_External_ Erv Portman Former Wake County Commissioner and Former Cary Town Council member requests denial of Wake Stone Quarry expansion - Legal table

Johnson, Robert E
From:
Ervin Portman <[e-mail]>
Sent:
Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:57 PM
To:
NCMiningProgram; Sams, Dan
Cc:
Wrenn, Brian L; Strong, Brian; Fullwood, John; Koonts, Sarah; Holman, Sheila
Subject:
[External] Ery Portman Former Wake County Commissioner and Former Cary Town
Council member requests denial of Wake Stone Quarry expansion - Legal table
Attachments:
image013.emz; Mining Act refrence to basis for denial of permit expansion requested
by Wake Stone.xlsx
.....................................................................................................................................�.........................................................................................................................................�......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Please find attached the first of two emails to supplement by comments made at the public hearing.
The department of Natural Resources Division of Land management Director Stephen G Conrad understood this issue
well, and got it right in 1980 when he denied the applicants original request. This is an inappropriate place for a crushed
rock stone quarry, adjacent to one of our most threatened state parks.
The two uses could not be more incompatible.
Conrad felt the use could not be effectively mitigated. He was correct.
The mining commission screwed up when they said the impacts could be effectively mitigated.
They were also wrong when they accepted Wakes Stones assertion that this was the only remaining location for a
crushed Rock quarry. - Martina Marietta obtained approval for another just miles away the very next year.
I understand how challenging your job is, to protect both the interest of the citizens of this great state, and the
environment entrusted to us, while being fair to the industry you must regulate, and do it all per the law.
To help you in your task I have limited my comments to the specifics of the Mining Act of 1971, and outlined by relevant
section how this application fails to meet the burden of complying with the law.
The damages caused are irreparable;
mining residue covering streams downstream of the mine,

The proposed expansion is far more of a threat to our State Park because the applicant has gutted the environmental
protections proposed. The current pit has a 250 foot undisturbed buffer protecting the park and stream; the applicant
proposes the new pit would only have 100 feet fully cleared, bermed and then replanted... which destroys the existing
hardwood mature wildlife habitat, devastating wildlife corridors and expose the park to noise and dust far more serious
than what it has experienced in the last 40 years.
The current quarry keeps most of its noise well below ridge height, the propose plan trucks every stone on gravel roads,
across the creek, up to the very ridgeline, spewing exhaust and dust over the park and cascading noise over the forest all
day long. The difference between the current protections and the proposed are as different as night vs day. If that's not
bad enough,
Something does not smell right about recent permit changes, which were required to support his expansion request.
For over 30 years the applicant has accepted 9 permit modifications and renewals that all generally protected the intent
of the original permit. Each time they got the permit the department asked them to review it carefully and let the
department know if they had any questions or concerns. Each time the applicant accepted every word in the permit that
allowed them to mine nest to the park.
• For all of this time the 50 year sunset clause was respected and protected.
• The buffers remained real buffers from the top of bank, to protect the streams and the park.
Then in 20111 feel the applicant tried to pull a fast one, suggesting that they "just discovered a typographical error" in
the permit. They claimed one word was mistyped, the word sooner they claimed should really be later, eliminating the
Sunset clause. They claimed the original 1981 mining commission decision ordered it. But the file did not contain any of
the mining commission report, they were missing.... Only one copy ...supplied by the applicant, unsigned seemed to
support the assertion.
Fortunately for the department and for the people of this state you had an experienced pro as Director of Land in the
Department of Natural Resources, Mr. James Simon. Mr. Simon spent 40 years working these issues, he had firsthand
direct knowledge of the departments denial and he knew the mining commission document was only a part of the story.
He knew very well that the department felt the decision of the Mining commission was not only wrong, but a serious
mistake. He knew that Secretary Howard Lee was considering appealing the decision of the mining commission. He knew
that the department did not accept the applicants request to defer the donation at some undefined date, with no time
limit ever. He rejected the request to gut the Sunset clause sending a clear message to Wake Stone, no there was no
typographical error; he should know he was there when the permit was issued. The 2011 permit was issued and
accepted by Wake stone with the sunset clause no questions asked, no clarification requested.
Unfortunately in 2018 the applicant tried again, during a period of change, Mr. Simons was retired and there was no
director of the department named. Mr. William Toby Vinson did not have the same firsthand experience, he was just
named acting director. But in just three weeks he approved the request, without even contacting State Parks. At the
same time, for the first time, undisturbed buffers were gutted, and changed to unexcavated. The buffers were changed
from top of bank to center of stream. All in just a few weeks with no public notice nor input.
In my opinion I suspect this was required to paper over permit violations at the site. The applicant had already violated
the buffers on the western and eastern boundaries.

Pit road is viola,
20,11 �site plan c
after, violation-,;
changed, buf,fer
uneXicavated in
Legend 0 250 RX) IN) LOW ft
Nopmed Quacq 100-ft RuffLx 'To's
100 f,t Sinn entefthne, Crabtree Crmk
OiMass ENinwing 1,�Iruposed RDU Quarry Con'tmeirits
www*txm1q'(xq KRIS, BASS
9 11). %r.'O 1,1% 2 RaIdgh, NC, Ir" 10, it" R ril

This buffe
undisturbe
which guts
ways.
1. M
2.
The chang
as was ess
expansion
The chang
© beta us(
original pE
6

The Mining law says in section 74-52 Permit Modifications can only be modified if the modifications would be generally
consistent with the bases for issuance for the original permit. These changes were inconsistent with the basis for
issuance of the original permit, the changes gutted 37 years of protection that were included in the permit, and only
benefited the applicant. Not the State Park, not the streams, not the public. These changes need to be investigated by a
independent unbiased authority. They do not seem to be consistent with decades of Department policy or actions.
I hope the department will once again make the right decision and deny the permit request. This is the wrong place for
one quarry, it was wrong to build 1 in 1980, its doubly as wrong to approve the second one in 2020.
We are counting on the department to do the right thing, deny the permit and start to clean up the mess caused by the
mining commission in 1982.
Respectfully, a concerned citizen who has been doing public work for a few decades... trying to be sure we leave this
land better than we found it.
Ery Portman
Ervin r
Managing Member
Estrella r riLL
101 Fern Bluff Way
Cary, NC 27518
919-924-6025