20220124_Umstead-Coalition_Neuse_Buffer_Authorization

The
Umstead
Coalition
http://umsteadcoalition. org
MEMORANDUM
January 24, 2022
The Umstead Coalition
P.O. Box 10654
Raleigh, NC 27605-0654
[phone]
Facebook.com/umsteadcoalition Meetup.com/umsteadcoalition
To: Paul Wojoski, NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), NC Dept of Environmental Quality
Danny Smith, Director, NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), NC DEQ
From: Dr. Jean Spooner, Chair
The Umstead Coalition, cell 919-602-0049, [e-mail]
Subject: Neuse Buffer Authorization Application for Neuse River Riparian Buffer impacts is
required to include impacts to streams and wetlands. Mining Permit Application 92-10 and
proposed Crabtree Creek bridge crossing Case ID: 20171487 (Version 5)
Please accept these comments, with its attachments, to be included in the Public Comments for
consideration in the reviews for both the proposed Mining Permit Application 92-10, as well as
the proposed bridge crossing of Crabtree Creek DEQ Case ID 20171487 (Version 5).
A Neuse Buffer Authorization must be required for the Neuse River Buffer impacts along Crabtree
Creek, Foxcroft Lake and tributaries to tributaries to Crabtree Creek. These impacts include the
"starving" of the stream and damage to the health of the riparian vegetation.
The proposed Site Plan (latest dated August 4, 2021 and submitted to DEQ-DEMLR August 12,
2021) indicates the proposed grading to start at the edge of the Neuse Riparian Neuse Buffers for
the pit perimeter roads and pit. (Site Plan Pages 5 and 6 attached).
The Neuse Buffers are not all highlighted in the same manner on the submitted Site:
Some have a "cartoon -like" pink lines (Stream features 4 and 4A, Stream 2, and Foxcroft Lake)
Others features are indicated with (have what appears to more accurate delineation) of the
Neuse Buffers using dashed lines, but less prominent on Site Plans (Stream 5, Wetland 1,
Wetland 2, Stream 1, and Stream 6)
Is Wake Stone trying to hide the extent of the damage to streams and wetlands by choosing not to
highlight several streams and wetlands? In particular, why did Wake Stone choose to NOT
highlight Stream 5 at the delineation of "Future Reserves Area" ?
The proposal by Wake Stone (per the submitted Site Plans is to excavate up to the limits of the
Neuse Buffer to construct their proposed pit perimeter roads and deep quarry pit. In addition,
they propose to construct a "RDU style" fence and deforested swath within Zone 2 of the Neuse
River Riparian Buffers.
Note: Stream 3 is located just to the south of Stream 2 (see page 229 of April 4, 2020 Mining
Permit Application) and has a longer reach, oddly, it was not including in the buffer
Determinations.
V The Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Impacts to trees due to construction and operational activities
Wake Stone proposes to excavate, compact, and operate heavy vehicles 50ft from all of the
streams and wetlands (within the wetlands/stream areas for the proposed bridge). On the Odd
Fellows tract (north of Crabtree Creek) excavation and operations are proposed on mature
(mostly hardwood) tract. On the existing quarry site (south of Crabtree Creek), the proposal is to
substantially reduce the (currently forested) protective stream buffers to widen the pit perimeter
road and install approximately 1,700 linear feet of new retaining walls along the Neuse Buffer to
accommodate the heavy truck traffic from the proposed bridge. The net result: BOTH sides of
Crabtree Creek's current forested stream protections will be severely reduced and degraded.
The health of the riparian vegetation and stream aquatics would be harmed by construction and
operational impacts within the "drip lines" of the mature bottomland and upland hardwood trees.
The drip line is defined as the vertical line run through the outermost portion of the canopy of
a tree and extending to the ground. A tree's Critical Root Zone (CRZ), sometimes also called the
Root Protection Zone (RPZ), is defined as a circle on the ground corresponding to the dripline of
the tree. It should also be noted that the root systems of some oaks, for example, can extend well
beyond the canopy dripline. Construction and compaction within the tree's dripline will kill trees.
Most of a tree's fine roots (the ones that absorb water and minerals) are within 12 inches of the
surface. Even a few inches of soil piled over the root system can smother the fine roots and lead to
root and tree decline and death. For mature oak trees, the trees health can be severely harmed
when construction, fill, compaction occurs within 90 feet radius. The propose site plan indicates
50 feet (less for bridge area and retaining wall construction). Trees within Zone 1 will likely be
severely impacted. This will also result in reduced root health along the streambanks and further
degrade streambank stability of the steep stream bank slopes and impact stream aquatics.
Impacts to trees due to loss of recharge area:
The proposed new deep pit on the Odd Fellows Tract would remove almost all the recharge, water
source (drainage) areas for Stream 2, as well as severely reduce the drainage areas serving
Wetland 1, Wetland 2, Foxcroft Lake, Streams 4, 4A, 5.
These stream reaches will be deprived of sufficient water and nutrients due to the proposed pit
perimeter road starting at edge of Neuse Buffer followed by the drop-off of the deep quarry pit.
Additional Impacts to Riparian Areas:
The Mining Permit Application and Neuse Buffer Authorization Application both state multi times
