � f .r
• � � � -
r r _ , ��, - - _ - S
'� � i �
.y � � � - ,
, � '
• -�. i ,
i � � f
,r r _ ._._...., �__. _ _. _ _ ..,._ - ._ .. _ _ .
. - ,r r. r ' � ..c
_ _ .
�i � i !'
..., �-. �
• •

AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION
T an
r r _ .'
applicant, or an agent, or employee of an applicant, for a Mining
Permit from the N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, being first duly sworn, do hereby attest that the
following are known owners, both private and public, of the land
adjoining the proposed mining site and. that notice of the pending
application has been caused to be mailed, by certified or registered
mail, to said owners at their address shown below, such notice being
given on a form provided by the Department:
(Name) (Address)
(Attach additional list if necessary)
I do also attest that the following individual is the chief
administrative officer of the county or municipality in which the
proposed mining site is located and that notice of the pending
application has been caused to be mailed, by certified or registered
mail, to said office at the following address:
(Name) (Address)
The above attestation was made by me while under oath to
provide proof satisfactory to the Department that a reasonable
effort has been made to notify the owners of record of the adjoining
land and the chief administrative officer of the county or
municipality in compliance with N.C.G.S. 74-50 and 15 N.C.A.C. 5B
.0004(d). I understand that it is the responsibility of the
applicant to retain the receipts of mailing showing that the above
notices were caused to be mailed and to provide them to the
Department upon request.
Date Signature of Applicant
If person executing Affidavit is an agent or employee of an
applicant, provide the following information: (Name of
applicant) title of person
executing Affidavit)
I, a Notary Public of the County
of State of North Carolina, do hereby certify that
personally appeared before me this day and
under oath acknowledged that the above Affidavit was made by him.
Witness my hand and notarial seal, this
day of 19
of
Notary
My Commission expires:

,, - � � 1
� ' - .. to , � , � .._ '� � � ..
', �
i t � .r... ,- , ' 3
..
• - �
ry. '� '� '

F. MAPS
1. Two copies of the county highway maps and two copies of all
mine maps shall be submitted with each permit application.
County highway maps may be obtained from:
Location Department
State Highway Commission
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Clearly mark the location of your mining operation on the
county highway maps.
2. Mine maps should be accurate drawings, aerial photographs or
enlarged topographic maps of the entire mine area and of a
scale sufficient (see minimum requirements listed below) to
clearly illustrate the following.
a. Property lines of the tract or tracts of land on which
the proposed mining activity is to be located including
easements and rights -of -way.
b. Initial and ultimate limits of clearing and grading.
c. Outline of all pits/excavations.
d. Outline of stockpile areas.
e. Outline of temporary and/or permanent overburden disposal
areas.
f. Location of processing plants (processing plants may be
described as to 'Location and distance from mine if
sufficiently far removed)
g. Location and name of streams and lakes.
h. Outline of settling and/or processing wastewater ponds.
i. Location of planned and existing access roads and on -site
haul roads.
j. Location of planned and existing on -site buildings.
k. Location of all proposed sediment and erosion control
measures.
1. 100 year floodplain limits.
m. Names of owners of record, both public and private, of
all adjoining land.
n. Map legend:
1. Name of applicant
2. Name of mine
3. North arrow
4. County
5. Scale
6. Date prepared
7. dame and title of person preparing map

n
,
1.
..
-
'
_ h. -
-
-
- ,• �
E 11

Map scales must, at a minimum, meet the following
..,
g ,
.LuA ieS:
SITE SIZE (From Page 2, Al) MAP SCALE
0-99 Acres 1 inch=50 feet
100-499 Acres 1 inch=100 feet
500+ Acres 1 inch=200 feet
NOTE: THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE WITHOUT
ITEMS 2a-n BEING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.
G. LAND ENTRY AGREEMENT
We hereby grant to the Department or its appointed
representatives the right of entry and travel upon our lands or
operation during regular business hours for the purpose of making
necessary field inspections or investigations as may be reasonably
required in the administration of this Act.
We further grant to the Department or its appointed
representatives the right to make whatever entries on the land as
may be reasonably necessary and to take whatever actions as may be
reasonably necessary in order to carry out reclamation which the
operator has failed to complete in the event a bond forfeiture is
ordered pursuant to G.S. 74-59.
Signature*
Print Name:
neb
Title: Vice -President
Mine : Crabtree Quarry
Company: Nello L. Teer Company
*Signature must be the same as the individual who signed Page 1 of
this application for a permit.
Return two copies of the completed application and all maps to the
appropriate Land Quality Section Regional Office serving your area.
(See attached list of Regional Offices).
Inquiries regarding the status of an application should be directed
to the address listed on the front page of this application form.

-
E
-.
W

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
From
Remarks:
0
0-1
Date � g 19�
wxs C"'O�A-s
,alb i.-e
If)-7*pj7)d,
❑
Note and
file
❑
Note and
return to me
❑
Note and
see me about this
❑
For yo ipproval
❑
P our
conversation
Par your
request
F9
Return with
more details
41.
ACTION
[ Note, !1V901s
nd for andYour please
r'9
❑ For your Infora
Prepare reply for��A ature
� p � Y �
❑ Prepare Information for -- - reply
❑ Please answer, with caper
M To he filed

IMPORTANT
Tc
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
of �.
Phone
AREA CODE * NUMBER EXTENSION
Message
Signed
i
TELEPHONED I PLEA CALL
LLD T SEE 1�IJ
WILL CALL II
1l1T T SEE Y11
UNIT '
ETkJRIED YU CALL
Dept. of Natural Resources and Community De veloprtint

i
LLQ TEERO
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, P.O. BOX 1131, DURHAM, NC 27702 USA
TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
January 16, 1992
Mr. Tracy Davis
NC Dept. of Environment, health
and Natural Resources ''� �
Land Quality Section �IJA�1T!
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, IBC 28711
Re: Minina Permit Renewal and
Update - Crabtree Quarry
Wake Co., NC
Dear Mr. Davis:
It is with pleasure that Nello Teer Company submits this
renewal and update application for the above referenced site
for your review and approval. Please find enclosed the
following information pertinent to this renewal and update
process:
1) Mining permit renewal application.
2) Mine plans.
3) Supplemental information concerning stormwater runoff
calculations, erosion control structures and channel
design.
Due to the' continued growth of the Raleigh/Wake Co.
market, Nello Veer Company will be continuing its mining
operations on the north and, south sides of Crabtree Creek
during the.next 10 year permit cycle.
A check for $1,000 has been included with this submittal
which will cover the $500 renewal fee and 'a $500 fee for
alterations to site erosion and sediment control structures.
After evaluating our mining operations on the south side
of Crabtree Creek, it has become evident r-hat certain. -erosion
control structures will have to be altered as we proceed with
mining. The design calculations and plans showing these
alterations have been prepared by McKim & Creed Consultants
and are included with this permit renewal application.

Mr. Tracy Davis
Page 2
Should you or any of your staff have any questions or
require any further information, Please do not hesitate to
call me at-1-800-999-6356.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
SSE/dg-
Enclosures
CC. File

r"_1
0
State of North Carolina
Department Or Environment, Health, anCl NatUn
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary January 23, 1992
Memorandum
To: Fred Harris
Director, Division of Boating and Inland Fishe
Wildlife Resources Commission
Attention: Habitat Conservation Program
From: Tracy E. Davis
Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Re: Renewal/Expansion Request
Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Charles H. Gardner
Director
a
t WD
Fishe
Please find attached for your review a copy of the above referenced
request to renew Mining Permit No. 92-03 and allow expansion of mining
activities on the south side of Crabtree Creek.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this
operation having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries
(G. S. 74-51 (2)). Please respond by February 21, 1991 so that we may
complete our review of this request within our statutory time limits.
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals
and modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and
sediment control measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain
erosion and off -site sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can
provide regarding effects on wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be
greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it
is recommended that they contact Mr. Steven S. Edgerton at [phone] to
set up a convenient date and time.
Your continued cooperation in the review of these type requests is
greatly appreciated. Please return all of the attached documents with your
officers review comments as this is our only copv of this information. In
addition, please send a carbon copv of vour review comments to the applicant
for his information.
ted\
attachments
cc: Mr. John Holley
P,O, Box 77687 • Ralelah. N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

0
40

0 •
N ELILO L. T EEFR COMPANY
A Alember of THE BEAZER GROUP
P.O. BOX 1131 DURHAM, N. C. U.S.A. 27702
OFFICE TEL: [phone] • TELEX: 6711650 • FAX; 688-4898
May 1, 1992 R E V �` w
Mr. Tracv Davis E D
NC Dept. ~ of Environment, Health MAY 2 11992
and Natural Resources
Land Quality Section
P. O. Box 27687,4ND QUALITY SECTlQN
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Renewal of Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-02
Wake County, NC
Dear Tracy:
Pursuant to your request dated March 20, 1992 on the above
referenced site, the following information has been assimilated,
which I hope will satisfy your request.
Item #1: The 50' minimum undisturbed buffers have been indicated
on the revised plan sheets. The only existing exception to this
buffer occurs at the stream crossing on Crabtree Creek. The only
future encroachments on this 50' buffer zone will occur at the
temporary construction entrance and the bridge across Crabtree
Creek. Once the pit has been developed, this entrance will be
removed and planted with like kind existing vegetation (i.e.,
pines and hardwoods). According to all engineering calculations,
it will be unnecessary to locate any future erosion control
structures within the buffer area.
Item #2: A construction detail of the rock barrier berm is
included on revised sheet HP-1 and will be constructed in
accordance with existing HSHA (Hine Safety and Health
Administration) specifications under Section 56.9300(A)(B)(CC).
The concrete barriers are comparable to NCDOT (Jersey) barriers.
Either of these two methods may be employed along the highwall
during active mining operations.
Item #3: A revised Channel Dimension detail is included on EC-8
of the revised plans. The undercut dimensions for the placement
of the rip rap and filter stone can be calculated from the
existing chart.
r V UIV UGU Iy Vy

0
0
ragePage-�
�
Item #4: Nello Teer Company, at present, has not chosen a bridge
design to be placed across Crabtree Creek. We, therefore,
request that a detailed review of the bridge placement and
construction details be suspended until Teer settles on a
permanent contractor and design. Teer will submit final design
specifications and plans to the Department of Land Quality for
approval prior to commencing any land disturbing activities
associated with the bridge construction.
Item #5: The plans have been modified to show an outlet
dissipator on plan sheets EC-1 and EC-8.
Item #6: The application form is in error and the answers to
Questions C.6.b. and D.3. should reflect a 25 ft. safety bench at
the rock soil interface.
Item #7: The visual barrier berm detailed on EC-8 indicates a
height of 7' which will effectively screen the sight from
Duraleigh Road. The combination of leaving the existing natural
vegetation, the construction of a 7' high visual barrier berm and
planting loblolly pine and leyland cypress on the berm will
effectively screen these operations from surrounding property
owners and Duraleigh Road traffic. An example of how well this
type of screening works is seen on the north side of Crabtree
Creek, as well as at other Teer operations around the state. The
approximate finish grade elevation of the visual barrier berm is
located on the revised plan sheet HP-1.
Item #8: The additional information requested under this item
has been prepared by Stuart Brashear of Vibra Tech Engineers.
The Vibra Tech analysis shows that no significant impacts on the
surrounding neighbors will occur. It is not anticipated that any
modification of Nello Teer Company's blasting procedures will be
required due to the proximity of neighboring property on the
south side of Crabtree Creek or the location of the sewer
outfall. The existing sewer outfall, in areas, is within 150' to
200' of the active mining area, and the closest that this sewer
line will be on the south side of the creek will be 200' to 250'.
The existing active pit is presently operating within 400' of the
Dyak residence, and the southern pit, at its closest point, will

0 •
Page 3
be 750' from the Hary Andrews residence. Both of these
residences and their locations to the above described areas are
shown on SP-1. Due to the increased distances to surrounding
structures, it is anticipated that Teer Company's existing
blasting program will be sufficient to protect the surrounding
neighbors from the effects of blasting. The seismograph
monitoring and subsequent analysis of the seismograph data
indicates that our blasts are well within the state's
requirements, and also within the RSVP requirements of the U.S.
Bureau of Hines for each blast. We are aware of the complaints
which have been registered by surrounding property owners and
Teer is actively working with these residents to educate them
about blasting.
Item #9: As stated in the previous materials submitted to your
office for review, it does not appear, from a hydrologic view,
that the pit on the south side of Crabtree Creek will have any
effect on the wells in the surrounding properties. The high core
recovery and RQD values during exploration indicate a very low
permeability and porosity in the deposit. The lack of
mineralized zones in the high angle fractures indicates very low
secondary porosity. The location of the pit is in a different
groundwater recharge area than the surrounding properties. As
can be seen by the topography of the site, the recharge area for
this pit is separated from adjacent properties by topographic
highs and lows which isolate the pit area.
Nello Teer Company will install two groundwater observation
wells on the south side of Crabtree Creek near the adjacent
properties. These wells will be installed to intercept the first
water producing aquifer, or 50' into rock, whichever occurs
first. A diagram of the well construction details is included
for your review and approval.
The quarry will monitor the groundwater elevations on a bi-
monthly basis three months prior to and during project
con struct-i .n After the « a 4-r d ' 7 ;
v ..iv■■. a.a■c y.i a, so SL.Lippc^u an' iao rlLaL mining
operations are initiated, the wells will be monitored on a
monthly basis. These records, along with rainfall data, will be
kept at the field office for the duration of the project.

