20210210 ADI 92-10 2nd ADI

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRIAN WRENN
Director
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
7016 2140 0000 4368 3483
Mr. Samuel T. Bratton
President and CEO
Wake Stone Corporation
P O Box 190
Knightdale, NC 27545
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
February 10, 2020
RE: Cary (Triangle) Quarry Mine, Second Additional Information Request (ADI)
Mining Permit No. 92-10
Wake County
Neuse River Basin
Dear Mr. Bratton:
The purpose of this letter is to request new additional technical information. The information
being requested is time sensitive. Please provide the following:
Photographic documentation with a view of the proposed quarry site from Umstead Park
and Old Reedy Creek Road. The photograph(s) should be taken during the winter
season (after leaf fall and before spring budding) when the trees are bare. Please see
item 14(b) below.
The Mining Program has reviewed your application/modification dated April 8, 2020 and the
partial replies received on November 12, 2020 and January 11, 2021 addressing the Mining
Program's Additional Information Request of July 22, 2020. The review shows that the
following items are incomplete or need clarification:
Please provide the following information for the proposed bridge:
a. Design and construction sequencing details.
b. Design considerations for wildlife passage along the Crabtree Creek corridor.
C. A stormwater and sediment control management plan for run-on to and runoff
from the bridge.
The request has not been met.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Energy. Mineral and land Resources
S12 North Salisbury Street 1 1612 Mail Service Center I Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1612

Mr. Bratton
Page 2 of 7
12. Please perform a noise study, that evaluates the potential for noise impacts to William B.
Umstead State Park (Umstead Park). The protocol for the study must be approved by the
Mining Program before the study is conducted.
The results are pending.
14. Please provide additional information regarding screening for the following locations:
a. Future reserve section - The operation would be visible to 1-40 and parts of Old
Reedy Creek Road.
b. East side of the proposed pit - Pit operations may be visible from Umstead Park.
b. The photographs provide were taken in the summer when the vegetation
was at its maximum and does show effective screening. However, during
winter months when the trees are bare, the mining area could be visible from
Umstead Park and/or Old Reedy Creek Rd.
As stated above, please provide photographic documentation with a view of the
proposed quarry site from Umstead Park and Old Reedy Creek Road. The
photograph(s) should be taken during the winter season (after leaf fall and before
spring budding) when the trees are bare.
This is a new additional information request which resets the 180-day clock
per the Mining Act of 1971.
19. Please provide the following revisions to the plan drawings:
C. A detailed construction sequence addressing practices that will prevent sediment
loss to Crabtree Creek during retaining wall and bridge construction.
REVISION NEEDED: Notes 2 and 3 of Bridge Construction Schedule must be
revised to clarify that initial clearing and grubbing will be limited to that which
is necessary to install perimeter erosion and sedimentation control (ESC)
measures. After perimeter ESC measures are installed, additional clearing
and grubbing may progress.
k. Planting plan (riparian where required) for screening and stabilization adjacent to
proposed headwall.
REVISION NEEDED: A riparian seed mix should be specified. Proposed
limits of disturbance do appear to include a portion of the riparian buffer.
I. Silt bag detail and maintenance requirements.
ADDITIONIAL DISCUSSION RECONMENDED: To maximize water quality,
specification of a floating intake for the pump located within the skimmer cell