that additional Neuse River Riparian Buffer impacts are expected. These should be identified to
perform a thorough evaluation of the current Application.
Clearly, Wake Stone Corporation intends to expand the pit to the area they identify as "Future
Reserves Area." They indicate such in their site plan by this choice of name. They indicate in their
application narrative they plan to expand in future. Furthermore, their contract with RDUAA
implies expansion into the "Future Reserves Area."
Specifically, Wake Stone's application says in both B.7.b. and D.1.a. "...any additional expansion of
the pit in the future will most likely require impacts to WoTUS and/or Neuse Buffers.
vThe Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Renderings highlight damage proposed in Phase 1
The Umstead Coalition contracted with StuctionLab to produce renderings of the proposed Mining
Permit Site Plans. The land contour data and topographic information was sourced from Autodesk
Infraworks. Autodesk Infraworks is on the most used software in the Virtual Design and
Construction environments for the planning and design of infrastructure projects. The Software
enabled StructionLab to create data -rich, 3-dimensional, terrain site models from selected maps
areas. Digital terrain model data in Infraworks is sourced from one of following sources,
depending upon where in the world the selected map area is selected: USGS 10 and 30 meter data,
SRTMGL 1 30m data or ASTER GDEM v2 30m. The mining truck dimensions were produced from
the catalogue website on one of the most well known mining and industrial equipment
manufacturers. The dump truck dimensions area dimensionally accurate and been modeled to
catalogue specifications. The other information related to site content (road widths, wall heights,
quarry and basin depths, limits of clearing area, etc were sourced from the Wake Stone
Corporation Site Plan set dated August 4, 2021. The tree shapes and placement in the model are
conceptual and do not reflect the actual trees. Photos and on -site surveys would be required to
delineate the actual trees.
See attached renderings.
From the attached renderings, it is clear that all the Neuse River riparian buffers would be
impacted. For example, note Stream 2 that would become an elevated "plateau." Not clearly
visible from the renderings, is the added insult of the pit perimeter road located all along the
Stream 2 (all sides).
As comical as this appears, in reality Stream 2 would likely dry -up due to the loss of drainage area.
The excavation and compaction would likely harm the existing mature trees in Stream 2's riparian
area, both Zones 1 and 2.
Let's look at poor Stream 5 along the edge of the "Future Reserve Area" and western edge of the
proposed pit in Phase I in submitted Site Plans. Half of the stream discharge area is proposed to
be gone, gone, gone. Excavation, compaction, mining operations for pit perimeter road and pit will
severely impact the Critical Root Zone of the mature hardwoods in Zone 1 and 2.
Cc:
Brian Wrenn, Director, NC Division of Energy, Minerals and Land Resources (DEMLR), NC DEQ
Elizabeth Biser, Secretary, NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ)
Sushma Masemore, Assistant Secretary for the Environment, NC DEQ
Reid Wilson, Secretary, NC Department Natural and Cultural Resources (NC NCR)
Jeff Michael, Deputy Secretary for Natural Resources, NC NCR
Dwayne Patterson, Director, NC Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR), NC NCR
Brian Strong, Deputy Director for Planning and Natural Resources, DPR-NCR
Cassie Gavin, Attorney, N. C. Sierra Club
Cynthia Satterfield, Executive State Director, N. C. Sierra Club
Hwa Huang, Group Chair, Capital Group - N. C. Sierra Club
Heather Jacobs Deck, Executive Director, Sound Rivers
V The Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Attachments:
Wake Stone Site Plan Page S
Wake Stone Site Plan Page 6
Page 1 of "Plat of Waters of the US Survey for the Wake Stone Corporation" by Jones Surveying and
Consulting indicating Streams and Wetlands delineated on the Odd Fellows Tract
Page 229 of Wake Stone Corporation Mining Permit Application - map with June 20, 2019 Buffer
Determination letter from DEQ-DWR to RDUAA showing the Odd Fellows Tract.
Google Earth of recent view looking upstream of Crabtree Creek with existing Triangle Quarry on the
south side of Crabtree Creek and the forested Odd Fellows Tract on the north side of Crabtree Creek
Two Renderings "current" and "proposed" of similar view as Google Earth image. Note, Stream 2
becomes an "odd" peninsula. The pit perimeter roads are indicated in white. We can assume that the
pit perimeter road would actually extend all around the proposed pit rim, but not shown on the Site
Plans. Note Stream S along the edge of pit and "Future Reserves Area." Note, widened pit perimeter
road on existing pit, narrowing stream buffers on both sides of Crabtree Creek leaving Crabtree Creek
"suspended" between two quarry pits, each approximately 400 plus feet deep.
Photo (March S, 2020) within William B. Umstead State Park looking over Foxcroft lake into the
proposed excavation for the new pit on the Odd Fellows Tract.
Rendering of same viewpoint as March S, 2020 photo. Note, the clear view of the pit perimeter road,
quarry operations and inside the pit all way to the far quarry wall along Stream S.
November 22, 2021 letter from The Umstead Coalition regarding Neuse River Riparian Buffer impacts
vThe Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

