20191114_Mailed_Written_Comments_17-02

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
a RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND OWNERS' ASSOCIATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Instructions to Property Owners
1. The Residential Property Disclosure Act (G.S. 47E) ("Disclosure Act') requires owners of residential real estate (single-family
homes, individual condominiums, rownhouses, and the like, and buildings with up to four dwelling units) to furnish buyers
a Residential Property and Owners' Association Disclosure Statement ("Disclosure Statement"). This form is the only one
approved for this purpose. A disclosure statement must be furnished in connection with the sale, exchange, option, and
sale under a lease with option to purchase where the tenant does not occupy or intend to occupy the dwelling. A disclosure
statement is not required for some transactions, including the first sale of a dwelling which has never been inhabited and
transactions of residential property made pursuant to a lease with option to purchase where the lessee occupies or intends to
occupy the dwelling. For a complete list of exemptions, see G.S. 47E-2.
2. You must respond to each of the questions on the following pages of this form by filling in the requested information or by
placing a check (�) in the appropriate box. In responding to the questions, ,you are only obligated to disclose information
about which you have actual knowledge.
a. If you check "Yes' for any question, you must explain your answer and either describe any problem or attach a report
from an attorney, engineer, contractor, pest control operator or other expert or public agency describing it. If you attach a
report, you will not be liable for any inaccurate or incomplete information contained in it so long as you were not grossly
negligent in obtaining or transmitting the information.
b. If you check "No," you are stating that you have no actual knowledge of any problem. If you check "No" and you know
there is a problem, you may be liable for making an intentional misstatement.
c. If you check 'No Representation," you are choosing not to disclose the conditions or characteristics of the property, even
if you have actual knowledge of them or should have known of them.
d. If you check "Yes" or "No" and something happens to the property to make your Disclosure Statement incorrect or
inaccurate (for example, the roof begins to leak), you must promptly give the buyer a corrected Disclosure Statement or
correct the problem.
3. If you are assisted in the sale of your property by a licensed real estate broker, you are still responsible for completing and
delivering the Disclosure Statement to the buyers; and the broker must disclose any material facts about your property which
he or she knows or reasonably should know, regardless of your responses on the Disclosure Statement.
4. You must give the completed Disclosure Statement to the buyer no later than the time the buyer makes an offer to purchase
your property. If you do not, the buyer can, under certain conditions, cancel any resulting contract (See "Note to Buyers'
below). You should give the buyer a copy of the Disclosure Statement containing your signature and keep a copy signed by
the buyer for your records.
Note to Buyer: If the owner does not give you a Residential Property and Owners' Association Disclosure Statement by
the time you make your offer to purchase the property, you may under certain conditions cancel any resulting contract without
penalty to you as the buyer. To cancel the contract, you must personally deliver or mail written notice of your decision to can-
cel to the owner or the owner's agent within three calendar days following your receipt of the Disclosure Statement, or three
calendar days following the date of the contract, whichever occurs first. However, in no event does the Disclosure Act permit
you to cancel a contract after settlement of the transaction or (in the case of a sale or exchange) after you have occupied the
property, whichever occurs first.
In the space below, type or print in ink the address of the property (sufficient to identify it) and your name. Then sign and date
Property Address:
Owner's Name(s):
Owner(s) acknowledges) having examined this Disclosure Statement before signing and that all information is true and correct as
of the date signed.
Owner Signature: — -__ --_-- _ _ -.-- - Date_ -
Owner Signamre: - _ -._ -- Date
Buyers acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Disclosure Statement, that they have examined it before signing; that they understand that
this is not a warranty by owners or owners' agents; that it is not a substitute for any inspections they may wish to obtain; and that the
representations are made by the owners and not the owners' agents or subagents. Buyers are strongly encouraged to obtain their own
inspections from a licensed home inspector or other professional As used herein, words in the plural include the singular, as appropriate.
Buyer Signature:
Buyer Signature:
Date
Date
Page 1 of 4

9 - -- -4.
Property Address/Description: _. _ _ _
'Ilse following questions address the characteristics and condition of the property identified above about which the owner
has actual "owledve. Where the question refers to "dwelling," it is intended to refer to the dwelling unit, or units if more
than one, to be conveyed with the property. The term "dwelling unit" refers to any structure intended for human habitation.
Yu No RWthasntation
I . In what year was the dwelling constructed?
Explain if necessary: ❑
2. Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with the dwelling's foundation, slab, fireplaces/chimneys, floors,
windows (including storm windows and screens), doors, ceilings, interior and exterior walls, attached garage,
patio, deck or other structural components including any modifications to them? ......................................... ❑ ❑ ❑
3. The dwelling's exterior walls are made of what type of material? ❑ Brick Veneer ❑ Wood ❑ Stone
❑ Vinyl ❑ Synthetic Stucco ❑ Composidon/Hardboard ❑ Concrete ❑ Fiber Cement ❑ Aluminum ❑ Asbestos
❑ Other (Check all that apply) ❑
4. In what year was the dwellings roof covering installed? (Approximate if no records are
available) Explain if necessary: ❑
5. Is there any leakage or other problem with the dwelling's roof?....................................................................... ❑ ❑ ❑
6.
Is there any water seepage, leakage, dampness or standing waver in the dwelling's basement, crawl space, or slab? ❑ ❑ ❑
7.
Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with the dwelling's electrical system (outlets, wiring, panel,
switches, fixtures, generator, etc.)?.................................................................................................................. ❑ ❑ ❑
8.
Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with the dwellings plumbing system (pipes, fixtures, water heater, etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑
9.
Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with the dwelling's heating and/or air conditioning? ................... ❑ ❑ ❑
10.
What is the dwelling's heat source? ❑ Furnace ❑ Heat Pump I I Baseboard ❑ Other
(Check all that apply) Age of system: ❑
11.
What is the dwelling's cooling source? ❑ Central Forced Air --'Wall/Window Unit(s) ❑ Other
_..—_ (Check all that apply) Age of system: _ _ ❑
i2.
What are the dwellings fuel sources? ❑ Electricity ❑ Natural Gas ❑ Propane ❑ Oil ❑ Other _
(Check all that apply)
If the fuel source is stored in a tank, identify whether the tank is ❑ above ground or ❑ below ground, and
whether the tank is ❑ leased by seller or ❑ owned by seller. (Check all that apply) ❑
13.
What is the dwelling's water supply source? ❑ Ciry/County ❑ Community System ❑ Private Well ❑ Shared
Well ❑ Other (Check all that apply)................................................................ f7
!4.
The dwelling's water pipes are made of what type of material? ❑ Copper ❑ Galvanized ❑ Plastic ❑Polybutylene
❑ Other (Check all that apply) ........................................................................ ❑
15.
Is there any problem, malfunction or defectwith the dwelling's water supply (including water quality, quantity,
orwater pressure)?.......................................................................................................................................... ❑ ❑ n
16. What is the dwelling's sewage disposal system? ❑ Septic Tank ❑ Septic Tank with Pump ❑ Community
System ❑ Connected to City/County System ❑ City/County System available ❑ Straight pipe (wastewater
does not go into a septic or other sewer system [note: use of this type of system violates state law])
❑ Other (Check all that apply)................................................................................ ❑
17. If the dwelling is serviced by a septic system, do you know how many bedrooms are allowed by the septic
system permit? ❑ ❑ ❑
If your answer is "yes," how many bedrooms me allowed? ❑ No records available
18. Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with the dwellings sewer and/or septic system? ........................... ❑ ❑ ❑
19. Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with the dwelling's central vacuum, pool, hot rub, spa, attic fan,
exhaust fan, ceiling fans, sump pump, irrigation system,IV cable wiring or satellite dish, garage door openers,
gaslogs, or other systems?............................................................................................................................." ❑ ❑ ❑
20. Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with any appliances that may be included in the conveyance
(range/oven, attached microwave, hood/fan, dishwasher, disposal, etc.)?.......................................................... ❑ ❑ ❑
Buyer Initials and Date
Buyer Initials and Date
REC 4.22
REV 7/IS
Owner Initials and Date
Owner Initials and Date
Pagc 2 of 4

No
'= N9 Riamca m.
21. Is there any problem with present infestation of the dwelling, or damage from past infestation of wood
destroying insects or organisms which has not been repaired?..........................................................................
❑ ❑ ❑
22. Is there any problem, malfunction or defect with the drainage, grading or soil stability of the property?..........
❑ ❑ ❑
23. Are there any structural additions or other structural or mechanical changes to the dwelling(s) to be conveyed
withthe property?...........................................................................................................................................
❑ ❑ ❑
24. Is the property to be conveyed in violation of any local zoning ordinances, restrictive covenants, or other land -
use restrictions, or building codes (including the failure to obtain proper permits for room additions or other
changes/improvements)?.................................................................................................................................
❑ ❑ ❑
25, Are there any hazardous or toxic substances, materials, or products (such as asbestos, formaldehyde, radon
gas, methane gas, lead -based paint) which exceed government safety standards, any debris (whether buried or
covered) or underground storage tanks, or any environmentally hazardous conditions (such as contaminated
soil or water, or other environmental contamination) which affect the property? .............................................
❑ ❑ ❑
26. Is there any noise, odor, smoke, etc. from commercial, industrial, or military sources which affects the property?
❑ ❑ ❑
27. Is the property subject to any utility or other easements, shared driveways, party walls or encroachments from
oron adjacent property?..................................................................................................................................
❑ ❑ ❑
28. Is the property the subject of any lawsuits, foreclosures, bankruptcy, leases or rental agreements, judgments, tax
liens, proposed assessments, mechanics' liens, marerialmens' liens, or notices from any governmental agency that
could affect title to the property?...........................................................................................................................
❑ ❑ ❑
29. Is the property subject to a flood hazard or is the property located in a federally -designated flood hazard area?
❑ ❑ ❑
30. Does the property abut or adjoin any private road(s) or street(s)?....................................................................
❑ ❑ ❑
31. If there is a private road or street adjoining die property, is them in existence any owners' association or maintenance
dealing
❑ ❑ ❑
agreements with the maintenance of the road or street?..................................................................................
If you answered' yes" to any of the questions listed above (1-31) please explain (attach additional sheets if necessary):
In lieu of providing a written explanation, you may attach a written report to this Disclosure Statement by a public agency, or by an
attorney, engineer, land surveyor, eologist, pest control operator, contractor, home inspector, or other expert, dealing with matters within
the scope of that public agency's functions or the expert's license or expertise.
The following questions pertain to the property identified above, including the lot to be conveyed and any dwelling unit(s), sheds,
detached garages, or other buildings located thereon.
32. Is the property subject to governing documents which impose various mandatory covenants, conditions, and
No
1'" NQ Rcpreea.tian
restrictions upon tZe lot or unit?.....................................................................................................................
❑ ❑ ❑
If you answered "yes" to the question above, please explain (attach additional sheets if necessary):
33. Is the property subject to regulation by one or more owners' association(s) including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑
obligations to pay regular assessments or dues and special assessments? If you answer is "yes," please provide
the information requested below as to each owners' association to which the property is subject [insert N/A
into any blank that does not apply]:
• (specify name) whose regular assessments
("dues") are $ per . The name, address and telephone number of the president
of the owners' association or the association manager are — -_
• (specify name) whose regular assessments
("dues") are $ per _ —. The name, address and telephone number of the president
of the owners' association or the association manager are
Buyer Initials and Date
Buyer Initials and Date
Owner Initials and Date
Owner Initials and Date _.
RFC 4.22 Page 3 oF4
REV 7/Ia

*If you answered "Yes" to question 33 above, you must complete the remainder of this Disclosure Statement. If you answered`
"No" or "No Representation" to question 33 above, you do not need to answer the remaining questions on this Disclosure
Statement. Skip to the bottom of the last page and initial and date the page.
% Na _ftmentation
34. Are any fees charged by the association or by the association's management company in connection with the n O n
conveyance or transfer of the lot or property to a new owner? If your answer is "yes," please state the amount
of the fees: _
35. As of the date this Disclosure Statement is signed, are there any dues, fees, or special assessments which have ❑ ❑
been duly approved as required by the applicable declaration or bylaws, and that are payable to an association
to which the lot is subject? If your answer is "yes," please state the nature and amount of the dues, fees, or
special assessments to which the property is subject:
36. As of the date this Disclosure Statement is signed, are there any unsatisfied judgments against, or pending f7 CI n
lawsuits involving the property or lot to be conveyed? If your answer is "yes," please state the nature of each
pending lawsuit, and the amount of each unsatisfied judgment:
37. As of the date this Disclosure Statement is signed, are there any unsatisfied judgments against, or pending n ❑ D
lawsuits involving the planned community or the association to which the property and lot are subject, with the
exception of any action filed by the association for the collection of delinquent assessments on lots other
than the property and lot to be conveyed? If your answer is "yes," please state the nature of each pending
lawsuit, and the amount of each unsatisfied judgment:
38. Which of the following services and amenities are paid for by the owners' association(s) identified above
out of the association's regular assessments ("dues")? (Check all that apply).
AS
Na RcRicw�ntation
ManagementFees..........................................................................................................................................
❑
❑
Fi-
Exterior Building Maintenance of Property to be Conveyed..........................................................................
U
D
❑
MasterInsurance...........................................................................................................................................
O
❑
O
Exterior Yard/Landscaping Maintenance of Lot to be Conveyed....................................................................
❑
❑
Li
CommonAreas Maintenance........................................................................................................................
O
❑
❑
TrashRemoval...............................................................................................................................................
❑
❑
D
Recreational Amenity Maintenance (specify amenities covered)
n
n
n
PestTreatment/Extermination.......................................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
StreetLights..................................................................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
Water.............................................................................................................................................................
❑
D
❑
Sewer............................................................................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
Storm water Management/Drainage/Ponds...................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
InternetService.............................................................................................................................................
❑
O
❑
Cable.............................................................................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
PrivateRoad Maintenance.............................................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
ParkingArea Maintenance.............................................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
Gateand/or Security.....................................................................................................................................
❑
❑
❑
Other. (specify)
Buyer Initials and Date Owner Initials and Date
Buyer Initials and DateOwner Initials and Date
1; EC 4.22 Page 4 of 4
REV 7/ 18

re
Vft
tj
t i
4'Lu
..
N
ti

; --A.

An Activity of the W.E. Upjohn Unemployment Trustee Corporation
WE. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
300 South Westnedge Avenue # Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007-4686 • U.S.A.
Telephone [phone] # FAX [phone]
An Assessment of the Economic Impact of the Proposed Stoneco Gravel Mine
Operation on Richland Township
George A. Erickcek
Senior Regional Analyst
W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research
Executive Summary/Introduction
This report, which was completed at the request of the Richland Township Planning
Commission, provides an estimation of the economic impact of the proposed Stoneco
Gravel Mine Operation on Richland Township.' The following impacts are assessed in
this study:
1. The potential impact on residential property values in Richland Township.
2. The potential employment impact of the proposed gravel mine on the area's
economy.
In addition, we carefully reviewed the economic impact reports provided by Stoneco for
consideration.
In the preparation of this impact analysis we used nationally -recognized modeling
techniques that are the standard for academic research.
We estimate that the proposed gravel mine will have a significant negative impact on
housing values in Richland Township. Once in full operation, the gravel mine will
reduce residential property values in Richland and Richland Township by $31.5 million
dollars, adversely impacting the values of over 1,400 homes, which represent over 60
percent of the Richland residences.
In addition, the mining operation will have an insignificant impact on area employment
and personal income. At most, we estimate that only 2 additional jobs will be created in
Kalamazoo County due to the mining operation. The mining operation serves the local
market, and analysis based on the Institute's econometric regional model for the
Kalamazoo region shows that it will bring in an insignificant amount of new income into
the area's economy, $58,000. Although the mine will employ an estimated 5 to 10
workers and require drivers to haul an estimated 115 to 120 truck loads of gravel per day,
' The report was completed without charge as part of the W.E. Upjohn Institute's community service
commitment The Institute has prepared requested reports and analyses for the City of Kalamazoo, theCity
of Hastings, the City of Battle Creek, the City of Grand Rapids as well as other local governmental units
and school districts.

