HomeMy WebLinkAboutMining Act refrence to basis for denial of permit expansion requested by Wake StoneChapter 74 ArticlE
The Mining Act o1
The FRecquiroe r
Secti o n
74-47 Findings
74-48 Purposes
74-49 (13) Reclamation Plan
74-52 Permit Modifications
74-50 Perm its
(b1) 2
(b1) 3
(b2)
74-51 Permits, Application, Grant
(d) basis for denial
(f)
7
F 1971
"omrit,os of the L..-avv
'rom3ct of the L..-avv
restoration of the land to, its, original coridition. However, it is possible to, conduct mining in 'such a way as to,
minimize its effects, on the surrounding environnient. Furthermore, proper rechunalion of mined and is
nn ecessary to prevet undesirable land and water conditions, that would be detrimental 'to the general welfare,
health,, safety, bea-Lity, atid property rights, ofthe citizens of the State., Tlie General Assembly finds that the
y
That the useftilness, productivity, and seenic: values ofall lands and waters, -involved 'in
ininiqg within the State will recei-N,Te the greatest practical degreeof Protection and restoration.,
(2), That fron-i June 11 i 197 11 no, mining shall 'be carried on in the State unless plans for such
niining include reasona-bIe provisions f6r protection of the surrounding environment and for
reclaination of the area of land affected by n-uning. ('19,74, c. 545, s. 3.)
"Re,clanialioli" ii-leans, the, rea,s(-.),nabIe rehabilitation of the affected land for -usefuA
P-L'IrposesI., and th,e prolection. of the natural resources ofthe sm,rrottnding area,. Althotigh.
both the need, for and. the practicability of reclan-.1ation will control. the type and degree
la,ofe,ination.yspecific inStnce, thebc o�Jectivebe to esbshon a,
contintfing basis the vegetative cover,,,,, soil stabilityll water conditions and, safi2�,ty
'co,,nd,i-ti<--)ns,,a,ppr,o,priate to the area.
Protect adjacent surface \/vatc--rs
surface gradient restoration suitable for subsequent use and pr(Dp(Dsc--cl n-Ic--th(Dcl to achieve same_
mannerand t\/pc-- of surface \/c--pc--tati(Dn and (Dthc--r surface trc--atn-ic--nt to affc--ctc--cl arc --as
prc--\/c--nti(Dn or elimination of conditions hazardous to animal or fish life in or acijacc--rit to area
c(Drv-ipliancc-- with air and \/vatc--r pollution laws
rehabilitation of settling p(Dricls
control of c(Dritainn-ic--rits and disposal of mining refuse
restoration or establishment of strc--an-i channels or banks to a c(Dricliti(Dri n-iinin-iizinp, c--r(Dsi(Dn, siltation, and (Dthc--r
maps and supporting cl(Dcun-ic--nts
a tir-nc-- schc--cJulc-- that ryic--c--ts 74-53, reclamation simultaneous with and no later than 2 \/c--ars after c(Dryipic--ti(Dn of r-r
Pc--rn-iit modifications must be generally consistent with the basis for issuance of the original Pc--rr-nit
(Dthc--r tc--rn-is and conditions may be n-i(Dclific--cl (Dnl\/ \/vc--rc-- the cic--partrTic--nt cJc--tc--rriiinc--s that the modifications vv(Dulcl
notify (D\/vnc--rs of rc--c(Drcl within 1000 fc--c--t
notify (D\/vnc--rs of rc--c(Drcl across highways and lie within 1000 fc--c--t
notice shall inform (D\/vnc--rs of rc--c(Drcl of the opportunity to submit written c(Dn-in-ic--nts, and rc--cluc--st a public hc--arin,
i n P,
that any requirement or rule will be violated
unduly adverse effects on water, wildlife, estuarine, fisheries
violate air , water or groundwater quality
direct and substantial physical hazard to health or safety to house etc_
significantly adverse effect of on the purposes of a public park
that experience shows substantial deposits of sediment in streams or lakes, or landslides
bad actor as applicant,
permit if issued must require compliance with all requirements of the permit and the article, Violations of any
conditions shall constitute a basis for suspension or revocation of the permit_
Issue or concern supporting
Denial of the Permit
Numerous violations in nECQ records document
controls were inadequate to prevent
environmental damage to the park and streams
in the area _ E)ead Trees, flooded buffer, flooded park
land, landslide into and blocking of 90 0 of
CrabtreeCreeek, repeated buffer violations later
"erased with new site plans", excessive mining dust
blowing into and covering areas of the park, were all
documented in 1::)ECQ files as complaints _ The applicant
has failed to take effective actions to prevent these
offsite i m pacts_
The applicant has failed to employ effective controls
to prevent damage to the state Park, and what has
have been done was inadequate to prevent a
landslide which blocked 90 , of the creek, (1/7/1992)
the sedimentation that coats the rocks with mining
residue, (continues today) the flooding of buffers and
park property and the killing of mature trees,
(continues today) in both the buffer and the park_
i-Proposeci expansion caeiays recta ma-rion o-r
pit one for indefinably (decades), in direct
violation of the mining act_ The opening of a second pit
before completing the first pit doubles the storm water runoff that could
overtake small streams, no environmental impact offered to show the added
runoff is not a threat to the streams_ No recognition of current mining residue
coating the rocks in the discharge streams, despite multiple complaint for
excessive turbidity in the mine discharges _
Surface waters of streams receiving the storm water discharges have been
coated with mining residue, which despite multiple complaints for excessive
turbidity of discharges no mitigation has been taken and the operator has failed
to even notify the department of the damage_ Nor does the reclamation plan