I
ro
—0
�/ /
O
N
-�
(1)
4
cn
p
-
E
E
(3)
C�
M
�r
'
U)
m
,h
a�
o
U
a�
U)
U)
o
o
m
w
C
o
00
-,
v)
o_
�
�
N
�
U
U
ry
>>
o
�
a)
U)
o
CL
vi

.. ._�.._-+�--•--tC ... .� 5 wry w�� �. Ty '°Qw'{`.,� p
� / f�Iyy " � • �5 ! ` � � CY Vl 7 ? � yyy/// yy , II.,1 / '' �'r+ f
I - r
r+
tL
ti 3tj
i
IT
YR '
r
��. ����- •I ��� � �J I I I� III 1 �
0
,��� r' � . -�� � ! � ( �!! jj,<-�..-tea-° �a ����•

.. CL
47
V_
r. 6
1

'
r
r-
i
h
/W^
W ,•
A
1
VIFL
S•••k
CA
• �
14 JL
.a• O
w
.s! •i
•���i,: fit, }��
�.i. •ems '�
-��
��tia ��
-W
y.
.
AL
40,
}
L
kCjk r

+ ti
' ,1 Fi � ��,TS�tt'.7�F•�H %o h1��},1.Ye ! �.•' a jl` .��' 11•1"� �.+�1 I��
gs
nk
�..!`"La'•1{y" } ��yic.; * -.�K� }, t �;-tit'S•' �q���tar c S�y,•ae�jf
IP-ii tl t
i
r, is yC' R
t 1 f4_%i l y4s Ea_ Sc
t'l•+.F J ti is.. -;' I,•... -
`ray:, t� �� 3� �•� -
.y ��ee
SIR
�t �e4^•-t r� t i ` i - r"� +.�j "*4Frw�s. � "� s> ��jY!
p�.` , •\?. t yoyyy yc x S Emd"n6 Sit' y r"
1
.. '•� .x1 x( �`I mil+ `per � - s, t ic�r l � I iygi�,,y
l� ' ` rA —•w: l ` r``�i ' ^� 'µme PK"" {�
- _—�ri�-_ - _ _ _ _ y IF - - _ /�(p 7� 4�•i`3J jam' yt4: � � f ;11.$
'
' y ,
PC
y'
-,.,.
at �v
b�ls`r� jt v :Qli ft (( t 1 Vv
lei
'' _ - 1' f` •_ - "`•_ ��r d -��� � -�. )tl x �.r �fr-`d ti,.i

W firs

The
Umstead
Coalition
http://umsteadcoalition. org
MEMORANDUM
November 22, 2021
The Umstead Coalition
P.O. Box 10654
Raleigh, NC 27605-0654
[phone]
Facebook.com/umsteadcoalition Meetup.com/umsteadcoalition
To: Paul Wojoski, NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), NC Dept of Environmental Quality
From: Dr. Jean Spooner, Chair
The Umstead Coalition, cell 919-602-0049, [e-mail]
Subject: Request to deny Neuse Buffer Authorization for proposed bridge Crabtree Creek Bridge
Crossing, DEQ Case ID: 20171487, Version 5 (Neuse River Basin 15A NCAC 02B .0714 and 15A
NCAC 02B .0611) aka "Buffer Rules"
Please accept these comments on the new Buffer Authorization Application submitted on October
13, 2021by Wake Stone Corporation (aka Wake Stone) for a proposed bridge crossing over
Crabtree Creek.
The Application for a proposed bridge crossing of Crabtree Creek submitted by Wake Stone is
incomplete. The Application should be denied based on noncompliance with several aspects of
the Buffer Rules, including:
• Deeded owner listed is incorrect (Question 1a)
• Avoidance and minimization alternatives have not been submitted and evaluated (location,
design)
• Inadequate protection of aquatic life (including the threatened Neuse River waterdog,
listed under the US Endangered Species Act)
• Underestimating the area of Neuse River Buffer impacts
• Inadequate BMPs
• Inadequate control for diffuse flow
• Planting non-native species upsteam of William B. Umstead State Park, protected under the
National Register of Historic Places and a designated NC Nature Preserve
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to apply for required Neuse Buffer Authorizations (due to
destruction of vegetation health in Zone 1) for structures proposed with their Mining Permit
Expansion for Mining Permit 92-10, including:
• Chain -link, barbed wire fence that crosses through the Neuse Buffer on at least 4 locations
and would impact the health of the Zone 1 vegetation
• Block Retaining walls associated with the proposed bridge crossing
• Destruction of Neuse Buffers by destruction of the Zone 1 vegetation due to loss of recharge
area and soil resulting in the cutting and "starving" the tree roots by the adjacent proposed
300 foot plus deep quarry pit.
• Bridge future is "abandoned" in Application- it will collapse into Crabtree Creek
• Other Neuse Buffer impacts are mentioned and should be identified and evaluated
V The Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

