The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDeny the permit draft 2 7 11 2020Comment to supplement the record in opposition to the permit to expand Wake stone quarry adjacent to Umstead State park. Submitted by Ery Portman, 101 Fern Bluff Way Cary NC 27518 In 1981 Director of Land Stephen G Conrad was correct to deny the mining application as an incompatible use that could not be effectively mitigated. The Director was concerned about the applicant damaging the purpose for the State Park. IJ111$40N OF Barth Carolina Department of Natural t� 111�1,t1�.9 Resources &CarnmunitY Development40 .Pi1rc%tt5 61°a,,anM1, Jr € o+urH—ard hd. Late„ fieaaataoy 'r inror�,�„ apt®x3maat:m ,. Auauat 22, 1980 Mr. John Bratton Wake Ston, C. rporation Bur A9G Knightdmle, North Cazro$.l.na 2754:5 Dear Mr. Bratton: a detailed avalaaatlon has been made of your application for a mining pauumnit for utac Cary quarry in xsccardaxnce with G.S. 74-51. The ova,➢.uati,on consisted of site inspection, engineering an.1yetiis crud several diocusaioe. b tw'aaan you and eaeabore of, nary "urd%'P'f': ""11'i+¢i gad' e+ri �'eh'la""m'waI"u a ai;ir"ei;_7_ i'Snil_„tTv;fE"'tEiue "ji"riSPa7zrcl _7�a:Ati rja opusation 3caauld have a mignifieaut Py adverse affect on the pur- pxoaee of m publically ownedpark,forest, or recreation area and your Parxmit application is hareby denied, (G.S" 74-51 (5)). iine. 0"obiased aiscta of noise, asadi�mworst ion , dust, traifin and bPa'nsting Vibrations associated with the proposed quarryopera- tion. would produce. primary Impact" on WilliamS,. Umatead State Park in the fform. of noel a0 intruaton and doterl,oration of visual rasnaurcea. €'tsar cvnl,"a ti,c,n of your permit applicationfnrthnr indicates theca are no feasihiee mradificatlaans that can be made to the application that would make It acu:eptabla. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lit accordance with C.S. 74-61 you may appeal this decision to the North Carolina Mining Comnnnission, provided such appeal is made oirl'in 60 days after receipt of this notice. Your request for a hearing should be addressed to Dr. Henry n. Smith, Chairman, North Catdliha Mining Commission, 3405 Caldwell Drive, Raleigh, Noffh pait'olina 27607, with a copy to this offd.co. Very truly yours, o^ ��raaa^r �-+ G rn2atcc�, Stephen G. Conrad, Director SGG/pa CY.1*14 t6o 1 ta'r1pWM1...7e33.2423 _.133 a@,'nm, rrar Ciwnlli.v buret YT,wE'/A. Nixw nq a--'m [, ern v �m rye .: n.aA.]Yb:IM: nW H4waurqu9lnin,.irrii,�rt N'wiiwn'.w..1:4'S..�J19J6} n,r y«ul p4r4Fe'�r.umilb^Al'ti'rwrrcfr+w'.H r:erua�p. mepprY,r,rrn Equally important we have the benefit of hindsight to review the concerns raised by the Department in its August 22, 1980 denial of the permit, with a careful review of the actual impacts that have occurred. The concern The result Damage to Crabtree Creek 90% blockage of stream on January 7, 1992 caused by mine blast and landslide, documented in DEQ files due to ineffective controls Pollution of streams Coating of stream bed and rocks with mining residue flowing from the site to the creek. Documented in DEQ file but never analyzed By DEQto find source. ECU Professor Richard L. Mauger tested samples May 2019 and confirmed it was mining related Damage to buffers caused by Complete destruction for 300 the mine feet of buffer in 1982 along park boundary. Encroachment of the western buffer prior to 2018 change from undisturbed to unexcavated. Fugitive dust going offsite, into Dust coating the park trails and the park. forest as reported by state parks staff on numerous occasions. Contained in DEQ files ignored and dismissed. Noise impacts intruding in the Backup truck noises heard in the park park despite assurances that buffers would be adequate to prevent the noise intrusion. Blasts and ground vibrations felt in the park routinely. ongoing Damages to the Park Trees killed and land flooded, see photos and review of aerial IMAPS confirming the ponds cross into the protected buffer and into State Park property, showing mature dead trees, that did not exist prior to the quarry. Now the applicant returns with this request to double the mine, but offers a plan with