Page d
Item #10: The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission recommendations
for plantings are included on the revised plan, and Nello Teer
Company will contact the Commission when a detailed set of plans
are available regarding the bridge construction site.
I feel that your questions have been properly addressed.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me
at 1-800-999-6356.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
Enclosures
cc: File

,. .
-fir... .,'� , r
� � � �
� 1' i �.

Protective Casing
Vented 'Nell Cap
MOA,kOR1NG WELL
CONSTRUCTION
Ground
Locking Cap
Cement Grout Fi11
c, •inch Schedule 40 PVC
Well casinn
(With threaded joints)
Peiletized Sentonite Seal -------
Medium Grain Sand
8 inch Borehole
inch PVC Well Screen
with -41, 10 Slo;s
ClOseu outto,i,
RECEIVED
MAY 2 11992
LAND QUALITY SECTION
NOTE:
Surface
f
LO
C
r
115;
%.ir�q
y1
11. Well head to be
labied: 'Well is for
monitoring and not
considered safe for
drinking.'
PATTERSON EXPLORATION SERVICS-

r
McKIN4&CREED
April 9, 1992
R F �,� V E D
Mr. Steve Edgerton ENGINEERS Nello L. Teer Company mAy 2 14 992
P_ n_ Box 1131
PLANNERS Durham, NC 27702 LAND QUTALITY SECTION
SURVEYORS Re: Revision for the Crabtree Quarry
Renewal and Expansion Plan
Dear Steve:
As per our conversation concerning the request of
additional information from Tracy Davis, (letter
dated March 20, 1991), the following items
reflect the revisions added to the plans.
1. The following notes were added to drawing
no. MP-1 and MP-2.
A. Existing variable width buffer to remain
undisturbed.
B. Existing variable width buffer
encroached upon by temporary stream
crossing.
C. 501 minimum undisturbed buffer.
2. Added the boulder barrier berm detail on
drawing no. MP-1. This detail is noted as
having boulders placed, spaced and sized in
accordance with current M.S.H.A.
regulations.
3. The channel details located on drawings EC-8
and RP-2 were modified by dimensioning the
stone bedding thickness and noted is the
310 E. JOHNSTON STREET N . C . D . O . T . standard stone specification
stone sizes.
P.O. BOX 1749
4. This item is to be handled by Nello Teer.
SMITHFIELD, NC 27577
PHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]

• 0
Mr. Steve Edgerton
April 9, 1992
Page 2
5. An outlet dissipator was designed. The
dissipator is located as shown on drawing
EC-1 and detailed on drawing EC-8.
6. This item is to be handled by Nello Teer.
7. The height of the berm is 71, this is
detailed on drawing EC-8. It is also noted
that the visual barrier berm is to be
planted with Loblolly pines and Wax Myrtle
plants. The planting scheme is denoted on
drawing LS-1.
8. This item is to be handled by Nello Teer.
9. This item is to be handled by Nello Teer.
10. The seeding schedule on drawing EC-8 was
modified to show planting schedule for
revegetation beneficial to wildlife. This
was also noted on drawings RP-1 and RP-2.
In addition to these modifications, a tree
planting detail was added to sheet EC-8.
The accompanying blueprints show the above
mentioned modifications. Please review these and
comment on any additions or deletions required.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Allen R. Kind, Fm,
Project Engineer
MCKIM & CREED ENGINEERS, P.A.
ARK: dlb
cc: Paul C. Embler, Jr., A.S.L.A.
Mct<T\4£7CREED

• JMr��o
State of North Carolina
Depalullent of EU-1-0ronlllent, l leallli, ani'l 1�-4aturcu Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Charles H. Gardner
1hjllUAm w. Cony Jr_; sPcretary March 30, 1992 Director
Mr. Robert E. Whitman
r�i .L4 Cvi�neii Di ive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Dear Mr. Whitman:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1992 regarding the
renewal and expansion request presently under review by this office
for the above referenced mining operation in Wake County.
Please be advised that before the Department makes a decision
to grant or deny this request, the criteria outlined by G.S. 74-51
and 52 of The Mining Act of 1971 will be carefully considered (copy
of Act enclosed). A detailed review by this office, and several
other state agencies within this Department, will be conducted to
consider potential impacts of Nello L. Teer Company's (NLT)
operation on the neighboring public, wildlife, water and air
quality. In addition to the comprehensive review of the erosion
and sedimentation control plan for the site, several other aspects
of the mining operation, including a review of visual screening and
potential impacts resulting from blasting and mine dewatering
activities on nearby structures, will also be thoroughly evaluated.
This office requested supplemental information from NLT on
March 20, 1992 to obtain additional documentation and studies to
provide a comprehensive mine file upon which this office can make
a fair and objective decision. The Department feels that it is the
responsibility of the applicant, not the State of North Carolina,
to incur the time and cost to obtain any comprehensive, technical
reports that may be required in order to address the requirements
of the Mining Act. The Department requires that such reports be
prepared by qualified professionals and that said reports are
evaluated by the appropriate personnel within this agency as well
as other qualified state agencies that have expertise in the
subject matter under review.
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687. • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

0
0
--Mr. Whitman
March 30, 1992
Page 2
Please be assured that this office is sensitive to the
public's welfare and will evaluate any information that pertains to
the requirements of the Mining Act. The Act does not require this
office to notify the surrounding community each time additional
information is requested from an applicant. The public is free to
review any of our mine files during normal business hours provided
that an appointment is made at a mutually convenient date and time
with appropriate staff members to ensure that the file is available
for review at that time.
I would also like to note that concerns such as noise, off -
site truck traffic and land use/property values are not covered by
the Mining Act. These issues (and any other issues that are not
within the jurisdiction of the Mining Act and related state
environmental laws) are handled under local zoning authority. G.S.
74-65 of the Mining Act specifically states that a mining permit
does not supersede local zoning ordinances.
Again, thank you for your interest in this matter. I assure
you that the decision on whether to grant or deny NLT's request
will be made fairly and objectively on the basis of credible
technical information and the law. If you should have any
questions on the above, please contact me at (919).733-3833 or Mr.
Tracy Davis, Mining Specialist, at [phone].
Very truly yours,
Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
CHG/TED/td
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Tracy Davis
T!!r Tr�hn Li r�l 1 otr
1'11 • VVllll 11V111r 1/

•yV G.x•N,q
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G, Martln, Govemor Charles H, Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 30, 1992 Director
Mr. Douglas J. Frederick
4405 Dewees Court
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92--03
Wake County
Dear Mr. Frederick:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1992 regarding the
renewal and expansion request presently under review by this office
for the above referenced mining operation in Wake County.
Please be advised that before the Department makes a decision
to grant or deny this request, your concerns as well as any other
concerns within the jurisdiction of G.S. 74-51 and 52 of The Mining
Act of 1971 will be carefully considered (copy of Act enclosed).
A detailed review by this office, and several other state agencies
within this Department, will be conducted to consider potential
impacts of Nello L. Teer Company's (NLT) operation on the
neighboring public, wildlife, water and air quality. In addition
to the comprehensive review of the erosion and sedimentation
control plan for the site, several other aspects of the mining
operation, including a review of visual screening and potential
impacts resulting from blasting and mine dewatering activities on
nearby structures, will also be thoroughly evaluated.
Concerns not covered by the Mining Act and related state
environmental laws, such as off -site truck traffic, noise and land
use/property values, are handled under local zoning authority.
G.S-. 74-65 of the Mining Act specifically states that a mining
permit does not supersede local zoning ordinances.
P.O. Sox 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

:7
0
Mr. Frederick
March 30, 1992
Page 2,
Again, thank you for your interest in
you that the decision on whether to gran
will be made fairly and objectively on
technical information and the law. T
questions on the above, please contact me
TED/td
Enclosure
CC. Mr. John Holley
this matter. T assure
t or deny NLT's request
the basis of credible
you should have any
at [phone].
Sincerely,
A
-racy Davis, E.T.T.
Minin pecialist
Land Quality Section

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Charles 11. Gardric-.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 30, 1992 Director
Ms. Jill Bumgarner Heaton
4700 Connell Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Dear Ms. Heaton:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1992 regarding the
renewal and expansion request presently under review by this office
for the above referenced mining operation in Wake County.
Please be advised that before the Department makes a decision
to grant or deny this request, your concerns as well as any other
concerns within the jurisdiction of G.S. 74-51 and 52 of The Mining
Act of 1971 will be carefully considered (copy of Act enclosed) .
A detailed review by this office, and several other state agencies
within this Department, will be conducted to consider potential
impacts of Nello L. Teer Company's (NLT) operation on the
neighboring public, wildlife, water and air quality. In addition
to the comprehensive review of the erosion and sedimentation
control plan for the site, several other aspects of the mining
operation, including a review of visual screening and potential
impacts resulting from blasting and mine dewatering activities on
nearby structures, will also be thoroughly evaluated.
Concerns not covered by the Mining Act and related state
environmental laws, such as off -site truck traffic, noise and land
use/property values, are handled under local zoning authority.
G.S. 74-65 of the Mining Act specifically states that a mining
permit does not supersede local zoning ordinances.
P.O. Box 27687 • RAlelah, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Aftmadve Action Employer

Ms. Heaton
March 30, 1992
Page 2
Again, thank you
you. that the decision
will be made fairly
technical information
questions on the above
TED/td
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Holley
for your interest in
on whether to gran
and objectively on
and the law. I
please contact me
this matter. I assure
t or deny NLT's request
the basis of credible
f you should have any
at [phone].
Sincerely,
J
racy Davis, E.I.T.
Mining pecialist
Land Quality Section

dµyo
Y MR
C
GW.
State of North Carolina
rNcar,nr+r"AnIn+ r%F Fn%jirr,nma-nt Himnith anr{ Khi irral Rpcxv1rrpS
Division of sand Resources
James G_ Martin, Govemor Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 30, 1992 Director
Mr. and Mrs. Victor B. Sydnor
4301 Azalea Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92--03
Wake County
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sydnor:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1992 regarding the
renewal and expansion request presently under review by this office
for the above referenced mining operation in Wake County.
Please be advised that before the Department makes a decision
to grant or deny this request, your concerns as well as any other
%oiicirrisS watiiaii tiie jur-Ls"-LlU_L of G.S. 74-J1 anl' JL OL 111 111f1111g
Act of 1971 will be carefully considered (copy of Act enclosed).
A detailed review by this office, and several other state agencies
within this Department, will be conducted to consider potential
impacts of Nello L. Teer Company's (NLT) operation on the
neighboring public, wildlife, water and air quality. In addition
to the comprehensive review of the erosion and sedimentation
control plan for the site, several other aspects of the mining
operation, including a review of visual screening and potential
impacts resulting from blasting and mine dewatering activities on
nearby structures, will also be thoroughly evaluated.
Concerns not covered by the Mining Act and related state
Environmental laws, such as off -site truck traffic; noise and land
use/property values, are handled under local, zoning authority.
G.S. 74--65 of the Mining Act specifically states that a mining
permit does not supersede local zoning ordinances.
P.o. Box 27687 • Raleigh. N.C. 27611-7687. • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

0
is
Mr. and Mrs. Sydnor
March 30, 1992
Page 2
Again, thank you
you that the decision
will be made fairly
technical information
questions on the above
TED/td
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Holley
for your interest in
on whether to gran
and objectively on
and the law. I
please contact me
f
this matter. I assure
t or deny NLT's request
the basis of credible
you should have any
at [phone].
Sincerely,
Iy Davis, E.I.T.
pecialist
Land Quality Section

4
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Charles H. Garner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 30, 1992 Director
Ms. Pennie G. Gettinger
4209 Azalea Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
RE: Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Dear Ms. Gettinger:
Thank you for your letter of March 18, 1992 regarding the
renewal and expdansion request nresently undc_r revi caw by this of fi ce
for the above referencemining operation in Wake County.
Please be advised that before the Department makes a decision
to grant or deny this request, your concerns as well as any other
concerns within the jurisdiction of G.S. 74-51 and 52 of The Mining
Act of 1971 will be carefully considered (copy of Act enclosed).
A detailed review by this office, and several other state agencies
within this Department, will be conducted to consider potential
impacts of Nello L. Teer Company's (NLT) operation on the
neighboring public, wildlife, water and air quality. In addition
to the comprehensive review of the erosion and sedimentation
control plan for the site, several other aspects of the mining
operation, including a review of visual screening and potential
impacts resulting from blasting and mine dewatering activities on
nearby structures, will also be thoroughly evaluated.
Concerns not covered by the Mining Act and related state
environmental laws, such as off -site truck traffic, noise and land
use/property values, are handled under local zoning authority.
G.S. 74-65 of the Mining Act specifically states that a mining
permit does not supersede local zoning ordinances.
P.o, Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 77611-76R7 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Afiirmadve Action Employer