The Application does not specific the deeded property owners - The Application is
inaccurate and incomDlete
The Application is incomplete. 15A NCAC 02B .0611 requires the Application for Neuse Buffer
Authorization to include:
15A NCAC 02B .0611 (b) (1) The Application shall specify:
(B) If the applicant is not the property owner(s), the name, address, and phone number of the
property owner;
Question A.1a of the Application asks for the "Name on Recorded Deed"
Title to the "Odd Fellows tract" property is vested in the City of Raleigh, City of Durham, County of
Wake and County of Durham per the deeds recorded in the Wake County Register of Deeds in
Deed Book 2416, page 433; Deed Book 2489, page 689; and Deed Book 207, page 69.
Per the 1939 Enabling legislation and its amendments, (its Charter), the RDUAA's "Municipal
Owners" are the City or Raleigh, City of Durham, County of Wake and County of Durham.
These municipal owners are the vested owners listing on most of the recorded property deeds
affected by the proposed bridge and other Neuse Buffer impacts. Examination of the property
deeds would confirm these deeded Municipal Owners.
The property on the south side of Crabtree Creek is owned by Wake Stone.
B.1h. answer is also incomplete.
The purpose and need for the bridge in this location have not been demonstrated. The
requirements for Avoidance and Minimization of Neuse Buffer impacts are not met.
We agree with the Applicant that the use of Old Reedy Creek Road is not viable. However, Wake
Stone has failed to demonstrated the purpose and need for a massive bridge at the location and
design they propose. They have failed to evaluate alternatives.
Wake Stone's proposed project does not meet the requirements of the Buffer Rules that require
avoidance and minimization.
15A NCAC 02B .0611 requires the Application for Neuse Buffer Authorization to include:
15A NCAC 02B .0611 (b)
(1) The Application shall specify:
(G) An explanation of why this plan for the activity cannot be practically accomplished,
reduced, relocated, or reconfigured to avoid or better minimize disturbance to the
riparian buffer, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality;
(H) Plans for any best management practices proposed to be used to control the impacts
associated with the activity, and
vThe Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

(2) The applicant shall demonstrate that the project meets all the following criteria:
(A) The basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner that would
avoid or better minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect
water quality;
(B) The use cannot practically be reduced in size or density, reconfigured or redesigned to
better minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality;
and
(C) Best management practices shall be used to minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic
life and habitat, and protect water quality
AVOIDACE and MIMIZATION Alternatives Alternative have not been evaluated. The Application
should be denied because alternatives should be evaluated, which include:
Longer bridge to span buffer. A longer bridge would not only impact less buffer, it would
minimize the wing wall and retaining wall impacts to the buffer. The other bridges crossing
Crabtree Creek in near vicinity have longer length, including
(https: Ilbridgereports.com/nclwake/):
o Bridge Structures 000000001830109 and 000000001830118, I-40 highway over
Crabtree Creek at upper end of stream reach of the Odd Fellows Tract
■ Bridge length (each bridge): 228ft, roadway width 56.1ft
o Bridge Structure 000000001831068, crosses Crabtree Creek within William B. Umstead
State Park. This bridge has limited vehicle usage by Park rangers and maintenance
staff, but primarily serves as Reedy Creek Multi -use Trail.
■ Bridge length: 136.2ft, Deck width: 20.3 ft (curb to curb)
o Bridge Structure 000000001831473, Turkey Creek Trail over Crabtree Creek, William
B. Umstead State Park (was old bridge used for Ebenezer Church Road Crossing until
replaced with a bridge downstream for a realignment of Ebenezer Church Road (see
below for structure 000000001830044).
■ Bridge length: 116.1ft, Roadway width 24.9ft
o Bridge Structure 000000001830044, Ebenezer Church Road (SR1649) over Crabtree
Creek
■ Built in 2004 (to relocate Ebenezer Church Road and replace Bridge Structure
000000001831473)
■ Bridge length: 210.Oft; roadway widths: 30.8ft
o Bridge Structure 000000001830322, Old Reedy Creek Road over Crabtree Creek (one -
lane road with weight limit owned by the Town of Cary) and in poor condition
■ Bridge length: 186.Oft, roadway width: 17.1ft
o Bridge structures 000000001831095 and 000000001830039, Duraleigh Road
(SR1664) over Crabtree Creek, 2 bridges, each 2 lanes. Downstream reach of Hanson
Crabtree Quarry
■ Built 2005 (replaced older bridge to minimize road flooding and replace a 2-lane
with 4-lane)
■ Bridge lengths: 272.Oft; roadway widths: 27.9ft
o Bridge Structure 000000001830343, Anderson Drive over Crabtree Creek
■ Bridge length: 160.1ft, Roadway with: 38.1ft
V The Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