. z ty'
most all of these jobs would simply "displace" any employment growth in the couns
15 existing gravel pits.
Stoneco has not established a need for new aggregate capacity. Kalamazoo County is
currently serviced by 15 gravel operations, and in recent years, employment in the county
has been shrinking and the population has been stagnant. Consequently, there is no
prima facie case that new capacity is needed. To definitively determine whether such a
need exists, we would need to have information on projected demand for aggregated
material in the county and capacity of the gravel pits currently servicing the county.
Finally, a careful evaluation of the five impact studies presented by the Stoneco finds that
their methodologies are seriously flawed, and thus conclusions drawn from the analyses
are invalid.
Qualifications
The W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research is an internationally -recognized
independent, non-profit economic research organization established in 1945 for the sole
purpose of conducting research into the causes and effects of unemployment and
measures for the alleviation of unemployment. The Institute currently has a staff of 60
including 10 senior -level economists, and its research agenda includes issues on the
international, national, state, and local levels.
For the past 20 years the W.E. Upjohn Institute has maintained a strong research focus on
west Michigan which includes
o The publication of its quarterly economic report: Business Outlookfor Nest
Michigan.
o The preparation of short- and long-term employment forecasts for all of the
metropolitan areas in west Michigan including Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Grand
Rapids, Muskegon, and Holland.
o The completion of numerous economic impact reports and economic development
strategies for communities in Michigan.
George Erickcek, the Institute's Senior Regional Analyst, was the lead researcher for this
study. He received his Masters of Economics at the University of Pittsburgh and has
been with the Institute since 1987. George has prepared numerous economic impact,
benchmarking, and forecasting studies for the west Michigan region, and has conducted
research on the national and international level.
3

Methodological Approach to Estimating the Impact on Housing Values of the '
Proposed Gravel Mine
Many factors influence housing prices. These include, of course, the characteristics of
the house or dwelling unit, such as size, age, lot size, number of bedrooms and
bathrooms, as well as its upkeep. In addition, the house's proximity to amenities such as
a lake or pleasing neighborhood or "disamenities" (e.g. landfills, pollution sites) can have
a substantial impact on its price.2
Economists have found that "hedonic pricing models" are extremely useful in isolating
the contribution of specific factors on the price of housing, as well as other goods. First
developed by University of Chicago economist Sherwin Rosen in 1974, hedonic pricing
models use a statistical regression technique that allows the researcher to estimate the
impact of one factor, e.g. the proximity of a neighborhood park, on the value of a house
while holding all of the other factors impacting the house's value constant. There is an
extensive literature applying hedonic pricing models to study the effects of environmental
disamenities on residential property values. These studies generally show that proximity
to landfills, hazardous waste sites, and the like has a significant negative effect on the
price of a residential property3
Professor Diane Hite, an economist who has published widely in the area of property
value impact analysis, has recently applied hedonic pricing methodology to study the
effects of a gravel mine on nearby residential values. This appears to be the only
rigorous study to date of gravel mine impacts on property values Her study is based on
detailed data from Delaware County, Ohio that were collected by the Ohio State
University for the purposes of studying land use planning.
Hite examines the effects of distance from a 250-acre gravel mine on the sale price of
2,552 residential properties from 1996 to 1998. Her model controls for a large set of
other factors that determine a house's sale price, including number of rooms, number of
bathrooms, square footage, lot size, age of home, sale date, and other factors specific to
the locality, so that she can focus solely on the effect of proximity to the gravel mine on
house values. She finds a large, statistically significant effect of distance from a gravel
mine on home sale price: controlling for other determinants of residential value,
proximity to a gravel mine reduces sale price. Specifically, Hite reports that the elasticity
of house price with respect to distance from a gravel mine is .097, implying that a 10
percent increase in distance from the gravel mine is associated with slightly less than a 1
percent increase in home value, all else the same (Appendix A).$ Conversely, the closer
the house to the proximity to the mine, the greater the loss in house value.
'` In a recent study of the impact of housing programs in the City of Kalamazoo, we found that moving a
house from one neighborhood to another can add or subtract as much as $20,000 from its value.
3 For reviews of some of this literature, see Arthur C. Nelson, John Genereux, and 11+iichelle Genereux,
"Price Effects of Landfills on House Values," Land Economics, 1992 68(4): 359-365 and Diane Hite, Wen
Chem, Fred Hitzhusen, and Alan Randall, "Property -Value Impacts of an Environmental Disamenity: The
Case of Landfills," The Journal of Real &late I%inance and Economics Z, no. 2/3 (2001): 185-202
Diane Hite, 2006. "Summary Analysis: Impact of Operational Gravel Pit on House Values, Delaware
County, Ohio," Auburn University.
S This estimate is based on a constant elasticity model specification. At the Upjohn Institute's request,
Professor Hite tested the sensitivity of these findings to model specification, and in all specifications finds a
large, statistically significant negative effect of proximity to gravel pit on house prices. The simulations for
Richland Township reported below are based on the estimates from the constant elasticity specification and
yield slightly lower estimated negative property value impacts than those based on models using other
functional forms. We consider this number to be a conservative estimate.
4

Figure I displays the estimated effects of distance from the gravel pit on house price. A
residential property located a half mile from die gravel mine would experience an
estimated 20 percent reduction in value; one mile from the mine, a 14.5 percent
reduction; 2 miles from the mine, an 8.9 percent reduction; and 3 miles from the mine, a
4.9 percent reduction. These estimates are similar to estimates published in academic
journals on the effects of landfills on nearby property values.
Figure 1: Impact of Gravel Pit on Residential
Property Values:
(Percent Reduction by Distance from Mine)
35 - - - - - ---- ---. -
30 --- -- —
c
0
B 25
o
m
c
20
m
u
a 15
10 - --
5 ------.-�. 1
0-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Distance from Mine (in miles)
The loss in property value results from the negative consequences of the mining
operation and reflects the deterioration in the area's quality of life due solely to the
operation of the gravel mine. in other words, the loss in house value is a way to quantify
in dollars the deterioration in quality of life, as capitalized in the price of the house. It
captures the price reduction the homeowner would have to offer to induce a new buyer to
purchase the property. Even if homeowners do not move as a result of the gravel mine,
they will lose homeowner equity as the potential sale price of their house is less 6
Therefore, regardless of whether or not a person actually sells their property, it measures
° Only those owning property at the time of the establishment of the gravel mine would experience a loss in
equity. Those purchasing property near an established mine would not experience an equity loss because
any negative effects from the mine's operation would have been incorporated into the purchase price. By
implication, few property owners near long-established mines could, claim loss of property value from the
mine because few would have owned the properties at the time the mine went into operation.

the adverse effects in their quality of life in being subjected to the disamenities
introduced into the area by the gravel mine.
The policy implications of Hite's study are clear: because property value losses are
higher the closer to the gravel mine, all else the same, new sites should be located far
from existing residences so as to minimize adverse consequences for homeowners.
Simulation of Gravel Mine on Residential Property Values in Richland
Utilizing the estimates from the Hite study and data on 2006 assessed values provided by
Richland Township, the Upjohn Institute simulated the effects of the proposed gravel
mine on residential property values in Richland Village and Richland Township. Our
analysis is based on 2005 assessed values of single-family homes in Richland Township
and Richland Village obtained from the Township's assessor office in June and July. In
total 2,319 single-family homes, 98.7 percent of all single-family residences in the
township and village, were geo-coded using the ArcViewC mapping program, manually
matched using YahooC maps and, finally, through drive -by inspection of addresses.
Once all of the homes were mapped, the distance between each of the residences and the
closest boundary of proposal Stoneco gravel mine was determined.
As shown in Table 1, more than 1,400 homes will be negatively impacted by the
proposed gravel mine with the total cost reaching $31.5 million dollars.
Table 9
Estimated Impact on Housing Values of the Proposed Stoneco Gravel Mine
Distance (miles
Number of
Distance (miles
Number of
from Stoneco
Houses
Estimated Loss in
from Stoneco
Houses
Estimated Loss in
Site)
Affected
Value
Site) 1
Affected
Value
0.1
2
$211,703
1.6
73
$1,207, 011
0.2
3
$106,428
1.7
128
$2,500.456
0.3
2
$134,894
1.8
99
$1.630,149
0.4
9
$522,981
1.9
70
$1,146,761
0.5
3
$389,319
2
34
$633,720
0.6
8
$598, 518
2.1
105
$952, 068
0.7
24
$831,338
2.2
98
$1,311,040
0.8
25
$798,108
2.3
99
$2,843,845
0.9
27
$1,085,190
2.4
72
$2,699,584
1
22
$918.374
2.5
34
$912,133
1.1
75
$2,428,602
2.6
12
$377,548
1.2
62
$1,688,031
2.7
23
$373,873
1.3
45
$1,146,920
2.8
80
$939,861
1.4
32
$824,928
2.9
55
$944,061
1.5
30
$712,731
3
70
$655,846
Total
1,421
$31,526,020
rol

While Hite's original study covered a 5-mile radius from the gravel mine in Ohio, we
chose to examine only a 3-mile area from the boundaries of the proposed Stoneco site.'
Only properties located in Richland and Richland Township are included. Property
values in other townships, notably Prairieville Township, also could be adversely affected
by the location of a gravel mine near its border with Richland Township but were not
included in the study. In addition, the analysis does not consider possible effects on
commercial property. Our estimates do not factor in the likely negative impact on
property values along the truck routes used for the mine. Finally, although Stoneco has
proposed to reclaim some of the land for a lake and residential development, its proposed
timeframe for this development would occur too far into the future to mitigate adverse
property value impacts for current Richland area residents.
Employment and Personal Income Impact
Stoneco estimates that 5 to 10 permanent jobs will be created at the proposed mine. In
addition, truck drivers will be required for the 115 to 120 truck loads of gravel that will
be hauled from the mine daily.
To measure the potential employment and income impact of the gravel mine, we used the
Institute's econometric regional model of the Kalamazoo area.$ Because of its weight
and low -value, gravel is hauled for only short distances. It is not a part of the area's
economic base that brings new monies into the area. Therefore, it is an activity that does
not generate any significant new income or employment opportunities. We estimate that
only 2 additional new jobs will be created in Kalamazoo County due to the gravel mine
and personal income in the county will increase by only $58,000. In short, the jobs
created at the gravel mine will displace jobs elsewhere in Kalamazoo County or the
immediate region. The proposed mine would not result in any significant net benefit to
the area from job or income creation.
Need for the Proposed Aline
Adverse economic effects of the proposed gravel mine to the Richland community must
be balanced against the county's broader needs for aggregate material for road
construction. Currently, 15 gravel mines operate in Kalamazoo County according to the
Kalamazoo County Planning Department (Table 2). Stoneco's application materials do
not provide any evidence for the need for additional capacity. Statistics were cited on
projected needs, but no evidence was presented as to whether existing capacity could
cover anticipated needs.
The need for additional capacity of gravel production is not supported by current and
projected population or employment trends in Kalamazoo County. Population growth in
Kalamazoo County has been modest during the past five years, and well below the
national rate. From 2000 to 2005, population in the county increased annually at a rate of
HHtte's statistical analysis intentionally includes homes at a distance deemed unaffected by the gravel
operation. Our choice to study the impacts up to 3 miles is based on Nelson, et al. (1992) and the fact that
estimated impacts for individual homeowners are still relatively large out to three miles in all of Hite's
models.
6 The Upjohn Institute maintains a regional economic impact and forecasting model for the Kalamazoo
metropolitan area which was built by Regional Economic Models Incorporated (REMI) especially for the
Upjohn Institute. The REMI modeling approach, which incorporates an input-output model with a
forecasting model and a relative cost of production model, has been repeatedly reviewed and upheld as the
industry standard.
7

below 0.2 percent, compared to 0.9 percent nationwide. An analysis of the individual
components of population change --births, deaths., net migration ---shows that individuals
and households, on net, are leaving the county. From 2000 to 2005, the Bounty's
population increased by 6,342 individuals due to number of births surpassing the number
of deaths. However, on net, 4,150 individuals moved out of the county.'0
Table 2
Owner Name
Site Address
I Site Township
Aggregate Industries
C Ave. Near 6th St
Alamo
Art Austin
6287 K Avenue
Comstock
Triple B Aggregates
2702 Ravine Rd_
Kalamazoo
Thompson McCully Co
3800 Ravine Rd.
Kalamazoo
Byholt, Inc.
1600 Sprinkle Rd.
Brady
Byholt, Inc.
4th St
Prairie Ronde
Fulton Brothers Gravel
4th St
Prairie Ronde
Balkema Excavating
8964 Paw Paw Lk.
Prairie Ronde
Balkema Excavating
6681 E. K Ave
Comstock
Balkema Excavating
4274 Ravine Rd
Kalamazoo
Balkema Excavating
40th St. & 1-94
Charleston
Balkema Excavating
14500 E. Michigan
Charleston
Balkema Excavating
15600 E. Michigan
Charleston
Consumer Concrete
10328 East M-89
Richland
Consumer Concrete
700 Nazareth Rd
Kalamazoo
%JUU".W. M010111=uu 1-.uunty manning uepartmentjuly zum
During the same time period, employment declined by 3.4 percent, a loss of5,000 jobs.
The Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth estimates that from 2002 to
2012, total employment in Kalamazoo and St. Joseph counties will increase at a rate of
0.8 percent --substantially below the 1.3 percent rate of growth projected for the nation as
a whole. If this rate of employment growth holds true for the future, it will be not until
2010 that the county will reach its 2000 employment level.
Thus, economic projections do not, in and of themselves, indicate a need for expanded
aggregate capacity. However, we emphasize that any definitive determination of need
would require information on the capacity and life expectancy of existing area gravel pits,
to which the Institute does not have access.''
Review of Stoneco's Property Value Impact Analysis
The Environmental Study submitted by Stoneco in connection with its special use permit
application concludes that gravel mining operations have no adverse impact on the value
of nearby properties. This conclusion is based on five reports included in Appendix J of
Stoneco's Environment Study:
9 U.S. Census Bureau.
10 U.S. Census Bureau. Furthermore, internal Revenue Service (IRS) data from 2000 to 2004 shows that
the majority of individuals leaving the county are moving outside the greater Kalamazoo region.
11 Note that whether there is a public need for additional capacity and whether it is in Stoneco's interest to
develop a new mine are distinctly different issues. Stoneco has indicated that it would reduce its
transportation costs by operating at the proposed Richland location. The degree to which any lower
transportation costs translate into lower prices of aggregate material —and hence broadly benefit the
public —versus increased company profits will depend on the competitive structure of the industry in this
region.
8

1. "Impacts of Aggregate Mine Operations: Perception or Reality?" Anthony Bauer,
2001.12
2. "Social, Economic, and Legal Consequences of Blasting in Strip Mines and
Quarries," Bureau of Mines, 1981.
3. "Impact of Rock Quarry Operations on Value ofNearby Housing," Joseph
Rabianski and Neil Cam, 1987.
4. "Impacts of Rock Quarries on Residential Property Values, Jefferson County,
Colorado," Banks and Gesso, 1998.
5. "Proposed Fuquay-Varina Quarry: Analysis of Effect on Real Estate Values,"
Shlaes & Co., 1998.
These reports, in fact, fail to show that mining operations have no adverse impact on
property values. None uses the standard methodology (the hedonic pricing model,
described above) for evaluating property value impacts. Four of the five reports are
based on flawed logic (as explained below) and hence cannot be used to draw any
conclusions about property value effects. Only one report, commissioned by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines, used a defensible methodology, although this report also suffers from
serious limitations. Notably, this study found some evidence of adverse impacts of
gravel mining operations on property values in six out of the seven sites examined.
The Bauer, Rabianski and Cam, Banks and Gesso, and Shlaes & Co. reports rely on one
or both of the following types of observations to argue that gravel mining operations have
minimal adverse impact on nearby property values:
Over time, housing and commercial developments have moved closer to and
sometimes adjacent to aggregate mine operations.
For property values in the vicinity of mining operations that have existed for
many decades, the rate of growth in property values does not increase with
distance from the mining site.
In neither case do such observations have any bearing on the impact of aggregate mine
operations on nearby property values.
1. Residential and commercial developments have located closer to and sometimes
adjacent to mines over time.
Economic or real estate analysis does not predict that properties near mines have no
value or no development potential. Rather, one would expect that nearby property
values would be Iower to compensate for any costs (e.g. noise, pollution, unsightly
landscapes, and traffic congestion) associated with the mine. This reflects the
common sense observation that property that is near sources of noise, pollution,
traffic congestion, and blight will (all other things being equal) be less valuable. Of
course, these lower property values, in turn, will help lure development, especially
'213auer (2001) is a two -page statement that in large part summarizes the results of a 1984 study by a
Michigan State University student.