Ms. Gettinger
March 30, 1992
Page 2
Again, thank you
you that the decision
will be made fairly
technical information
questions on the above
TED/td
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Holley
for your interest in
on whether to gran
and objectively on
and the law. if
please contact me
this matter. T assure
t or deny NLT's request
the basis of credible
you should have any
at [phone].
sincerely,
Tracy Davis, E.T.T.
Mining pecia'list
Land Quality Section

_ _r 2 �,MA.,'✓• _, . i�� / ' ll, —` - 1 6w.ovI
t `/ • �//i� — *v►zsvz�� l/ � .y i r.' . �•4 r f � r +...►0 /`I ^•/ =7 /,j+ "' � � � 0
Ailm MAN&
,.
/ I i
MA

,� _ ...�� _ ._
._�.y .. . _ _ ,
. ,� .
. _
.
,,
..
�-
�� -�
{' � s � 4
F.
i'
i
4
1#`
I � � . _i
� ' �.
i� � _
i
•�i _
'� ..
f'
� - � � ,•
�� � _ , ..
.
;:
��
,
jjj
�I; 5�
I_

•
REAR 2 3 '92
DIV. LAND RES.
March 18, 1992
Mr. C. H. Gardner,
Director
Dent. of Environmental Health & Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
POB 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Gardner:
Recently I visited Mr. Tracy Davis, together with Bob
Whitman and Bill Campbell, for the purpose of discussing the
vibration and noise fields produced by the Nello L. Teer Quarry
located on Duraleigh road. During our discussions several
issues and concerns were raised which I would like to address at
this time.
It seems, in reviewing Nello L Tee--'-- YG1IYll/++�} � a L
. �iaaju�aL LV EJC�JQIIU the
existing quarry, that your department has not seen fit to obtain,
and to make available for review, professional advice as to the
possible negative impacts that the additional ground vibration
and air conducted noise may have on the surrounding "human"
population as a result of the new quarry. I believe such an
omission is partly due to inadequate training, or human
sensitivity, on the part of your staff concerning these matters.
During my discussions with Mr. Davis and Mr. Nevils, it is
obvious that neither has sufficient background training in the
effects of noise and vibration areas, in the proper measurement
of ground vibration and air conducted noise, or in the
interpretation of the data presented to them by Nello L. Teer in
terms of their importance relative to potential effects on the
surrounding community. After all, if their training was
sufficient to address these areas, then the noise and vibration
issues would have been adequately addressed, documented and made
available to the affected co lun�..Y i- 4-l. t
,m prior to arly consideration of
Nello L. Teer's request to expand the existing quarry.

It seems that our department has not even considered the
rr-,-. - C to ' kv-�} i - l .-.ram.-.rrvr 4'rT;.rhivh the cumulative efL.Lfec.,: L.S of exposure L. VIJJL Q l__L yCl cyyciyY ..v
homes in the Oak Park area have obviously been and will continue
to be exposed. This concept is well established with respect to
other noise and vibration metrics.
As one who has taught the effects of noise and vibration on
man and noise and vibration control for over twenty-five years,
I am really appalled at your department's lack of capability and
seemingly insensitivity to the potential effects of allowing
Nello L. Teer the option of expanding its present facilities. I
am even more concerned that fellow state employees are not more
sensitive to the welfare of the citizens of North Carolina in
terms of the potential negative effects of noise and vibration,
at least, in terms of _your efforts to date with respect to Nello
L. Teer's request to expand the existing quarry on Duraleigh
road.
It is obvious that you should del-:y issuing a new permit to
Nello L. Teer until such time that your department has addressed
the above issues.
If you wish to contact me with respect to the contents of
this letter, you may do so at the following address, telephone
number or FAX number:
Larry H. Royster
4706 Connell Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
782-1624 - FAX [phone]
Sincerely,
Larry H. Royster, Ph.D.
Fellow, Acoustical Society Of America
C:\Professi\Corresp\GARDNERI

(1 OF 2)
0 R EC1EIV!E. D
DA.TE: MARCH 18 ,1992
FROM: ROBERT E.WHITMA.N
MAR 2 3 '92
DIV. LAND RES.
4712 CONNELL DRIVE
RA.LEIGH,N.C. 27612
TO: MR.C.H.GA.RDNER DIRECTOR
DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & NA.TURA.L RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LA.ND RESOURCES
P.O.BOX 27687
RAT.EIGH, n?. C , 27611-76R7
CR
SUBJECT:ABTREE QUARRY MINING PERMIT NO. 92-03
WAKE COUNTY
REFERENCE: (1).MY COMPLA.INT TO MR.TRA.CY DA.VIS,JANUARY 30,1992,
CONCERNING A SEVERE SHOCK FELT IN MY HOME,
OBVIOUSLY,EMANATING FROM THE NELLO—TEER QUARRY
ON THAT DATE.
(2).MR.DA.VIS' LETTERS OF FEBRUA.RY 6 AND MARCH 9,1992
CONCERNING REFERENCE NO.(1).
(3).MEETING WITH MR.DA.VIS A.ND MR.NEVILS IN ROOM 519
A.RCHDA.LE BUILDING ON MARCH 16,1992.(MR.LA.RRY
ROYSTER A.ND MR.WILLIA.M CA.MPBELL,A.LSO CONCERNED
RESIDENTS OF OAK PA.RK,WERE IN ATTENDANCE) .
I A.M CONFIDENT MR.DA.VIS AND MR.NEVILS HAVE REVEIWED WITH YOU
THE NATURE AND DETAILS OF THE REFERENCED COMPLAINTS A.ND FURTHER
DISCUSSION IN THE REFERENCED MEETING.A.S I UNDERSTAND IT,MR.
NEVILS ADVISED YOU OF THE MEETING A.ND REQUESTED YOUR A.TTENDA.NCE
BUT YOU WERE ATTENDING (CHAIRING) ANOTHER MEETING A.ND UNA.BLE
TO ATTEND.
I,PERSONA.LLY,LEFT THE MEETING WITH MORE CONCERNS THAN WHEN I
ENTERED.
FOR INSTANCE:
(I , T AM NnT AT A.T.T. CFRTA.TN THF. MFA.-,TTRFMFNrP PRC)rFT1jTRES
AND METHODS USED IN DETERMINING "BLA.STING INTENSITIES"
REFLECT A.PPROPRIETLY THE EFFECTS ON STRUCTURES
(RESIDENCES PRIMARILY) IN THE OAK PARK A.REA..I WOULD
BE CONCERNED AS TO THE LOCATION OR POSITION OF THE
PRIMA.RY MEASURING DEVICES , PREPA.RA.TION A.ND PROCESSING
OF THAT DATA A.ND ESTA.BLISHING LIMITS(SEVERITY)A.ND
r-� HOW THOSE LIMITS APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC AREA..
(2):THERE SEEMS TO BE NO CONCERN FOR "LONG TERMEFFECTS"
OR POSSIBLY "FA.TIGUE" WOULD BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE,WITH
CONTINUED "SEVERE SHOTS"ON NEARBY STRUCTURES.OUR HOME
HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO TWENTY SIX YEARS OF REPETITIVE,
RATHER INTENSE SHOCKS,AN RECENTLY BEEN_SHOWING NEW
"HA.IR LINE CRACKS"IN BOTH BRICK A.ND INTERNAL WALLS,
NOT INDICA.TIVE,IN MY JUDGMENT A.ND EXPERIENCE WITH
THIS BUILDING,OF NORMAL SETTLING "CRA.CKS".
(3).WE WERE ALSO SUPRISED TO DISCOVER THAT THE "RENEWAL"
PERMIT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE; THE A.REA. ON THE OTHER STDE
OF CRA.BTREE CREEK,ALLOWING A. SIMILA.R OPERA.TION ON
THAT STTE.IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS POSES A TOTALLY
NEW POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THIS LOCAL ENVIRONMENT IN
THAT THERE WILL NOW BE,EFFECTIVELY,A. LINE OF SIGHT
FROM THE MINING AREA TO MANY MORE STRUCTURES.

•
s
(2 OF 2)
I'M SORRY IF THIS SEEMS TO BE RATHER WORDY,TIRESOME AND POSSIBLY
EVEN "CRITICAL" BUT I ASSURE YOU THA.T THE CONTENTS ARE MEANT TO
-MV TNT ('nMPT-ETE SINCERITY AND EXPRESSED TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY
L L .1. 1. v v a•ll .0 -+ t
AT THIS TIME.
IN CLOSING,I A.M EXPECTING YOU A.ND YOUR DEDICATED STAFF TO EMPLOY
WHATEVER EXPERTISE,CURRENTLY A.VA.ILA.BLE TECHNOLOGY A.ND UTILIZATION
OF ALL RECORDS AND DA.TA.,BOTH CURRENT A.ND HISTORICAL TO INSURE
THAT THE OAK PARK A.ND OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES An PP,OFEP,LY
PROTECTED FROM THE INHERENT A.ND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO DA.MA.GE
FROM CONTINUED A.ND PROBABLE EXPA.NDED "SEVERE"BLASTING EFFECTS
EMANATING FROM THE SUBJECT QUA.RRY.
BY THE WAY,MR,DAVIS;TN HIS MEMO TO MR.EDGERTON ON FEBRUA.RY 6,
suggested he contact me for discussion AND POSSIBLY INSTALL A.
SEISMOGRAPH IN MY HOME. HE HA.S MADE NO SUCH CONTACT.
REW/bbw SINCERELY,
cc; W.CA.MPBELL
T.DAVIS
M.NEVILS E a-9
L.ROYSTER

0
(1 OF 2)
DATE: MARCH 18,1992
FROM: ROBERT E.WHITMA.N
4712 CONNELL DRIVE
RA.LEIGH,N.C. 27612
TO: MR.C.H.GA.RDNER DIRECTOR
DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LA.ND RESOURCES
P.O.BOX 27687
BALEIGH , N . C . 27611— 0/8
SUBJECT:CRABTREE QUARRY MINING PERMIT NO. 92-03
WAKE COUNTY
REFERENCE: (1).MY COMPLAINT TO MR.TRA.CY DAVIS,JANUARY 30,1992,
CONCERNING A. SEVERE SHOCK FELT IN MY HOME,
OBVIOUSLY , EMA.NATING FROM THE NELLO-TEER QUARRY
ON THAT DATE.
(2).MR. DA.VIS' LETTERS OF FEBRUA.RY 6 AND MARCH 9,1992
CONCERNING REFERENCE NO.(l).
(3).MEETING WITH MR.DA.VIS A.ND MR.NEVILS IN ROOM 519
ARCHDALE BUILDING ON MARCH 16,1992.(MR.LA.RRY
ROYSTER A.ND MR.WILLIAM CAMPBELL,A.LSO CONCERNED
RESIDENTS OF OAK PARK,WERE IN ATTENDANCE).
I AM CONFIDENT MR.DA.VIS A.ND MR.NEVILS HAVE REVEIWED WITH YOU
THE NATURE A.ND DETA.ILS OF THE REFERENCED COMPLA.INTS A.ND FURTHER
DISCUSSION IN THE REFERENCED MEETING -AS I UNDERSTAND IT,MR.
NEVILS ADVISED YOU OF THE MEETING A.ND REQUESTED YOUR A.TTENDA.NCE
BUT YOU WERE ATTENDING (CHAIRING) ANOTHER MEETING A.ND UNABLE
TO ATTEND.
I,PERSONA.LLY,LEFT THE MEETING WITH MORE CONCERNS THA.N WHEN I
ENTERED.
FOR INSTANCE:
(•7 1 T nnrr Arnm AM hTT nL'DMATAT rnU' DflPACTTRP1%AW M ROCPTITTPPC
kl f . 1 n.lr} lVV1 n.i n.-J.L) 1J111kln,.LLY 1I1L 1+SLIT,.JV11Ll.+,Ll.l F.,OCEDURES
AND METHODS USED IN DETERMINING "BLASTING INTENSITIES"
REFLECT A.PPROPRIETLY THE EFFECTS ON STRUCTURES
(RESIDENCES PRIMARILY) IN THE OAK PARK A.REA..I WOULD
BE CONCERNED AS TO THE LOCATION OR POSITION OF THE
PRIMA.RY MEA.SURING DEVICES,PREPA.RATION A.ND PROCESSING
OF THAT DATA AND ESTABLISHING LIMITS(SEVERITY)AND
HOW THOSE LIMITS APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC AREA..
(2).THERE SEEMS TO BE NO CONCERN FOR "LONG TERMEFFECTS"
OR POSSIBLY "FATIGUE" WOULD BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE,WITH
CONTINUED "SEVERE SHOTS"ON NEARBY STRUCTURES.OUR HOME
HA.S BEEN EXPOSED TO TWENTY SIX YEARS OF REPETITIVE,
RATHER INTENSE SHOCKS,A.N RECENTLY BEEN SHOWING NEW
"HA.IR LINE CRACKS"IN BOTH BRICK A.ND INTERNAL WALLS,
NOT INDICA.TIVE,IN MY JUDGMENT AND EXPERIENCE WITH
THIS BUILDING,OF NORMAL SETTLING "CRACKS".
(3).WE WERE ALSO SUPRISED TO DISCOVER THAT THE "RENEWAL"
PERMIT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE AREA. ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF CRA.BTREE CREEK,ALLOWING A SIMILAR OPERATION ON
THA.T SITE.IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS POSES A. TOTALLY
NEW POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THIS LOCAL ENVIRONMENT IN
THAT THERE WILL NOW BE,EFFECTIVELY,A. LINE OF SIGHT
FROM THE MINING AREA. TO MANY MORE STRUCTURES.