Mr. Bratton
Page 3of7
is preferred. Regardless of method used, care is to be taken to prevent
withdrawing sediment from the bottom of the basin.
P. Plans showing diversion ditches routed so that discharge passes through at least 2
baffles prior to entering skimmer cell. Lower diversion ditch enters basins 5 & 6 in
the skimmer cell.
ADDITIONAL CLAIRIFICATION REQUIRED; Slope drains have been added to
address this comment. These slope drains cross the length of basin 5. Once
the basin fills with water, the Program are concerned about damage to or
inoperability of the drains, primarily due to potential for them to float. Please
provide more details regarding the hold down stakes in the slope drain
construction details. An additional detail for hold down stakes located within
the impoundment area of the basins is required if the standard method is
insufficient to resist flotation.
q. Clarification that the location of the diversion ditch between basins 5 & 6 is correct.
ADDITIONIAL DISCUSSION RECONMENDED: The diversion ditches
bypassing these basins are very long and makes sharp directional changes to
convey bypass flow to basin 4. The Division would like to recommend:
I. That these ditches be surveyed upon completion to confirm positive
drainage throughout.
II. Although the Division has reviewed the design calculations and they
technically do not support it, permanent turf reinforcement matting in
ditches 1A, 1B, and 2 due to their unusually long length and duration of
anticipated use, is advisable. If acceptable drawing notes need to
reflect this.
s. Reconciliation of the access road it is shown in the undisturbed buffer (sheet 4).
REVISION NEEDED:
I. There is still a section of the access road that is in the undisturbed
buffer. Road alignment should be adjusted so that it is outside the
proposed undisturbed buffer.
II. All existing and proposed haullaccess roads should be shown and
labeled throughout the entire site.
III. Appears that new security fencing impacts access roads.
V. Identification of pipe and culvert sizes on the plan sheets.
REVISION, OR CLAIRIFICATION NEEDED: There is a temporary pipe located
at the second entrance. In previous conversations, Wake Stone intended to
leave this entrance in permanently to serve as access for emergency

Mr. Bratton
Page 4 of 7
vehicles. If this pipe is permanent, add to energy dissipator table on Drawing
"Site 11 ". Add inlet and outlet pipe protection for this culvert pipe.
X. The symbol used for silt fence must be distinct and not hidden beneath the line type
used to delineate the limits of disturbance.
See ee, below.
aa. A supplemented seeding and planting plan that considers native vegetation in and
around riparian areas.
See k, above.
cc. Provide additional erosion and sedimentation control measures as required to
protect the stream, all public, and private property from damage.
REVISION NEEDED:
I. Extend perimeter silt fencing on the basin 7 side of bridge as is on the
opposite side of bridge.
11. It appears the wall construction coincides with the footprint of basin 7.
Please detail construction sequencing to confirm no impact to ESC
measures.
III. Show locations of stockpiles and concrete washouts.
IV. Fence disturbance should be added to the acreage table in the permit.
V. Recommend wildlife friendly netting be used.
ee. A minimum of 5 feet between the toe of the slope and the installation of the silt
fence.
REVISION, OR CLAIRIFICATION NEEDED: The location near Old Reedy Creek
Road parallel to 1-40.], it appears the silt fence is on the undisturbed buffer
line. The security fence is shown between the silt fence and the slope. Is
there adequate room to maintain or replace silt fence without entering into the
undisturbed buffer? Sediment and erosion control measures may not be
located within the undisturbed buffer.
Please supply more information concerning this location.
ff. Adequate space for the installation, maintenance and removal of perimeter silt
fence. Specific maintenance requirements for all proposed sediment and erosion
control structures included on the plan.
See ee, above.
gg. A plan detail and construction specifications for the silt fence and silt fence outlet
that complies with the skirt trench requirements per the Erosion and Sediment