significantly less protection of the park and the environment. Let's see how it compares to the 1981 approval Request I Then 1981 1 Now 2020 1 Permanent Buffer along northern boundary of William B Umstead State Park Noise protection Storm water collection from pit to streams MINSOMM, forest destroyed in buffer and berms and fencing erected inside the buffers Even the Mining commission, which overturned the denial by the department, was concerned about the critical need to protect William B Umstead State Park. But in reality, despite the assurances of the operator we know the impacts to the Park and the environment have been impacted by this Quarry. January 7, 1992 Landslide that destroyed what was undisturbed buffer and filled 90% of the creek with blast debris. Lack of effective blasting controls resulted in a landslide that filled 90% of Crabtree Creek on January 7 1992, undistrbed buffer was destroyed by both the blast and the need to mitigate the damage. This is the very same creek wall that will now be blasted b from the other side resulting in the creek becoming suspended hundreds of feet abobe two quarry pits on • � ��r� � both sides, much like a aquaduct see cross section below y which only shows to 200 msl, pits go 200 feet deeper... Road M Note the vertical scale, the existing pit goes several hundred feet below the 220 Msl shown, the proposed pit on the left side will do the same. This is the same area of the 1992 landslide that blocked 90% of the creek, and encroached the undisturbed buffer, both with the blast and with the required mitigation Risk assessment and mitigation offered by the applicant in this permit expansion request? No recognition of the unique profile proposed, no discussion of the history of already failing to protect the buffer and stream in the same area. The Department needs the applicant to address this known risk and at least estimate the effects of a similar landslide on the new pit wall, the only wall supporting the creek above it. Is the $1,000,000 bond sufficient to mitigate another landslide on the new pit? If not who becomes liable for the mitigation if the applicant becomes insolvent? RDU Airport authority? The county? The state of North Carolina? What is the exposure if this occurs? Risk assessment of the unique cross section proposed removing both banks from a stream, in effect elevating the stream elevated above the pit floor like an aqueduct between two active pits... both with blasting ongoing at the same time, from both sides? What risk assessment has the applicant offered to assure this error will not reoccur, nothing is offered in the application. Who would incur mitigation costs if another unexpected landslide occurs that results in damage beyond the $1,000,000 bond offered by the applicant? What is the potential exposure should the second wall in the new pit fail. Because the applicant is only required to post $1,000,000 bond for all of their operations, they are not required to post additional bond for this additional risk. If the company were to become insolvent who would be responsible to mitigate the costs of another landslide? The airport authority? The state? What would that risk be, nothing has been offered by the applicant to accesss or address such risks? The details of the lease proved Wake Stone a 90 out of the contract anytime they choose if they feel the mining is no longer viable. 90 days and they owe the airport nothing more. (), Annythnuiig urn 06s Lvxse tan ilhn�^ r„enitrary notnvrthastamandnng,, sixeitih l nna"ce douaznne, irn good Cash(°a, ttlaan wintlnutunag io nun"ne' c+un thrn hvts htecofne ann possrghu or rsanws°annonnw fi a reatawnnv hnen,yor d its reaasonnaNe comb uh Lessc disa]ll hu4nwe the light W ierrwrim c this Lease at curvy tivanc n&tnuEng, ilia, h etrse Tenn by 8 i6r"g Lessor an rnianinurnnn of n tinetm (408 &ma ' wcrirtwn unaitbce of t:en°wutiniaathrin„ wx mncuuporn this h,a.ase shahh tewinrannativ, on ffie wrnttanaflon date, sgec,nfiueau in Such romwinw°a, acid t ifflor (Lessor nand° Lessee v°grihp have any further rights (rr anhuligmio nn hip, cuunnedel dnr,xce A as may be otlna°mi'W expaac vwhy pnrrnvidl: h unu