(2 OF 2)
I'M SORRY IF THIS SEEMS TO BE RATHER WORDY,TIRESOME AND POSSIBLY
EVEN "CRITICAL" BUT I ASSURE YOU THAT THE CONTENTS ARE MEA.NT TO
BE IN COMPLETE SINCERITY A.ND EXPRESSED TO THE BEST OF MY A.BILITY
A.T THIS TIME.
IN CLOSING,I AM EXPECTING YOU A.ND YOUR DEDICA.TED STAFF TO EMPLOY
WHATEVER EXPERTISE, CURRENTLY A.VA.ILABLE TECHNOLOGY A,ND UTILIZA.TION
OF ALL RECORDS A.ND DA.TA,BOTH CURRENT AND HISTORICAL TO INSURE
THA.T THE OAK PARK AND OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES A.RE PROPERLY
PROTECTED FROM THE INHERENT A.ND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO DAMAGE
FROM CONTINUED A.ND PROBABLE EXPANDED "SEVERE"BLASTING EFFECTS
EMA.NA,TING FROM THE SUBJECT QUARRY.
BY THE WA.Y,MR.DA.VIS,IN HIS MEMO TO MR.EDGERTON ON FEBRUA.RY 6,
suggested he contact me for discussion A.ND POSSIBLY INSTALL A.
SEISMOGRAPH IN MY HOME. HE HAS MADE NO SUCH CONTACT.
REW/bbw SINCERELY,
cc' W.CAMPBELL
✓ T . DA.VIS
M.NEVILS gkp—��
L.ROYSTER

(1 OF 2)
DATE: MARCH 18,1992
FROM: ROBERT E.WHITMA.N
4712 CONNELL DRIVE.
RA.LEIGH,N.C. 27612
%)
Pd
TO: MR . C . H . GA RDNER DIRECTOR
DEPT.OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
P.O.BOX 27687
RALEIGH,N.C. 27611--7687
SUBJECT:CRABTREE QUARRY MINING PERMIT NO. 92--03
WAKE COUNTY
REFERENCE: (1).MY COMPLAINT TO MR.TRACY DAVIS,JA.NUA.RY 30,1992,
CONCERNING A. SEVERE SHOCK FELT IN MY HOME,
OBVIOUSLY,EMA.NA.TING FROM THE NELLO-TEER QUARRY
ON THAT DATE.
(2).MR.DA.VIS' LETTERS OF FEBRUA.RY 6 AND MARCH 9,1992
CONCERNING REFERENCE NO.(1).
(3).MEETING WITH MR.DA.VIS AND MR.NEVILS IN ROOM 519
A.RCHDA.LE BUILDING ON MARCH 16,1992.(MR.LARRY
ROYSTER A.ND MR . WILLIA.M CA.MPBELL , A.LSO CONCERNED
RESIDENTS OF OAK PA.RK,WERE IN A.TTENDA.NCE).
I AM CONFIDENT MR.DA.VIS A.ND MR.NEVILS HAVE REVEIWED WITH YOU
THE NATURE AND DETAILS OF THE REFERENCED COMPLAINTS A.ND FURTHER
DISCUSSION IN THE REFERENCED MEETING -AS I UNDERSTAND IT,MR.
NEVILS ADVISED YOU OF THE MEETING AND REQUESTED YOUR ATTENDANCE
BUT YOU WERE ATTENDING (CHA.IRING) ANOTHER MEETING AND UNABLE
TO ATTEND.
I,PERSONALLY,LEFT THE MEETING WITH MORE CONCERNS THAN WHEN I
ENTERED.
FOR INSTANCE:
(1),I AM NOT AT ALL CERTA.IN THE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES.
AND METHODS USED IN DETERMINING "BLA.STING INTENSITIES"
REFLECT A.PPROPRIETLY THE EFFECTS ON STRUCTURES
(RESIDENCES PRIMARILY) IN THE OAK PARK A.REA.I WOULD
BE CONCERNED AS TO THE LOCATION OR POSITION OF THE
PRIMARY MEASURING DEVICES,PREPA.RA.TION AND PROCESSING
OF THAT DATA. AND ESTABLISHING LIMITS(SEVERITY)A.ND
HOW THOSE LIMITS APPLY TO THIS SPECIFIC AREA..
(2).THERE SEEMS TO BE NO CONCERN FOR "LONG TERMEFFECTS"
OR POSSIBLY "FATIGUE" WOULD BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE,WITH
CONTINUED "SEVERE SHOTS"ON NEARBY STRUCTURES.OUR HOME
HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO TWENTY SIX YEARS OF REPETITIVE,
RATHER INTENSE SHOCKS,AN RECENTLY BEEN SHOWING NEW
"HA.IR LINE CRACKS"IN BOTH BRICK AND INTERNAL WALLS,
NOT INDICA.TIVE,IN MY JUDGMENT AND EXPERIENCE WITH
THIS BUILDING,OF NORMAL SETTLING "CRA.CKS".
(3).WE WERE ALSO SUPRISED TO DISCOVER THAT THE "RENEWAL"
PERMIT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE. THE AREA. ON THE OTHER SIDE
OF CRA.BTREE CREEK,ALLOWING A. SIMILAR OPERATION ON
THAT SITE.IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS POSES A. TOTALLY
NEW POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THIS LOCAL ENVIRONMENT IN
THAT THERE WILL NOW BE,EFFECTIVELY,A. LINE OF SIGHT
FROM THE MINING AREA. TO MANY MORE STRUCTURES.

(2 OF 2)
I'M SORRY IF THIS SEEMS TO BE RATHER WORDY,TIRESOME A,ND POSSIBLY
EVEN "CRITICA.L" BUT I ASSURE YOU THAT THE CONTENTS ARE MEANT TO
BE IN COMPLETE SINCERITY AND EXPRESSED TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY
AT THIS TIME.
IN CLOSING,I AM EXPECTING YOU AND YOUR DEDICA.TED STAFF TO EMPLOY
WHA.TEVER EXPERTISE, CURRENTLY A.VA.ILA.BLE TECHNOLOGY AND UTILIZATION
OF ALL RECORDS A.ND DA.TA.,BOTH CURRENT A.ND HISTORICAL TO INSURE
THAT THE OAK PARK AND OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES A.RE PROPERLY
PROTECTED FROM THE INHERENT A.ND POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO DAMAGE
FROM CONTINUED AND PROBABLE EXPANDED "SEVERE"BLASTING EFFECTS
EMANATING FROM THE SUBJECT QUARRY.
BY THE WA.Y,MR.DAVIS,IN HIS MEMO TO MR.EDGERTON ON FEBRUARY 6,
suggested he contact me for discussion A.ND POSSIBLY INSTALL A.
SEISMOGRAPH IN MY HOME. HE HAS MADE NO SUCH CONTACT.
REW/bbw SINCERELY,
cc; W.CAMPBELL
T . DA.VIS
✓ M.NEVILS
L.ROYSTER

REC"iblED
MAR 1 9 '92,
4405 Dewees Ct.
DIV. LAND RES. Raleigh, NC 27612
March 18, 1992
Mr. Tracy E. Davis
Mining Specialist, Land Quality Division
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
P. Q. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is written concerning the pending renewal of the mining permit (No. 92-03)
for the Nello L. Teer Company, Crabtree Quarry. I am opposed to the issuance of this permit
if the permit allows for expansion of the present mine across Crabtree Creek to the south. Such
expansion is also opposed by the City of Raleigh and the City Council has recently reiterated its
unequivocal opposition for the record. In addition, nearby residents have long voiced
complaints about the ongoing quarrying activity and the noise and structural damage they have
endured. Clearly, this quarrying operation is incompatible with existing and expanding
residential development in the area.
Legal council for the City plus independent attorneys.have opinioned that any expansion
of the existing mine south of Crabtree Creek is a violation of the existing mining permit and
should now be allowed.
I believe there should be, at a minimum, a public hearing on this permit renewal.
Sincerely,
Douglas J. Frederick
cc: Mr. Charles H. Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources

AFC,/-,
041
Mr. Tracy E. Davis
Mining Specialist, Land Quality Division
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
P. V. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
4405 Dewees Ct.
Raleigh, NC 27612
March 18, 1992
This letter is written concerning the pending renewal of the mining permit (No. 92-03)
for the Nello L. Teer Company, Crabtree Quarry. I am opposed to the issuance of this permit
if the permit allows for expansion of the present mine across Crabtree Creek to the south. Such
expansion is also opposed by the City of Raleigh and the City Council has recently reiterated its
unequivocal opposition for the record. In addition, nearby residents have long voiced
complaints about the ongoing quarrying activity and the noise and structural damage they have
endured. Clearly, this quarrying operation is incompatible with existing and expanding
residential development in the area.
Legal council for the City plus independent attorneys have opinioned that any expansion
of the existing mine south of Crabtree Creek is a violation of the existing mining permit and
should not be allowed.
I believe there should be, at a minimum, a public hearing on this permit renewal.
Sincerely_ ,
Douglas J. Frederick
cc: Mr. Charles H. Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources

E
R E C E451e Ct.
Raleigh, NC 7171
MAR i 9 1992
March 18, 1992
LA'YD QUALITY SEC7lOM
Mr. Tracy E. Davis
Mining Specialist, Land Quality Division
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is written concerning the pending renewal of the mining permit (No. 92-03)
for the Nello L. Teer Company, Crabtree Quarry. I am opposed to the issuance of this permit
if the permit allows for expansion of the present mine across Crabtree Creek to the south. Such
expansion is also opposed by the City of Raleigh and the City Council has recently reiterated its
unequivocal opposition for the record. In addition, nearby residents have long voiced
complaints about the ongoing quarrying activity and the noise and structural damage they have
endured. Clearly, this quarrying operation is incompatible with existing and expanding
residential development in the area.
Legal council for the City plus independent attorneys have opinioned that any expansion
of the existing mine south of Crabtree Creek is a violation of the existing mining permit and
should now be allowed.
I believe there should be, at a minimum, a public hearing on this permit renewal.
Sincerely,]
r(
�C? J
Douglas J. Frederick
cc: Mr. Charles H. Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources

0 0 RECEIVED
Jill Bumgarner Heaton
4700 Connell Drive
Dnle;r h Klnr+h i�rnlin� `)7F.1 7
March 18, 1992
Mr. Tracy E. Davis, E.I.T.
Mining Specialist, Land Quality Division
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
14AR 2 Q '92
DIV. LAID RES.
I am writing to comment against renewal of Mining Permit 92-03, Crabtree
Quarry, Wake County. I have lived near the quarry for 15 years and have
found it to be an undesirable neighbor for many reasons.
First, their blasting is a constant nuisance and often a cause for concern. It
shakes my house with the force of a small earthquake, rattling windows and
jarring pictures askew. When we moved into the house we did not know
that we were near a quarry, so the first time we felt a blast, my two young
children fell to the floor and covered their heads as they had been taught to
do in earthquake drills at their pre-school in California. It is difficult to
believe that blasts of this magnitude are allowed in a populated area.
Various neighbors have told me of broken windows, cracked foundations,
and repeatedly broken seals in their basements. Recent blasts have felt
much stronger than those of a few years ago.
Besides the vibration and noise caused by the blasting, we have the safety
problem of being pelted by gravel from uncovered trucks hauling from the
quarry. Duraleigh Road has loose gravel on it, especially in the vicinity of
Crabtree Creek bridge, and the trucks themselves make driving treacherous.
Lately, the company has had trucks and heavy equipment operating on the
South side of Crabtree Creek, causing additional traffic hazards:
The quarry has shown no regard for Crabtree Creek, as well. They have
narrowed the creek bed and created a ford across it. They also let gravel
and other stone spill into the creek causing problems with siltation and the
buildup of islands far downstream. They have even "spilled" a large
quantity of used motor oil into the stream, causing a "slick" that extended
far beyond Crabtree Mall. Each time they are found to be in violation of
environmental regulations regarding the Creek, they get off with a warning.

