20210616_E-Griffin

From:
Ed Griffin
To:
Parr, Adam
Subject:
[External] Parker Mine
Date:
Wednesday, June 16, 2021 7:21:11 PM
Attachments:
Shad Letter to Editor.odf
Griffin Letter to the Editor.odf
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.spam&nc.gov>
Dear Mr. Parr,
Attached are two documents that I would like entered into the public
record for comments on
the application for the Parker Mine.
One pdf file is a letter to the editor of The Stanly News and Press,
published 6/14/21, written
by Mr. James Schad.
The second pdf file is a letter to the editor of the same paper, that
was submitted today by me,
Ed Griffin, an adjacent property owner.
Please acknowledge the receipt of and entering of these two files.
Best regards,
Ed Griffin

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: So you want to be a good neighbor, huh?
Submitted to SNAP June 16, 2021
"Just like a good neighbor, State Farm is there" is the TV jingle we've all heard. It was that
company's way of saying that they were just like Webster defined the term, someone living
near or next door and they were ready to help their neighbor. In response to James Schad's
recent letter to the editor, I don't understand his definition of a good neighbor. Someone that
lives 60 miles away is certainly not a neighbor to the town of New London. On top of that, the
mining project that was discussed will not help a single person in the town, at least not any
that I've talked to. More specifically, everyone I've heard from thinks the project will ruin our
town.
The outward appearance is that the project is nothing other than a money grab, based on two
simple facts, or theories, if you will. Does the Schad family plan to physically take part in the
daily operations of an open pit mine? It would not appear so, since James Schad has the
property listed for sale on at least two internet real estate sites. One has the property listed
for a mere $49,000 per acre and comes with a mining permit, although at this time, there is no
valid mining permit for the property! Another web site has the land priced at $60,000 per
acre. Now I must admit, if someone would pay me $60,000 per acre for my adjoining
property, I'd sell it and throw in my house for free. And honestly, it would be a money grab
without a doubt.
In his letter to the editor, Mr. Schad mentions the extraction of 90,000 gallons of water as
being negligible. He doesn't specify that in the mining permit application, this is actually
90,000 gallons of water "per day". Certainly not a negligible amount. The actual amount of
water extracted could possibly be much more. Could it be that the 90,000 gallon amount was
chosen because a greater amount would require a more extensive application to be filed? To
state that "the scope of the water source would never go outside the property" is just not
correct. The de -watering process is required so that material can be extracted from the ever
increasing hole in the ground. It is physically impossible to contain this ever increasing
amount of extracted water forever.
In the mining application, when asked about the effect of ground water by the de -watering
process, the applicant stated, "In 1988, a 60 gpm pump was used for 90 days. The only
neighboring well showed no effect." If such a pump was run for twenty four hours per day,
this would be 86,400 gallons per day, well under the 90,000 gallons estimated on the
application. In reality though, it's come to light that a much larger pump was required, and
borrowed, from a local construction company to keep up with the water that was filling in the
dig site. It's also reported that during this time, the pump malfunctioned, became submerged
and had to be extracted with a crane. How many gallons were actually pumped and why was
this not reported correctly in the application?
My property was mentioned on the subject of water, so I feel an explanation is needed. On
the south side of the mine property, the land has two natural drainage routes, both of which
join into one creek that eventually flows into Albemarle and beyond. Any contamination to this
water should be of concern to everyone. The process of mining will uncover and release
several heavy metals, including mercury. These heavy metals are supposed to settle out of
collected water in sediment ponds but can those be trusted to do the job? During a period of

