20210602_L-Brodt

Ple,
Tn
�R+ Flbercn Recy'cling Ta I1, 7�11a.N7
�ACddCnly..-NewlefltlOa�
9
J R ® Li
r e5o7: ,gyp *r.r Lutheran Ne,urch ` .�
•. •. R3('OG B.e• IEGola4 .
L J.n d:C'11r
I � r
I
4.-,F.M7ii .�a A
•
HY/Gino Lumber ©' \6hurChl,.
ncleste,e:
Tre
I ti
\,e y tFlberon Recyc l B w TarAee1�ChalleN
` Acatlemy New
J i'RusseiLBSos� '�8 gil
Luthe
i. _ BaIVOn48 �
New Lomdiort -
ti
Ab
S'K
f'
r
Mauney Feed MIII ��}'z .

What will be the effect on the cemetery that joins the Parker Mine property? This cemetery
should be considered a historic site, having tombstones dating back to the 1700's. This cemetery is
owned by Parkers Grove Baptist Church and is shared by predominantly African -American churches
in the area. Can you imagine an interment being conducted with blasting, rock crushing, loaders
beeping and dump trucks roaring by just a few hundred feet away? Would this qualify as a hazard to
a church? Also, there is an even older cemetery that is closer to the site. The Parker Family
cemetery dates back to the early 1700's and contains many slave graves marked with only a stone.
What effect will the noise and vibration have on the nearby children's day care center, animal
clinic, church or the Tarheel Challenge Academy?
Paragraph 5
This is a good one. The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, in its report, says it
has "no objections to the approval of the Parker Mine permit and therefore has no comments'. Do
you wonder why this is? Well, it's because someone named Rashawn Cortez King, in an application
review to NCDPR, stated that the "Proposed activity is not within 5 miles of a public park or recreation
area". The truth is that New London's town park is only % mile from the mine site!
Please make your voice heard during this upcoming hearing. If you take part in the hearing, follow up
with a letter or email. The granting of this permit will benefit no one except the owner, who will sell
the land and transfer the permit to the new owner. This open pit mine will not benefit the people of
New London.
Regards,
Ed Griffin
[e-mail]
Event title: Parker Mine Public Hearing
Date and Time: June 7, 2021 at 6 p.m. Q
WebEx Link: https:Hbit.ly/2SoJoXv
Meeting Password: NCDEMLR V
Meeting Number (Access Code): 161 876 6804 J
By Phone: US TOLL [phone]
Meeting Number (Access Code): 161 876 6804
If you wish to speak at the public meeting, you must register by 12:00 p.m. on June 7,
2021. To register, please visit: https:#bit.ly/2QZBdQO or call [phone].
Internet access is not required to participate in the meeting. To comment by phone,
when your name is called, press *3 so the moderator can identify and open your line.
Once you have made your comment, please press *3 to end your comment.
The comment period is open through June 17, 2021. Comments can be submitted via
email to [e-mail] with the subject line "Parker Mine". Or by
leaving a voicemail at [phone] or by mail to:
Adam Parr
Assistant State Mining Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
Telephone: [phone]