o Bridge Structure 000000001830334, Lassiter Mill Rd over Crabtree Creek
■ Bridge length: 180.1ft, Roadway with: 38.1ft
100ft bridge length is an extremely short bridge span compared to the other bridge crossings over
Crabtree Creek in the stream reaches upstream and downstream.
The proposed 100ft bridge length and associated wing walls and retaining walls would confine the
stream flows to the 100 year flood stage. This narrowing of the stream will prohibit the
floodwaters (in storms greater than 100year flood stage) to access its historic floodplain. This will
result in streambank instability upstream and downstream of the bridge, increasing the Neuse
Buffers affected.
Narrower bridge. The scenario proposed by Wake Stone is two-lane traffic for highway trucks
and one-way for 65 ton haul trucks. The reason they give for two-way traffic is for
convenience, not need. Why can they not signal or coordinate to share the lanes and reduce the
bridge width?
Alternative transport methods of soil and rock across Crabtree Creek. Originally, Wake
Stone proposed a conveyor belt across the Creek near Foxcroft Lake. We strongly objected, in part
because that proposal included draining Foxcroft Lake to locate a primary crusher and
detrimental impacts from a crossing just upstream of Umstead State Park. However, alternative
stream crossings farther upstream (e.g., closer to I-40) with conveyor belt system have not yet
been evaluated.
Alternative location for bridge. Other locations, closer to I-40 and farther upstream of William
B. Umstead State Park should be evaluated. For example, locations that could utilize the existing
Bone Yard and limit the need for widening the existing pit perimeter haul roads and associated
retaining walls.
Inadequate protection of aquatic life (including the threatened Neuse River waterdog,
listed under the US Endangered Species Act)
The proposed bridge lacks wildlife migration paths, confines stream width, increases streambank
erosion.
The proposed bridge would sever one of the last remaining connected wildlife corridors in the
Triangle region along Crabtree Creek and Umstead State Park. The Crabtree Creek Corridor
through William B. Umstead State Park is the last remaining wildlife passage corridors connecting
Jordon Lake to the east. This Crabtree Creek corridor supports Bald Eagles, Great Blue Heron
nesting areas, bobcat, eastern king snakes, box turtles and more. Great Blue Herons are listed by
the NC Natural Heritage Program as a vulnerable species in the Piedmont due to loss and
fragmentation of habitats and have protective status by the Fish & Wildlife Service.
The short length of the bridge and its associated wing walls and retaining walls leaves little room
for wildlife movement and severely degrades the riparian health.
vThe Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Crabtree Creek is home to the Neuse River waterdog salamander. The Neuse River Waterdog
(Necturus lewisi) is listed as "Threatened" by the US Fish & Wildlife under the federal Endangered
Species Act (listing finalized in July, 2021). The Neuse River Waterdog salamander (Necturus lewisi)
has been documented within William B. Umstead State Park in Crabtree Creek. In addition, the Neuse
River Waterdog was found as recently (week of March 7, 2021) in Crabtree Creek. The firm RK&K
under contract with NCDOT found the Neuse River waterdog salamander near Capital Boulevard,
downstream of William B. Umstead State Park. It is reasonable to assume that the Neuse River
waterdog salamander still lives in Crabtree Creek within William B. Umstead State Park. Because of
its limited range (only found in the Neuse and Tar River Basins, NC) and sensitivity to pollution and
habitat alteration, the Neuse River waterdog is listed as a species of special concern by the state of NC
(listed in 1990). Its current Federal status per US Fish and Wildlife website is "Threatened."
(https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/amphibians/neuse-river-waterdog/).
The Summary of the Neuse River waterdog final 4(d) rule states "Activities that may affect Neuse River
waterdog include: development, pollution, agricultural practices, forest conversion and
management, invasive species, dams and barriers, and energy production and mining."
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2021/06/summary-of-the-neuse-river-waterdog-final-4d-
rule-prohibitions-and-exceptions /
In addition to habitat degradation, the large dump trucks carrying dirt and rock will spill dirt and
dust. How will this potential pollution be captured and treated to avoid deposition into Crabtree