relit", Lease). llowcvxr, [riser ap Tecs UP Irony tca lLxssor w tths n ulniity gdtpp days ahtawndie teienis a6i)n gantr syre,aAed in swittn uxotice any Annnuaanh g�aiiniir nurrn Roi,ahy uamouanis ",,due ran osaan1161g alriuc adaurnig; such ninety (90) day rw iees p eraush and art), ynnunnaca Sfles Royalty thual irmy h C OI (n°unara,i ;inth gale, but unpaid during aua ch ninety 00) day naouamn; pnrsra(orh arms( gueua ahhicin L w ma, nnhurhl Paaave roil ku rthanr ohnhigatiorn to Lessor rawu account of Annnna8 Wtirinauantt Rmyiih y ann y nn uaall Saks hfoyadtda or arty outnawr monetary gap nentita ofany tmotirc under thins l w.,ase. A tra the aeamanunanninrn dale spneenfiCJ Yn°n wascln annacan, h Assec shasnhl have: no right to mine lyr remove rynrarny+ r:ar mined uuatnr.eariaav fmonr the, hanrsxnr,an, , pnn'nn�vkk' d that iN h,r %eta St unnAl nulac°, ar rc;inuwrva quarry cud mined wn[wteri ahs horn tlne f"reruni«nns a fwl ffic ier-msnn.nntuemar dime spc6daed iiri such anolice, Lessen .,gash gv +ih°ulip.,ntu;^reh tiu accouirut W, Lcsivar° fh" any and A rnaua.;hn wpuuanuy or nxnnwed mrn°alounds inlineed audkl r acnivaave d drom awe Premises and tan puny to L swiany A nnuuruh 9 Ae,n hh.oyahtty thnat, wwoifl d have lxx or'ne due and g ayiiWe: i,an h. esm:)r winder tllik h Case on account of su.cg quarry or erirmewd unonniiahs gninexd ancPcw removed dhiomD thnr. f1ra.inuisu;sLcs'st,,e sfiaO mnndn hiuhhy resp onsihnhe for nuec.h,;unmnl on, restnwnatron crh ilie Premises as nway be, iewpanoned Igy governmental reh,W atio nus, A nytlnuwng corltarncxd inn thds, hasaragiauhrle (a or tlme,aw.rhere in tMs Lease to the contrary a iaatw4hamtkanngaungaa nh Les awr° ideate°runoauurcr , ins grmwni thirhn, tgai the ¢hua ny k approaching an cngmnsiuorn of rnioniwnhihn nimerials and g,avcs p es sir not pevas than mane. Ot(O wd ays' �w,�nawtatnn lvp6vc lnu iryr to the aana�lnewsaary gala, o(auny Lease V ar tgant dvv o.e is going to �w�but down ft-, "orinnniangn,, uhpreration on nhne Mmuu ,ws, h_cssee sh afl have ai gncwliaxd of mo pgy years thnweeaf`ten° sus whnidt tav ahruit drut%it Ussr e'ns It lr nurng t g+eirunionn on nhua hareamuws' duhnigy n9richu im iod the, Annu alll Minimum Royalty, grid not the Aiuunrud gsdcs Royaltty, shnahh hue %aaivrmah and not p,may0len by hs sscc to Lessor, and thnnx Leans shnalh thraacadher (eimonnnaae allla,eiunrnn Upon the e^xpnursiionn of uhre tv en pip year p erlod„ bw ldee, rc e sh,,uhh reivaarn tufl}r ma"apn en au vha. 'fla:ur° ru, aianaafion and restorationn of 6hnvt l°r nit r rwv as rn ay, hm�e ancluiremd by government Jgtwhuatucplls Mining both sides of a creek to a depth 400 feet on both sides is uncommon. Is there any other area in the state when both sides supporting a waterway are removed with similar cross-section? If not how can we be sure this plan is providing the appropriate buffers to prevent this risk? Mining Act requires reclamation within 2 years after mining The proposal is contrary to the requirements of the Mining Act because the proposal delays reclamation of the current pit for an undefined period. The applicant could just nibble stone from the current pit, preventing its full mitigation as required by law. This would continue to injure the Park for an unknown period of time. The mining act is clear once mining is completed in any area reclamation should be completed within2 years. The Act encourages concurrent reclamation whenever possible. The fact that the operator finds it more profitable to defer reclamation for decades is not a sufficient reason to permit this action, contrary to the Mining Act intent. The risks to the streams are real, exposing the streams to two impervious pts serving as storm water catch basins dumping into the same stream is a stream impact no other business would ever be allowed to even request. The applicant has not showing any analysis of the relative load such discharges would place on the streams nor justified why they should not first be required to complete current mining in the current pit, and reclamation that pit before they are allowed to double the environmental exposure. I understand the applicant would prefer to defer these