The Environmental Impacts of Aggregate Extraction
Creating the pits or quarries requires the removal of virtually all
natural vegetation, top soil and subsoil to reach the aggregate
underneath. Not only does this lead to a loss of existing animal
wildlife, it also leads to a huge loss of biodiversity as plants and
aquatic habitats are destroyed. Moreover, adjacent eco-systems
are affected by noise, dust, pollution and contaminated water.
Pits and quarries disrupt the existing movement of surface water and
groundwater, they interrupt natural water recharge and can lead to
reduced quantity and quality of drinking water for residents and
wildlife near or downstream from a quarry site.
potential environmental impacts are "potential impairment of
water quality on the site, including harm to the aquifer"/ "The water
quality of residential wells close by could be harmed"/ "Potential
harm to on -site and off -site wetlands
htti2s://www.torontoenvironment.ora/aravel/impacts impacts

A quote from MIT:
"Open pit mining, where material is excavated from an open pit... is
particularly damaging to the environment... Environmental hazards
are present during every step of the open -pit mining process.
Hardrock mining exposes rock that has lain unexposed for
geological eras. When crushed, these rocks expose radioactive
elements, asbestos -like minerals, and metallic dust. During
separation, residual rock slurries, which are mixtures of pulverized
rock and liquid, are produced as tailings, toxic and radioactive
elements from these liquids can leak into bedrock if not properly
contained."
"Most modern mining techniques have high water demands for
extraction, processing, and waste disposal. Wastewater from these
processes can pollute water sources nearby and deplete freshwater
supplies in the region surrounding the mine."
https://web.mit.edu/I 2.000/www 01 6/finalwebsite/groblems/mini
n .html

"Quarry blasting, crushing, and hauling operations emit high levels
of carcinogenic particulate matter. Visible dust (larger particles) is
also created by movement of front-end loaders, mining trucks,
transfer conveyors, excavators, bulldozers, and utility vehicles.
Over 80 formal complaints have been filed against Vulcan in Texas
alone. And over 35 violations occurred at a single Vulcan Materials
plant
Daily emissions of diesel exhaust from plant equipment and hundreds
of gravel trucks generate nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) .
The proposed quarry and the additional truck traffic would
significantly impact regional air quality, even beyond a five -mile
radius of the quarry site."
https://www.StOP3009vulcanguarry.com/impacts/carcinogenic -
dust

DANIEL F. READ
Attorney at Law, State Bar No. 11172
P.O. Box 25370
Durham, North Carolina 27702
919-683-1900
Fax:[phone]
E-mail: readlaw(a aol.com
November 12, 2019
Judy Wehner
Assistant State Mining Specialist
Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1612
SUBJECT: Sunrock quarry, Caswell County
Dear Ms. Wehner,
RECEIVED
NOV 14 2019
LAND QUALIFY
MINING PROGRAM
I recently learned of the proposal to permit an asphalt quarry in Caswell County. I write to
oppose this application and ask you to reject it. Extractive mining near drinking water sources is
as you know highly likely to pollute water people rely upon and any such proposal should be very
strictly reviewed to ensure that surface and underground water supplies will not be jeopardized.
Three drinking water streams cross this property. That is not acceptable.
My grandson was just born in April and lives near us here in Durham. We are well within the
range for particulate emissions from the plant and this quarry would be something he would have
to grow up with and probably be exposed to.
Looking at the bigger picture, the purpose of building new asphalt plants is to build and pave
more roads. With the climate crisis building on us (and my grandchildren even more so) public
policy should be supporting fewer road projects and more shared and public transportation and
emphasizing drinking water protection. We have already lived through periods of water scarcity
here in centraLliorth Carolina and as temperatures build it will probably only get worse.
to reject this application. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to
Daniel F` Read
Attorney at Law

Comments - State Mining Permit Hearing, 4 Nov 2019
I appreciate you providing me this opportunity to speak
Introduction, My Name - Homes - Wells (Ref "A")
My name is Dale Kemper and I own homes at 28 Henry Daniels Road and 802
Russell Loop Road, Prospect Hill, Caswell Count, NC 27314. Both homes depend
upon existing water wells to supply potable water to me and my family. The well
(` Z,- ivh hii y --I Jrnare ; o F:g c') at 28 Henry Daniels Road is
approximately 28-years old and was drilled to 165 feet. The well (#12) at 802
Russell Loop Road was drilled to a depth of 220 feet in 2017 and placed in service
2018. These depths take the wells to about.36Y0 feet above mean sea level.
6(06
My primary concerns are:
Blasting - Destroy Wells: - Reason 2 for denying permit (Ref "E")
• Blasting will destroy these wells. Sunrock reports they plan to excavate
to a depth of about 500 feet (close to mean sea level). When the granite
rock is fractured I fear water will be drained from the very source we
depend upon. Demo with cup.
Blasting - Destroy Homes: - Reason 4 & 6 for denying permit (Ref "B,E,D")
• Blasting will destroy our quite enjoyment of the property where we live.
Such was the case as reported by CBS news in January 2018, concerning an
equivalent Sunrock quarry in Person County and its damage to a brick home
of similar age as mine plus excessive airborne dust.
Blasting - Destroy Roads: - Reason 4 for denying permit
o The traffic that will result with multi-axel 18-ton dump trucks running
and turning on Caswell County roads That will create dust, road damage and
other adverse impacts to the citizens of this county.
Blasting - Destroy Wildlife: - Reason 2 for denying permit (Ref "E")
The Beaver Falls Conservation Area starts in the very property they are
planning to mine and crosses across the southern edge of my property. It
will adversely affect the wildlife residents in the Beaver Falls Conservation
Area. This area was established 30-years ago by adjoining property owners
to specifically protect beavers and other wild life

Bidsting - Destroy Freshwater: - Reason 2 for denying permit (Ref "E")
Creeks running through the area feed into Lake Roxboro and we can
expect dust from blasting to settle in the watershed that feeds that
lake, a Class II drinking water system for the city of Roxboro.
Loss of Farm & Timber Land: - Not one of the 7 Reasons (Ref "E")
• I have been reading reports about how fast the we are losing farm and
timber land to commercial and industrial development. This proposed
quarry will take another 600 acres of farm/timber land into industrial
use. North Carolina is a great state for both farming and timber. There
are millions of acres available in the western states for mining.
The incompleteness of the environmental impact study is apparent to
me, a novice with such studies. I am convinced that no company can
meet environmental requirements of the proposed location.
Please deny the permit for this quarry, hot asphalt mix plant, and concrete
plant.
Judy Wehner,
Asst. State Mining Specialist
Email: [e-mail]
DEMLR Mining Section
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

7
5=
0
z
o�
0
V�
o �
'At
°I
,6
' o `
2% r
8 $ \
t\:r
m.m.m...m..
mvm::u`wG.-.Ca;•wSe/.1JA! �.
s
' ms¢.vvac r esecececcecsamsesev � �
_ . o
5 a 5 _ ¢
_' C
KS -: �gS �:• _ .es. a 5�
a SIM

RECEIVED
November 4, 2019 NOV 08 7019
LAND QUALITY
My name is Sherby Mahaley MINING PROGRAM
My address is 989 Carver Road, Prospect, Hill NC
I don't want this. It will affect my well and the houseing too. Anybody knows that the blasting
will affect the house and who wants the house to fall to pieces. It is right behind of us. I didn't
know they dug wells. I Rnow have brown water. My water was clear and pretty looking before.
I have heart trouble, COPD and I am on oxygen.
A k- 4x,, �j / � 0- t

ROXBORO, N.C. (WNCN) — Neighbors living near a rock
quarry north of Roxboro told Person County commissioners
Monday night they're concerned about the impacts it's having
on their homes and health.
"Some of my foundation has cracked," said Joyce Lever, who
lives near the entrance to Carolina Sunrock's Woodsdale
Quarry. "You'll be in the house laughing and talking and all of
a sudden `boom!' You'd think you just had an earthquake."
Lever's cousin, Terry Rogers, took out a full -page
advertisement in the Courier -Times Saturday, which calls for
an end to the asphalt production at the site as well.
Neighbors have also started a petition on change.org.
"We can't come outside because of the dust that's being
emitted onto our properties, covering our cars, our yard,
furniture," said Rogers. "We just want to make sure that
Sunrock does the things that they were permitted to do."
CBS North Carolina reached out to an attorney for Sunrock
Group for comment but did not receive a reply.

1012412019
c
Neighbors concerned about activities at Person County rock quarry
BREAKING NEWS / Former roommate charged after remains found believed to be Nash
County woman missing since 2004
NEWS
Neighbors concerned about activities at Person County rock
quarry
Neighbors concerned about activities at Person Coui_iiy
rock quarry
1 minute left
by: Rodney Overton
Posted: Jan 8, 2018 / 10:37 PM EST / Updated: Jan 8, 2018 / 10:37 PM EST
ROXBORO, N.C. (WNCN) - Neighbors living near a rock quarry north of
Roxboro told Person County commissioners Monday night they're
concerned about the impacts it's having on their homes and health.
file:///C:/Users/kempe_000/Desktop/Neighbors concerned about activities at Person County rock quarry.html 1/8

10/24/2019
Neighbors concerned about activities at Person County rock quarry
laughing and talking and all of a sudden `boom!' You'd think you just had an
earthquake."
Lever's cousin, Terry Rogers, took out a full -page advertisement in the
Courier -Times Saturday, which calls for an end to the asphalt production at
the site as well.
Neighbors have also started a petition on change.org.
"We can't come outside because of the dust that's being emitted onto our
properties, covering our cars, our yard, furniture," said Rogers. "We just
want to make sure that Sunrock does the things that they were permitted
to do:'
CBS North Carolina reached out to an attorney for Sunrock Group for
comment but did not receive a reply.
The county first issued a permit to the company in 2006, which was later
modified.
Person County attorney C. Ronald Aycock said county staff did not deem
the changes to be substantial enough to warrant further approval by county
commissioners.
That notion is the subject of an ongoing legal dispute. A Superior Court
judge recently ruled the local Board of Adjustment needs to rehear the case
involving Sunrock.
Rogers said the quarry's operations have moved closer to his cousin's home,
which he says is a substantial change.
f le:///CIUsers/kernpe_000/Desktop/Neighbors concerned about activities at Person County rock quarry.html 2/8

u
Cwww.pensoncountylife.com Saturday, December 29, 2018 The Courier -Times, Roxboro, N.C. PAGE 3A
FIRE
Continued from Page One
can't do anything to pin-
pointacause. Thefloor
is gone in a lot of places
and it's too dangerous to
run the risk of trying to
go in there and have one
of those clu mrey'sfail on
someone and them,•'
lbrain said
TheRcxborofire
departmentsendfrve
bucks, including their
ladder tract, and 28 fire-
fighters to the scene.
Offering support
But the fire depart-
mentwasn'tfmished
once the flames were
doused.
CHANGES
Continued from Page One
County to hire each
other's wives inaneffort
to get around state ethics
rules which prohibited
themfromhiringtheir
own wives to work in
theiroffices.
On Monday, June 18,
thejury found the former
DA gully on five of the
seven charges against
him.
ThatTuesdairmotvhng
Judge Paul Ridgeway
sentenced Bradsher to
servebetweenfourand
14monthsin janl He has
since completed that
sentence.
The begor ingofthe
yearbegan with a dispu
between the owners of
a quarry In northern
Person Countyand its
neighbors.
At a county com-
missioners meeting, 20
Woodsdale community
members packed the
meeting with complaints
about noise, pollution and
dust ausedbyCarolina
Sunmck.
The company officials
say they have followed the
regulationsandmetthe
requirements
Commissioners
calmed that it was out of
theirhandsbecausethe
Board of Adjustment is
anindependent body:
A Superior Courtjudge
ruled last spring that the
Board of AOismaent
didnothaveaproper
quonmi when they made
"We got some presents
and wrapped them and
someone dressed as San-
ta Claus. We brought the
family to the fire station
and told them they were
still going to have Chnst-
mas," Totain said.
McKinney said his
children, ages 18,16 and
4,aredealfngwiththe
tragedy m different ways.
Theyhaven'ttakenthe
four-year-0ld to see the
house yet McKinney said
he was amazedby what
hesawthefirefighters
do at the scene on the
night of the fee "rve
neverseenfaefighters
putting out a fire before
Butthey are like a team.
Theyhuddledup,madea
plan and executed it I've
that decision and ordered
the group to review the
matter again. Before the
panel could hear evidence
in the rase, though, the
owners of Tumoral Creek
Farrn dropped their
appeal, clearing the way
forthe Company to begin
In January, thePerson
County hoard Comonis-
sionersvotedmplacea
referendum on the May 8
primaryballot on wheth-
er to raise local sales tax
a quarter cent to support
increased funding for the
oounty's volunteer fire
departments.
If approved, it would
have generated between
=,000 and $820,000.
However,therefere-
dum faced anuphill battle
because two previous
sales tax initiatives had
failed.
There was much oppo-
sition over the sales tax
Thevolumt fire
deport rnents just wanted
additional finds to keep
Operating
Days later, several vol-
unteer fire departments
sentletterstocounty,
leaders threatening to
shutdownifthecounty
didn't provide additional
Handing.
In the spring, county
commissioners were
divided in a 3-2 vote but
deeded to reaffirm their
commitmenttonncreas-
ing VFDfbndingby49
percent while not raising
taxes
This allowed county
leaders to avoid a walkout
never seen such brave
people," McKinney said.
"Ithought Iknew what
brave was. They werejust
the calmest, mostpro-
fessional people. I have a
new respect for firemen."
That respect grew
when the family received
Christmas from the
fire department "She
thought Christmas was
over," McKinney said of
his four-yearald daugh-
ter Zoe'But when she
got to see Santa, she sat
in his lap and hugged
him. Shehas never done
that before and my wife
and I had been talking
about how much we
wished shewould get
over that fear and sit in
hislapforapichire"
byfivevulunfeerf rede-
partments in the county.
At the end of May,
muttyleadersagreedto
give aunty's volunteer
fire departments a 49 per-
cent raise inthe upam-
ingbudgetbuttherewere
some strings attached.
InJune,auntyam-
consioners unanimously
approved a resolution to
adopt the Person County
Fite Protection Service
District and a large crowd
showed up to supportit
Major stoats in 2018
Person Countysaw its
share of wild weather
for 2018from record
temperatures to major
hurricanes that gar-
nered national attention.
In January, Roxboro
experienced a deep
freeze on the heels of a
snowstorm that dumped
an inch and a half of
snow.
According to Johns -
than Blaes at the Nation-
al WeatherServicein
Raleigh, the low tem-
perature recorded at the
Person County airport
was zero degrees and the
Cold spell approached
the longest period of
below -freezing tempera-
tures on record.
In December, Rox-
boro was hit by its first
major snowstorm of the
season It lived up to its
unOfileal name, "Snow
Capital of the Triangle,"
weeps before Christmas.
Residents around the
County reported between
12 and 15 inches of
snowfall.
Toward the end of the
. from school.
SCHOOL anStudents�living within Roxboro Community
Continued from Page One the schools' districts. SchoolManagingNxecu-
have started
nd for the
Those
can be sent to the bank at
313 S. Main St, Roxboro,
NC 27573.
McKinney, who has
lived in Roxboro for
about eight years, said
it's been hard to put
together any long-term
plans in the wake of the
tire, but he said he and
his wifehope they can
rebuild.
"We caritpat a 1901
house back an that site.
butwe hope to rebuild
summer, the remnants
of Hurricane Florence
had a major impact on
Person County. The
storm caused heavy
rains and flooding that
shut down some roads
and strong wind gusts
and intermittent show-
ers that kept many
inside. However, Mother
Nature was not done
with Person County. Res-
idents hunkered down
for Hurricane Michael
which causedmore wind
damage than flooding.
Local elections
Local elections Pmfa-
miliar faces on the county,
board of commissioners
Former commissioner
David Newell and incum-
bentcommissionerKyle
Puryear were elected to
the board
Newellledallcandi-
dates withjust under
7,000 vote.,
Loan for wastewater
treatment plant
In March the Roxboro
cityauncilapprovedthe
terms of a $218 million
loan from the US. Depart-
ment of Apiculture that
allowed the city to mow
forwardwithan upgrade
the the city's wastewater
treatment plant
Months laterthecity
council received approval
fromtheLocalGovern-
ment Commission to take
CONTRIBUTED PHOTO
Firefighters work to extinguish a Christmas
morning blaze that destroyed a home on Academy
Street
in a wry that does honor to us. There really are
to that neighborhood. good people here,"McK
They've all been so kind inney said.
outtheloanandmove
forward with the neces-
sary upgrades to the plant
in order tomeetthenew
state requirements for
the ammonia levels. That
worst is now underway.
Polyvvood chooses
Pelson
Polywood plans to
bring 384 new jobs to
Person County.
This was a mjor win
for Person County's
economic development
efforts.
The outdoor furniture
company plans to invest
$35 million to the project
and state incentives will
provide approximately
$3.3 million to the com-
pany over a period of 12
years. Those jobs will
pay an average salay of
$43,000 a year.
Hospice sale
In January county
commissioners voted to
him a consuitingfum to
explore privatizing the
county's home health and
hospiceservices,
Thevotecameafterthe
commissionersmetina
closedsession.
Toward the end of the
year, commissioners
unanimously approved
the sale of their home
healthandhospice
service They agreed to
accept aVA,000 offer
from Medic idServices
of America That figure
waswellbelotvwhat
consultants had indicated
thecountyoouldearnby
selling the agencies.
Roundabout approved
Residentsjoined school
system officials last
March in expressing their
disapprovalforapro-
posedroamdaboutatthe
intersection of Long Ave-
nueandMorganSheet.
Many were concerned
that it would create haffic
congestion where them
smartly is none
Residents believed that
simplersteps couldbe
have taken to slow drivers
throughthearea.
Roxboro city council
members went back to
the drawing board, but
later adopted a modified
plan that will soon be
under construction.
400-home subdivision
approved in Rmtbmo
Roxboro's city limits
expended significantly
in the summer when two
parcels of land totaling to
2025 acres were annexed
onthesouthendof town
Thewoodedparoels
areattheintersectionof
highway501andBessie
Daniel Road.
Roxboro Partners, LLC
of Hi➢sboroughholds
the option to purchase
thepropertyandplansto
developit