Creek?
The Area of Temporary and Permanent loss of Neuse River Buffer is underestimated
The area impacted by equipment during the construction of the bridge and wing walls is likely
larger than listed in the application. The size of excavation equipment to dig the footers for the
bridge pilings and the wing walls is large. In addition, soil stock pile areas will be needed. The
Limits of Disturbance appears unrealistically tight.
The heavy equipment and construction will damage tree roots in Zone 1 upstream and downstream of
the bridge and wing walls. A tree's Critical Root Zone (CRZ), sometimes also called the Root Protection
Zone (RPZ), is defined as a circle on the ground corresponding to the dripline of the tree.... The root
systems of some oaks, for example, can extend well beyond the canopy dripline. The proposed short
wall and other construction within the tree's dripline will kill Park trees. Most of a tree's fine roots
(the ones that absorb water and minerals) are within 12 inches of the surface. Even a few inches of
soil piled over the root system can smother the fine roots and lead to root and tree decline and death.
Footings for the wall will cut tree roots that extend farther than 25 feet from the Park's boundary.
https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/documents/archive/TRPA-Tree-Protection-Tip-
Sheet Final.pdf
The Limits of Disturbance are understated and the square footage impacted should be corrected to
the actual impacts to the health of the trees in Zone 1.
V The Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Inadequate BMPs, Inadequate control to ensure Diffuse Flow, non-native plantings
The Applicant fails to provide adequate sediment and erosion control during construction.
The Application includes NCDOT Division 16, Erosion Control and Roadside Development chapter.
However, this serves as just paper fluff. The Neuse Buffer Application fails to provide a site plan
that shows an adequate Sediment and Erosion control plan for this proposed project.
Diffuse flow is not addressed. The integrity of the wing walls is not addressed - the spec's on the
wing walls explicitly require flow to be directly AWAY from the wing walls.
Non-native plants are spec'ed - in direct conflict with the protection of aquatic habitat and the
downstream Nature Preserve and National Registered Historic Place of William B. Umstead State
Park. The temporary seeding spec'ed are in direct conflict with the native vegetation North
Carolina State University researchers have found effective in stream restoration projects. In
contrast, the grass species spec'ed may outcompete the native plants, inhibit the tree and shrub
revegetation and further degrade the riparian corridor health.
The application is direct violation of all subsections of 15A NCAC 02B .0611 (b) (1) (G), (b) (1) (H),
(2) (A), (2) (B) and (2) (C).
Proposed Chain -link, barbed wire fence requires a Neuse Buffer Application
Substantially sized trees (greater than 5 DBH or stump diameter of 6 inches are located in the
proposed path of the proposed fence and its adjacent cleared areas. The fence is spec'ed as a
"RDUAA style fence" which is an 8-foot chain -linked fence, topped with 3 rows of barbed wire and
a wide deforested swatch along the fence.
FENCE and deforestation across Foxcroft Lake (which would impact more than and 1.5 acre of
wetlands) and crossing tributaries to Crabtree Creek. The fence and removal of forest (25-foot wide
swath along fence route) on the Odd Fellows Tract WOULD have a significant impact on the Neuse
Buffers. Wake Stone should be required to obtain a Neuse Buffer Authorization because:
• Trees would be removed in Zone 1 at the Foxcroft Lake fence crossing. Removal of
forest vegetation WOULD occur. See below for a portion of Wake Stone's submitted Site
Plan showing fence crossing, as well as photo of crossing location at Foxcroft Lake. 15A
NCAC 02B .0714 (11)(f)(iii) Table of Uses. Fence is therefore only "Allowable upon
Authorization."
• See photos attached. Forest trees would be removed in Zones 1 and 2 to create a 25-foot
wide swath along fence.
• The upper portion of Foxcroft Lake is within William B. Umstead State Park and a popular
area for Park visitors. A fence crossing Foxcroft Lake would cause great environmental
harm to Foxcroft Lake/wetlands due to forest tree removal and the backup of debris
caused by such a fence- changing the wetland hydrology and habitat. The Site Plans
submitted with the proposed new quarry on the Odd Fellows tract show the fence crossing
Foxcroft Lake.
vThe Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