Mr. E.I.T. • -2- • March B, 1992
It seems that no one is willing to penalize them for their continued disregard
for the law.
As long as I have lived here, I have been told by State regulators that the
neighbors just have to put up with the quarry because it has a limited
Iifespan and its permit will expire in 1992. It is now 1992 and I've learned
that not only may the permit be renewed, but the State would also consider
allowing the company to jump Crabtree Creek and open a new mine on the
South side. Enough is enough. We are now in the city limits of our state's
capital, and it is time to put an end to this non -conforming use. The land
surrounding this quarry is all residential and it's time that the residents get
some peace!
I understand that Wake County wants the current pit enlarged to
accommodate flood control impoundment, which seems like a reasonable
use for the old mine. However, this should not require that the mining
permit be extended for 10 years or that it allow reining South of the creek. I
urge you to extend only a limited permit and to stop the mining when the pit
reaches the capacity needed for flood control.
Yours truly,
Jill Bumgarner Heaton
cc: Charles H. Gardner
Director

•
Jill Bumgarner Heaton
4700 Connell Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
0/1 0�
March 18, 1992folp
SF�,
Mr. Tracy E. Davis, E.I.T.
Mining Specialist, Land Quality Division
Division of Land Resources
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Dear Mr. Davis:
I am writing to comment against renewal of Mining Permit 92-03, Crabtree
Quarry, Wake County. I have lived near the quarry for 15 years and have
found it to be an undesirable neighbor for many reasons.
First, their blasting is a constant nuisance and often a cause for concern. It
shakes my house with the force of a small earthquake, rattling windows and
jarring pictures askew. When we moved into the house we did not know
that we were near a quarry, so the first time we felt a blast, my two young
children fell to the floor and covered their heads as they had been taught to
do in earthquake drills at their pre-school in California. It is difficult to
believe that blasts of this magnitude are allowed in a populated area.
Various neighbors have told me of broken windows, cracked foundations,
and repeatedly broken seals in their basements. Recent blasts have felt
much stronger than those of a few years ago.
Besides the vibration and noise caused by the blasting, we have the safety
problem of being pelted by gravel from uncovered trucks hauling from the
mi imrrw. ni irolninh Rose' hint L^.^Se nrairal nn it esecially in thP_ vicinity of
Crabtree Creek bridge, and the trucks themselves make driving treacherous.
Lately, the company has had trucks and heavy equipment operating on the
South side of Crabtree Creek, causing additional traffic hazards.
The quarry has shown no regard for Crabtree Creek, as well. They have
narrowed the creek bed and created a ford across it. They also let gravel
and other stone spill into the creek causing problems with siltation and the
buildup of islands far downstream. They have even "spilled" a large
quantity of used motor oil into the stream, causing a "slick" that extended
far beyond Crabtree Mall. Each time they are found to be in violation of
environmental regulations regarding the Creek, they qet off with a warning.
11

Mr. E.I.T. -2- March 18, 1992
It seems that no one is willing to penalize them for their continued disregard
for the law.
As long as I have lived here, I have been told by State regulators that the
neighbors just have to put up with the quarry because it has a limited
lifespan and its permit will expire in 1992. It is now 1992 and I've learned
that not only may the permit be renewed, but the State would also consider
allowing the company to jump Crabtree Creek and open a new mine on the
South side. Enough is enough. We are now in the city limits of our state's
capital, and it is time to put an end to this non -conforming use. The land
surrounding this quarry is all residential and it's time that the residents get
some peace!
I understand that Wake County wants the current pit enlarged to
accommodate flood control impoundment, which seems like a reasonable
use for the old mine. However, this should not require that the mining
permit be extended for 10 years or that it allow mining South of the creek. I
urge you to extend only a limited permit and to stop the mining when the pit
reaches the capacity needed for flood control.
Yours truly,
Jill Bumgarner Heaton
cc: Charles H. Gardner
Director

VICTOR B. SYDNOR
4301 AZALEA DRIVE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27612
YYYMMM .�V Ir91 � ��
MAR 2 0 1992
LAND QUA 6 ' u�CTIU�
March 18, 19
Mr. Tracy E. Davis, E.T.T.
Mining Specialist, Land Quality Division
Division of Land Resources
Dept. of Environment, Health, and Rbeources
P. 0. Box 27687
Ua7ny .v 1� A7n rfh (:arnlaTA 27Fil l—%Fi fi%
Dear Mr. Davis
This letter is in reference to the Crabtree Quarry of
Nello L. Teer Company and the company's request to extend
its mining permit, #92-03, Wake County.
We strongly oppose the continuation or extension of this
ran rm4+ 'i�hc ni+tr n4' 1:)nIni"h hac evf+=-iAAri i+a hr111nr4Ariac
t...i...i.+. i...... ..i..J ...i .....+......icy.. .................�........ �..... �,......��.........�`...
adjacent to the existing quarry. There has been considerable
housing development in this area over a period of time,
making the quarry no longer appropriate for this area.
Our own home, which we purchased in 1968, has suffered from
the daily blasting and resulting vibrations fromthe existing
quarry. We would never have bought a home in this area had
we known this would be the case.
If the quarry is expanded, damage to the adjacent neigj-3borhoods
will be inevitable. A new quarry on the south side of Crabtree
Creek would be intolerable to the neighborhoods surrounding it.
Since most of these areas are now in the City of Raleigh,
we would reasonably expect that this type of land -use would
be prohibited.
It is in the best interests of the City of Raleigh and its
residents to deny the renewal of this mining permit.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
�
V 11.
Victor B. and Barbara Sydnor
hA.. r, l... '! r 7 G _i ... T_ c i
t. i. . 1'LL . Cha1 A. Fi. Llal La<JJGi , LJ.L J. CV r,.Vl-
Division of Land Resources

0 • RECEIVED
�
ED
VICTOR B. SYDNOR
4301 AZALEA DRIVE MAR 2 0 '92
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27612 7
DIV. LAND tF, .
March 18, 1992
Mr. Tracy E. Davis, E.I.T.
Mining Specialist, Land Quality Division
Division of Land Resources
Dept. of Environment, Health, and ft®aurces
P. O. Box 27687
na1G.i. Yv ll, 1\{Ji tli Carolina 27Vii-7Vur
Dear Mr. Davis:
This letter is in reference to the Crabtree Quarry of
1�ello L. Teer Company and the company's request to extend
its mining permit, #92--03, Wake County.
We strongly oppose the continuation or extension of this
permit. The city of Raleigh has extended its boundaries
adjacent to the existing quarry. There has been considerable
housing development in this area over a period of time,
making the quarry no longer appropriate for this area.
Our own home, which we purchased in 1968, has suffered from
the daily blasting and resulting vibrations fromthe existing
quarry. We would never have bought a home in this area had
we known this would be the case.
If the quarry is expanded, damage to the adjacent neig#aborhoods
will be inevitable. A new quarry on the south side of Crabtree
r— _ 7_ i. s_
C cGn would' be intolerable to rG the neigi1uorhoods surz ounding it
Since most of these areas are now in the City of Raleigh,
we would reasonably expect that this type of land -use would
be prohibited.
It is in the best interests of the City of Raleigh and its
r�e�lUCiity to (jelly the renewal of this mining permit.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Victor B. and Barbara Sydnor
v/cc: Mr. Charle H. Gardner, Director
Division t;' Land Resources

RECEIVE
� D
MAR 2 .i -199.7
�AAID QIJAUTY SECTi01y
q 1�1 n r
d�7�Jti iu (lr/wv[1L
a-` l ,
1,1117)d
h� n i i0 / I fY (1 n n J
�U��GU /9 i'7L
b eolt, `ram, 9-�

MAR 2 0 '92
S 7
a 7 6 7 F '7
kQeovz",
/ 8 91Y.r/LMD RES.
a� CUB,-� `�Cl-may r:�_� u-a��eC. �- `�Ge.e �a oC • �� e�s, .
� � �-�
CcrL�
z r ckaA- Cs W. G
1Dl/e r c-PA-4 l A50-v�
E�.����x�c.�/ .ice • /a'

N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section
Telephone Log
Date: J Sheet of
Timc: �i ❑ am
L-ir pm
1. Project:
Call: Placed ❑ Reccived r
Retumed ❑
County: WA05
2. Conversation with: 1 ' Telephone: ( )
3. Affiliation: Orla � pp
4. Content of conver.QGon: 4A4 [1JG�l�.IMO '( O. Iw AP71aww- W'K
p
�J<
cc: _ Filed by:

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Chcuies H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 20,' 1992 Director
Mr. Steven Edgerton
Nello L. Teer Company
P.L. DVl{ 11 J1
Durham, North Carolina 27702
Re: Renewal and Expansion Request
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-03
Wake County
Dear Mr. Edgerton:
The initial review has been completed on your request for
renewal of Mining Permit No. 92-03 and for the expansion of mining
operations to the south side of Crabtree Creek at the Crabtree
Quarry in Wake County. The following additional information is
needed to complete our review:
1.) All buffer zones to be maintained between any land
disturbing activity and any adjoining property line or
waterway on both the north and south sides of Crabtree
Creek must be clearly indicated on all mining maps.
Please specify if these buffer zones are to remain
totally undisturbed or if they will be partially
disturbed for the installation of necessary erosion and
sedimentation control measures. A
2.) Construction details are needed on the details sheet for
the "oversize rock" and "concrete" barriers to be
utilized continuously as temporary highwall barriers
during active quarrying activities.
3.) The rip -rap lined channel detail must be revised to
clearly indicate that all such channels will be properly
undercut to allow for proper placement of rip -rap and
filter material to ensure their designed capacities are
maintained. It would be beneficial to have a channel
chart on the detail sheet to clearly outline the undercut
dimensions and the final, design dimensions of these type
channels.
4.) No detailed information has been provided regarding the
design .and construction of the bridge proposed across
Crabtree Creek. If your company wishes to have this
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687. C Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

•
e
Mr. Edgerton
March 20, 1992
Page 2
structure covered under our review of this request,
please provide the above information. Should your
company wish to defer evaluation of this structure to a
later date, please clarify that this is your company's
intention, that a formal modification request will be
submitted to this office, and that no land disturbing
activities related to the bridge construction will be
initiated until said activities have been approved by
this office.
5.) An outlet dissipator has not been provided for the outlet
end of the culvert under the temporary construction
entrance. Please provide its location on the mine plans
and submit the supporting calculations and details for
said dissipator.
6.) Items C.6.b. and D.3. of the application form indicate
that a 20 foot wide safety bench will be provided between
the top of rock and toe of the overburden slope.
However, Sheet EC-3 indicates that a 25 foot wide bench
will be provided. Please clarify this discrepancy
appropriately on the plans and in the application.
7.) What are the proposed final elevations of the visual
barrier berm proposed along Duraleigh Road on the south
side of the creek? Will it be of sufficient height to
adequately screen the operation from Duraleigh Road and
neighboring dwellings? Will trees be planted along the
outside slopes and along the top of said berm? Please
provide appropriate information to clearly address this
issue.
8.) More detailed information is needed regarding your
company's blasting practices and procedures currently
employed on the north side of Crabtree Creek and those
that will be employed on the south side of the Creek.
Will current blasting procedures need to be revised for
the south side pit area to ensure that blasting will be
within safe limits so as not to damage the nearby sewer
outfall structure and neighboring offsite structures?
Where and at what distance is the nearest offsite
occupied structure to the north side pit Ar& the proposed
south side pit? As this office has received several
blasting complaints over the past several years, a
detailed, technical report prepared by a third -party
blasting consultant is needed to properly address this
issue.

•
0
Mr. Edgerton
March 20, 1992
Page 3
9.) As several housing developments are in the immediate
vicinity of this mining operation, this office feels that
several aroundwater observation wells are npp lecl at the
site, most specifically around the proposed southern pit
to detect any potential groundwater impacts that may
occur due to pit dewatering activities. Please provide
the locations of any existing and proposed monitoring
wells on the mine plans and how your company intends to
monitor them.
10.) The recommendations outlined in the attached February 26,
1992 memorandum from the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission must be incorporated into the mining plans for
this project.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS OFFICE'SREVIEH CAMOT_ BE
I COPLETED UM T IL ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED _ABOVE HAVE -BEEN FULLY
ADDRESSED_
In order to complete the processing of your request, please
fnrwnrrl turn f 91 rrnni PC of -FhP i nfnrmat-i nn th my afifiAni-i nn
at the following address:
Land Quality Section
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
Please advise at (919) 733--4574 if you should have any
questions on the above.
Sincerely,
Tfacy jF/. Davis, E.I.T.
MiningU Specialist
Land Quality Section
TED/td
Attachments
cc: Mr. John Holley, P.E.