10/24/2019 Rock quarry not a good neighbor - Aggregate Research Intemational If
r. s - �!
�AGGREGATE
anor
RESEARCH.COM
www.aggregateresearch.com - Latest industry news on Aggregates, Asphalt, Cement, Concrete and more.
Rock quarry not a good neighbor
24th March 2004
Rock quarry not a good neighbor BUTNER, NC -- At first you feel the earth
trembling, and then comes the sound of an explosion. Quarry neighbors
say pictures shake on their walls. A war veteran reportedly has had
battlefield flashbacks. And virtually everyone blames the cracks in their
walls and foundation problems on the blasts that routinely shake the
ground. They fear expanding the quarry will only make it worse. Carolina
Sunrock Corp., which employs 145 people in Butner, has filed a special use
permit with the Granville County Planning Department to add 304 acres to
the 251-acre trap rock quarry it owns between B Street and Interstate 85.
But about 4o neighbors opposing the expansion attended a Granville
County Planning Board meeting last week and vowed to fight it, saying
their homes and quality of life are at stake. According to its Web site,
Carolina Sunrock Corp. is a family -owned company that started in western
New York and relocated to Butner in 1985. It also owns a quarry in Kittrell,
in Vance County, and a distribution center near Raleigh -Durham
International Airport that produces asphalt and concrete. The company
probably is Granville's eighth- or ninth -largest employer, said Leon
Turner, the county's economic development director. Last week, the seven -
member Planning Board tabled the petition, asking for more information
about the effects on the environment and a nearby natural gas line, as well
as state and federal mining regulations, senior planner Barry Baker said.
The petition will come back to the planning board for a possible
recommendation April 15, and will likely go before the Granville County
Commissioners in May, Baker said. Nearby residents were notified about
the plan only a couple of weeks before the meeting, said Lavern Marks,
who lives on Gate One Road about a mile from the quarry. Marks said that
nearly every room of her house has a crack in the wall. She has repaired
some of them over and over, she said, but expects them to show up as long
as Sunrock is operating nearby. "I tell you, I got tired of looking at cracks,
so I got some wallpaper so I couldn't see them," Marks said, adding that
https://www.aggregateresearch.com/news/rock-quart'-not-a-good-neighbor/ 1/2

10/24/2019 Rock quarry not a good neighbor • Aggregate Research International
sortie cracks are visible even through the wallpaper. Marks, 72, has lived in
the three -bedroom house since 1977. She said it was built in 1952 using
double -brick walls and footings for each room. It was in fine shape until
the mid-198os, when Sunrock started blasting, she said. Marks blames an
especially powerful blast in July 1985 for cracking the living room wall
completely through to the outside. And continuous blasts caused more
cracks throughout the house, she said. In the mid-i99os, she filed and won
a lawsuit against Sunrock, which paid at least $2,500 for damages to her
house, she said. But Sunrock blames existing soil conditions for the
neighbors' problems, Marks said. And although the blasts haven't been as
powerful as they were in the past, if Sunrock expands, Marks expects they
will become more frequent and powerful. "We just don't think it could be
done without damages," she said. Mike Beal, 41, who lives less than a mile
from the quarry on Riverview Trail, said the cracks began showing up in
his house a couple of years ago. At the time, Sunrock sent out engineers to
measure the blasts with a seismograph, Beal said, but they concluded the
blasts were within legal limits. Meanwhile, the chimney and garage walls of
the 8-year-old house have cracked, he said. If Sunrock were allowed to
expand, Beal said, the new tract would begin where his property line ends.
As it is now, every weekday around 6 a.m., he can hear trucks backing up
and being loaded at the quarry, he said. With the expansion, the trucks
might as well be in his yard, he said. Johnny Balmer, the human resources
director at Sunrock, referred all questions Tuesday to the company's
executive vice president, Ken Randolph. Randolph did not return calls for
comment Tuesday. BY CLAUDIA ASSIS : The Herald -Sun
(Visited 166 times, 1 visits today)
https://www.aggregateresearch.com/newstrock-quarry-not a -good -neighbor/ 2/2

10/24/2019
3. The Environmental Impacts of Aggregate Extraction I Toronto Environmental Alliance
TORONTO
ENVIRONMENTAL
ALLIANCE _
e (I t,
A Greener City for All
Toronto Environmental Alliance
• Camp-4�iSnj�
• News Room
• Action Centre
• About
Home > Gravel > 3. The Environmental Impacts of Aggregate Extraction
3. The Environmental Impacts of Aggregate Extraction
With the exception of those who work in the building trades, the closest most of us ever come to
"virgin" aggregate (that is, aggregate that comes straight from an aggregate mine and has not been
reclaimed from rubble or other debris) is at home building stores. While a bag of stones or gravel
may look fairly benign, the process of getting it to us is anything but benign. Aggregate is mined
from the earth, either dug out of pits or blasted out of quarries. This process has many significant
environmental impacts.
Creating the pits or quarries requires the removal of virtually all natural vegetation, top soil and
subsoil to reach the aggregate underneath. Not only does this lead to a loss of existing animal
wildlife, it also leads to a huge loss of biodiversity as plants and aquatic habitats are destroyed.
Moreover, adjacent eco-systems are affected by noise, dust, pollution and contaminated water.
Pits and quarries disrupt the existing movement of surface water and groundwater; they interrupt
natural water recharge and can lead to reduced quantity and quality of drinking water for residents
and wildlife near or downstream from a quarry site.
Most old pits and quarries are not being properly rehabilitated. As noted in one study "less than half
of the land disturbed for aggregate production between 1992 and 2001 has actually been
rehabilitated." LZ] The province classifies pits and quarries as "interim uses of the land" and requires
100% rehabilitation of pits and quarries. Clearly this requirement is not being met. Destroyed
ecosystems and source water aquifers are irreplaceable. This is not an interim land use. The
hops://www.torontoenvironment.orgigraveVimpacts 1/3

10/24/2019 3. The Environmental Impacts of Aggregate Extraction I Toronto Environmental Alliance
landscape is blotted with destructive pits and
quarries, and species of all kinds endure
permanent negative impacts.
A more detailed picture of the environmental
impact of aggregate mining is outlined in a
2005 legal challenge to the expansion of an
existing quarry in the Niagara Escarpment. The
report focuses on the following potential
environmental impacts: W
• Potential impairment of water quality on
the site, including harm to the aquifer
• The water quality of residential wells close
by could be harmed
• The water level of on -site lakes could be reduced, detrimentally affecting provincially specific
wetlands
• Heightened summer water temperature in an on -site lake could have a detrimental impact on
the
viability of cold water fish in an adjacent stream
Potential harm to on -site and off -site wetlands
• Loss of habitat for the Jefferson Salamander, which is designated as threatened under the
federal Species at Risk Act
• Potential loss and fragmentation of continuous natural environment
Of course, each pit or quarry has unique characteristics and impacts, but every pit or quarry will
degrade the natural environment. For pits or quarries situated on lands designated as ecologically
significant, this degradation has an even greater adverse impact.
For communities, the displacement of water resources is one of the biggest concerns pits and
quarries pose. However, there are many other concerns. Beyond the physical changes to the
landscape, the daily barrage of noise, dust and exhaust produced by hundreds of dump trucks
hauling aggregate can have serious effects on the health of people living nearby.
[1]Winfield, M and A. Taylor. Rebalancing the Load: The need for an aggregates conservation
strategy for Ontario, 2005. The
Pembina Institute, pgs 8-9.
[2] Winfield and Taylor, 2005 pg 10.
[3]Castrilli, J. Application to the Lieutenant Governor in Council regarding Dufferin Aggregates
application to expand their Milton Quarry prepared for Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment
(CONE) and Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources (POWER). 2005.
https://www.torontoenvironment.org/gravelrmpacts 213

10/24/2019 3. The Environmental Impacts of Aggregate Extraction I Toronto Environmental Alliance
(2. Aggregate Use in Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)11n4. Where our "Virgin"
Aggregate Comes From >
Dig Conservation, Not Holes
• 1 Dig Conservation, Not Holes
• 2_Aggregate Use in Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area (GTA),
• 3. The Environmental Impacts of Aggregate Extraction
• 4. Where our "Virgin" Comes From
• 5. The Current Path: More Greenbelt Destruction
• 6. Map: Toronto's Big Pit
• 7. Map: Giant Qua Needed for GTA Demand
• 8. Preserving the Greenbelt by Practicing the 3Rs
• 9. What GTA Municipalities Can Do
• Agpendix: How We Arrived at Our Numbers
Home I Donate I Contact
© 2008 Toronto Environmental Alliance
https://www.tomntoenvironment.org/graveUmpacts 313

Samir Dumpor
Dept. Of Environmental Quality, Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
As a resident of Orange County, I am concerned about the consequences of an active
quarry proposed by The Sunrock Group on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. In its
deliberation of Sunrock's permit application, the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality has a responsibility to provide environmental stewardship for the
health and prosperity of ALL North Carolinians.
Please consider the following factors in reviewing the permit application:
• The proposed quarry is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco Creek and three
tributaries feeding Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir. This
backup drinking water source for the residents of Roxboro has been used since
the end of summer due to low water levels in the main reservoir, City Lake.
• Sunrock is not required to guarantee the potability of well water near the site or
preservation of the watershed.
• There is no review process by which the Sunrock operation could be evaluated
for adherence to clean water standards.
• Unknown impacts of blasting noise, high traffic of heavy trucks on local roads,
and adverse effects of dust and herbacides.
Please deny this permit until an investigation of the full impact of the Sunrock Quarry
can be evaluated with full participation of Caswell residents and concerned citizens.
Susan Ward
Resident of Orange County

Good Morning Mr. Dumpor.
Regarding Carolina Sunrock's mining permit request to cut a
quarry amidst the residents living in both Caswell and Person
Counties.
The resulting threat to our community's drinking water alone, is
obvious and unacceptable.
The Citizens of BOTH Counties -are clearly unanimous in their
opposition to Sunrock's quarry plans and won't stop fighting
until Sunrock is forced to.
Please ensure the mining permit does not become.
Looking forward to your cooperation, please respond with your
intent.
Respectfully,
Dr. Martinelli
Da2� Nole VQ
�1el�ne N �
�� .? 0A-

To DEQ Regarding Prospect Hill, NC,
PLEASE- YOU ARE THE ONLY PROTECTION for the people who live near the
proposed quarry, across the state, and future generations!
Minimizing a quarry risk is like putting a filter on the end of a cigarette. The
buffers will be from blasted `dirt' they don't want to use. Buffers will contain
newly exposed impurities that can run off toward Lake Roxboro.
Polluting state protected water IS against the lawl
Wouldn't these apply? ----
hops://files.nc.-gov/ncdeg/WSWSPfactsheet Allowed NotAllowed 20190619.gdf
chart : "Water Supply Watershed Protection Factsheet Allowed and Not Allowed
Uses"
WS-II B =Water Supply II Balance of Watershed
WSII B / "New Industrial Treated Wastewater Discharge" "no"
WSII B / " wastewater" "no"
WSII B / "Industrial wastes" "no"
WSII B / Non -process industrial waste "no"
WSII B / "Other wastes" "no"
AIR POLLUTION (Government Warnings are Proof of the Dangers)
https://www.osha.gov) Publications) silicosis
"Silicosis is caused by exposure to respirable crystalline silica dust.... sand,
granite, and most other types of rock, and it is used as an
abrasive blasting agent"
Xxxx
https•//www.cdg.gov/niosh/docs/92-107/default.htmi
(Employee sign)" WARNINGI EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA DURING ROCK
DRILLING CAN CAUSE SERIOUS OR FATAL RESPIRATORY DISEASE."

0
Surface Mining Process- An early step in the surface or strip mining process is the
removal of topsoil and other overburden materials, including sandstones, shales,
limestones, and unconsolidated soils. Removal of these materials may require drilling
holes into the rock formation to accept explosive charges for blasting. After blasting,
the debris is cleared with earth -moving equipment such as drag line cranes, end
loaders, or power shovels.
Silica Exposure During Surface Mine Drilling- When the drilled rock has
significant crystalline silica* content, the drill operators and helpers may be exposed to
large amounts of respirable crystalline silica. Such exposure places these workers at high
risk of developing silicosis.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) requests assistance in
preventing silicosis and deaths in workers exposed to respirable crystalline silica.
Wear washable or disposable protective clothes at the worksite; shower and
change into clean clothes before leaving the worksite to prevent contaminaTic-
of cars, homes, and other work areas.
Use respiratory protection
Personal Hygiene
The following personal hygiene practices are important elements of any program for
protecting workers from exposure to crystalline silica:
• All drillers should wash their hands and faces before eating, drinking, or smoking.
• Workers should not eat, drink, or use tobacco products in the drilling area.
• Workers should shower before leaving the worksite.
• Workers should park their cars where they will not be contaminated with silica.
Protective Clothing
The following measures should be taken to assure that the drillers' dusty clothes do not
contaminate cars, homes, or worksites other than the drilling area:
"Before mining begins, geological reports and other information should be reviewed to
determine the potential for exposing workers to crystalline silica dunna removal of rr►:=
overburden. "
Xxx
(Quarry community and people of our state will have EXPOSURE
FROM THE DUST and NO PROTECTIVE GEAR)
httgs://www.stop3009vulcanquarry.com/impacts/carcinogenic-dust/

"Quarry blasting, crushing, and hauling operations emit high levels of
carcinogenic particulate matter. Visible dust (larger particles) is also created by
movement of front-end loaders, mining trucks, transfer conveyors, excavators,
bulldozers, and utility vehicles.
Over 80 formal complaints have been filed against Vulcan in Texas alone.
And over 35 violations occurred at a single Vulcan Materials plant
Daily emissions of diesel exhaust from plant equipment and hundreds of gravel
trucks generate nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)_
xxx
https://www.lung.or_ /q lung-health-and-diseases/luna-disease-
lookup/silicosis/silicosis-symptoms-causes-risk.html
"Patients with silicosis have an increased risk of other problems, such as
tuberculosis, lung cancer, and chronic bronchitis."
Xxxx
https:/ stuff.co.nz/national/health/94925243/ecan-to-give-valdhurst-
residents-complaining-of-symptoms-from-quarry-dust-personal-exposure-meters
'They experience wheezing and coughing, bleeding from the nose, eye irritation,
shortness of breath, lung inflammation, dental problems, problematic blood
chemistry and general weakness all of which are consistent with early -stage
silicosis."
"in windless conditions it can hang as a cloud over the residents and the quarry
itself" "
"It is concerning ...to grant dust to air discharge consents for new quarries
despite new evidence of the adverse affects of silica:'
Xxx
Butner Quarry-
SUNROCK VIOLATIONS- September 16, 2013/ Penalty: $5,165/ Primary
Offense: workplace safety or health violation/ Secondary Offense: mining
violation/ Level of Government: federal/ Case ID: 8792270/ Facility City: Butner
And Case ID: / 8792271 / Penalty: $6,078/ Butner Quarry
httg://www.msha._ oq v/UpenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp
Extracted from a download of MSHA's Violations Data Set updated by MSHA on
11 /16/2018, available
at http://www.msha.gov/OgenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp

0
BUTNER AND WOODSDALE REFERENCE OF (Sunrock) COMPLAINTS:
(Please watch this newscast and read the article about dust effects outside of
quarry -)
"Neighbors concerned about activities at Person County rock quarry" by
Rodney Overton Jan 8, 2018
httgs://www.cbsl 7.com/news/neiahbors-concerned-about-activities-at-aerson-
county-rock-auarry/
xxx
Jan 8, 2018 - Carolina Sunrock Woodsdale Quarry and wanted to make the
Board of ... WOODSDALE COMMUNITY COMPLAINTS ABOUT BLASTING%
January 8, 2018 1 PERSON COUNTY BOARD OF ...
www.personcounty.net ) home) showdocument
Ms. Joyce Lever of 5300 Woodsdale Road, Roxboro stated she lived next to the
Carolina Sunrock Woodsdale Quarry and wanted to make the Board of
Commissioners aware of the nuisance to the community stating the smells,
truck traffic and noise were unacceptable
Xxx
Rock quarry not a good neighbor/ 24th March 2004/ BUTNER, NC
continuous blasts caused more cracks throughout the house
httl2s://www.agareaateresearch.com/news/rock-guarry-not-a-good-neighbor/
xxxx
httg://www.12ersoncountylife.com/stories/2018-was-a-year-of-bia-
changes,21338
Long -running dispute
The beginning of the year began with a dispute between the owners of a quarry
in northern Person County and its neighbors.
At a county commissioners meeting, 20 Woodsdale community members
packed the meeting with complaints about noise, polution and dust caused by
Carolina Sunrock
Xxx

To The DEQ:
I ask that you please deny the mining permit that Carolina Sunrock has submitted for a rock quarry in
Prospect Hill NC. Looking specifically at item number 2 reason for denial due to unduly adverse effects
to wildlife and water. In reading the hydrology report submitted by the applicant, it stated that the
aquifer was significantly drawn down. The tests were stopped at different times because wells went dry.
It also took some time for wells to recover. Will they stop running the Quarry for 3 days to allow the
wells to recover during full operation? 1 would also like to add that this was during a time period were
the area was saturated from rain. The report also stated that during quarry operations there would be
an even greater draw down because of constant and daily dewatering.
My family farmed this property for over fifty years. I have probably spent as much time on this property
as anyone. I know that two of the unnamed creeks that are spoke of actually start on this property from
springs. I feel that with the amount of dewatering that will be required will dry up these springs and
thus dry up the wetlands. All the wildlife in the streams and surrounding will be lost.
It also states in the permit application that the wetlands will be impacted by site construction. It also
states that the streams will be permanently impacted. These areas are full of wildlife. I have seen
crayfish, mussels, frogs, fish, etc., in all three creeks.
Please take a very close look into this. I would hate to see these wetlands dry up and loose the entire
habitat. I know that quarries are needed but at the same time our water and wildlife are important. I
believe there is a time and place for everything. This is not the right place for a quarry. Please help us
protect are wildlife and rights to water.
Regards,
Mark Wrenn
2372 Ridgeville Rd
Prospect Hill, NC 27314

Sunrock LLC Project Comments 1
Dwayne Campbell
13-Nov-2019
106 Covington Square Dr
Cary,NC 27513
Mr. Samir Dumpor
Engineering Supervison
NC DEMLR Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor:
I am writing in regard to the Sunrock LLC mining application for the property near Prospect Hill, NC. I
attended the public hearing in Yanceyville, NC on 04-Nov-2019 and listened with interest for the entire
proceeding that evening. Needless to say the residents of Caswell County do not want this kind of
operation in the county, however, I also understand that the DEMLR must follow the regulations as
published in the Mining Act of 1971 and as written, the department SHALL issue the permit unless
findings to deny the permit are consistent with those published in section 74-51(d), items 1 through 7.
Therefore, I would like to comment on the proposed application speaking to those criteria that may
result in denial of the permit. These comments should be postmarked within the 10-day period after the
public hearing so I hope they can be submitted to the official record.
First and foremost, the information available on the DEMLR website shows that the application is not
complete as submitted. In particular, the answer to question 3 (d) on pages 10 and 11 states that the
applicant does not have evidence they have obtained the appropriate water quality permits from the
Stormwater Program. The applicant states that their contractor (Timmons Group) will obtain the
required permits and that they will be provided under separate cover when issued. As such, the
application is incomplete and none of the timelines in the regulation 74-51(b) are applicable for the
agency to take action on the application. It is unknown if the permits will ever be granted and the
agency resources to evaluate this application should not be wasted on a permit that is not complete and
final. Furthermore, in question number 4 (page 12 of the application) the applicant again states they
have not obtained the appropriate air quality permit(s) issued by the Division of Air Quality or local
governing body. The applicant only commits to provide DEMLR a copy of the Air Quality permit
application to the Division of Air Quality. Submission of an application for a permit to the Division of Air
Quality does NOT constitute evidence that the applicant has obtained the necessary air quality permit.
Again, the applicant is asking the agency to take action on an application that is incomplete. My
occupation is in a highly regulated industry and submission of such an incomplete application would
result in immediate return of the information to the applicant until all requirements are properly
submitted. No less should be asked of Sunrock LLC. Specifically, in this case, the agency will not be able
to make a determination to possibly deny the permit under section 74-51(d) (2). Therefore, none of the
timing for taking action on the permit is applicable until a full and complete application and all required
documentation is available. I respectfully ask that DEMLR place the application on hold and notify the
concerned parties when all information to make an informed decision is available. This is only consistent
with principles of transparency and allowing the public full access to all data related to the proposed
project. At this time, the public is providing comments on only a partial application. Taking action on an
application without this information can expose the agency to future judicial challenges.

Sunrock LLC Project Comments
Dwayne Campbell
The applicant has not submitted any study on the potential impact of the operation on the surface
water quality so the agency can make a determination according to section 74-51(d) (3). The applicant
has only provided a hydrogeological study that is limited in scope to the potential effect on groundwater
supplies. Additionally, a comprehensive study of the effects of the operation on the fresh water,
estuaries, or marine fisheries is not available. This is a critical aspect of the proposed operation since
more than 3 million gallons of water are expected to be discharged from the pits on a daily basis. The
drainage from the property is through creeks or streams that may be inhabited by endangered mussels
as communicated to you at the public hearing. The drainage would also flow into Roxboro Lake and the
effect of this amount of effluent on the water quality of the lake and upstream water paths has not been
addressed. In addition to surface water and drainage issues, the water basins for the project are
designed for a 25 year rain event. Considering the nature of the property and drainage patterns into the
Roxboro Lake, the water basins should be designed for a 100 year rain event to prevent uncontrolled
discharge from a heavy weather occurrence.
The hydrogeological survey submitted by the applicant is technically incomplete and raises serious
questions in regard to the potential adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies per section 74-51
(d) (2). The conduct of the ground water study raises questions about the ability to make a
determination on potable groundwater supplies. For example, why were the pressure tranducers
located so shallow such that readings were not able to be obtained throughout the conduct of the pump
out studies? One possibility is that the results of the study were not expected to be favorable to the
applicant so the transducers were not located at maximum depth and the study presents the data in
such a way that the agency is expected to accept the conclusion of the study author.
The study conclusions in section 5.0 of the hydrogeological report (page 18) states that "Relatively
substantial water table drawdown was observed within both study areas during the pumping tests
indicating that similar effects may be observed as part of any future dewatering during quarry
operations". Included in their sentence is a qualifier that "(although the greatest drawdown was
generally confined to the areal immediately surrounding the pumping well)". Is this observation enough
to conclude that potable groundwater supplies will not be adversely impacted? The conclusions in
paragraph 1 continues to state that "As such, the quarry-dewatering process could potentially impact
offsite private WSW's located within the estimated zone of hydraulic influence, through localized
drawdown of the aquifer (which could result in reduced groundwater -production rates for the WSW's)."
Therefore, by the applicant's own study, there are significant concerns that the operation will have
undly adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies. These groundwater supplies are critical for the
neighboring residents and for continued operation of the already established agricultural operations.
The hydrogeological report conclusions continue to state that drawdown of the aquifer can be
monitored over time using the existing site wells but acknowledges that the" 9 wells installed for the
hydrogeological study are located within the footprints of the two proposed quarry pits so the wells will
be over-excavated/mined as quarrying operations proceed". The study continues to state that new
observation wells outside of the quarry footprints MAY eventually be installed to replace these wells as
they are taken out of service. There is not commitment that the wells WiLL be replaced to determine
adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies of the surrounding property owners. There is also no
commitment to actions the applicant would take in the event that such adverse effects are observed
leaving the neighboring property owners without a clear mechanism for redress of problems induced by
the proposed operations.

Sunrock LLC Project Comments 3
Dwayne Campbell
High levels of mercury were also observed in a sample from PW-2 (page 32, Table 3). The results are not
discussed in any context other than "the same analyte was detected in the associated laboratory blank".
An abberant analytical result should result in a full laboratory investigation and reanalysis of the sample
if possible when a suspected laboratory error is found. Discussion of a laboratory investigation is not
provided and the possibility of obtaining a replacement sample was not addressed. Would mercury be
pumped out of the quarry operations and subsequently into the surface water drainage areas and then
Roxboro Lake? High levels of mercury in over 3 milliion gallons of daily discharge can have serious
adverse effects on fresh water, estuaries, and marine fisheries.
Finally, the applicant's study of sound and vibration predictions show the operation will constitute a
direct and substantial physical hazard to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, ......public road or
other public property as cited in the regulation. The sound predictions demonstrate sound levels over
120dB at a number of surrounding properties. Sound at this level is a potential physical hazard to any
property owners or visitors in the area at the time of blasting activities. Since sound is a result of
pressure waves, the sound/pressure are also likely to cause vibration and flexing of structures including
multiple dwelling houses and the nearby church. It is important to note that the regulation is singular in
language in this regard. Only a single dwelling house, church etc experiencing a direct and substantial
physical hazard is required, not multiple houses, churches etc since the regulation uses the language "a
neighboring dwelling house, school, church......." As self -identified by a speaker at the public hearing,
there is a dwelling house near the proposed operation that is over 100 years old. A structure this age
may be more susceptible to pressure waves than structures more recently constructed, however, the
regulation does not state that the age or current condition of a dwelling house has any bearing on the
evaluation of a potential physical hazard. Again, the regulation language is singular and this particular
dwelling is put at significant risk if the application is approved.
Additionally, the permit application states that during blasting events, there is the possibility of physical
hazard to at least one nearby public road. The solution of the applicant is to prevent traffic from moving
through the area. The general public of the state is adversely affected by the operations of Sunrock
instead of taking other actions to limit the scope of operations or move the operation to a different
area. The results of the applicant's own study provide sufficient basis for denial of the permit under 74-
51(d) (4).
I am somewhat confused if a permit is granted for 10 years or the `life of the mine' which was stated at
the public hearing. In either case, the agency should completely evaluate a full and complete
application and when determining the potential for physical hazards, surface water effects, ground
water effects and other denial criteria, the evaluation of uncertainty of adverse effects should be
weighted to the surrounding property owners, NOT the applicant.
urge the agency to require an actual full and complete application prior to taking any further action on
this application. With the current available information, there is adequate justification provided by
those at the public hearing and by the applicant's own documentation to deny the permit according to
the criteria in the Mining Act of 1971.
Sincerely,
Dwayne Campbell
Concerned Caswell County Property Owner

Sunrock LLC Project Comments 1
Dwayne Campbell
13-Nov-2019
106 Covington Square Dr
Cary,NC 27513
Mr. Samir Dumpor
Engineering Supervison
NC DEMLR Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor:
I am writing in regard to the Sunrock LLC mining application for the property near Prospect Hill, NC. I
attended the public hearing in Yanceyville, NC on 04-Nov-2019 and listened with interest for the entire
proceeding that evening. Needless to say the residents of Caswell County do not want this kind of
operation in the county, however, I also understand that the DEMLR must follow the regulations as
published in the Mining Act of 1971 and as written, the department SHALL issue the permit unless
findings to deny the permit are consistent with those published in section 74-51(d), items 1 through 7.
Therefore, I would like to comment on the proposed application speaking to those criteria that may
result in denial of the permit. These comments should be postmarked within the 10-day period after the
public hearing so I hope they can be submitted to the official record.
First and foremost, the information available on the DEMLR website shows that the application is not
complete as submitted. In particular, the answer to question 3 (d) on pages 10 and 11 states that the
applicant does not have evidence they have obtained the appropriate water quality permits from the
Stormwater Program. The applicant states that their contractor (Timmons Group) will obtain the
required permits and that they will be provided under separate cover when issued. As such, the
application is incomplete and none of the timelines in the regulation 74-51(b) are applicable for the
agency to take action on the application. It is unknown if the permits will ever be granted and the
agency resources to evaluate this application should not be wasted on a permit that is not complete and
final. Furthermore, in question number 4 (page 12 of the application) the applicant again states they
have not obtained the appropriate air quality permit(s) issued by the Division of Air Quality or local
governing body. The applicant only commits to provide DEMLR a copy of the Air Quality permit
application to the Division of Air Quality. Submission of an application for a permit to the Division of Air
Quality does NOT constitute evidence that the applicant has obtained the necessary air quality permit.
Again, the applicant is asking the agency to take action on an application that is incomplete. My
occupation is in a highly regulated industry and submission of such an incomplete application would
result in immediate return of the information to the applicant until all requirements are properly
submitted. No less should be asked of Sunrock LLC. Specifically, in this case, the agency will not be able
to make a determination to possibly deny the permit under section 74-51(d) (2). Therefore, none of the
timing for taking action on the permit is applicable until a full and complete application and all required
documentation is available. I respectfully ask that DEMLR place the application on hold and notify the
concerned parties when all information to make an informed decision is available. This is only consistent
with principles of transparency and allowing the public full access to all data related to the proposed
project. At this time, the public is providing comments on only a partial application. Taking action on an
application without this information can expose the agency to future judicial challenges.

Sunrock LLC Project Comments
Dwayne Campbell
The applicant has not submitted any study on the potential impact of the operation on the surface
water quality so the agency can make a determination according to section 74-51(d) (3). The applicant
has only provided a hydrogeological study that is limited in scope to the potential effect on groundwater
supplies. Additionally, a comprehensive study of the effects of the operation on the fresh water,
estuaries, or marine fisheries is not available. This is a critical aspect of the proposed operation since
more than 3 million gallons of water are expected to be discharged from the pits on a daily basis. The
drainage from the property is through creeks or streams that may be inhabited by endangered mussels
as communicated to you at the public hearing. The drainage would also flow into Roxboro Lake and the
effect of this amount of effluent on the water quality of the lake and upstream water paths has not been
addressed. In addition to surface water and drainage issues, the water basins for the project are
designed for a 25 year rain event. Considering the nature of the property and drainage patterns into the
Roxboro Lake, the water basins should be designed for a 100 year rain event to prevent uncontrolled
discharge from a heavy weather occurrence.
The hydrogeological survey submitted by the applicant is technically incomplete and raises serious
questions in regard to the potential adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies per section 74-51
(d) (2). The conduct of the ground water study raises questions about the ability to make a
determination on potable groundwater supplies. For example, why were the pressure tranducers
located so shallow such that readings were not able to be obtained throughout the conduct of the pump
out studies? One possibility is that the results of the study were not expected to be favorable to the
applicant so the transducers were not located at maximum depth and the study presents the data in
such a way that the agency is expected to accept the conclusion of the study author.
The study conclusions in section 5.0 of the hydrogeological report (page 18) states that "Relatively
substantial water table drawdown was observed within both study areas during the pumping tests
indicating that similar effects may be observed as part of any future dewatering during quarry
operations". Included in their sentence is a qualifier that "(although the greatest drawdown was
generally confined to the areal immediately surrounding the pumping well)". Is this observation enough
to conclude that potable groundwater supplies will not be adversely impacted? The conclusions in
paragraph 1 continues to state that "As such, the quarry-dewatering process could potentially impact
offsite private WSW's located within the estimated zone of hydraulic influence, through localized
drawdown of the aquifer (which could result in reduced groundwater -production rates for the WSW's)."
Therefore, by the applicant's own study, there are significant concerns that the operation will have
undly adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies. These groundwater supplies are critical for the
neighboring residents and for continued operation of the already established agricultural operations.
The hydrogeological report conclusions continue to state that drawdown of the aquifer can be
monitored over time using the existing site wells but acknowledges that the" 9 wells installed for the
hydrogeological study are located within the footprints of the two proposed quarry pits so the wells will
be over-excavated/mined as quarrying operations proceed". The study continues to state that new
observation wells outside of the quarry footprints MAY eventually be installed to replace these wells as
they are taken out of service. There is not commitment that the wells WiLL be replaced to determine
adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies of the surrounding property owners. There is also no
commitment to actions the applicant would take in the event that such adverse effects are observed
leaving the neighboring property owners without a clear mechanism for redress of problems induced by
the proposed operations.