even address the problem_
On Installation of the berms in 1988 the operator violated the park boundary
which was protected undisturbed within 100 feet of the park border_ The
clearing encroached the buffer within 10 feet of the border, applicant failed to
report the violation of the permit_ This was a area of great concern to both the
Park, the department and the Mining commission who all confirmed the
applicants need to protect the buffer in this area_ Mature forest was destroyed ,
scraped clear, far greater than what was allowed per the site plan, Plan was 400
x 100 feet 40,000 square feet_ Clearing as 610 x 250= 155,000 square feet nearly
4 times the planned impact
streambeds downstream of the Quarry are covered in a mining residue, not seen
in adjacent streams_ Operator failed to report this damage and has no plan to
mitigate or remediate_
streambeds downstream of the Quarry are covered in a mining residue, not seen
in adjacent streams_ Operator failed to report this damage and has no plan to
mitigate or remediate_
streambeds downstream of the Quarry are covered in a mining residue, not seen
in adjacent streams_ Operator failed to report this damage and has no plan to
mitigate or remediate_
streambeds downstream of the Quarry are covered in a mining residue, not seen
in adjacent streams_ Operator failed to report this damage and has no plan to
mitigate or remediate_
streambeds downstream of the Quarry are covered in a mining residue, not seen
in adjacent streams_ Operator failed to report this damage and has no plan to
mitigate or remediate_
buffer encroachments have been made and "cleaned up after the fact in permit
modifications_ Example is the second pond created by berm and storm water
discharge on the eastern boundary that flooded the buffer and encroached into
the park_ Killed mature trees, not mitigation take and none offered in the
proposed reclamation plan
Entire quarry expansion plan is incompatible
with the intent and letter of the Mining Act,
which requires concurrent Mitigation as
sections of mining are complete_ wake stone has told
Commissioner of the Wake county Board of Commissioners that they are
nearing the end of the life for the quarry, running out of stone, and need to
expand to the second pit or will be required to close and lay off its staff_ But the
applicant proposes to keep the current pit and the new pit at the same time_
This violates the 2 year limit on completing reclamation by "extending" the life
of pit 1 for decades, without really mining the pit of commercial volumes of rock_
the result is a violation of the legal requirement to remediate in 2 years after
mining, and the environmental exposure is great_ Storm water alone from both
exposed impervious pits could easily overtake the tributaries feeding Crabtree
Creek_ The repeated complaints to date on turbidity of discharge are ignored by
the operator as being compliant with the discharge permit, while ignoring the
environmental impact of depositing mining residue in the creek_ E)oing this for
both pits will only make the bad situation worse_
meet all requirements of 74-50 and 74-51
applicant failed to notify owners of record for the Oddfellow tract, as listed on
the deed the owners of record are Cities of Raleigh and Durham and the
counties of Durham and Wake
not done
notice sent failed to provide required information
Laincislicit-- caiust--cl by ineffective blasting controls, buffers wlc3olaitt--cl, buffer and
park f1c3oc3ocit--cl by storm vvaitt--r discharge, killing trt--t--s in buffer and park, mining
vvaistt-- coats rocks in strt--air-n with no r-nitl&-aitic3on c3offt--r*--cl- Pit rc3laicl is violation of
2011 site Plain and 100 fc3lc3lt undisturbed buffer, after violation applicant
chain&-t--cl buffer to unta-mcaiwaitta-cl in 2018 %/lc3olaitln&- the intent of the
permit
buffers \/i(Diatc--cl, buffer and park fl(D(DcIc--cl by st(Drn-i \/vatc--r discharge, killing trc--c--s
in buffer and park
Waist data suhr-nittt--cl in application is haist--cl on 500 ft--t--t distance, but nt--airt--st
hc3lust-- is 250 ft--t--t, no data c3off*--rt--cl for 250 ft--t--t, so the justification c1c3ot--s not
support the rt--clut--st- Blasting 250 ft--t--t frc3or-n ai private rt--siclt--nct-- is inconsistent
with the Mining Act and not ai rt--fit--ctic3on of the intent of the I=ivv
cic--acl trc--c--s, fl(D(DcIc--cl park and buffers, strc--arv-is c(Datc--cl with mining rc--sicluc--,
landslide in crc--c--k caused by blasting, pit r(Dacl increases 100 f(D(Dt Crabtree Crc--c--k
buffer
-rht--rt-- is ai systemic pattern of pt--rr-nit violations that haiwt-- c3,ccurrt--cl and are
that per the law should be t--nfc3orct--cl but airt-- not being *--nfc3orct--cl- The
applicant prc3opc3ost--cl to clt--ft--r its reclamation obligations indefinitely with this
expansion rt--clut--st, and to cic3o so offering significantly It--ss protection to the
stream, the park and the hc3or-nt--s in the airt--ai- -rh*-- Government has faiilt--cl to
s*--cur*-- *--cluail protection for the *--n%firc3onr-n*--nt and the citizens of this state and
faiilt--cl to rTit--t--t its constitutional obligations
m
-rw PC-3ct/^ctic::Pn r4ecluinecl
.Ak pattern of nep4ecatci-cl violations and Icack of ci-ffci-cti%rci- cc:)intrc:)il shc:)iulcl prevent
ci-3cp.-3nsic)in of the sitei-. In 19131 Steven C3 Cc:)inr.-3cl vv.-3s correct in denying this
quarry, this is the vvrc:)injg place fora stone quarry -3clj.-3cei-nt to Unrvste.acl
State Park_ The tvvc:)i uses zarci- as incc)inrvp.-3tik3oIci- and any tvvc:)i cc:)iulcl 1:31cl.. -Thel.