Paragraph 2
The 300 acres included in the permit for mining have been leased for deer and turkey hunting
for the past thirty years or more and both are abundant there. This forest is also home to squirrels,
raccoons, opossums and other small mammals. Larger mammals like foxes, and even bobcats,
reside there. All your small native birds live there, along with several species of hawks and owls.
Included in the bird list is the Pileated Woodpecker. Pleated woodpeckers, despite being
nonmigratory, are protected under the U.S. Migratory Bird Act.
There is mention of adverse effects on fish in this paragraph. The report fr m NC Wildlife
Resources Commission clearly states that the runoff water from this land helps for a eek that is
known to support two endangered mussels (Carolina and Eastern Creekshell), two angered
plants and one endangered fish.
The NC Commission recommended that the US Fish and Wildlife Co miJd'ofi be aske o
investigate this. They said in their report: The lack of records from the site es t imply or irm
the absence of federal or state listed species. An on -site survey is the only me to deter if the
proposed project may impact federal or state rare, threatened, or en ange d species.
Was this survey done? Not to my knowledge and, because thi ek is on my prrty, I think
I would have been notified if an investigation had taken place. �
The adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies is a dressed in this paral h. T�Se
mining permit application asks if surrounding groundwater wells w I%effect b xtrac ion o
the estimated 90,000 gallons per day of water extracted. On p f the per pplication, it says:
In 1988, a 60 gpm pump was used for 90 days. The only neigh 'ng well
showed no effect. The area is serviced by a POTW and water we[ s are not
required in this area. ,'
That was 33 years ago! I can assure you that the a table in` hQ surround' g I nd has
decreased a lot in the past 33 years. I question that
nei boring ell are r erri g to? I can
only think of one small residence that might have non ell water a ime I d bt they used
much water to begin with. I also question if thisxLmp actua II day, eve day for 90 days?
The operation going on in 1988 is nothing like what wil take place ' is mining permit is granted.
The statement that water wells are not required in this area is not true. Properties on both
Blalock and Henderson roads are all supplied by wells. If these properties lose their natural water, is
the permit holder going to be responsible for the installation of water lines and taps to these
properties? Will they also pay the water bill required by these properties? I think they should.
Paragraph 3
The Department of Water Resources, in their review of the application, clearly says it is
"concerned that the operation, as proposed, would violate standards of water quality James Moore
of DEQ said in an internal email:
I inspected the site on April 7, 2021 and there has been no sign of mining for many years. I do know that
the site has been leased for deer hunting. Based on the plans they propose to use an existing water body
as a sediment basin. The site is mostly wooded. We need to confirm no wetlands / stream impact. The
plan is weak, cannot read existing contours to start
Is this going to be investigated?
Paragraph 4
Page 7 of the NC Geological Survey Report states, in part:
The use of explosives in the proposed "granite" quarry could
induce sinkholes or other collapse features.
There are known sinkholes in some parts of New London. Will these be made worse by the blasting
at the new mine? Will new sinkholes develop? What will be the effect on the foundations of houses
and buildings?

May 24, 2021
You have received this letter to update you on the progress of the mining permit application for the
Parker Mine in New London. Since my previous letter, the DEQ (Dept of Environmental Quality) has
decided to hold a public hearing on the application for this mining permit.
The notification of this hearing was not very public, being published only in one edition of The Stanly
News and Press. You can read this notice on line at https://tinyurl.com/mine-hearing. This hearing
will be a "virtual hearing", meaning it will be done by phone or computer.
It is possible that a video conference will be set up at New London's Town Hall but this is just
speculation on my part at this time.
You may make your comments known by letter or email and in my opinion this should be done even if
you speak your piece at the virtual hearing. My reasoning for this is that DEQ will only allow each
speaker a three minute window in which to talk. With a letter or email, you have all the time you need
to get your thoughts heard.
DEQ has made it very clear (and NC law says) there are only seven things that they will consider
when it comes to either issuing or denying a mining permit. I feel these seven things are the only
things you should address when contacting DEQ.
From NC G.S. 74-50
The Department may deny the permit upon finding:
(1) That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will be
violated by the proposed operation;
(2) That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater
supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
(3) That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
groundwater quality that have been promulgated by the Department;
(4) That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to public
health and safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital,
commercial or industrial building, public road or other public property, excluding
matters relating to use of a public road;
(5) That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a
publicly owned park, forest or recreation area;
(6) That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial possibility
that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream beds or
lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution; or
(7) That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or
parent has not been in substantial compliance with this Article, rules adopted under
this Article, or other laws or rules of this State for the protection of the environment....
I feel there are reasons this permit should be denied based on paragraphs 2 — 6 above. I will give
you my thoughts and reasoning on each of these but you may have others as well.
This web site, https://tinyurl/mine-documents, contains most of the documents and emails from
various NC departments that took part in the process for the mining application. Each file stored
there is a .pdf file that you should easily be able to view. These files are also on the DEQ web site
but are not quite as handy to find and download.

Linda Brodt
42918 Blalock Rd
' New London, NC 28127-6716
CHARLOTTE N!C 280
28 MAY 2021 PM 5 L
'*-6
11.J
RCE
V
LAND QUAD., L A -Sc) v ' � 5
J:\Cdr—\ >�Q
2 7 6SS-i}S��ilfl��l���ill��