Sunrock LLC Project Comments
Dwayne Campbell
High levels of mercury were also observed in a sample from PW-2 (page 32, Table 3). The results are not
discussed in any context other than "the same analyte was detected in the associated laboratory blank"
An abberant analytical result should result in a full laboratory investigation and reanalysis of the sample
if possible when a suspected laboratory error is found. Discussion of a laboratory investigation is not
provided and the possibility of obtaining a replacement sample was not addressed. Would mercury be
pumped out of the quarry operations and subsequently into the surface water drainage areas and then
Roxboro Lake? High levels of mercury in over 3 milliion gallons of daily discharge can have serious
adverse effects on fresh water, estuaries, and marine fisheries.
Finally, the applicant's study of sound and vibration predictions show the operation will constitute a
direct and substantial physical hazard to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, ......public road or
other public property as cited in the regulation. The sound predictions demonstrate sound levels over
120dB at a number of surrounding properties. Sound at this level is a potential physical hazard to any
property owners or visitors in the area at the time of blasting activities. Since sound is a result of
pressure waves, the sound/pressure are also likely to cause vibration and flexing of structures including
multiple dwelling houses and the nearby church. It is important to note that the regulation is singular in
language in this regard. Only a single dwelling house, church etc experiencing a direct and substantial
physical hazard is required, not multiple houses, churches etc since the regulation uses the language "a
neighboring dwelling house, school, church......:' As self -identified by a speaker at the public hearing,
there is a dwelling house near the proposed operation that is over 100 years old. A structure this age
may be more susceptible to pressure waves than structures more recently constructed, however, the
regulation does not state that the age or current condition of a dwelling house has any bearing on the
evaluation of a potential physical hazard. Again, the regulation language is singular and this particular
dwelling is put at significant risk if the application is approved.
Additionally, the permit application states that during blasting events, there is the possibility of physical
hazard to at least one nearby public road. The solution of the applicant is to prevent traffic from moving
through the area. The general public of the state is adversely affected by the operations of Sunrock
instead of taking other actions to limit the scope of operations or move the operation to a different
area. The results of the applicant's own study provide sufficient basis for denial of the permit under 74-
51 (d) (4).
I am somewhat confused if a permit is granted for 10 years or the 'life of the mine' which was stated at
the public hearing. In either case, the agency should completely evaluate a full and complete
application and when determining the potential for physical hazards, surface water effects, ground
water effects and other denial criteria, the evaluation of uncertainty of adverse effects should be
weighted to the surrounding property owners, NOT the applicant.
I urge the agency to require an actual full and complete application prior to taking any further action on
this application. With the current available information, there is adequate justification provided by
those at the public hearing and by the applicant's own documentation to deny the permit according to
the criteria in the Mining Act of 1971.
Sin erely,
0////JJ__
Dwayne Campbell
Concerned Caswell County Property Owner

Peter C. Christopher
1181 Wilson Road
Hurdle Mills, NC 27541
336-599-1139
Cell: 732-801-7275
e-mail: [e-mail]
10 November 2019
Mr. Samir Dumpor
DEMLR
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: Proposed Prospect Hill Quarry and Asphalt Plant.
Greetings Mr. Dumpor,
My concerns for the subject project arise from the remarks of the geological, water
safety and groundwater experts at the November 4, 2019 DEQ hearing in Yanceyville,
NC. Messrs. Clark, Wong and Pulliam submissions should be of the utmost importance
to the DEC. They bring to light the falsehoods of the subject submission as experts, like
you, who know it is incomplete and slanted.
Furthermore, I refer you to a Piedmont Geologic Report review letter from Summit
Envirosolutions, New Hope, Minnesota, please find it attached. Specifically, Mr. John
Dustman, Envirosolutions principle, in his October 24, 2019 letter to geologist Mr. Mark
Chandler, tells us the permit submission bogus. In my enclosed copy of his letter,
please find highlighted in yellow marker, wording that should make the DEC cringe.
They are:
...changes on -the -fly that render the test less than ideal
...should have been replicated
...the data sets were manipulated
...using 270 feet for the saturated thickness is an obvious misrepresentation of
the groundwater system
Video of the Yanceyville event can be found here: httr)s://voutu.be/i8lDNLLOg7l
2:18:00, Mr. Mark Chandler/Licensed Geologist, Mrs. Chandler
3:03:30, Mr. Michael Wong/NCSU/Board Certified Environmental Engineer
3:16:50, Mr. Steven Pulliam/Dan Riverkeeper-Water Alliance
Allowing the subject permit will turn Prospect Hill into a Flint, MI type water crisis,
similarly one of known and forewarned consequences. Will the DEQ allow one (1)
industry into the area that can adversely affect all other businesses and also the safety
and serenity of it's people with misrepresentations and incomplete data?

We have an unalienable right to the protections we ask for and independent
environmental experts agree we need. Unlike Flint, there is no prearranged immunity for
this undertaking. Where is any compelling interest in gravel and asphalt? This is not
industry we must have and will result in huge environment difficulties, for what, a dozen
jobs? Who is served here exactly? Cui bono?
The quarry and asphalt business is not suited to an area of sustainable agriculture,
families and a city reservoir like Prospect Hill. Lake Roxboro must be protected and not
with chemicals in remedy of a faulty earth science experiment. The subject project will
destroy any future prospect of clean development or organic agriculture and turn
Prospect Hill and surrounding, protected areas into a slagheap.
Found on the back of your business card:
"Providing science -based environmental stewardship for the health and prosperity of all
North Carolinians." If this is your mantra, you must now prove it.
Deny this permit.
Peter Christopher
Attachments:
Mr. John Dustman/Envirosolutions, Inc., New Hope, MN
October 24, 2019 letter to Mr. Mark Chandler/Geologist
Electronic coav:
Mr. Bryan Miller/Caswell County Manager
[e-mail]
Ms. Heidi York/Person County Manager
[e-mail]
Senator Phil Berger
[e-mail]
E

Summit
,eOwft. Envirosolutions
October 24, 2019
Dear Mr. Chandler:
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) has completed a cursory review of the document titled,
"Hydrogeological Study Report" (Report) prepared for Carolina Sunrock LLC (Sunrock) by Piedmont
Geologic, P.C. (Piedmont) dated August 24, 2019 and the supporting documents referenced in the
Report. This letter transmits our observations and questions that you may pass along to Sunrock or
Piedmont regarding the study.
In general, it appears that Piedmont followed industry -standard approaches to the design and
implementation of their aquifer testing protocols. The installation of wells at varying distances from
the pumping wells, the well constructions, and testing methodology appear to be consistent with using
groundwater science to evaluate the potential impacts from the proposed quarry. It is unfortunate
that field conditions forced Piedmont to make changes on -the -fly that render the test less than ideal.
Specifically, the lack of ability to change flow rates for a step-drawdown test would have likely
indicated that the eventual pumping rate would create drawdown to shorten the tests and that the
drawdown would be greater than the depth of the pressure transducers used to record water levels. It
appears that they used the "backup" manual water level data in their analysis, however, Piedmont
does not indicate this in the report (the hydrographs presented in Appendix C-1 and C-2 do not show
the truncated data set presented in Appendix B). Although it does not substantially impact the analysis
of the data, it is also unfortunate that the generator needed to be shut down for refueling during the
test — a constant rate test is preferred so that the drawdown curve does not contain the six "spikes"
evident at PW-2 or two spikes at PW-1. In addition, it is odd that the magnitude of the recovery during
the pump shutdowns at PW-2 was greater than when the pump was shut down at the end of the test—
a faulty check valve (or lack of one) in the pump could cause this but it should have been replicated
upon terminating the pumping phase of the test unless they closed a valve at the end of the test. The
fact that these data spikes do not appear in the Aqtesolv plots in Appendices C-1 and C-2 indicate the
data sets were manipulated. Again, this should be explained in the report. It is also unfortunate that
the transducers were apparently moved from the wells in Area 2 to perform the testing in Area 1. The
aquifer should have recovered fully before moving the sensors, or, at a minimum, manual water levels
should have been collected to enable recovery method of analysis. You could also pose several
additional questions regarding the water level data:
What is the interpretation of why the pump shutoffs during the test were observed in the data
collected at OW2-1 and OW2-3 but not at OW2-2 during the Area 2 testing and not at OW1-1, OW1-2,
or OW1-3 during Area 1 testing?
5608 International Parkway, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 www.summite.com

October 24, 2019
Page 2
What is the interpretation of the increased slope in drawdown after approximately 5 hours of pumping
observed at OW1-2?
What is the interpretation of why there was more drawdown observed at OW1-1 and OW1-2 than at
OW1-3, which is located substantially closer? How does this impact your ability to estimate the
anticipated drawdown at distance?
Perhaps the single largest error that we noticed in the site characterization, data reduction and
analysis was the assumption that, "Groundwater at the site areas appears to occur within the
overburden and underlying bedrock in unconfined (i.e. water table) conditions... " (page 5). The
observations during drilling and the rapid response to pumping at the observation wells both indicate
confined conditions. It appears that barometric pressure was not recorded during the test, which
would also most likely indicate that the groundwater present in the fractures of the diorite bedrock is
under confined conditions. Unfortunately, this invalidates the -assumptions used by the Neuman
(1974) and Theis (1935) solutions as presented in Appendices C-1 and C-2 and a corresponding domino
effect of invalidating the estimates of hydraulic conductivity, distance drawdown, the Sichardt (1928)
formula, and the selected model for "Steady groundwater flows into open excavations" (S.S.
Papadopulos & Associates 2014). While the Moench (1984) solution is valid, the report should state
how the values of the slab block thickness, fracture skin factor, and matrix hydraulic conductivity used
in the calculations were estimated. Also, using 270 feet for the saturated thickness is an obvious
misrepresentation of the groundwater system.
Please contact me directly if you have questions regarding our cursory review, the contents of this
letter, or the project in general.
Sincerely,
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
John E. Dustman
Principal
JED/hs
5608 International Parkway, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 www.summite.com

Peter C. Christopher
1181 Wilson Road
Hurdle Mills, NC 27541
336-599-1139
Cell: 732-801-7275
e-mail: [e-mail]
10 November 2019
Mr. Samir Dumpor
DEMLR
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Subject: Proposed Prospect Hill Quarry and Asphalt Plant.
Greetings Mr. Dumpor,
My concerns for the subject project arise from the remarks of the geological, water
safety and groundwater experts at the November 4, 2019 DEQ hearing in Yanceyville,
NC. Messrs. Clark, Wong and Pulliam submissions should be of the utmost importance
to the DEQ. They bring to light the falsehoods of the subject submission as experts, like
you, who know it is incomplete and slanted.
Furthermore, I refer you to a Piedmont Geologic Report review letter from Summit
Envirosolutions, New Hope, Minnesota, please find it attached. Specifically, Mr. John
Dustman, Envirosolutions principle, in his October 24, 2019 letter to geologist Mr. Mark
Chandler, tells us the permit submission bogus. In my enclosed copy of his letter,
please find highlighted in yellow marker, wording that should make the DEQ cringe.
They are:
...changes on -the -fly that render the test less than ideal
...should have been replicated
...the data sets were manipulated
...using 270 feet for the saturated thickness is an obvious misrepresentation of
the groundwater system
Video of the Yanceyville event can be found here: https://Youtu.be/i8lDNLLOo7l
2:18:00, Mr. Mark Chandler/Licensed Geologist, Mrs. Chandler
3:03:30, Mr. Michael Wong/NCSU/Board Certified Environmental Engineer
3:16:50, Mr. Steven Pulliam/Dan Riverkeeper-Water Alliance
Allowing the subject permit will turn Prospect Hill into a Flint, MI type water crisis,
similarly one of known and forewarned consequences. Will the DEQ allow one (1)
industry into the area that can adversely affect all other businesses and also the safety
and serenity of it's people with misrepresentations and incomplete data?

We have an unalienable right to the protections we ask for and independent
environmental experts agree we need. Unlike Flint, there is no prearranged immunity for
this undertaking. Where is any compelling interest in gravel and asphalt? This is not
industry we must have and will result in huge environment difficulties, for what, a dozen
jobs? Who is served here exactly? Cui bono?
The quarry and asphalt business is not suited to an area of sustainable agriculture,
families and a city reservoir like Prospect Hill. Lake Roxboro must be protected and not
with chemicals in remedy of a faulty earth science experiment. The subject project will
destroy any future prospect of clean development or organic agriculture and turn
Prospect Hill and surrounding, protected areas into a slagheap.
Found on the back of your business card:
"Providing science -based environmental stewardship for the health and prosperity of all
North Carolinians." If this is your mantra, you must now prove it.
Deny this permit.
Peter Christopher
Attachments:
Mr. John Dustman/Envirosolutions, Inc., New Hope, MN
October 24, 2019 letter to Mr. Mark Chandler/Geologist
Electronic copy:
Mr. Bryan Miller/Caswell County Manager
[e-mail]
Ms. Heidi York/Person County Manager
[e-mail]
Senator Phil Berger
[e-mail]
2

i� s/umn,it
/� Envirosolutions
October 24, 2019
Dear Mr. Chandler:
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) has completed a cursory review of the document titled,
"Hydrogeological Study Report" (Report) prepared for Carolina Sunrock LLC (Sunrock) by Piedmont
Geologic, P.C. (Piedmont) dated August 24, 2019 and the supporting documents referenced in the
Report. This letter transmits our observations and questions that you may pass along to Sunrock or
Piedmont regarding the study.
In general, it appears that Piedmont followed industry -standard approaches to the design and
implementation of their aquifer testing protocols- The installation of wells at varying distances from
the pumping wells, the well constructions, and testing methodology appear to be consistent with using
groundwater science to evaluate the potential impacts from the proposed quarry. It is unfortunate
that field conditions forced Piedmont to make changes on -the -fly that render the test less than Ideal.
Specifically, the lack of ability to change flow rates for a step-drawdown test would have likely
indicated that the eventual pumping rate would create drawdown to shorten the tests and that the
drawdown would be greater than the depth of the pressure transducers used to record water levels. It
appears that they used the "backup" manual water level data in their analysis, however, Piedmont
does not indicate this in the report (the hydrographs presented in Appendix C-1 and C-2 do not show
the truncated data set presented in Appendix B). Although it does not substantially impact the analysis
of the data, it is also unfortunate that the generator needed to be shut down for refueling during the
test — a constant rate test is preferred so that the drawdown curve does not contain the six "spikes'
evident at PW-2 or two spikes at PW-1. In addition, it is odd that the magnitude of the recovery during
the pump shutdowns at PW-2 was greater than when the pump was shut down at the end of the test —
a faulty check valve (or lack of one) in the pump could cause this but it should have been replicated
upon terminating the pumping phase of the test unless they closed a valve at the end of the test. The
fact that these data spikes do not appear in the Aqtesolv plots in Appendices C-1 and C-2 indicate the
data sets were manipulated. Again, this should be explained in the report. It is also unfortunate that
the transducers were apparently moved from the wells in Area 2 to perform the testing in Area 1. The
aquifer should have recovered fully before moving the sensors, or, at a minimum, manual water levels
should have been collected to enable recovery method of analysis. You could also pose several
additional questions regarding the water level data:
What is the interpretation of why the pump shutoffs during the test were observed in the data
collected at OW2-1 and OW 2-3 but not at OW2-2 during the Area 2 testing and not at OWS-1, OW1-2,
or OW1-3 during Area 1 testing?
5608 International parkway, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 www.summite.com