expenses, but that commercial advantage needs to be evaluated against the risks to the park and the environment. Systemic actions by the operator over decades have shown a disregard for the buffers and failure to report violations or implement effective mitigation. Both the department and the mining commission were very concerned about the applicants ability to protect the park from damages to its purpose . The record is clear that the buffers were an essential aspect of thus protection. Yet the applicant has violated these buffers and failed to report such violations aind failed to mitigate the same. The results have damaged William B Umstead State Park. No business gets to profit at the expense of damaging a neighbors property, in the case the neighbor is the people of the state of North Carolina. IMAP Photo of eastern boundary of Quarry and State Park,. 2017.with two ponds in the protected buffer and crossing into the park 2010 IMAP photo shows forested buffer notice only I pond, not 2. Closer look at Wake stone storm water and yard runoff solution implemented... flood your neighbors property destroying the protected buffer and flooding the park property killing mature trees. No business could do this in the state and not be held to account. The neighbor is the state of North Carolina and the department needs to be more vigilant in protecting the park. Numerous COMPIdints were filed over the years by both, state parks personnel and citizens... all were dismissed because "the department approved the discharge". The applicant is responsible to take appropriate actions to protect the buffer. The depairtment cannot approve flooding the park. Black pope dumps aH the runoff directly into the buffer and the Park, killing 60- 100 foot tall trees... This is not being a good neighbor, nor is this action allowed per the terms of the Alining Act of 1971, the requirements of the permit, it as a, ongoing direct violation of both, the letter and the spirit of the law. Pit road encroached Crabtree Creek 100 undisturbed buffer, entire service road encroached the undisturbed buffer. Permit was modified in questionable modification in 2018 to correct the violation after the fact, by changing the buffer from undisturbed to unexcavated, contrary to the intent of the permit issued in 1982. G—lle -h x + — m x ^; C;," U'G earth.googlacom/r �r It/, rl/t lstiee�d ,I t� p'. 4./,0..�, 1,24,-/L/0/G.G i,t02f1/ 1.41a,28A.01 .I ,G/(d ,�y,Oh 010/d La-GgiJ�lokrr ibq_4201 yI Vy/SI(f�20Fyfh ,.ItI sFPAINrIt iFl. iyj ek %"f ^�• Al- G-,,I 0 -Tib, `,W ro r-�—lare 0 lm.,read slate Petlt < William B. Umstead Slate Park W II am B U t d Slate P k Showlny reaults t - 2 f0 Type here to search Na NCDEQ'. Min Pm,— X4.,. Chapter J4 Artltle- 2001 Renewal-Mne Mapµ:X MAPS X ''%CiCof Rjlegl ieSkeC:X kO QN ofRl1911 and WSrs— X + 6t .—ps.raleghncgov/MAG / ° Al R „a,i 0 -Tin, �,W ro r-�—iare 1988 (MAPS Ariel Photo showing Buffer Violation encroaching Park border ,0 Type here to search 0 X 1988 IMAP Arie oto shows 100 foot Undisturbed Buffer was cleared within 10 feet of the Park Boarder, contrary to the terms of the Permit and the Mining commission order, that the Berm was not to encroach closer than 50 feet of the State Park. This violation was not reported by the applicant. This was a critical area referenced in the deliberations and in the Permit and the order of the Mining Commission decision to provide protection to the park. Note all area between the protected buffer and mine was cleared in an area much longer (600 ft.) and wider (250 feet) than the size of the berm approved on the site plan. 150,000 square feet cleared vs 40,000 square feet on the site plan, nearly 4 times the approved impacts per the berm on the site plan. ,0 Type here to search 1988 IMAPS areial photo shows complete destruction of 100 foot undisturbed buffer as order by the Mining Commission amendment issued April 3, 1981, which required 100 foot undistrubed buffer. 