CAVED
FEB 2 6 1992
L North Caroling Wildlife Resources CoLAND i sion SECTION
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwoocl, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beth Chesson, Assistant Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
FROM: Dennis L. Stewart,. Manager cl �
Habitat Conservation Program
TVAMV: ]:ohriiary 261992
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Renewal/Expansion, Nello Teer, Crabtree
Quarry, Mining Permit No. 92-03, Wake County
The Wildlife Resources Commission has completed a review of
the subject permit renewal. Biologists on our staff are familiar
with the habitat values of the project area. We are submitting
this correspondence in response to your request of January 23,
1992, for comments regarding impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the area. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the Mining Act of 1971, G.S. 74-46
through 74-68 15 NCAC 5.
The Wildlife Resources Commission has no objections to the
pit expansion and the renewal of this mining permit as delineated
by the maps provided. We would like to recommend the utilization
of plant species beneficial to wildlife for revegetation such as
switchgrass, orchard grass, Kobe lespedeza, bahia grass,
lovegrass, and shrub lespedeza. The local wildlife biologist will
be glad to assist Nello Teer Co. with revision of the
revegetation plan.
Also, should it become necessary to construct the described
bridge across Crabtree Creek, a complete plan for the project
should be submitted for agency review so that impacts to wildlife
and fisheries can be properly addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project.
DLS/SAP /lp
cc: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Stephen Pozzanghera, Piedmont
Kenneth Kennedy, Crabtree Quarry Mine Manager

7-1,�,�,Q�,, L i
J
VUIV�v
1

r

lz 1. E -Z -�� SPEED QT1jzzER®
FROM � f `, /�Jj TO DATE
SUBJECT
—r Dfa N .v
-IaD
Z
SIGNED_
WILwnJOnes - Crbw - MADE W U.S.A.
4F9M T1pk t. - O Wdm-.—. 1989
REPLY
�--
Tyr E� XA-VIC s of- 7�— AIC �,).,1
Sal ►�. Icy C o l-✓o5szz-
7a
I M Cv�M�.rvTs Ar
v SIGHED
F
RECIPIENT: RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY. EASE TURNOVER FOR USE WITH INDOW ENVELOPE.

0
TO RETURN IN A WINDOW ENVELOPE,
PLEASE FILL IN NAME AND ADDRESS HERE AND r;
FOLD AS SHOWN WITH THIS SIDE FACING WINDOW.
-� 16
v
rqn
n ti
_ J

Division of Environmental Management
Raleigh Regional Office
Feb. 3,1992
MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
TO: John Holly, Land Quali y Supervisor 1=E1
6
THROUGH: Arthur Mouber y �Vglonal Supervisor / 1992
Ken Schuster Air Quality Supervisor �bQUAL/rYS
,reorio►v
FROM: Mark Feltner, AQS Env. Tech V
SUBJECT: NC Mining Permit Applications (renewals)
The following addresses the pending subject matter:
Crabtree Quarry:
_ Nello L. Teer currently operates the quarry and stone crushing
facility under Air Permit No 4149R6 and in effect from January 1, 1992
to December 31, 1996. Plant was observed operating in com liance with
applicable Air Quality Requlations and Standards on August 29, 1991.
Cook Mine, Stone Road Pit, & McGraw Pit:
Although --Air Permits for clay and sand mining itself does not
require permitting, unless facilities utilize devices or equipment
similar to the stone crushing quarry's i.e., crushers, grinders,
dryers, screens etc. The Cherokee Sanford Grou2 does operate three
brick plants Gulf and Moncure (both in Chatham County); and the Colon
plant (Lee County) which are supplied raw materials from the Cook Mine
and Stone Road Pit. All three plants are permitted and were observed
utilizing the triassic clays (from the aforementioned mines) while
operating in compliance at the time of last inspection.
The McGraw pit supplies raw material (sand) to S. T. Wooten's
numerous permitted asphalt plants.
The pending renewal applications do not appear to have significant
Air Quality concerns other than fugitive dust emissions from hauling
and handling which is stated as employing wet suppression, and does not
warrant further review by the Air Quality Section.

414
'
I
w_Ae � 1
/..Q1u
All 0'
•mot, .F - ..
�1 - .. - ' V - _ -� -
14
Of
71
TV
n.YH• '', J ;�•n�y��...i.
' V � � ._ ' . . � . '�r � icy, .. '. J .. .. •. .. ...+.. _ .. - • s . ♦. . -
• : _ =S r '.z �j y; �.
: •. :.x. ' "^ v .•. , . ems: -- •:r - r -
J+°x t '...r}•'••c�;..�'
4�4. n �XT- .11. r. . �. '. - _, •'-•r r 7 - .ti:.:• -• _ • _ ^• ' - _
.p1dllM. •�y.,�t;;
aC✓-� i �•�4 i�- ,r., %1�4'/ _s4-"h•S .may,'• Y( 4�S'"i•. •. Y.SF _ S! ...1�'.t - _ •'1.- ilt[�.�•tl.. �. . .. ..
•.S!'!"- �7'�+'S iM.ww}f-'•yc
�n•yyi�`{q�:'-kitlaLf,.aMYIJ •: `1nr -'yro. -si.e• .lam•- t?�-a�.Lr. rie. .•ti-;. _ .1.- . �[.i..::. .. ..
•�5`,A�� Ylsy�'
'i .'.•f .a••
-r,
.:_..�•{1- "emu yaL.:./' S��, .«. ,��F .s ..�, - - .. .•mot - '
<-.ks?i'r...y' �• w:K ^ - �` b�: - r - a: _ 4k ;'y.i -. .r
�-
.._La..yp�.�' +'+jai{':+ar a'r
'".js, +i.Yi.�n'�ii'�•1ft „F `4 Y'`A.l-s!ur+ir.'33�n'_ -*YYi . .y:.y . _ ..'•.4 -11•- i•y• -

• � R
ECEIVE
D
MINE SITE REVIEW FORM . FEB 2 6 1992
%tVp QUALITY er„_- -
i'
PROJECT NAME: 1.r4 + -e �uQrrj
(A)l Co
Due: z Assigned To: w/ ��' S Completed � tZ,Lq Z
Approved by Arthur Moiiherry
Timothy Donnelly
REVIEW ISSUES:
Watershed/Stream Name and Classification(- " 6V4
Comments
PERMITS:
NPDES Permit Required.
Yes No
NPDES Permit Existing/Proposed No. A � 0 !�� 3 5 5?o
Non Discharge Permit Required
Yes No
Non Discharge Permit Existing/Proposed No. ax
Comments
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Wetlands Disturbed by Activity
Yes No
401 Oert i f i cat i nn Rpm-i i rpd
Yes No
Comments
n

�ECVED
E8 2 6 1992
LAND QUALITYTYTION
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
0;GCOORAZiR41151
TO: Beth Chesson, Assistant Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
FROM: Dennis L. Stewart, Manager ja'4.�- cl�
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 26, 1992
SUBJECT: Mining Permit Renewal/Expansion, Nello Teer, Crabtree
Quarry, Mining Permit No. 92-03, Wake County
111G TT 11.\.l .L LLTO G LAG .7VU1 LG.7 %. WltULk L�� LVil IL .7 %olli�.liG L.Gu a re V lGw Vi
the subject permit renewal. Biologists on our staff are familiar
with the habitat values of the project area. We are submitting
this correspondence in response to your request of January 23,
1992, for comments regarding impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the area. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the Mining Act of 1971, G.S. 74-46
through 74-68 15 NCAC 5.
111G T111U11LG i\G s o u r l+Ga7 AlU r7 l�V VN�G1..�41Vllj 4V 411th G
pit expansion and the renewal of this mining permit as delineated
by the maps provided. We would like to recommend the utilization
of plant species beneficial to wildlife for revegetation such as
switchgrass, orchard grass, Kobe lespedeza, bahia grass,
lovegrass, and shrub lespedeza. The local wildlife biologist will
be glad to assist Nello Teer Co. with revision of the
revegetation plan.
Also, should it become necessary to construct the described
bridge across Crabtree Creek, a complete plan for the project
should be submitted for agency review so that impacts to wildlife
and fisheries can be properly addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project.
DLS/SAP/lp
cc: Mike Scruggs, District 3 Wildlife Biologist
Stephen Pozzanghera, Piedmont
Kenneth Kennedy, Crabtree Quarry Mine Manager

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment. Health, and Natural Resources
DMsion of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Govemor Charles H. Gardr}er
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary January 23, 1992 Director
Memorandum
To: Fred Harris'
Director, Division of Boating and Inland Fisheries
Wildlife Resources Commission
Attention: Habitat Conservation Program
From: Tracy E. Davis"'TV
Mining Specialist
Land Quality Section
Re: Renewal/Expansion Request
Nello L. Teer Company
Crabtree Quarry
Mining Permit No. 92-03
W?ke rn„nty
Please find attached for. your review a copy of the above referenced
request to renew Mining Permit No. 92-03 and allow expansion of mining
activities on the south side of Crabtree Creek.
Please review this information and advise as to the probability of this
operation having unduly adverse effect on wildlife and freshwater fisheries
(G. S. 74-51 (2)). Please respond by February 21, 1991 so that we may
complete our review of this request within our statutory time limits.'
As is the case in our review of all mining permit applications, renewals
and modifications, this office will carefully review all proposed erosion and
sediment control measures to ensure that they are sufficient to restrain
erosion and.off-site sedimentation. However, any comments your agency can
provide regarding effects on wildlife and freshwater fisheries would be
greatly appreciated. If your staff wishes to perform a site inspection, it
is recommended that they contact Mr. Steven S.'Edgerton at [phone] to
set up a convenient date and time.
Your continued cooperation in the review of these type requests is
greatly appreciated., Please return all of the attached documents with your
office Is review comments as this is our, only copy of this information. In
addition, please send a carbon_ copy of•yourreview comments to the applicant
for his information.
ted\
attachments
cc: Mr. John Holley
�7wQ7. u iy i, N.C.77,4ff_7f f27 ."T`l�.J.p,ye 1-1 7i;_3R 3X
.v. w.. y, ,• , r r
An Equal Opportunity Affirmadve Action Employer

�M NELLO TEER �
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY, P.O. BOX 1131, DURHAM, NC 27702 USA
TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]
January 16, 1992 �jN�',
��Iit _�jE D
Mr. Tracy Davis
NC Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources LAND QUALITY SEC lot,
Land Quality Section
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 28711
Re. Mining Permit Renewal and
Update - Crabtree Quarry
Wake Co., NC
Dear Mr. Davis: Z
It is with pleasure that Nello Teer Company submits this
renewal and update application for the above referenced site
for your review and approval. Please find enclosed the
fo 7 t pertinent to +-)tic rnneijal and linfiat/a
lVi.lVwlllg illiViJIl SA J+1 VaJ �c�..r y1aJ ... JJ a. ... j.. ... ... .. ..
process:
1) Mining permit renewal application.
2) Mine plans.
3) Supplemental information concerning stormwater runoff
calculations, erosion control structures and channel
design.
Due to the continued growth of the Raleigh/Wake Co.
market, Nello Teer Company will be continuing its mining
operations on the north and south sides of Crabtree Creek
during the next 10 year permit cycle.
A check for $1,000 has been included with this submittal
which will cover the $500 renewal fee and a $500 fee for
alterations to site erosion and sediment control structures.
After evaluating our mining operations on the south side
of Crabtree Creek, it has become evident that certain erosion
control structures will have to be altered as we proceed with
mining. The design calculations and plans showing these
alterations have been prepared by McKim & Creed Consultants
and are included with this permit renewal application.