October 24, 2019
Page 2
What is the interpretation of the increased slope in drawdown after approximately 5 hours of pumping
observed at OW I-2?
What is the interpretation of why there was more drawdown observed at OW1-1 and OW1-2 than at
OW1-3, which is located substantially closer? How does this impact your ability to estimate the
anticipated drawdown at distance?
Perhaps the single largest error that we noticed in the site characterization, data reduction and
analysis was the assumption that, "Groundwater at the site areas appears to occur within the
overburden and underlying bedrock in unconfined (i.e. water table) conditions... " (page 5). The
observations during drilling and the rapid response to pumping at the observation wells both indicate
confined conditions. It appears that barometric pressure was not recorded during the test, which
would also most likely indicate that the groundwater present in the fractures of the diorite bedrock Is
under confined conditions. Unfortunately, this invalidates the assumptions used by the Neuman
(1974) and Theis (1935) solutions as presented in Appendices C-1 and C-2 and a corresponding domino
effect of invalidating the estimates of hydraulic conductivity, distance drawdown, the Sichardt (1928)
formula, and the selected model for "Steady groundwater flows into open excavations" (S.S.
Papadopulos & Associates 2014). While the Moench (1984) solution is valid, the report should state
how the values of the slab block thickness, fracture skin factor, and matrix hydraulic conductivity used
in the calculations were estimated. Also, using 270 feet for the saturated thickness is an obvious
misrepresentation of the groundwater system.
Please contact me directly if you have questions regarding our cursory review, the contents of this
letter, or the project in general.
Sincerely,
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
John E. Dustman
Principal
JED/hs
5608 International Parkway, New Hope, Minnesota 55428 www.summitexom

To: Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Thank you for your valuable time and for trying to help keep our waters safe. We count on you.
I am writing about the proposed quarry in Caswell County on Wrenn Road.
Please, hear our request to protect our waters, our families, our health, our ecosystems,
and our livelihoods.
My wife and I are young farmers, living 5 miles from the proposed quarry site off highway 49. All
around us are small farmers. Some new, many generational.
All of this relies on irrigation - not just water, but uncontaminated, clean water. To grow plants,
we need a healthy aquifer. To sell produce, our wells have to test clean. Otherwise we can't sell.
Blasts like the ones Sunrock would be conducting can crack well casings. It happened to my
neighbor, an experienced farmer who had the misfortune of living near a quarry like this. Not
only does this damage the wells, but opens them to bacterial contamination. If a farmer's water
quality test fails, what do they do?
I know that the dizzying amount of water that Sunrock will use for the quarry can drain our
aquifer. Many of us have had to dig deeper wells already in 2010. The aquifer is already
threatened. The creeks on our land that our neighbor remembers as flowing ten years ago are
not now. The wells some of us are digging are 400 feet down.
What small farmer can afford to dig a deeper well? Or worse, get water some other way if all
our water supplies are contaminated? Most of us can't. We just have to lose it all, as this
quarry profits.
Like many, we moved here because of the good soils and clean water. It would be a terrible
crime to let one great mistake undo it all for generations to come.
Our farming future is part of my concern - but the place where it really hurts me the most is
thinking about the land and the people, and the lasting impact. I know how bad it is because
I've seen it.
I was born a few miles from Scranton, PA - famous for the water that can be lit on fire. The
carcinogens in the water can no longer be removed. I am sure the polluting company wrote
assurances beforehand about how they would comply with all regulations. I am also sure that
worrying about it didn't keep them awake at night. It wasn't their families or their great great

grandchildren that would have to sit with the consequences of negligent industry for a thousand
years.
This is to say nothing of how the plants and animals are affected. All life suffers when the water
gets poisoned and choked by sediment. Digging a polluting quarry right on top of three healthy
creeks and a lake and pumping billions of gallons over the quarry's limited lifetime of acidified
and contaminated groundwater into them is a sure way to do that.
Heavy metals will be leached out of the rock into our water supply as they pump millions of
gallons per day into creeks and a lake that is in no way prepared for this. The heavy metals
bioaccumulate and persist in ecosystems for generations. The harm compounds on itself.
Erosion and sediment will damage the precious riparian habitats that terrestrial, avian and
aquatic life all depend on and which are becoming all too rare.
I am not sure if DEQ can deny their permit on the grounds of air quality, but to me the air quality
impact is terrifying. I have family that died from black lung. The PM2.5 air pollutants resulting
from mining dust so close to residences and impacting homes up to a few miles away is
unacceptable. It will hurt our elderly, our children, our families, and our plants and animals. It is
thoughtless. And Sunrock's promises of mitigating it will use even more water from the aquifer
and leave even more of it contaminated downstream.
This is not a company with a reputation for the kind of extreme care that would be needed to
work anywhere near these farms, generational homes, and a precious high quality water supply
in the Roanoke River Basin.
Sunrock has not taken and cannot be trusted to take adequate precautions. This is evident by
the simple fact that they chose a site 1000 feet from a nesting site for eagles and a valuable
water supply and recreation lake. It is evident by them lying and saying there are no proximal
recreation areas, where there most certainly are. It is evident by the marks they have left on
communities and they ways in which they have responded to legitimate complaints by the
communities they have harmed with denial or aggression.
Something I have not heard mentioned yet but that concerns me greatly is the additional way
that climate change could further exacerbate the negative impacts this quarry would certainly
cause. The last 5 years were the hottest 5 on record globally. The complex nature of climate
change means both floods and droughts. It means incredible stresses on life trying to adapt to
changing circumstances. As new farmers a few miles from the quarry, we watched two years
out of three go by where we had 1 inch of rain to last us 3 months. This could be the new
normal. As the temperatures rise and scorch the land, followed by hurricane floods bringing
erosive force, every living thing is already in a struggle to adapt. Our precious Piedmont
ecosystems are under profound stress. Our aquifer is already threatened. I saw the Little River
at the state park nearby drop to almost nothing. We're seeing record climate -related natural

disasters each year. It is certain that damaging a healthy water supply and the tributaries
that feed it and recklessly exhausting and contaminating our groundwater will further
destroy the resilience of ecosystems already threatened with collapse. This is the
absolute worst time on earth to do a project that gambles needlessly with the most important
resource we have - water.
Please - to me, the water is everything. We dig on -contour swales on our land to try to sink
precious rainwater into the soil rather than having it erode sediment into our creek. We enhance
riparian buffers and are even building beaver dam analogues. We use super low -irrigation
practices on the land with deep mulching and agroforestry alley cropping. All of this is because
we know we can make a living while saving water. We're just upstream from these creeks that
can be destroyed by the hole Sunrock wants to put in the ground. All of our conservation efforts
and all the downstream benefits we are trying to create by creating a healthier watershed and
creek would stop right at the giant irreversible waste of water Sunrock is trying to impose on our
community.
Please don't let all of our work be for nothing. The DEQ is our greatest hope to have
peace, clean air, clean water, healthy wildlife and ecosystems, a livelihood, and a future.
What you choose will affect my great grandchildren. Please deny this permit.
Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Matthew Burawski
6205 Wade Loop
Cedar Grove, NC 27231

w
ilJ�IZO> `�
r Sir 1�vm o}—
i�
,peter :�-i r
-l-o -yVK ev� QoUc quA" fr�r j�rp� �F�'/f�d✓�
914F, -r Am -t6 74,�, 1 Vahy #iVd mNa D ev
ivol Heat L &I /vi f k1 �-L- vnIdeY&70rY11 -1?-a4 0-/Le �vrfs-7 /•afi
.� pwww e r hx0 a do Ne. sov--e 5 p vl),G)v,�,f i n� -J-7L�
�}v j 6i'4ot,, -,I-- `vim1d Assvr,,r wrkd ze d oj1,4;,t
i7.A 77Ovg1,t 04 jU v, rea Ili Se n-mE me , A,,, vie
lJef 1?,,aI-kt,)s 1-�c�v�'�� Sprlye� w J9�c�.t� BI-�veje,
h,* NPvr�6?0'411 ,�, how Less
w rrt- f%� els 6OvevAm -q" C,)ee me v�
e
k+�'TlZ
Aee w� o rftfv ! i s be c 6e y A av4m,- 4 rev.
�j N j),,� ..33- Err) p1 cry m z lYl D Nsri+✓l i� Sea/1- `jam .5 iv met- B Ups' I � ,
hA& pY%Nge LA-WS, Tkc �yQrm-�� �m nr5co�w c� �� Sf�FtF
—71'me , / Dk/ ?,ao"s/p e s 144 bid uangselF
}�n,bpbl� w7� avf-A, hoPurta AftVk Corvicer-' FmY i7t�
A,Ob brke Ch,)duP� i�j 7)us J9ti'ea
l %e 5eu.,44 kice✓I i S No 6 cncl 1=0Y
,rkr)y,", f7t dt5ceblea 4ue &vtl LASS , I�leiy✓%rc UJHS
fl /vm Sse,1 Ro-cc znle- Iv,, r.� Zocc� R v 'ins wao }3rsuNd
Tl� yt-m-1 E4.4 J ruurs 7Puk Are d vstq vrfy,
7VDt5� d n�ovs �iRces, ur< l,ad Iq 9uarny inu �Jve�q i�AU
a � T+c Lc Is m ov, t- ShvT d�u/,v oG vP -kb
Cwr- eva -T- 5%wvc? p� 3u'.140,A))os,7 A Mt]e. &Wtvy,
R_a, do Ho+ /4J�PrDve i), b 96 for d v r l�r Ne
('DfirPvNr9At Prosptatf )-bll
M)ehptl C(,ay+o ✓, ),p 49ros poe-- ZJi)1 le 077: 1?)

Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
- - October 10, 2019
To Whom it may Concern at Department of Environmental Quality,
I am an extremely concerned North Carolinian concerned about a permit in the works for Sunrock to blast a quarry and haul away
material from a 650 acre parcel that has three tributaries that lead into Roxboro lake. This lake is the back-up drinking water for
the Roxboro community.
Please deny the permit to Sunrock for the quarry and associated plants
By the way, the DEQ mission is to provide: environmental stewardship for the health and prosperity of ALL North Carolinians."
Sincerely,
Joanie Alexander
Hillsborough NC 27278
941-365-8417

It/11/11
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
Recently, residents of Caswell County learned that The Sunrock Group has applied for a permit
from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality to build a quarry on a 620-acre parcel of
land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. Sunrock couldn't have found a worse place to site a
quarry operation if it had tried.
The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco
Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one, not two, but three tributaries
feeding Roxboro Lake literally crisscross the quarry property.
Why is that important? Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves as the back-up
water source for the more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When the main Roxboro reservoir,
City Lake, is low, due to little rainfall, Roxboro residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They
have been drinking Roxboro Lake water since the end of the summer.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the streams and an
erosion control plan. The problem is Sunrock has no experience mining around streams; its
other operations are far from waterways. In fact, of the more than 100 aggregate stone mines in
North Carolina, only one is in a watershed like this one and it doesn't have any streams near the
property. In short, no one can know for sure how this large industrial operation will affect water
relied on by a town for its drinking water because no one here has any experience with a site
like this one.
Quarries blast bedrock. Heavy machinery crushes and transports the stone. Vibrations, ground
water seepage and dust from all aspects of the operations are byproducts of running a quarry.
Given a choice, you wouldn't choose to live by one. Residents living near the Sunrock
Woodsdale quarry in Person County have expressed their concerns about life in close proximity
to a quarry. Prospect Hill neighbors won't be given that choice. Person County residents in
Bushy Fork are within a half mile of the proposed quarry. Their wells may be impacted. Finally,
City of Roxboro residents should be concerned. Since this mining will be occurring right next to
waterways, you may not want to live downstream from the mining, either.
Sunrock claims it will be diligent in complying with the requirements for operating its quarry.
However, recently two helicopters were observed spraying herbicide over the quarry land. That
would probably include the vegetation within the stream buffers. Buffers don't matter if nothing is
growing there. If those areas were hit, one has to question Sunrock's commitment to stream
protection.
Prospect Hill is a peaceful community with an important watershed running through it. For now,
anyway. Over 200 concerned citizens in that area are working to get DEQ to deny the Sunrock
permit. They could use some help, though. Roxboro elected officials ought to be diligent in
protecting its water supply from the unknown impacts of this proposed quarry. They should be
engaged in the permitting process with DEQ. Many people's lives, especially among their
constituents, may be affected by this decision.
Sincerely,
Kristin Prelipp Oguntoyinbo

November 9, 2019
Dear NC Department of Environmental Quality:
Recently, residents of Caswell County land the surrounding area learned that The Sunrock Group
has applied for a permit from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality to build a quarry on a
620-acre parcel of land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. Sunrock couldn't have found a worse
place to site a quarry operation if it had tried.
The land that Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco
Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one, not two, but three tributaries
feeding Roxboro Lake literally crisscross the quarry property.
Why is that important? Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves as the back-up
water source for the more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When the main Roxboro reservoir,
City Lake, is low, due to little rainfall, Roxboro residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They
have been drinking Roxboro Lake water since the end of the summer.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the streams and an erosion
control plan. However, Sunrock has no experience mining around streams; its other operations
are far from waterways. In fact, of the more than 100 aggregate stone mines in North Carolina,
only one is in a watershed like this one and it doesn't have any streams near the property. In
short, no one can know for sure how this large industrial operation will affect water relied on by a
town for its drinking water because no one here has any experience with a site like this one.
Quarries blast bedrock. Heavy machinery crushes and transports the stone. Vibrations, ground
water seepage and dust from all aspects of the operations are byproducts of running a quarry.
Given a choice, you wouldn't choose to live by one. Sunrock claims it will be diligent in complying
with the requirements for operating its quarry. However, recently two helicopters were observed
spraying herbicide over the quarry land. That would probably include the vegetation within the
stream buffers. Buffers don't matter if nothing is growing there. If those areas were hit, one has to
question Sunrock's commitment to stream protection.
Many people's lives, especially among their constituents, may be affected by this decision if the
quarry is permitted. In addition to noise, damage to the environment, damage to roads and a
decrease in quality of life in the area, dust from mining of aggregates and asbestos and
transportation will exacerbate asthma, especially in vulnerable populations, including the elderly,
children and the poor.
Please do the right thing for North Carolina and its citizens by denying this permit to Sunrock.
Sincerely,
Katherine C. Kopp
Orange County NC
Lifelong resident of North Carolina (going back 7+ generations)

To whom it may concern;
My name is David Regan, I am a resident of North Carolina, and am aware of, and deeply concerned over
the proposed Carolina Sunrock quarry in Prospect Hill. I am writing to express my firm opposition to this
application, and beseech the decision of this agency to deny the application on the following grounds.
I believe the project will be harmful to the land and water supply of the county. The treated water is
treated but not purified, and runoff will be fed into the headwaters of Lake Roxboro. The use of water for
the quarry is also expected to lower the local groundwater, affecting local wells and water access. I refer
to the findings of professional geologist Mark Chandler, and his review of Sunrock commissioned study.
The inconsistencies he found there, including failures to retest levels of radium and mercury in the water
supply, suggest to me in this study, and the consideration of this project as a whole, are not occurring with
the level of diligence and assurance commensurate with it's potential impact on the environment and the
public's health. Chandler himself requested the application be denied. And a DEQ spokesperson admitted
that projects of this size and nature in such proximity to waterways do not currently exist to be studied. I
demand that in the absence of the proper study and research, we CANNOT gamble with the lives and
wellbeing of our State's residents.
I grew up in Barre, VT, a small town only slightly larger than Roxboro who's primary economy, since
long before my time, had been the granite quarries. I can remember the trucks rolling up and down the
hill, choking out diesel fumes, being stuck behind them in our cars, waiting to pass. I can recall hearing
the blasting from my home, nearly 2 miles away. The applications suggestion that a 300 foot buffer will
mitigate the noise from this quarry, is not only laughable it is downright insulting to what these residents
will experience.
I do not debate the need for and current value of mineral and geological commodities such as Granite. But
we must not let these material gains come at the expense of our land, our water, and our public health.
These are values we have in limited supply and their well-being is priceless. I expect this agency to live
up to it's core mission of protection of the environment and sustainability for ALL North Carolinians, and
treat the residents of Roxboro and the surrounding towns as they would their own family.
Please deny this application, and recommend Carolina Sunrock find a more suitable location for it's mine.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our concerns.
Regards,
David R.
227 Monmouth Ave.
Durham, NC 27701

