20210612_J-Newsome

From:
JoEllen Newsome
To:
NCMininaProaram
Subject:
[External] Parker Mine
Date:
Saturday, June 12, 2021 11:07:32 AM
Attachments:
Parker Mine comments.odf
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Please see the attached letter for comments related to the proposed Parker Mine permit.
Thank you,
Jo Ellen Newsome

Jo Ellen Newsome
PO Box 171
New London, NC 28127
June 12, 2021
Adam Parr
Assistant State Mining Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Dear Mr. Parr,
I am contacting you regarding my concerns related to the permit application for the Parker Mine
in New London, NC. I believe there are several reasons that the requested permit should be
denied, according to the Department of Environmental Quality and NC law.
Based on statutes from NC G.S. 74-50 please consider the following:
Regarding (2) The operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies,
wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries, please be aware that the approximately
300 acres included in the requested Parker Mine permit serves as home to deer and turkey, as
well as other small mammals. Additionally, several species of hawks and owls live on this land,
as does the Pileated Woodpecker. Pileated Woodpeckers, despite being nonmigratory, are
protected by the US Migratory Bird Act. Further, runoff water from this property helps form a
creek that is known to support the Carolina and Eastern Creekshell Mussel — both endangered.
The creek also supports other endangered fish and plants. How might these species fair with the
creation of a mine pit over 300 acres of land, including blasting and the extraction of 90,000
gallons of water per day? Finally, the planned extraction of 90,000 gallons of water per day is
very concerning. The assertion on the permit application that this water extraction will not affect
surrounding groundwater wells is questionable, and the reference to a lack of impact in 1988 is
irrelevant. A 33-year-old example is not sufficient to judge the impact of the removal of 90,000
gallons of water per day in 2021. Certainly, the water table has changed in 33 years, and the
number of residents — and thus wells — have increased over that time.
Regarding (3)That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or
groundwater quality that have been promulgated by the Department, please be reminded of the
assessment (shared with New London residents by Ed Griffin) of The Department of Water
Resources which, in a review of the permit application says it is "concerned that the operation, as
proposed, would violate standards of water quality." Further, it is my understanding that James
Moore of the DEQ said in an internal email that, "The plan is weak" and that confirmation that
no wetlands/stream impact will result from the proposed operation is needed. Has the DEQ or
Department of Water Resources completed a more in-depth investigation to assure the residents
of New London that our water quality will not be affected by this proposed mine?

Regarding (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, please be advised that, by all accounts, the risk of physical
hazard to neighboring homes and churches is very real. There is a cemetery that joins the mine
property — including tombstones dating to the 1700s — that belongs to Parkers Grove Baptist
Church. The Parker Family Cemetery is even closer to the mine property. Also dating to the
1700s, this property contains grave sites marked with only a stone. Further, there are known
sinkholes in New London — could they be made worse by the blasting at the proposed mine? The
requested permit will lead to a hole that is large enough to swallow most of our beautiful town.
Blasting will create energy that radiates from the mine site for miles, leading to cracks in plaster,
drywall, and mortar joints, and causing foundation cracks and leaks, damage to basement
masonry walls, and ceiling fissures. Repeated exposure to the vibrations created by the blasting
can damage structures, and that damage can extend for miles from the site. New London United
Methodist Church, numerous residences and the entire downtown area of New London is
certainly close enough to the mine site — within'/4 mile — to experience this type of damage.
In addition to the risk of physical damage to property, there is also a public health impact. The
mine will most certainly create dust and that can cause eye and nasal allergy symptoms, eye
dryness, chronic cough and respiratory issues, especially for those with existing respiratory
conditions. Nearby residents, especially those who are more susceptible to health effects from
either fine or coarse particle inhalation (infants, elderly, those with diabetes, heart disease,
asthma or emphysema), may experience cough, wheezing an increased need for medications
(inhaler, etc.) or other negative effects. Two of the five family members who live in my home
(within a mile of the mine site) are extremely sensitive to dust and are likely to experience a
health/respiratory impact as a result of the proposed blasting.
Regarding (S) That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a
publicly owned park, forest or recreation area, please note that one of the great assets of New
London is the fact that it has two public parks located within its downtown — less than one mile
from the mine site! These are well -used recreational spaces, which together make up about 23
acres and include walking paths, picnic and grill areas, and play areas for our children. The
proposed mine activities will be a huge detriment to these parks that are enjoyed by many
members of our community and are truly a special and unique feature in our small community.
Mr. Parr, please consider the numerous reasons why the requested permit should not be granted.
Our community, our homes, and our health are at risk.
Sincerely,
Jo Ellen Newsome