Mr. Tracy Davis
Page 2
Should you or any of your staff have any questions or
require any further information, please do not hesitate to
call me at 1-800-999-6356.
Sincerely,
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
Steven S. Edgerton, P.G.
SSE/dg
Enclosures
CC: File

NELLO L. TEER Co. Z U b J y U b
...
OYA I W
I GROSS
70740
1/16/92
1000.00
.00
1000.00
Mining Permit
Renewal Application
fee
for Crabtree Quarry
Mining P'rmit
No. 92-3
JLV-EC
.g V -7.1a1':
JA `I
' L �
LAND QUALITY
SECT 10-h
1000.00
.00
1000000
DETACH STUB BEFORE CASHING

Neri wueen r ::'.INVOICE NUMBER; xi PU3iCH%ISE OAD�R ;;INVOICE OATEM1! '''x s=cfi:QRQSB'ANEOUNt as `;s; a=018COltN� �.;:
�nanr,
L V v J J V V
1000.00
_ 1Mining Permit Renewal Application fee for Crabtree Quarry Nining Permit No. 92-3
D QUALITY S-FA..': .
I 1ou,0.;r0
DETACH STUB BI'FOHE CASHING
THIS CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF INVOICES RENDERED 70 r—
A Member o THE PRZER GROUP
P.O. FiOX �131
17/92
ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ANO 00 CENTS
NC UEPT OF ENViR lNMENT
TO HEALTH — DEPT. M114F-.
THE PO 80X 27687
ORD
OF ER RALEIGH9 NC Z7611
PAYAELE THROUGH MELLON RANK jUF{ f.. A.
WILMINGTON, DE. 19999
ME:LLON1 RANK (F.,''TI fv.•'.
PHILANLI.f� MA, PA .9 i02
.0ol 1000.00
2063906
62-4
j063906-� ;:*«rr1,000.00

EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
CALCULATIONS
FOR
NELLO L. TEER COMPANY
CRABTREE QUARRY PERMIT RENEWAL
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
W
r�
u
RECEIVED
jAN 2 2 1-1912
CAi`D QUALITY SECT ICC'
i: Mq Cv`RFF,n
Ll

L7
•
�jrJ F=�i-���i �`r I r�—i = �� �_ •�..' � !r.�.T , �'_'ah-- `_�' 't i�rx- .
�J'TG U Ti L-I Z l t'j t. T`I-# C
Yl`�--1� f��K.. �c�h}��= ;►/VdS >��T� ___i--{f I�iFp l`--C�fZ T�-i�
•
- � . Y.. �u�.
2�TI�F�� �=v�r-rc._IL,a ,s : C� � G,Cra.
1r`I�2G -
� .` _. �_.=
.�=�5� ..f�-�-r� bl= i2��Gf�F IrJ. Gc��j4C� ���C I�-�I�
•
.,. � ,> .-�....GC�t=mil
G1 F►��T . 2�PI�S�ti1�"1 �I[i. 'T�-�t� t`Li<L/�TZ c�f�SL;11�
.__
�rT1�1+v�1.1 12/��I.lydt.l� lzdT.QfJ� .;2Jr`SC:T::I-.
,
.
.. .�...._
• w
. r.,. � r=—. +-, c.�� �-- r—vim f;� �, T U ,2 r✓ r .. u(.3 tr_� i i �u . �=C-t'l� /� L,
J
_ F
TO
T�
Ti r`,ir-- G�Jti.�G t,1 Tr2bT ! ��4 1 ti} i./Itt i��
_ ..
i�-�T 1 Md�-lrD �I M C . F[7r1- ..2� r.1q� -r�n I=t�o �} ��+✓
T I-} C- �` � �J"�T k2rc 1� �1 c�T � ��' � T i•� E k/ ©Tf� ��1-� �. D
�
.-
��ET �l.•OvJ A�1� GC».�G���T�T>r� '�L01n/ �Gl-l.dl.lh��l,�
la�l /mac PI V-- . VJ ].
•
•
�� 4
BY i'- I, DATE SUBJECT _ a—Lo—L/_. ��EC.r�� SHEET NO._,i. OF
CHKD. BY DATE - GiZ�� �-3 l��r� JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS -T DESIGN SHEET

Z'
jj
zsljj�
_3
2. c u ark c.1 � L - I c, ram] JnLiz_ i 1� F,::' G N4 I
is or,
s or
Aec-Al
ILI e7r7 �-T­
kj
e7�F:: : 11 �vj(::�:,
0 Ul
FJ ot-i a: { rz
4 OtAj I rj (f 57 ok� E .-:51
6t= r20(j 6, s-4 Q�---
t
"3 y
I A I
•
BY At:2L -DATE SUBJECT �J�L(.C) SHEET NC._�A__OF_
CHKD. BY DATE
JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

-32? i
� �uIS`i"I+�IC� ji�,�rf.f U1��1�i.lSlor�l
3r
,:q� � o�F✓ T� � �.i�Tl t..IGI : g�1 Itil
77
•
•
� 7
Ci 11 32 5t"
- I G X 7O - 6� ,f7 4cD ',> -Ti�?J2
BY�DATE SUBJECT �L—� l-�� SHEET NO."I_—_OF_
CHKD. BY —DATE [,=—UL`l�'1 r'�LtJ`s� JOB NO"
r-
•--F RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ___ DESIGN SHEET

.,
u
fZtEt�dI � Lr d�c�� = 0,2�'-.<," = 1.`52 cis
��/Q1L/..��L._C DiSCNiS24E a� ��IST. 2rSElz � �Ap2�..
BYL7L DATE-- SUBJECT _{� {-�.p SHEET NO, 2 OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

rI
•
V01— � � =-:2�0.5�,G-I►.�� K (I �ri21,.►�(d3SCp� � Ac�� 7�23 C-F
r
W =.: -7Q
I
L- _-._..._40� Vo L. s 744 4-
112
'E
'Ayrj CD
x .!
i r .
:
I A, /n'E + A .^� r1r� r. : I n :s r-. /,i...- ��
v i. L�l1�...x� 'f , .ems �t� +-•Urc.�� � U1-^ CX ! s I , - f G I `S I G c7'-------------
F I .
99c�sy rr4
BY—,4aY DATE SUBJECT N��� Lam, ��I✓� SHEET NO. ?S .OF
CHKD. BY DATE __� T? �_� G f ly JOB NO.
-
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

w VLP+ U 1
•
•
LIME=1.FaIC�j
s
P
•
4
•
:
f :
f
i
!
3
s
L
7 3�
;
Ji
:
WP=
IG,46 r=:'r
V
1,9`1 FPS
t
..
- _....
i
' I
BY 42K DATE SUBJECT N L4ip �,� SHEET N0._4- OF
CHKD. BY DATE `�_I_C�{i_._Q��L`�, 2�( JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P, A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

C d ti_ t_ A - A
Lr�l,lGt�r-N �= 12n �
Fr
1�d1 rJ��.� .dry •-- U. � ; Ac
C =0.4-
AN -• 3�5 �� - � �. T� -- 2, s �--� s M � N
0.9 8 s --~-, - I cr-s
I►u(El.fsl � S .
Y v
F
� _- CI��X1s�=.22,5 SQy 24_II
LteiZ �TOr.I: Sc��✓�az
`ri I IGICrJs = 1,��2's��i
•
• T Fl-rN = 0,25 vQP=
S, SL_e� = 4 A ; 0,25 F
f
W I iDY4_�
b 2- O �2
_S[-..~
�NCaZ STIZG�6`- = T = (Cr-f2•4)(0 Z-s)(021 .12 p
BY DATE SUBJECT dF1-r-12 t� /T �' SHEET NO. S _OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
• RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS _ DESIGN SHEET

BY Z�' 7=!" DATE SUBJECT --NFL , L 7'F SHEET ' NO. Co OF
CHKD. BY DATE G2/ JOB NO.
�i��� f I ra
•
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

C�—r 1 r---c— --PJ
n _
U._s__
�T
r�
Q- 2
:
2,S„
{ S�11
14
.4M
= o.�s' wP 2,1�-1 I Fr
'z
jCQiCa,crlL.�
BY DATE SUBJECT IJ F UIrL -TSHEET NO-7---OF _
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.____
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

I
'�Y_•i``-l'��%__ '�- V ��_11•,;7 � Jai- i_
r I --- 1 -, n A A
�J -T
'At
C7
•
•
7
J
•
•
nz_0 �o.4�C �C S 2� �• .G��
L 2 f
VJ I rsi-N = o
= o, c»�
WP = 2.-7.7 r'r
A = 0,77 �=
wl Dz- I -I = C>
Fr
BY— � ---DATE- SUBJECT_L.._ i.l �L� _�.-- -- -- SHEET NO..,
--
C'riKa. BY DATE _ r" '�? • _._ �-r_r _ J/ r ' J� - JOB NO..-- - - - --
.-'"-i.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1 �_ _. T ^-��DESIGN SHEET -

•
�Zl-l-- 2
T�?� � r•.��i t� L��'` = O.�t `� Ate.
lr - 2 J
BY A1;,�, 1' DATE
CHKD. BY DATE
RAGSDALE +CONSULTANTS, P. A.
SUBJECT -lFL_L
:�C�J21 � OG- 10► 7
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SHEET NO. 1:51 OF
JOB NO.
DESIGN SHEET

,-1- _
, � I
,
w.
i i
.
....-^ lfl........i..- ,............ram.....
I
i
3
{
P
I
c
1
�l
A�-r1�Dfo��
u[
(rJ - o
f
3
.
2,q4 cps
BY A� DATE SUBJECT i �_7 � �� � SHEET NO. ICD OF
CHKD. BY DATE
r�GGi�• JOB NO.
_;�r�'1
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

• G.I- Z'-') J I' I r -E-1
r
Q.I.-1- � �, - �#o - � � -ram = 2. � -'�� � t,,,ti , N .. •
I
.
Li
-12
i
Y
� f
n
,
e
1-
f � f
,
f
r
n r-r I %` fir 1 n
h!V L C� N
= �l F '2 - !
T.
._.......S
4 _
3� Elm • E~ < = T
a• �4 Gas
2 . 6v2 f�-P 5
BY V+c-L DATE SUBJECT may. l Q-Sr L�JZ_._ SHEET NO. { OF
GHKD. BY DATE C _l _ 4 � JOB NO,
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

•
11
•
•
•
•
-D rJ
�2s - -7 :5 "/P +z
BY�12 DATE SUBJECT �F- I5 ��._,_ _ � _ _ SHEET NO. ;_Z OF
CHKD. - BY DATE _� JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

r,
0
s
•
G�-1 A►� J F L_ !` - F--
SLR _ 2I-2,L1-I
a2/-�,, IJACI C- /J,z = o. 27 A�
4-
d� 1 - 2 :! t5 =7
a
G�PT u _...- 0.21 W QPr
m WI�T4-1..=
0-7 G Fs
O o3�2 V 3.2 g3 F::�P!S
�5Pe-4 = T Iza.a ) = I.6's < 2.E:) PPS
BY DATE SUBJECT JEt-1-0 L SHEET NO. 4� _OF
CHKD. BY DATE Z JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

1 �
Ll 1-I .= 'Z� 5.7 7
. s
e -
c
.o
O t 4- l4- c
3.ag r7r
1
..: vJ►�. - 4 .�8 ter...
V � 2,SZ -BPS
.4 )Co. -7 4
BY 'Af2l - DATE SUBJECT �F-a�[� L T��� ,SHEET NO. OF
CHKD. BY DATE GG�i1G:�� JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

vv 1 i�I H = r C� St=rz = I Ef r'
LCO,f(TW = 7 S' P-aAr2i2,r-ai 2" (X
D��4. _ 6a'
\/Ot_ . -'z: 2 S1qq i GF .
SJ2---AcE5 A.. 2�, = . s F
CAI ►,!� � _./-�.�A = ,20.E � � ... _
mid
i
4 _
C
To i DT�-A r2an 0
4 .
e
, 3
r
4- 62e�oo
BY f-� L- DATE SUBJECT -i-1aL'D (- TEE SHEET NO. 1`5 OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
EEI�id_OIJ
RAGSDALE. CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

r -1
L i
l
3
f AMC-�Z(�t�]G,�J �i� U.v�i,L�4{
�1 M t✓r�s lDr�s . "-
I
1
�, .....
02
i
r I I
E
,
I
3
j3
_.,
L�1 i✓. _,L�,J. -ram v�l� �TIo
i
s
'i�4s� ►� . � l.ti%I � k�Sl D tJ ,
� �VViIJ i
but � - t2, 5p
BY_ko� _ ___.DATE SUBJECT Qlau,? L �EFj� _ SHEET NO. OF
CHKD. BY T DATE Cjl����}i Lf JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

I21 �E i2 l% 1,2 IZ� zIZG--L-
�=QL D4 rZ�F
_' __�1.�55 . S �rl DIJS DIMEtaSI Or�S.. _
r --
L
...... .....1C�.,
FT
T '
F i I
0215_ (0,4 �g.2�(I,G4
BY��ZY _DATE SUBJECT NELLo L SHEET NO._ 1_7 OF
CHKD. BY DATE T1 (�7 ," -Z J08 NO,
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

S, sw = 3: I Y 1,7E) S�
W I O T >- z-0 = O, ?,77
✓� = o. 0225 �/ �• FPS 2 S
BYrDATE SUBJECT �F{ L � SHEET NO._?' OF
CHKD. BY DATEJOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANT'S, P. A. =ONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

•
•
�I4 3nv 262
BY AF-!L� DATE SUBJECT ` � _ .� � _ SHEET NO._�'l OF
CHKD. BY DATE G_rC�_tt JOB NO,
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

i
•
•
w i r::77 4 - e_-::>
r)=o.02ZS
—�• cJrE r--S-2 P7-'IL.TE2 STO P
W P - �5.7-1 PT
A 0.g-'G35r`
2 = 0.22
Q= 2.4G CrL
LrrJrF.1G ��`7
r
W I1-� -. O. _..
.= 0.2d-
rn o'07G3
Tz-
T�-d�. L�fz[1i►� r �s 1.24 AG
BY_Ajc .IL DATE SUBJECT _N �-� l� . �(�Iy _ SHEET N0. .'� OF
CHKD. BY DATE _ C�-rl!� (- {�V �r�`'� JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