• The source of water to Foxcroft Lake is William B. Umstead State Park. Foxcroft Lake
drains to Crabtree Creek just upstream of William B. Umstead State Park. It's a loop -water
flows from the Park into Foxcroft Lake, then to Crabtree Creek and right back to our Park.
Protection of Foxcroft Lake wetland and its riparian buffers is essential to not only protect
the wetland habitat, but the water quality of Crabtree Creek within our State Park and the
protected Neuse River waterdog.
Foxcroft Lake/ wetlands are protected under 15A NCAC 02J .0506 (see 15A NCAC 02B
.0714 (3)(c)). Foxcroft Lake is more than 1.5 acres (e.g., well over total impacts of one -
tenth of one acre of Class WL wetland.
Trees would be removed in Zone 1 for any crossing of tributaries to Crabtree Creek and any
crossing Zone 1 buffers of Crabtree Creek itself.
Please see attached photos of the proposed deforestation and fence crossing Foxcroft Lake. It is
obvious that trees of substantial size within Zone 1 will be impacted, as well as the wetland
integrity of Foxcroft Lake itself.
Block Retaining walls associated with the proposed bridge crossing
1. Proposing to construct such a massive retaining wall will involve heavy equipment that has no
practical way of avoiding both zones of the NRB. Wake Stone controls access to the site, so there's
no way to enforce buffer violations.
2. 1,700 linear feet of massive RETAINING WALLS along Crabtree Creek. These are up to 30 ft
tall, made up of stacks of blocks of concrete 2x3x6' each weighing 4,200 lbs. These retaining walls
are an extension of the bridge wing walls whose purpose is to DECREASE the existing stream
buffer on the existing quarry site by a substantial amount to enable the widening of the pit
perimeter roads from —18 feet wide to 60ft wide to accommodate the massive quarry trucks
crossing the bridge. The result is that the massive retaining walls would be built to confine
Crabtree creek at the approximately 100-year flood level. The construction of these retaining
walls will severely impact the trees in Zone 1 (inner 30 feet from Crabtree Creek riparian area)
due to digging and equipment necessary to construct the footings and install the retaining walls.
3. The proposed retaining walls are part of the proposed bridge and not needed in the
location proposed if the bridge is not located in the current proposed location. They MUST
be included in any Neuse Buffer Authorization Application for a bridge proposed.
4. Wake Stone should be required to obtain a Neuse Buffer Authorization and, if approved, provide
mitigation. Note: if the bridge were moved upstream away from the Park and closer to I-40, these
retaining walls would not be necessary or their length along the Creek reduced.
Per 15A NCAC 02B .0714 (3)(g) "No new clearing, grading or development shall take place
nor shall any new building permits be issued in violation of this Rule."
• The retaining walls are —1,700 linear feet (e.g., far exceed 300 linear feet impacts to
perennial streams and therefore require mitigation, as well as Authorizations.
Please see attached images from the site for with retaining wall location, image of retaining wall,
area of haul road and retaining wall deforestation.
V The Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Destruction of Neuse Buffers by destruction of the Zone 1 vegetation due to loss of recharge
area and soil resulting in the cutting and "starving" the tree roots by the adjacent proposed
300 foot plus deep quarry pit.
A Neuse Buffer Authorization Application should be required for the Zone 1 trees that will be
harmed along the tributaries to Crabtree Creek. The root of mature, large trees will be physically
damaged and also deprived of sufficient water and nutrients due to the proposed pit perimeter
road starting at edge of Neuse Buffer followed by the drop-off of the deep quarry pit.
Site Plans Submitted are unsealed with accuracy declaimers
Sealed and accurate Site Plan Sheets should be required. Wake Stone has provided only unsealed
site plan sheets. They have accuracy disclaimers on all the site plan sheets, including stating the
contours should be considered "approximate" in areas of dense vegetation and that their maps
have not been field verified.
Additional Neuse Buffer Impacts missing from Authorization Application -Future bridge
collapse into Crabtree Creek
The Mining Permit Application and Neuse Buffer Authorization Application both state multi times
that additional Neuse River Riparian Buffer impacts are expected. These should be identified to
perform a thorough evaluation of the current Application.
Specifically, Wake Stone's application says in both B.7.b. and DA.a. "...any additional expansion of
the pit in the future will most likely require impacts to WoTUS and/or Neuse Buffers. That will be
years from now and dependent on market demands." What future impacts? Identify any
anticipated areas of future impact to evaluate the full extent of this bridge approval.
The future bridge integrity and management of the proposed bridge is an key environmental issue.
Wake Stone's agreement with RDUAA says the bridge will be abandoned at end of mining. Section
1 of the RDU/Wake Stone agreement states: "It is understood and agreed, however, that the bridge
to be constructed by Lessee over Crabtree Creek shall not be removed after termination or expiration
of the Lease Term and shall remain on the Premises."Maintenance is in question- there is no long-
term maintenance plan. RDUAA has not agreed to maintain the bridge. Eventually the bridge will
fail and collapse into Crabtree Creek. That is a massive amount of concrete that will eventually
end into Crabtree Creek.
Cc:
Elizabeth Biser, Secretary, NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ)
Sushma Masemore, Assistant Secretary for the Environment, NC DEQ
Reid Wilson, Secretary, NC Department Natural and Cultural Resources (NC NCR)
Jeff Michael, Deputy Secretary for Natural Resources, NC NCR
Dwayne Patterson, Director, NC Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR), NC NCR
Brian Strong, Deputy Director for Planning and Natural Resources, DPR-NCR
Danny Smith, Director, NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), NC DEQ
Cassie Gavin, Attorney, N. C. Sierra Club
Cynthia Satterfield, Executive State Director, N. C. Sierra Club
Hwa Huang, Group Chair, Capital Group - N. C. Sierra Club
Heather Jacobs Deck, Executive Director, Sound Rivers
vThe Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Attachments:
Fence. Multiple fence locations where forest removal in the Neuse Buffers is depicted on the Mining
Permit Site Plans. 25-ft wide deforestation within stream and wetland buffers. Wetlands impacted.
Photos and enlargements of submitted Site Plan. Fence is proposed to cross Foxcroft Lake just
downsteam of the boundary with William B. Umstead State Park. These are is heavily forested. The
deforestation and wetland impacts from the fence and the 25ft wide deforestation request a Neuse Buffer
Authorization.
Bridge and retaining wall locations. Google maps and submitted plans. This wall is massive,
approximately 1,700 linear feet along the outer edge of the Neuse Riparian Buffer and up to up to 30 ft tall.
The construction for the footings and the wall itself will impact Zone 1.
V The Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Photos from Park looking at the proposed fence crossing location over Foxcroft Lake.
vThe Umstead Coalition v
Dedicated to preserving the natural integrity of W.B. Umstead State Park and the Richland Creek Corridor