1981 aerial phot shows the area on the blue line, 100 foot west of buffer was completely forested, 1988 completely cleared. Berm was not to encroach within 50 feet of the boarder with the State park. Area was cleared withing 10 feet of the boarder, in direct violation of the permit and the Mining commission order. Proposed buffers in expanded site plan are not comparable to the Park and Creek buffers required in the 1981 permit. In 1980 request for permit applicant often spoke of desire to provide 20 foot vertical buffer along Crabtree creek. This map shows the proposed expansion would not offer the same, as a 20 foot rise would flow into the new pit directly. Red line reflects the creek with 20 foot rise, the black hash line the proposed edge of pit. Throughout the life of the current permit the North Carolina Wildlife commission has requested fully undisturbed FORESTED buffers. North, C.",arofina WIdEfe, Resources Corm"I'lission . ............. ...... .... C,bar6l R. T-Jwwd, E.mvcudv,r),srigtor NIEMORANIXIM 'To � usan D, EkIwanis, Mining propum, Seminry Land Quafity Sce4qq FROA& WnWk �L Pender ' Piedraord Region Counfinawr Habitat Conservad. PMJTAM DATP 16,ApiriLMOI SI TR,,WFC"'I Mmgno Permit Tegjtwal Request for WakeSVITIC Owiny Vormi� No,r 92-10, Wmkc County, Nartlj PWOgkhl, With d"d Nord. (,lAmbna WAMI'v Re"SOUM'je$ mL%Cm(cd flme lubjpCT, perujil mu"Wul, Ow CommitOsm- providcd hi ucandmice w0li rmpvmiov)' awl " du,r: mjnurjp Act of 11 97t (as,tcount adcd, IM)(G-S. 74-76 dimugh 74-68 1.5 N'CA,C 5), Wake$A'nm Corpotation is T'Nuielfin4 earMMW Ofthch pcxmit fiv rnin6�g granmiic,(ypc stow bodrock, uprNj.Hte, 4jj(j wverbunlen on a 221-ncresac Wanted aidl,amim io WiWaim 11, UnImead Saw purk, The dw ]ma drained by Cynbuele Cn,-,ek, which is ma mqof nibumxy m dw, Ncuse Mve-Ir, Several HuM spocies have bra fomd to exim avi Crabtree Cvcvk ivtfl,uduag dic federW vrkmdvorconcem wit state, tlucatcned, Uanxic pipe (huranaia mavopn), die funderal Species ofequeem and Ognifl,eantly rare, piaevwpodw 9116m llicqute duemc'nod" Nquim"IbM (krophftwv whAmMous),and triangk floater G44awfidorm; mnhdtmxapw' the—vignflknMy rmv, wqdwd radnibow (Viflosa exoxvrrivfa)l flicrefom, pruilvuhip, wafim tp;j,itty l� "The appIlicalion Mkaiws thal of re Une no MIqiJewd tnodifUllfinlip, W life C'&6'1sng mvrnd' We are, yah"Ivwd whil d1r, OXWO91cu ofm 1 00-filot fmdh(UI4C4 MOCIONI bUflCr f0f OW Wv,% %da WOON Cfabnat Crock, a 250-60(unexcavaltd blAfTer flor * wrihsWe Wong Craboxe 14mouj NL104% Aiddrm; h0volm �efm"O (Amc4 F("qlr�ph� m":' rvm �"z) 01119)7�'3,1-3,631 Fwk, 71 W," "PRC V-P . FF)LA, S LAKE.' I'EL �s) �L N- 5,28 - o-w;8'?.I-� p r 0 16 ' G 1 14 " 1.`;m Page 2 "014 to Apnil 2001 Wake Swnc Corparaii,on Peluft No,, 92. 10 the park, atr,d a I 00= fbM onexcavated buffer co,,nWnjng, vtgetact edl wl,ljen bertol fOrthe east 40fig the PaA. Aldmugh we cottCu'With ft PMP(J,Kd J'CJ' loww", we! r"'Ornmerml tJMt not ordy be, wAkamiTticdi, bul abo be fimstrA butye,", We en00UWC the aj)p,'I'iCa I:L� rstablish as Infi,kinualn MAIM mdishwbed, f6rooted buffif Wang all streams, W44CRUMAIM'S, ftri,d'I wedallds, 'JI'lis 110� a tbuffor will prolgrct waoi, quWity a prOv,[dt-411 lr,,h I VC cardlic)"r F6,r wiW&c spacje,r� In addition, waterdischaTps t,'ronj apt jcctsi,lv %hould 1w tf,), tfiie'6zo ni"fli'lle reetiviov "*rewri, wNd all disdi,&r8es AwAild two m;Ay,Mt.fi Nl"DFS perry o reqt0rerne,rils, In patljlca,, fO�f- Of 91B dischowSe AlioWd be mahuained M or below the Ck"'t hrl Vit" nUMMA) tLl' del,"' 111Cubd effodl on sqtjajrvm)w—C*'5 hwhidi ng deurvo ion of qm wj�j i ng 114JAM, k,Iruffocufion orogpp" and clogaing afoill's CA'Squatir—sped 9 I'm Plernent"It"i'on ofthest %'my, IlAthe h"&ammlalion was provided 41 tile rWlx1w1j0u1 pJAIA, We -,einot,iragethe a Pcollshlvusiogd4sIixuire, dual towildIffe in their rt0=06011 SUCh Us 100 rYpcs, ITIA'AsoAre, PH, ouldt"give Of dopei)J' etc,", to hzed, Fclffifi. don rrIjtj Us neechxl based on x)l 1! PlAn[JAS 4 MiKlUre UfWhiollly Pint, and high qt'IANty hArdwoods onk.91, hickorios, black gurn, al.14 pl,w pq(a, fi)rr wHAfit, so,oth,v,r M,jmuAwcN ,, lll"rjt are not fescue bued oAd prolykie a1equou stg5Njog,, wL�� rej,,el, Ile to "Yodf. ftwe Afinv RO'Claffloallon As, FIsh and WJJJJV� Jfabi"Idit, Nod'h Cawolina WiM11 l R"� Ves()IJI'Ves COTTkfmiqa4n% 19'97, amid Mle: SCM995, [AsWO Wildlifie lNdlqrsl 1,q (2,1'Z) 90d-1537 OddkiOnld and