E
Ll
Ll
rI
•
•
V11LD`r'N =ram
c: �• L
> 4- �s
F
QG"rU 4 t_ 1 INt S I �R C -1- - 2 +sc) .
N_ o._ vP - .r-- 8�� i-.
.. �'.SLc? F .O•_ _0.5Z� :F i�FT
2
a
Y
T (G2I, 4?,
! �S"t' f M 6/5'T�� _ �1 M [` Tay SI n ►��
.<2,cl:; (ok)
\N 3.43' F7
S.. SLoP� Yv= I A - o.44 �F
tr, I r r�,_�_ 1 ra n
S-� �ilE� Lir•Jrr��f
TZt, ��--
BY_%•DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO._Z Of
CHKO. BY DATE JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

•
21 P- I�:A P
�7
_ _� �GTv�L Dr►�CrJ��co� (2 �-moo. - 4}-c] ;�
•
_..._ . _.. S S }
77
-7_GFS...
.�...�_�.�_STD.,►�!t,!�`�.r.�.._.�D�M!*�S�ora .. .....t... , _.
.. �... .. ., .._µ._
f
es
Q
0225
.45 P7PS 4-,0 r7ps
2 S-ro sip - �� _ 3.2"
A (JIp" fG/a
n%0,o�sZ
BY____A2- DATE SUBJECT�{�--
CHKD. BY -DATE
SHEET NO. G.Z_OF
JOB NO
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

LA
E
•
r< I
•
•
•
v.1IDT4
0.27
4.1-7 CAS
3,94 PFs
�N F�rz T2c T � (&2,d X .4SX-0453D z 13-� < 2.'S (4 �- ) `
`
� T
l -t go
'2
O 177 c?p rT/p-r
..
r
L..,
i
{
t� P 2.02 1=—r
S-rC>[JE S, z C
i
.4
.j
i
6Y_ _,'�4�Y__ DATE SUBJECT _IdE"tj-, 7 L . J�LSHEET NO. Z,> OF
CHKD, BY DATE Ll JOB NO.
F�1 r I-�r� •-r �f�
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A_ CONSULTING ENGINEERS _. DESIGN SHEET

•
VIPF-+-
•
S LOGS
O -q J F--
�1 - G? • o�� 2
`•,� - �. !✓� � Pam.
-)(a, I. 4 S 2. s
cps
3I
i f
f.15,
O.1 7 w-�r/�,-r
Q-
• t/?d.-_._..._._ `d_.,4z25_
, _ ..\� = ?d'Ifj .E=(� � Ci.. F-Pr
L1 r.l C�
__...... .,......�.,...._.....__..
f7, ram.
•
i
�1-�'ro�1��.5+Z�`.��� 12��4.4 i2,8��.(.•f1-�r3/ .�33 �-4 � � s _ � ; .. .
a
E
• _ice'- �O.O� �� �� �2 � `/b_ '-- O o410
W�=2.gOr-T
=
0, S-7 S r=
2=0.2o
=2,8aC�
Lam, of F7ps
4 �0 ,17 - 7�iC-
BY 6,I DATE SUBJE T N���-•!� L• _I �': �_ f� SHEET NO._! `4- OF
CHKD. BY DATE _��JTrrl�Zl�.` f JOB NO.
•
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

-> f,� --- 15 .-7 (, c-F~ s
0
Ll
•
i-S-Ft i-A&T F t�
S�EPrN ' 4 ,42
VJ P = 3 . 6w, F-7-
H O,Gf 5 F
o- �I F� > 4F
BY ADATE SUBJECT SHEET NO._2.� OF
CHKD. BY DATE ^!��fs='I --� �+� � I �! JOB NO.
SOS L
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

�l I t-11 �"1-T� � V � r f✓� C-'F-�`-.-.�1 la �� .
F T
a
VJP
/-I
v.2s���s
-..) 77 �.hs
a . .
•
BY DATE SUBJECT _N,L2�_ ��� SHEET NO.26 OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO. _
•
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

4i
L� �4 2-76 -
- _':�� s-r�-=ram, ` _TZE=� i r��►�,-�-�s �
L,..=..�
.. rc >
f
1�L�S4+J C)4r'lEkIf-
,IOtj -
C
BY��'-` Z- DATE SUBJE/CT_,` �il�{7 r�� SHEET NO. r�7 OF
CHKO. BY DATE �G LSD. ��� �.�': =�j JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

I ME�I}.'1E'fJsti4=:) J
BY DATE SUBJECT ���� SHEET No.-M OF
CHKD. BY DATE � _�%� / ' �{� JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

•
176--., i cDa.._ ���t•.� 1-ram: �L� M C� :,c_i ?._`�
11.1 Ac-
I,9 Ac
L1N 38-7 -�3S = 52 77 _ -7M,a
it_,zs - -7
134rs]rJ .D.IM1�-lt'isI.=*j ..
s
WEi rz....L+`Y�-ru.._ -D`'� 2�. �t� ' �s� .ZC25 �. .
=. O- <=:- t Co77 1=7/fir
Z> : I
S LQ PE = O. CAI �o`T FT/r_r
Y� = O.0�e
VJP =
d1,3f3 t=r
P,
"
7J3 Co �c
V
PS
BY —DATE SUBJECT _QE1_L_0 L �1=� .( - SHEET NO.—'Zq- OF
CHKD. BY DATE G�-L�?C r^ �/ y'::`--! JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. =0
NSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

cA, = 3.12'
0--r 1.4
?
Z'
SF
BY /-ill- DATE SUBJECTSHEET NO.-30 OF
CNKD. BY-/�;i
DATE �� �f����i__,�� JOB NO.
✓0I(. zc f�lJ
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

Gc-I/w, I.'. i.J E-:!� e5 - I
Qz� = 2. (a cis
E-:STIM/�'�{:=L--) DrMCr11S1aIli -
Oi L4
Fps, > :.2... ;Fibs . IN : r! L-.. MOT�2ti(�L
i L-I ►V t � cr . . �.� t IZ�b
r E
e ,
E
I _.
SL6
fl
i
WP
A -
1, 1.9 -SF
e I
BY i 'JZ DATE SUBJECT _,V F-LL�D IMF
CHKD. BY DATE_
SHEET NO. Jl OF
JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

�l
Ac-
t�Pru � 1.r
SLR
✓� = O. 022.E
o,19 l � gd 42 sF_
2a. 1 Y
SrCd>w Size, = +2 ���� (lef-- 8>'a .00-'�8�
• ! C -7 � r
BY_f-'Z DATE SUBJECT E: Lj.�a�-SHEET --OF
CHKD. BY DATE JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

•-
•
S. s�--ter-�
- , • I
�S. --
r7. �8 ��.
-7 3
�t_7_
BYDATE SUBJECT _�4EGI Q SHEET NO. 3(22 OF
CHKD. BY DATE ��/_`!' ���y`-1�f?``� JOB NO.
SUIL_f� S101
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

•
40-
•
-rr iA a D 1 "� rJS f
dEF-T- 1-4- - I.
S, >L
F-s .
L lrj srI Cr.
As
71,
04 FT ,
SF
kAj 1 .G
,
FPS
BY A� 4=- DATE SUBJECT �S_�a !� ��i�� SHEET NO. OF
CHKD, BY DATA ��=f�r�f� �` C�s��:��� 1?_l>_"� JOB NO.
RAGSDALE CONSULTANTS, P. A. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGN SHEET

0 El
m
o
O
'
CIS
CO
a
E
0
rn
z
Tc(min)
— 200
100
L (it)
10000
S0
0
5000 m
C
m m
CO C
O
o
m o
10
.
E 1000 E
E
x
�\
II�
5 k
100
CA -A)
Note:
Use nomograph Tc for natural basins with well-defined channels, for overland
flow on bare earth, and for mowed -grass roadside channels.
dh
For overland flow, grassed surfaces, multiply Tc by 2.
For overland flow, concrete or asphalt surfaces, multiply Tc by 0.4.
For concrete channels, multiply Tc by 0.2.
Figure 8.03a lime of concentration of small drainage basins.
8.03.4

:M
13
r
m
a
. m
O
co
0
a
m
E
m
O
r
10-
0
rn
H (ft)
r.nn
Tc(min)
200
100
�10000
Kn
5000
0
m
9
CO
c
m
U
Ca
0
U
rn
C
p
m
.
i0 .
1000_
CO
\
1
q
100
Note:
Use nomograph Tc for natural basins with well-defined channels, for overland
flow on bare earth, and for mowed -grass roadside channels.
For overland flow, grassed surfaces, multiply Tc by 2.
For overland flow, concrete or asphalt surfaces, multiply Tc by 0.4.
For concrete channels, multiply Tc by 0.2.
Figure 8.03a Time of concentration of small drainage basins.
8.03.4

7
:�
H (ft)
rnn
L (ft)
10000
•
m
50
5000
•
O
O
m
•-
C13
—
o
n
rn
�..
10
1000
m
L
o
E
x
E
0
5
500
CD
.
L41
100
Note:
Use nomograph Tc for natural basins with well-defined channels, for overland
flow on bare earth, and for mowed -grass roadside channels.
For overland flow, grassed surfaces, multiply Tc by 2.
For overland flow, concrete or asphalt surfaces, multiply Tc by 0.4.
For concrete channels, multiply Tc by 0.2.
'Figure 8.03a Time of concentration of small drainage basins.
Tc(min)
200
100
50
U
y
0
E Flo
8.03.4
rp

�m
O
20
'
f5
f0
B
�
6
0
V,
A
m
c+
c
-
2
C
0.8
0.6
CO
0.4
0.2
of
��
■
■■■
i
■
IN
I
w��r■affs:1f�111111111f■flff�flFffflFl�'��•.�
\������
ICE
�■n��
■
�■nnnn
5 10 20 40 60 2 3 4 6 8 12 18 24 .
Minutes Hours
Duration
Figure 13_03d Rainfall intensity durafinn eurvnt—Grppnshnro_
15
10
6
o,
..
C
2
N
0.8
ru
0.6
oa
0.2
0.1
•
1�■■■Ff�F1Sf1sf�����iF��l��Ff1��
NOO
■miEmm"mm
UNION
reF3■��aFIF�Ffs�Ff�FlrF:r�
�F>}»
\.r�FlFff���
■ooa10
■�rsw�r■�■�■✓11r■r✓r�■■r■�+r�a�l\\
�Il�n
■�®
n'
• IM ..
inutes Hours
Duration
Figure 8.03c Rainfall intensity duration curves —Raleigh.
8.03.6

m
0
a�
0
CO
c
0
0_
2
0
m
0
0
E
a
z
ro
Ca
Y
0
CD
c
m
E
D
E
x
Note:
Use nomograph Tc for natural basins with well-defined channels, for overland
flow on bare earth, and for mowed -grass roadside channels.
For overland flow, grassed surfaces, multiply Tc by 2.
For overland flow, concrete or asphalt surfaces, multiply Tc by 0.4.
For concrete channels, multiply Tc by 0.2.
Figure 8.03a Time of concentration of small drainage basins.
Tc(min)
qnn
100
s0
10
5'L
1
8,03.4

•
11�'j
IQ
t3
inn
4
C
y
2
0.8
0.0.4
.0.2
01
�t�M■Sr�����rtii
�_����
��..��r
�■■I�■■ir
tttttr■�r■rltl�atE�ttt�a■�■�iir■�
Los
\�
���w���rr����wrwrwr�'r•�`.'.�
��Irwr��w��
r.■r■rlr�r,r.l■i■ilrtr.�t.����.•
•\��r■I■■Ir,
r1�■!r■relrf>Slr>ri�tiiii�
`�.���.�\�r�rf
■■111■■■■■�■■■�►�\,
C
�.
5 1n - 2n an G0 2 ; e 6 a t2 18 24
Minutes Hours
Duration
Figure 8.03d Rainfall intensity duration curves —Greensboro.
l
-'
20
10
4
G
2
-.
Z
0.6
0.4
0.1
00111■.■■■.�■■■■■■m■■
"���Ait��
��
t�
���
ri■�■r�
r
S11r
:���:�
``��rrn
�ttt■rts��t�■ilt�■■■�rr�■�r
,�
■11■i■�:
■MNI
Irt■s■����rti�t�.'�1��1\
`lti�ti
r�1tIIIIIi■�
rn■■s■t11t1t■1tt1�r_rrt��rrlti►�■�.��\,
■■Ili■■■■■.�■■■■►�1�\'�
5 1 10 20 40 60 2 3 4 6 8 12 IS 24
Minutes Flours
Duration
40 Figure 8.03e Rainfall intensity duration curves —Raleigh.
8.03.6
0