Mining Cc)inrvnrvissic)in jgc:)it this vvrc:)injg and the ci-wiclei-ncei- is clear the park has
boci-ci-n cI.-3nrv.-3jgci-cI. The prc)ipc)isci-cI quarry c)iffci-rs significantly lei-ss in
ci-n%rirc)innrvci-nt.-3I protection, with buffers -3 small fraction required in this site,
fully disturbed with clew rcuttinjg of all fc)irestci-cl %rci-jgci-t.-3tic)1n and cIci-strc)1yinjg of
vvilcllife rci-fujge. Further encroachment is prc)1pc)1sc1-cI by -3ciclinjg 1:31cl-rnris in the
cleared perimeter, and installing fencing and k3oci-rnris IIMSIDOE the buffer,
cIci-strc)iyinjg the benefits of -3 unclisturk3oci-cl buffer
The prc:)ipc:)isei-cl buffers DOC) IMC:)-T offer the C3F;tE.Ak-TES-T practical clei-jgrei-ei- of
protection, in fact the buffers prc:),pc:)isei-cl are the lc:)ivvei-st possible clei-jgrei-ei- of
prc:)itei-ctic:)in. They are fully cleared -3lc:)injg the perimeter, destroying vvilcllifel-
corridors that tc:)icl.-3y joining with the state pc-3rk. The conveying ei-%rei-ry rock
by truck on rc:)i.-3cls raised to the crest of the current pit will transmit dust and
notice c:)i%r4er the entire p.-3rk. This plan is c-3 fraction of the prc:)itei-ctiC:)In C:)Iffel-recl
n the current quarry, and ei-%rei-n with the 250 fc:)ic:)it undisturbed buffers of the
current quarry we h.-3%rei- -3 pattern of repeated %ric:Ac-3tic:)ins and I.-3ck of
effective cc:)intrc:A. These rei-.-3sc:)ins alone shc:)iulcl prevent the permit
4e3cpc-3nsic:)in as c-3 matter of I.-3vv. The Doepcartrrv4ent vvc-3s correct this vv.-3s the
vvrc:)injg place fora stc:)inei- quarry -3clj.-3c4ent to LJrrvst4ez3cl State Park_ Mining
Cc:)irrvrrvissic:)in jgc:)it this vvrc:)injg and the ei-%riclei-ncei- is clear the park has been
damaged_
Pattern of rc--pc--atc--cl violations and lack of effective control should prc--\/c--nt expansion of the site_ The
E)E--partn-ic--nt was correct this was the \/vrc>ng place for a stc>nc-- quarry adjacent to Un-istc--acl State Park_ Mining
Cc>n-in-iissic>n got this \/vrc>ng and the evidence is clear the park has bc--c--n clan-iagc--cL
cic--nN/ the pc--rn-iit rc--cluc--stc--cf, rc--cluirc-- mitigation and reclamation of the area fl(D(DcIc--cl and remove the cfc--acl trc--c--s
evidence for rc--cluirc--cl impact statc--n-ic--nt and denial of the pc--rn-iit- Rc--cluirc-- mitigation and effective controls to
prc--\/c--nt reoccurrence
evidence for rc--cluirc--cl impact statc--r-nc--nt and denial of the pc--rr-nit- Rc--cluirc-- mitigation and effective controls to
prc--\/c--nt reoccurrence
evidence for rc--cluirc--cl impact statc--n-ic--nt and denial of the pc--rn-iit- Rc--cluirc-- mitigation and effective controls to
prc--\/c--nt reoccurrence
evidence for rc--cluirc--cl impact statc--n-ic--nt and denial of the pc--rn-iit- Rc--cluirc-- mitigation and effective controls to
prc--\/c--nt reoccurrence
damage is \/isibic-- and clear to sc--c-- not cliscl(Dsc--cl and no plan to rc--rv-ic--cJiatc-- pr(Dp(Dsc--cl
proposal cic--IaN/s reclamation of pit for cJc--cacJc--s and \/i(Diatc--cl concurrent rc--cjuirc--n-ic--nt for reclamation in 2 \/c--ars aft
er mining the segment