heavy rain, I've seen my ankle deep creek swell and overflow a six foot diameter pipe under
my driveway. As for the heavy metals, there is a private pond in one of those natural drainage
routes. In the 1980's I was told that fish from that pond should never be eaten because of
mercury contamination from previous mining. Fish from that pond had visible sores on their
bodies and some were malformed.
The release of, or the disturbance of, heavy metals during this mining operation also concerns
me as to the quality of drinking water. I have no choice but to get my drinking water from a
well, as does everyone living on Blalock Road. Municipal water is not an option for any of us.
Even if the de -watering process doesn't cause our wells to go dry, they could easily become
contaminated from the disturbance of heavy metals. Heavy metals are a known cause of
cancer and we might never know until it's too late.
In Mr. Shad's letter, he mentioned that the claim of a sinkhole was not possible because it
was a mile away. I feel obligated to point out the error in that comment. The sinkhole in
question does exist and was created shortly after the Parker Mine was reopened 33 years
ago. The actual distance to this sinkhole from the mine site is 1500 feet, not one mile. Other
residents report that during this same time, there were two natural springs in the middle of
New London that went dry. One of these springs is 2400 feet from the mine site. How can
any reasonable person think this new, much larger operation will not effect the water table?
Another of Mr. Schad's statements that I and many others disagree with, is in reference to
Parkers Grove cemetery. Even if he feels dynamite blasting would have little effect on a
funeral, what about the noise from crushing rocks, the beeping of mining equipment and the
noise of dump trucks leaving the site? This cemetery is only 1500 feet from the mine site.
There will be a noise issue.
You say you want to use your property for its best use and I understand that. A big mistake
was made in 1988 when the town of New London changed the zoning ordinance to allow your
family to reopen the Parker Mine. At that time the reopening was to be more of a hobby
situation to see if any more gold could be extracted from the old shaft site. The original
mining application was for only 33 acres to be disturbed and that area is all that should have
been rezoned. Now you propose to increase the disturbed area by ten times that much and
with a totally different operation in mind.
Mr. Shad, I think I speak for all the citizens of the town of New London and the surrounding
area when I repeat what your father reportedly said in the early 2000's, "Stanly County
doesn't need another mine". New London doesn't need it and New London doesn't want it.
Ed Griffin
New London, NC

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We want to be good neighbors
By SNAP Letters
Email the author
Published 11:08 am Monday, June 14, 2021
We appreciate the comments at the hearing about the mine property. We will do everything to
address concerns and see if our efforts to do so are in line with citizens and our neighbors.
There are strict guidelines that need to be followed and met to comply with regulations. We will
comply with such requirements.
As to concerns related to water usage and its effect on neighboring properties, I have spoken to our
consultants on this and they have assured me the estimated 90,000 gallons usage for the operation
is negligible. It is water that has accumulated in the existing pit and the scope of the water source
would never go outside the property. Every bit of water collected will be recycled.
As to the feasibility of a sinkhole occurring in a driveway at a home a mile from the property, which
Mr. Chestnut suggested was a result of activities years ago, it is not possible. But we are still in the
process of performing studies for purposes of the project and its impact on the area.
Another concern he mentioned was blasting as a disturbance to funerals. I do not think this would
be the case with modern techniques, nor is blasting something done on a regular basis.
One concern of our neighbor Mr. Griffin was the quality of water leaving the property and its
cleanliness. I do not know the specifics of this yet, but there will be sediment ponds that allow for
water to filter prior to leaving the property. We have always complied with state regulations and
performed any requests. Creating berms, leaving buffers, sloping the sides and seeding the existing
disturbed area of the property is just an example. I do empathize with his concerns and take them
seriously. We want to be good neighbors and aim to address all of these concerns.
One bothersome portion for me were the comments from Joe Carter questioning the integrity of my
family and my father, Gus. Gus was not the lead of a coalition to block Mr. Carter from having a
mining operation in 2003. 1 believe Mr. Carter was seeking a rezoning of property in order to operate
a mine. It was not Gus who was against him as much as the college, community and the county. If
memory serves me correctly, I believe the Village of Misenheimer was formed for the specific
purpose of fighting Mr. Carter on his efforts to do so.
We do understand the concerns of neighbors and look to mitigate those through proper handling of
anything related to mine operations. They can rest assured we have heard their voices and have
their best interest at heart. We want to be good neighbors as well as be able to use our property for
its best use. We will put measures in place such as buffer zones, berms and leave natural habitat to
lessen impact on the community. We would hope to achieve a relationship with the community that
is productive and beneficial to all.
James Schad
Your Equipment Guys
Landvestors Group
Gastonia