20210714_E-Portman_Sunset_Clause

Kastrinsky, Josh
Subject: Important concerns on applicant reply to AD13 questions - and suggested follow up
questions to consider
From: Ervin Portman [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 10:11 AM
To: NCMiningProgram <[e-mail]>; Miller, David <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wilson, Reid <[e-mail]>; Michael, Jeff <[e-mail]>; Patterson, Dwayne
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Masemore, Sushma <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] FW: Important concerns on applicant reply to AD13 questions - and suggested follow up questions
to consider
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
Report Spam.
Mr. Wrenn,
Can you tell me if DEQ has decided to reinstate the Sunset clause, or allow the 2018 change to stand?
As you know Wake Stone asserted the Sunset clause was a typographical error in the 1981 Permit, DEQ rejected that
assertion when first raised in 2011, but then accepted it in 2018 after DEMLR senior leadership either retired or died.
Earlier this year I shared with state leaders numerous documents that confirm DEMLR was opposed the Mining
Commission decision and was dedicated to either improving protections for the park or appealing the order to Superior
court.
The documents I provided from the State Archives confirm this fact and refute the assertion that the Sunset condition
was a typo.
The documents provided from the applicant to support the typo assertion were not the final documents, and excluded
important context provided by the final decision found in the archives.
Further I have identified that the permit differed from the Mining Commission final decision in ways beyond the Sunset
clause, two differences benefited the applicant by allowing actions prohibited by the mining commission, these
differences were never mentioned by the applicant when they asserted the TYPO claim after 31 years of accepting the
permit.
Also the January 27 decision of the Mining Commission stated the Mining Commission was to approved the permit
issued. It seems logical the commission was aware of the permit as issued differed from their final order, but the Mining
Commission never objected to those changes.
40 years ago is a long time to recall all these details, but what is clear from 1981 is this:
DEMLR did not support a rock Quarry next to the park
DEMLR opposed the Mining Commission Final decision and was considering an appeal
Wake Stone never wanted a Sunset provision and the Mining commission did not require it

That dispute ended on May 13, 1981 when DEMLR Director Steven Conrad issued the permit with a
SUNSET clause, which Wake Stone accepted.
In the mine expansion request your department is considering the applicant states they have been working on this
expansion since 2016, 2 years before the 2018 removal of the Sunset clause. It seems clear the two are related and
should be considered together.
I am asking the question to better understand DEMLR current position on this question and to possibly avoid the costs
of litigation that could occur on this question. I ask it in the hopes of transparency and conversation could save us both a
lot of time and effort in the future.
As always I appreciate that this dispute occurred before your assumed responsibility for the department, I hope you will
help resolve it.
Thanks
Ervin Portman