Mr. Bratton
Page 5 of 7
Control Planning and Design Manual. The skirt is to be trenched in, at a minimum, 8
inches vertically and 4 inches horizontally.
REVISION NEEDED: The silt fence outlet detail needs to be revised to reflect
an 8" trench, not 6".
hh. A structure/device for dewatering the temporary basins prior to removal and/or
conversion to a permanent structure. Provide a plan detail, construction
specifications, and maintenance requirements for this device. Include the use of
this device in the construction sequence.
See I, above.
II. Construction specifications for the skimmer basin are to include the excavation,
embankment construction, spillway construction, and skimmer basin installation.
Specify on the plan detail that an impermeable liner is to be installed on the
spillway. The emergency spillway is to be installed in undisturbed ground (not over
the skimmer pipe). Include a stone pad for the skimmer to rest upon and a rope
attached to the skimmer for maintenance in the plan detail. Include the basin
surface area dimensions, depth, side slopes, dam height, embankment width,
length of emergency spillway, skimmer size, skimmer orifice size, and dewatering
time on the plan sheets.
REVISION NEEDED: Overland flow is still entering basin 4 as sheet flow from
the upgradient area.
nn. Provide design calculations, a plan detail, construction specifications, and
maintenance requirements for the outlet stabilization structures. Construction
specifications for the outlet stabilization structure are to include the width of the
apron at the pipe outlet and at the end of the apron, the length of the apron, the
stone size, and depth of stone.
REVISION, OR CLAIRIFICATION NEEDED: Normal standard is that any basin
expected to have a life of 1 year or more should be designed based on the 25-
year storm. Applicant needs to specify how long each basin will remain in
use.
20. New issue raised by modification to application: On the original Erosion Control
Plan and Wake Stone Site Plans, a fifty -foot undisturbed buffer was illustrated along
the northern proposed permit boundary, with a security fence as proposed by RDU
Airport Authority. RDUAA proposed only ten feet of undisturbed buffer with a thirty-
foot clearing for the security fence, essentially clearing our proposed buffer.
Therefore, after negotiations with RDUAA, Wake Stone has agreed to provide the
security fence for the Odd Fellows tract. Wake Stone will still be required to use the
style of fence proposed by RDUAA as illustrated "Typical RDU Security Fence" on
page 10 of 11 of WSC Site Plans, but instead of a ten -foot undisturbed buffer and

Mr. Bratton
Page 6 of 7
thirty-foot clearing, we are proposing a 25-foot undisturbed buffer, a 10-foot clearing
outside the fence, and 15-foot clearing inside the fence. However, the clearing for
the fence will only be removal of vegetation; stumps will either remain or be ground
in place, and mulch used for ground cover. No clearing will take place in zone 1 of
the Neuse Buffer and only minimal clearing of vegetation in zone 2 in order to
continue the fence across the buffers around Foxcroft Lake and to extend to
Crabtree Creek at the western and eastern property boundaries.
This fence installation was not included in the first submittal package that
underwent our initial review and public comment.
1) Due to the fence installation, the undisturbed buffer has been reduced
from 50' to 25.
2) Trees will be removed as part of the installation. Per the Riparian
Neuse Buffer Rules, effective June 15, 2020, fence installation that
results in the removal of trees from Zone 1 is Allowable with
Authorization. Buffer Authorization is required. Please provide a copy
of this authorization.
3) Include all fence installation areas within Limits of Disturbance table
shown on drawing 2 of 11, and 3 of 11 of Site Plan Map.
Please note, this office may request additional information, not included in this letter, as
the mining application review progresses. Be advised that our review cannot be completed until
all of the items listed above have been fully addressed.
In order to complete the processing of your application, please forward two (2) copies of
the requested information to my attention at the following address:
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
As required by 15A NCAC 513.0113, you are hereby advised that you have 180 days from
the date of your receipt of this letter to submit all of the requested information. If you are unable
to meet this deadline and wish to request additional time, you must submit information, in writing,
to the Director clearly indicating why the deadline cannot be met and request that an extension of
time be granted. If an extension of time is not granted, a decision will be made to grant or deny
the mining permit based upon the information currently in the Department's files at the end of the
180-day period.

Mr. Bratton
Page 7 of 7
Though the preceding statement cites the maximum time limit for your response, we
encourage you to provide the additional information requested by this letter as soon as possible.
Your prompt response will help us to complete processing your application sooner. Please
contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David Miller, P.E.
State Mining Engineer
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Bill Denton, P.E., Raleigh Regional Office
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Director of DEMLR
Mr. Toby Vinson, P.E., Section Chief, DEMLR
Cc a RDUAA rep.