Fence, plus 25-foot wide forest removal is
proposed in at least 4 Neuse Riparian Buffer
Areas. Neuse Buffer Authorization required
Source: Page 3 of Site Plans dated August 4, 2021
submitted to DEQ-DEMLR August 12, 2021 as
part of their Mining Permit Application.
Fence crossing Zonel of Foxcroft Lake, Foxcroft
Lake itself, Crabtree Creek Tributary, and
Zone 1 of Crabtree Creek
Fence and deforestation in Zone 1 of
Crabtree Creek near 1-40

� P o¢ Pormit Bound r
LaE-,N351 8438
Wetlak'dFrR1ge J +L St 6 k
6,�Z2I•S Ft./9.24 Ac. 215 tfnear Fe ,
rice
I?iPat� ui€e• J '
' BUFFER FROM S f'RFAM `
' P—ut 5tipula 4
�iQ BUFFER FR[]M
N.
Fox�roft s�ea,r, a 50' Meuse Riv
fi � Li \
Lake .3Lrre= t Riparif an Buf \
�� ' Open Water \ 50' BliFFER FROM $TRAAA[
' 65,808 Sq. Ft./I.51Ac. - (hag Pem;t SLPUIxted)
w tland.Fringe f - -
,222 Sq. Ft./0.33�0.-
1
_ SO SUPPER FR
TJE- /IP()PLA dl 160d 2/
J �JA' -,- N 43 21354.fi.
�r
DJL _RT� r .41 �- -

Obsel� tic-G cll'4
.� c7 O'1'-4
stzeam a f
43"near Feet.-
f :W�78.7813'
btrcaer
398
8.7798 {
PrOp o 12rye
f
Lat. 35.839:

i
�•. f-� :�:_�. Wit? � _ _
.. ` � .k � - ,-�� - - .. fir•- r = �_ry_ `-.S'
-
�f AN&

Foxcroft Lake at proposed fence crossing. Taken
from William B. Umstead State Park., April 8, 2020
! ?: ,P':
i

Proposed Bridge Over Crabtree Creek
Retaining Walls to fill Crabtree Steambanks
and widen existing pit perimeter road (to
accommodate proposed location of bridge)

Bridge and Retaining wall proposed locations per Submitted "Wall Drawings" submitted as part of Mining
Permit Application Solid black lines are bridge and retaining walls proposed
M=
A Crabtree
>2 Creek
z
F p
J

1,j
� 1 �
II-
70
_ _�� ,.� � war ' 4 • ��
F ,
View� of fopic3l Corcrote
flock Hiqhwall �arric3�o
( Nate 1 a' Grade hod for Scale ill lower photo)

i
V

Crabtree Creek is highlighted in BLUE. Approximate location of bridge and retaining walls in mr-u.
Approximate fill of Crabtree Creek streambanks to widen existing pit perimeter roads on the south side of
Crabtree Creek in WHITE. Approximate location of William B. Umstead State Park boundary is GREEN
Crabtree Creek flows from Crabtree Lake (top of photo) to William B. Umstead State Park (right and
bottom of photo) �► ._._ . �� . ., x�, ; , , t� - ,, �..,-- w }.�► -.
-
ff

UnR Welyht
Cohecinn
Phi
Material Nem�
Cvlar
Ilhsf(13)
ii,4
Ideg)
New Fill
.
120
0
30
Res MI
.
120
25C
28
PWR
.
190
1000
39
QiAdline Rxk
.
M
0
45
Rein Forced 11
120
0
30
ICrabtree Creek I
100year flood
elevation: —261'
.tan
Retaining wall. just at Neuse Buff ei 5fl'
from lop of bank. Essentially holding
back all waters above 100-year flood.
Steam will no longer be able to access
its historic floodplain
1.54
23 ft
t
,.snl _.Niiiiia
Page from Retaining Wall Plan
inform, Our Annotations in Red were
added. Plans show retaining wall up to
-30ft tall.
Blue=existing soil
Grey = proposed back fill to expand
w0th of existing retaining walls
500 M Ibj: fl i
17n .Irn .1rn .'an .inn .1Y .+in .inn .nn .Pn .7(1 .M .an .an .qn W) .M n
ate,
Pwrrf
rR
Wakestone Quarry Wall
Global $IJWity a_01& WakestWne Quarry Wall
�
AKA
F-+Mn�
8235.20.002 S&ME
Y
5ta Mo WA
Wakestone.slmd PAN 3(5(�U2fl