Weas on mdam'91fian 1",or Oidhf�', Chank you h,,Pr thc, nPula atql� addifional al"'Y "Orev ''" Olaf C`M,"Xnl� 011 this MUNMt. lf �'ott necd IPICIISC (Agr Offift At (9 W) 528-9896 cc: DuVv"J t,ee, Wimkc Stonc CorpoviNion OM'filfhl Pard'oe, Sijparviswir, USFWS SlidPhcll 114011, Zoo lop rxt,'Natxaftj 1-lo'kage Pro"arwil Despite the need for such Forested Undisturbed buffers the applicant disregards the requests completely and The applicant has proposed maximum mining area and minimun enviromental protections not even comparable to the current quarry. Then they l000k to the current quarry and say see we have not detroyed the park now lets us expand, its wont hurt a thing. But the protections offered the park are not the same, note even close. Less buffer, the proposed perimeter buffer will be completely clearcut, destroying all mature forest cover. Then the applicant is proposing to fill the cleared buffer with overburden because its less costly to th applican to do so. Destroying the wildlife habitat to make greater profits. This is inconsistent with the spirit of the Mining act that seeks to be sure mining occurs with the greatest degree of enviormental protection possible. It is possibe to leave the buffer indisturbed. Doing so would be consisited the the recommendations for Undisturbed forested buffers necessary to support wildlife, destroying them will not. If the quarry wants buffers and the airport wants fences fine let hem be placed on their land OUTside the protected buffer. Anything less will destroy the natural beauty of the site just to make the applicant more profit. The permit request does not include all the land the applicant want to mine. This is a clever way to miimize the enviromental impacts at this moment yet preserve the right to expand latter saying the expansion was on the approve site plan as Future reserves. C. c4. n ))„ti ) u l g Hey r, �1� „n+� „..13 llon J Hd "da �ti hirr- fr �f m�,dm a, 'V, N111f 1. 27"91 'loll o a1 u17 n.r 0� Ill 1y��L ll)6 lh" l6 Ailp,19'1 '�' li]Udby rr/O MirhnwI. Ln P41 7 C�r,U 8000 �qvlb CEO 1 tl lj n d N] C �!i it K)I a j a i l m ,fib y / , "m P'V IV 11d67,32431' Y �- RfkIP 1) h Vdkltd .I 11 hti')a J l A 4rt Q/oi my Q d lgh N"t f)'L CalfFllnu V u m / " k" aa,CrrtTIY r4x1^ n / � OW 10,02 AM r, �I �� '' zl�z�zoza Q This tactic should be objected to as it is a clear method to avoid being accountable for the entire impacts at this time and yet assure future permit expansions cannot be denied as they were in the approved site plan and anticipated. The 2018 site plan offered by the applicant contains a strange irregularity in showing the 100 foot buffer with and road location which seems to conceal the encroachment of the buffer. The 100 width is shown is consistent but the scale is not the same in the encroachment area. Could this just be an innocent mistake? and- 2Gvinjpg IIIIII �, 90 I I ''/ ^4 ® 0 Type here to search II — 0 X °, Ed—C—ie ., lR snare C -- 2011 site plan shows the 100 foot undisturbed buffer, but the scale seems to be modified on the map where the buffer has been encroached with the pit road. Here is a closer view The Blast data presented in the permit application does not support the requested site plan. Wake Stone Triangle Quarry Vibration Analysis Summary to July of 20,1 (), Dyno Nobel was asked to assist Wake Stone with confidently predicting seismic vibration levels and air blast at a distance of 500 feet behind the blast site at their Triangle Quarry. Results ['roan this study should be a reliable indicator of what to expect when blasting on the adjacent RDU Odd Fellows tract. The modified US Bureau of Mines (USBM) R11 8507 Alternative Blasting Level Criteria graph (Shown below) was used as the allowable vibra6on limit for this investigation. '['his is the same blasting vibration Iii-nit currently in place for all North Carolina quarry NCDEQ tinining permits. Yet the site plan shows the quarry pit will blast with 250 feet of the Dunn residence. The applicant has provided not blast data to support the 250 foot distance proposed in the site plan. Based on this study the pit could not be located closer than 500 feet from the residence. -........ � 160 . ... ..m.m N /8UAct =s OF aV ft }1f J ll p'P IP,, f f Ct, y't}c f f� fhf .k ,�G �'(`YI YYINYf Y i`$(,. r In comparison the 1981 permit pit edge was 1500 foot from the nearest residence. Now the applicant proposes to blast 250 feet from a home but offers no blast data to support it being safe. Problems with the reclamation plan proposed. 1. The 1981 Permit and the Mining Act of 1971 require reclamation be completed within 2 years after mining is completed. 2. The applicant has said they are nearing completion of the current pit, but with this expansion any reclamation is deferred indefinitely, exposing the park to decades of additional exposure. 3. Under no circumstances should the department allow the applicant to start mining the second pit before completing the first pit. While it may be more profitable for the applicant to defer reclamation of the mining impacts they have conducted for 40 years, the law is clear that it should be mitigated as soon as possible, but no later than 2 years. 4. The proposal by the applicant to leave two pits open greatly increases the impervious surface area which will double the storm water discharge to the same creek. The applicant fails to even access this impact on the stream. 5. The applicant states in the application Post.. MinknZ..4jp.jRgoisination As detaHed un the mi nior;fl leaasc agire!^nnuann:.nrtt between Wake Stone irtaf RDLi A and further, drscussed cn this Wning Penir,tiit Mocflfiradoru aSpphc:raflon, Wake Swine is arornrnAted Lo r a lak'n the 106 aat:ree site post rniiaaurntf with features Stneh as overlooks, greenway traiils, parking areas, tniit securi°°ity lerneJ ng, wit.ln enon neee,tiMty to UJrrnrstead StaaLe PaO(. The details to such redaarrnaata°sort ae:tivltleaa dill Iknse cfen,terirnit°neeet Ikty ft tk let artrt Wanke Strn�ae* uataenta coryipaleetararn reef rnnirniir g actMt.uae , As stated iirt the ApM 3, 198.1 Final to oslm� of the Mining Cornrna'issi `arn (pursi,iant to ussi.narn(;e of the UrnitW rniinaiung pe,=rnniit for ..l.riangle: Quarry), Wake Stone will C011tarlUe tO Ilene=n eatah aated to offer to the State the or girta:nl t riarn& Quarry "quarry sa to" as defined urn the Okttllrn'uuat, Cornmissbri deciisa orr eiocn.nrrncanunt.. This statement is problematic for several reasons; The reclamation plan is not detailed in the lease agreement. In fact the lease agreement shows a concept plan, including such features as overlooks, greenway trails, parking areas, but states that the applicant is not required to complete any the details of the concept plan. n the aacrea rawuy Mlachrrt ptrn`mo and nnrcmmaprmrawd as pnxBnatnnn UC , 'Fk rcLUmuatunnaa Eott rca aefcrnnn,xxa in ntna. Paaiiagrap,h p3 and FANbin. R are nrracltaded in anricq)atian cn Ra rsoiacintnk^ racicatrsnnn peasc m onffie anpeoa,cnm cnn wshkl) mtuary,a be negotiarea and enten•a:il unnto Macaw nn t.,csstut and an ppan r^:raannaunnenal br,Xjy or quaHt'rednonngnmaakln to take effi,a°t an the oid of tire ntnunnonnpin arryancN,a¢ta ms, the deprrictiorn of artau.^cific irnapamoverricnm as shown on ll^,xht bit B arc aatYrnded to ptanw eatie exampn c s Of'the scope, of f,m5re°c fnnaann6ai rummnninatnctnt trr stapp orrt the racnfsnnta,af kanaa,nr use of The Vna,aanke", and"are not 6 acamoacd to deptcn or pin wit, ttre actual unnngrMrrc,anneun,tr trra hC a°rmtwtnaaarta^ad n,ny tl at ai.uch n wle lxswe a 1firlrataw the gecAaNnafion of the Promises to N: vahwd sir "Mmce 'v tOklmrn Doflra s ($3,e100,000) Any aQaspaatc; m,e r epic demgn in die „om M ^acech roaprorsaaraurrn�nnrea sluaafd "W�e refeared w Nmaatamwa athi rationn maa dei the undes om ptnc Annrv'w6cana ArHtration Asocia6on (or Office a•cfaanwtutc^nnrt, kispamatc ta-sam8wation rmgaut6zauancaan as may he agreed to by thc,, rnuac°6es) 2. The applicant state in the permit application that the details will be determined by the RDU Airport Authority and Wake Stone upon completion of the mining activities. Of course the RDU Airport authority is not a party to the Mining permit and has no obligation to reclamation the land. The Mining Act of 1971 says the reclamation plan must be in writing and a part of the permit. 