20210607_E-Griffin

From: Ed Griffin
To: Parr. Adam
Subject: [External] Parker Mine
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 9:33:33 AM
Attachments: Parker Mine Comments.Ddf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to Report Spam.<mailto:report.spamnnc.gov>
Adam,
Attached are my comments on the Parker Mine application, in pdf
form. It's only 58 kb.
Please advise if it is received OK.
I've chosen to send my comments via this method because of the time
limits for audio comments
during the public hearing.
Can you tell me how many people have signed up to speak during the hearing?
Is it possible to get a copy of all comments submitted on the subject
of the Parker Mine?
Either your notes of phone calls or their written comments?
Regards,
Ed

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
Re: Parker Mine application # 84-06
Dear Mr. Parr,
I adamantly oppose the granting of a mining permit for application # 84-06. The following are
my objections based on NC GS 74-50.
As for my background and interest in this matter, I will add these points. I have lived on
adjacent property for 72 years. As a youth, I explored, hunted and fished not only on my
property but that of what was always referred to by my family as "the gold mine property". As
a kid, I had permission from the owner (James Mauney) to hunt there. From an early age, I
explored every square foot of its amazing deep woods, that had never been disturbed except
for some very limited logging. Small game was abundant, but deer didn't arrive in this area
until the early 1960's. It was on this property around 1962, that I saw my first deer in the wild,
other than those in Morrow Mountain State Park, over ten miles away. It was probably the
1990's before wild turkeys were introduced by James Mauney, an avid turkey hunter. Both
are now abundant there. The property in question has remained, pretty much untouched, for
perhaps the past 100 years.
Following the seven criteria for denying the mining permit, as outlined in the Public Hearing
notice, I submit the following.
Paragraph 2
Potable groundwater supplies are in danger. My property and all properties along
Blalock Road all depend on wells for their water needs. Having lived here for seventy years, I
have seen first hand that the water table has decreased significantly. The NC Wildlife
Department describes the creek on my property as "an unnamed tributary to Long Creek in
the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin". In my lifetime I have witnessed the flow of this creek
diminish probably 75%. A mining operation that will remove 90,000 gallons of water (or more)
per day would probably dry up this creek, and possibly my well and those on Blalock Road.
The mining application claims that people in the surrounding area have access to municipal
water, but this is not true. There are no municipal water lines on either Henderson Road or
Blalock Road.
If this permit is granted, will it stipulate that the holder of the permit be monetarily libel
for (1) installing water lines along both highways (2) installing taps for existing homes (3)
paying the water -usage bills forever? At this time we, the homeowners, have free water. Why
should we be made to pay for water in the future if this mining operation harms our water
supply?
The track of land in question is home to all types of small animals and birds. All the
common types are there along with seldom seen ones like foxes and bobcats. Even one bear
has made a visit and may still be around. Several species of hawks and owls live there along
with the federally protected Pileated Woodpecker. Many people have never seen this bird
because it only lives in deep forest, but I often hear or see them right behind my house which

adjoins the property. The term adverse effects on wildlife, as used in the Public Notice,
should read devastating effects in this case. The site map supplied with the application
shows that the entire 297 acre site will be devoid of forest which will totally destroy all the
wildlife habitat. A reasonable person would consider this to be adverse, at the very least.
The creek on my property originates as runoff from the property in question and is also
supplied by a few natural springs along the way. As a kid, I fished in the deeper holes along
this creek catching a weird little fish with knots on its head, which years later I learned was the
Bluehead Chub. The shallow areas gave up a lot of crayfish. These still exist there along
with the shells of some kind of mussel discarded by raccoon or the otter I've seen recently.
In its report, the NC Wildlife Department states several endangered species may exist
in the area and suggests an on -site survey be made. Has it been made? As a land owner, I
have not been notified of anyone entering my property for such a survey.
Paragraph 3
My concerns related to groundwater quality have been stated above. As far as surface
water quality goes, surface water from this site flows into the creek on my property and
continues to Long Creek and beyond. With an operation the size of what is planned,
expecting to extracting 90,000 gallons of water per day, how is this going to be contained? It
can not be contained forever and what assurance is there that eventual outflows will not
contaminate my creek and beyond. I am not a mining expert but I do hold a degree in Civil
Engineering and I don't think they can accomplish what they've stated in the application.
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:
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
Has this been investigated further?
What has been submitted in the application as far as air quality is concerned, in my
opinion, is rubbish. As close as this operation is to downtown New London, it will be
impossible to reduce the dust generated down to a level that will not impact the close by
homes and businesses, which includes a day-care facility where small children play outside.
Paragraph 4
Physical public health will be directly effected by negative air quality generated by the
mining operation. The application states that water will be used to eliminate dust from the
crushing of stone, but what about the dust produced by earth moving equipment within the
pit? Dust that is produced there will be easily carried by prevailing winds the very short
distance into the town or onto the property of adjoining land owners. Negative air quality from
this part of the operation simply can not be discounted.
This operation can constitute a direct physical hazard to nearby houses and buildings.
The NC Geological Survey Report states, in part on page 7,
The use of explosives in the proposed "granite" quarry could
induce sinkholes or other collapse features.
There are known sinkholes in some nearby parts of New London. Will these be made worse
by the blasting at the mine or will new sinkholes develop? What about the effect on the
foundations of houses and buildings? This is a proven problem around similar mining
operations. Many houses and buildings in the area are of older construction, so this type of
condition was not planned for during their construction.

This operation can constitute a direct physical hazard to at least one nearby church.
New London United Methodist Church is the closest church to the mining site, at 1,000 feet.
This church was built in 1931 (90 years ago) and is of brick construction. The age of this
church and its construction type will make it very vulnerable to damage from the seismic
effect of quarry blasting.
Although not a church itself, there is church owned property that will be negatively
effected by this mine. Parkers Grove Church has their cemetery on adjoining property. This
church and two other African -American churches in the area all use this historic cemetery.
There are grave headstones dating back to the 1860's there, along with other undated stones
marking the graves of slaves from that era. With this cemetery still in use, 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?
Even though it is located on privately owned property, another religious and historic
site adjoins the mine site. Just feet away from the mine entrance is the Parker Family
cemetery. Howell Parker was a Revolutionary War patriot who was the original owner of the
mine property. Surrounding a six foot tall marble monolith that marks his and family members
graves, are the simple stone markers of several slaves.
I fear that seismic activity near these two sites will cause damage to grave markers or
cause grave sites to possibly sink.
Paragraph 5
In an initial application review, the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation
reported there were no public parks located within five miles of the mine site. After having this
error pointed out, they have corrected their oversight of missing both parks in downtown New
London Town. Noise and vibration from the mine will definitely have a negative effect on the
many patrons using the park.
Paragraph 6
1 feel there is legitimate concern that an operation of this magnitude will certainly
contribute to sediments in adjoining stream beds as referred to in Paragraph 3.
Paragraph 7
Over the past 30+ years, mining operations on this property have started and stopped
several times. In reading information from the Redacted Files (84-06_1_Redacted), it
appears to me that each permit had a reclamation plan when mining stopped. James Moore
of DEQ said "I inspected the site on April 7, 2021 and there has been no sign of mining for
many years". Looking at the site today, it's apparent that no reclamation has ever taken place
in the past. What's there is just a big muddy, water filled hole surrounded by dirt. If
reclamation was attempted, it was very little and a very poor job. This in itself should qualify
as a denial of the permit based on this paragraph.
Regards,
Ed Griffin
32801 Henderson Road
New London, NC 28127