3. The permit issued is the authority for the existing mine. A condition of that permit was a 50 year sunset provision that required the applicant to complete mining no later than 50 years after mining stated. This requires the mine be closed and the land become a part of William B Umstead State Park. This condition was in place for 37 years with no objection by the applicant. In 2018 under questionable circumstances subject to further investigation the basis of the permit was changed. I suspect this change will be challenged either administratively or in court. 4. In the RDUAA lease the applicant claims the reclamation costs in 35 years will be $3,000,000. Based on a 3% cost of money that reflects a net present value of only $1,000,000. Is it logical that both pits can be reclaimed with trails, parking overlooks et as depicted in the concept plan for a $1,000,000 NPV? I don't this this is a reasonable estimate, but per the terms of the RDUAA lease it is a number that if challenged will be decided by arbitration... 5. To make the financial viability of the reclamation plan even more suspect, state law limits the bond required to $1,000,000 for all operations of a mining company. So Wake stone will post no additional bond to protect the state if they are not able to meet their obligations in the future. The public has no recourse except the bond, if the company fails due to another landslide or other damages. Defects in the application submitted for this expansion. 1. The applicant has failed to notify the owners of record for the Oddfellows tract, the cities of Raleigh and Durham, and the counties of wake and Durham. Instead they have notified the registered agent, who is not the owner of record. As such the owners of record have not been given the legal notice required by the mining act. 2. The Zoning of the land is residential Airport district overlay. The last zoning action taken on this property was March 1, 1982 actin by the Wake county board of Commissioners. The use of a mine is not allowed in the Residential district, so no mining could be allowed until and unless a legal rezoning is approved. Other problems included in the application for the expansion. The noise impact of the proposed mining operation is far greater than the current mine. Required mitigation moved much of the trucking into the pit so the ridge would serve as a noise buffer. This proposal requires every piece of stone mined in the new pit to be trucked out of the new pit, up to the ridgeline, across the creek and into the first site for processing. This change greatly increases the exhaust and noise profile of the operation the will threatened to invade the purpose for the state park. The applicant has offered no noise or wind studies to determine that these impacts will not injure the purpose of the park. None. The 2018 permit modification approved by the acting director is contrary to the original permit intent and must be overturned. Either by the department or by the courts. Conclusion, deny the permit. The department must be guided by the mining Act of 1971, in another email submitted I outlined for you a excel spreadsheet showing by line the requirements of the law, and how specifically this applicant, its performance to date operating for 40 years with ongoing permit violations effecting flooding of the buffers, and parkland, the killing of trees and the encroachment into protected buffers require this permit to be denied. Additionally the lack of merit for the expansion and the failure to show how the applicant will protect wildlife, and prevent noise and pollution from threatening the purpose of the park require the department to deny the permit. Director Stephen G Conrad was correct in 1980, the use of a mine adjacent to a state part threatens the purpose of the park and must be denied, and the risks he raised have occurred and are ongoing. This is no place for one crushed rock quarry, it was wrong then and the truth remains it is still wrong today. The uses are as incompatible as could be imagined, and there is no way the applicant could mitigate this into an allowable use at this site. I request the department deny the permit.