Mr. Samir Dumpor
DEMLR Washington Regional Office
Washington, North Carolina
November 10, 2019
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
Our family has been in North Carolina for more than 300 years. Everyone in our community of
Northern Orange and Southern Caswell and Person has been blessed with the priceless gift of a
land filled with good neighbors, productive farms, clean water, abundant wildlife, historic homes,
and welcoming churches.
As concern seems far too mild a term, let me say I'm writing to share my horror at the Sunrock
request for a permit to essentially destroy our local ecosystems and environments in order to
profit from that decimation.
The residents in these three counties have only learned of this proposal in the past few weeks, but
what we've heard from local geologists and hydrologists makes it clear that Sunrock has initially
misinformed the public about the damage the project will wreak and that they are attempting to
mislead our government protectors, as well. We who live in these vulnerable counties know how
critical watershed protection is for the environment, local species, and human residents.
As you well know, a small shift in one area can lead to massive change in a system, and while it
would be impossible to predict the scale and scope of the damage, we do know that the proposed
700-acre quarry, not to mention the asphalt and cement plants, is no small shift It's a massive
project that will drastically change the local environment forever. It is impossible to know the
scale of the effect this operation will have on nearby watersheds. But we can say with certainty
that the project will jeopardize the water quality of Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water
reservoir that serves as a critical backup water source for Roxboro - residents have been drinking
from that reservoir for months because of what is designated as a "moderate drought." If the past
10 years are any indication, this drought will be a recurring situation. We seem to have entered a
new annual weather pattern, with a rainy season in which 10 inches of water deluges the area in
the space of a day or two and then a dry season where we end up in moderate to severe drought.
Sunrock has enough of a reputation and history to make us quite sure they cannot be trusted. As
far as we can tell, there is only one other aggregate stone mine in North Carolina in a similar
watershed, and that one isn't near any streams. Why in the world would we let them play fast and
loose with our pristine waters just so they can turn a profit?
Our area is rich with farmers who have been farming their lands for hundreds of years, as well as a
new generation of young farmers who have moved from across the country to this area
specifically for the clean water and clean air. Polluted water will certainly have a negative impact
on these farmers, young and old. And just when we are moving toward a regenerated farming
community, with organic and biodynamic and sustainable agriculture really taking root in this

area. One of the co-founders of the Piedmont Progressive Farmers Group, an organization that
supports African American and minority farmers, spoke at the hearing Monday night and made
this point well. We cannot afford the environmental and health threats that this asphalt -cement -
quarry operation would bring.
I was also very troubled at the hearing, and at other meetings, to listen to nearby schoolchildren
and their parents speak I have read the letters the children are writing to protest this plan.
I met a young woman who didn't speak at the hearing but who told me of her pulmonary disease,
which is monitored regularly - she moved to the area years ago specifically because of her lung
condition.
Again, we are looking at industrial waste and pollution from the asphalt plant; oil, gas,diesel
leakage pollution (it was astonishing to hear from that manager about the amount of truck
leakage/seeping!); particulate matter being dispersed for many miles; surface and drinking water
toxins and pollutants, depletion of wells for an unknown area; depletion of a major aquifer;
disruption of farming (both produce and animal —the major source of revenue in this area); not to
mention the other consequences not under consideration: the lowered mental health of residents
from ongoing noise, light pollution, traffic - these are roads down which farm equipment and a
very few cars travel every day. Can you imagine going from possibly 5 -10 cars per day to heavy
trucks every 6 minutes?
The environmental, geologic and social damage from this kind of mining has been thoroughly
documented. I cannot believe in 2019 that these three counties are really having to fight a
proposal by a private company to destroy our lands for their profit
As the county commissioners in Orange and Caswell consider how best to fight Sunrock's
proposed quarry blasting -asphalt -cement plants, and look at new, planned growth with intelligent
zoning, and as residents make plans for a long court battle, it struck me that all this might be
avoided if the DEQ listened to the residents of these three counties and just denied the permit.
After listening for more than three hours last Monday, I'm sure there is more than ample reason to
do so.
We are each of us stewards of a land and a community which existed long before any of us came
into the world. As stewards of this land for this short period of time, we have a responsibility to
care for it in a way that ensures future generations, our children and grandchildren, will inherit a
land filled with abundant trees, clean streams, bountiful wildlife, and a welcoming community.
As my mother always said, "Leave a place better than when you found it."
Respectfully,
6Len Harris
[e-mail] 919-259-5527 9602 Art Road, Cedar Grove, NC 27231

N6V � i► � b � l
/0 1J�lom. � way eoncrnM
(I
p6V
a0i'm 0
Q
A�4
A)7
(1

1418 Woodland Dr
Durham, NC 27701
Samir Dumpor
Dept. Of Environmental Quality,
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor:
I am an extremely concerned North Carolinian particularly about protecting our water supply. It
has come to my attention you are considering a permit for a quarry near Roxboro NC to a
company named Sunrock.
The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco
Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one, not two, but three tributaries
feeding Roxboro Lake literally crisscross the quarry property.
Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves as the back-up water source for the
more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When the main Roxboro reservoir, City Lake, is low, due
to little rainfall, Roxboro residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They have been drinking
Roxboro Lake water since the end of the summer.
While I do not live in the contiguous counties, the food I eat is grown there. And soon water will
be the most precious resource in the world if we allow this type of encroachment.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the streams and an
erosion control plan. The problem is Sunrock has no experience minim around streams: its other
operations are far from waterways.
Please deny the permit to Sunrock for the quarry and associated plants.
Thank you for your most serious consideration,
Mary Kessler

Mr. Samir Dumpor
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
November 9, 2019
Dear Mr. Dumpor;
I am writing as an extremely concerned North Carolinian asking you to deny the permit to Sunrock for
the quarry and associated plants. As you know, the DEQ mission is to provide environmental
stewardship for the health and prosperity of ALL North Carolinians.
Recently, residents of Caswell County learned that The Sunrock Group has applied for a permit from the
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality to build a quarry on a 620-acre parcel of land on Wrenn Road
in Prospect Hill. The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet from
South Hyco Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one, not two, but three tributaries
feeding Roxboro lake literally crisscross the quarry property.
This is important because Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves as the back-up water
source for the more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When the main Roxboro reservoir, City Lake, is
low, due to little rainfall, Roxboro residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They have been drinking
Roxboro Lake water since the end of the summer.
Due to the tributaries feeding Roxboro Lake, the quarry will affect the drinking water of many residents,
both near and far. Since you are responsible for the health and well-being of us residents, I sincerely
request that you deny the permit to Sunrock.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Ruben

November 11, 2019
Samir Dumpor
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
To whom this may concern,
I am a concerned Orange County, North Carolina resident and recently learned The Sunrock Group has
applied for a permit from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality to build a quarry on a 620-acre
parcel of land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. I am writing to request that the Department of
Environmental Quality deny the permit for the quarry and associated plants. This proposal doesn't align
with the Department of Environmental Quality's mission to provide environmental stewardship for the
health and prosperity of all North Carolinians.
The land designated in the proposal is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco Creek, the headwater
forming Roxboro Lake. Three tributaries which feed Roxboro Lake would crisscross the quarry property.
Roxboro Lake serves as the back-up water source for the more than 8,000 residents. When City Lake,
the main Roxboro reservoir, is low, Roxboro residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They have been
drinking Roxboro Lake water since the end of the summer.
Sunrock claims it will protect the water supply with buffers and an erosion control plan. Sunrock has no
experience mining around streams. Of more than 100 aggregate stone mines in North Carolina, only one
is in a watershed like this one, and it doesn't have any streams near the property. It is unknown how this
large industrial operation will affect water relied on by the town because no one here has any experience
with a site like this one.
Quarries blast bedrock. Heavy machinery crushes and transports stone. Vibrations, ground water
seepage and dust from all aspects of the operations are byproducts of running a quarry. Given a choice, I
suspect no one would choose to live by one. Residents living near the Sunrock Woodsdale quarry in
Person County have expressed concerns about life in close proximity to a quarry. Those in Bushy Fork
are within a half mile of the proposed quarry. Their wells may be impacted. Roxboro residents should be
concerned. This mining will be occurring right next to waterways and would affect lives downstream.
Please deny the permit to Sunrock for the quarry.
Sincerely,
Sandra Cianciolo

Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
November 8, 2019
Dear Mr. Samir Dumpor,
I am writing as a concerned citizen and taxpayer in North Carolina. Please deny
the permit to Sunrock for their proposed quarry and associated plants in
Prospect Hill. The damage that would be done to the water shed and residents'
wells is irreparable. The headwaters that would be contaminated feed Roxboro
Lake which serves as a local source of drinking water. By befouling the
headwaters, you contaminate the lake.
As a health professional, I am also concerned about the carcinogens that can
and easily will travel to the surrounding communities including my own. The
DEQ mission is to provide environmental stewardship for health and prosperity
of ALL North Carolinians. Please fulfill your mission and deny the Sunrock
permit for a Prospect Hill quarry.
Sincerely,
Karin Yeatts
111 C Mulberry Str.
Carrboro, NC
27510

✓l.Jv . II ���7

Kristina Baldridge
8 Heath Place
Durham, NC 27705
November 12, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Dept. Of Environmental Quality, Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
I am writing to you today to express my deep concern over the prospect of granting a permit to The
Sunrock Group and associated plants to build a quarry on a 620-acre parcel of land in North Carolina.
As a resident of the state I am requesting you deny this permit as it will cause environmental and
community harm to my follow citizens. 1 would image this is a concern you share, given the DEQ's
missions to provide environmental stewardship for the health and prosperity of all North Carolinians.
It is my understanding that the land that The Sunrock Group plans to mine is less than 1,000 feet from
South Hyco Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. There is little, if any, evidence to suggest that
The Sunrock Group can successfully manage the environmental impact of mining near such a sensitive
area. Safe drinking water is a right we all have, and no corporations should be able to deny us that.
In addition to the environmental concerns I have, I also have concerns about the impact mining
operations would have on the general well-being of the surrounding communities. The noise pollution
caused by constant blasting and heavy machinery (both crushing the rock on site and transporting it
offsite) would be devasting to have to live with day to day. As someone who works from home and has
young children in her house, I cannot image what that would be like. Given that, I cannot wish it or
accept it for anyone else in my state.
I ask that you deny the requested permit to The Sunrock Group and any associated plants. Preserving
our enforcement and our communities is in your mission statement as an organization. Do not fail us in
favor of corporate interests that give nothing back.
Thank you.
l
Kristina Baldridge

Marcia A. Angle, MD, MPH
221 Deer Chase Lane
Durham, North Carolina 27705-7934
[e-mail] 1 [phone]
November 11, 2019
Mr. Samir Dumpor,
Department of Environmental Quality, Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
RE: Proposed Sunrock Quarry
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
I am the former medical director of the Orange County Health Department, and
am writing to urge you to deny the permit for the proposed Sunrock Quarry.
The Sunrock Group has applied for a permit from you and your colleagues at the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, to build a quarry on a 620-
acre parcel of land (on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill), which is crossed by three
streams. These streams feed drinking water reservoirs! Your records will hopefully
show that of the more than 100 aggregate stone mines permitted in North Carolina,
only one is in a watershed similar to this proposed site, but that quarry doesn't have
any streams near the property. In the interest of safe, clean drinking water, I urge
you to deny this permit.
Sincerely,
—\4W,0�.-Ura

Samir Dumpor
Dept. Of Environmental Quality, Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mail
Washington, NC 27889
November 11, 2019
Dear Samir Dumpor,
i live in Durham and ask that you deny the permit to Sunrock for the Caswell County quarry and
associated plants.
Thank you,
Pt
U/LL6VJI'-*'
Robin Arcus
109 E. Lynch Street
Durham, NC 27701
9197683-3013
[e-mail]

CASWELL COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
"Preserving the Past — Embracing the Future... "
Commissioner Sterling Carter
November 11", 2019
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
I submit the following information for review regarding the mining permit for Carolina Sunrock LLC's
proposed rock quarry to be located at Prospect Hill, Caswell County, North Carolina.
As a member of the Caswell County Board of Commissioners, one of our duties and responsibilities as the local
governing body is to have control of abandoned public cemeteries as set forth in:
NCGS 65-113: "The county commissioners of the various counties are authorized to oversee all abandoned
public cemeteries in their respective counties to see that the boundaries and lines are clearly laid out, defined,
and marked and to take proper steps to preserve them from encroachment and they are hereby authorized to
appropriate from the general fund of the county whatever sums may be necessary from time to time for the
above pumoses."
It has come to my knowledge that there are at least three abandoned cemeteries on the proposed site. This
information was also submitted to you in writing from concerned citizens during the public hearing held on
November 4'", 2019 at the Caswell County Historic Courthouse in Yanceyville.
It has been explained to me further from concerned citizens in the Prospect Hill community that two of these
cemeteries are located at the proposed pit site and during preparation of the site through timber removal, these
cemeteries were destroyed. This has been confirmed through knowledge obtained by local citizens who are
familiar with the land and have spent their lifetimes in knowledge of these cemeteries. Carolina Sunrock, LLC
has also been shown the specific location of two cemeteries and made aware of the situation by local citizens.
Nothing has been done to address the destruction of the cemeteries nor their presence in the site plans for
Carolina Sunrock, LLC's application for a mining permit.
The two cemeteries that have been destroyed are located on the parcel described as: 0133.00.00.0005.0000
owned by Eree, LLC, P.O. Box 850, Burlington, NC 27216. The additional cemetery that is located on the site
is on the parcel described as: 0133.00.00.0075.0000.
As a member of the local governing body charged by the State of North Carolina to oversee abandoned
cemeteries in Caswell County- to see that they are preserved from encroachment, it is my responsibility to share
with you the following state laws pertaining to violations made by the property owner of the location in
question:
NCGS 14-148: Defacing or desecrating grave sites.
(a) It is unlawful to willfully:
(1) Throw, place or put any refuse garbage or trash in or on any cemetery.

(2) Take away, disturb, vandalize, destroy or change the location of any stone, brick, iron or
other material or fence enclosing a cemetery without authorization of law or consent of the
surviving spouse or next of kin of the deceased.
(3) Take away, disturb, vandalize, destroy, or tamper with any shrubbery, flowers, plants or
other articles planted or placed within any cemetery to designate where human remains are
interred or to preserve and perpetuate the memory and name of any person, without
authorization of law or the consent of the surviving spouse or next of kin.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to:
(1) Ordinary maintenance and care of a cemetery by the owner, caretaker, or other person acting
to facilitate cemetery operations by keeping the cemetery free from accumulated debris or
other signs of neglect.
(2) Conduct that is punishable under G.S. 14-149.
(3) A professional archaeologist as defined in G.S. 70-28(4) acting pursuant to the provisions of
Article 3 of Chapter 70 of the General Statutes.
(c) Violation of this section is a Class I felony if the damage caused by the violation is one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or more. Any other violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor. In passing sentence, the
court shall consider the appropriateness of restitution or reparation as a condition of probation under G.S. 15A-
1343(b)(9) as an alternative to actual imposition of a fine, fail term, or both. 0840, c. 6; R.C., c. 34, s. 102,
Code, s. 1088. Rev., s. 3680: C.S., s. 4320: 1969. c. 987: 1981. c. 752, s. 1: c. 853. s. 4: 1993. c. 539. s. 87:
1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 2007-122, s. 1.
NCGS 14-149: Desecrating, plowing over or covering up graves; desecrating human remains.
(a) It is a Class I felon, without authorization of law or the consent of the surviving snouse or next of
kin of the deceased, to knowingly and willfully:
(1) Open, disturb, destroy, remove, vandalize or desecrate any casket or other repository of any
human remains, by any means including plowing under, tearing up, covering over or
otherwise obliterating or removing any grave or any portion thereof.
(2) Take away, disturb, vandalize, destroy, tamper with, or deface any tombstone, headstone,
monument, grave marker, grave ornamentation, or grave artifacts erected or placed within
any cemetery to designate the place where human remains are interred or to preserve and
perpetuate the memory and the name of any person. This subdivision shall not apply to the
ordinary maintenance and care of a cemetery.
(3) Repealed by Session Laws 2007-122, s. 2, effective December 1, 2007, and applicable to
offenses committed on or after that date.
(al) It is a Class H felony, without authorization of law or the consent of the surviving_ spouse or next of
kin of the deceased, to knowingly and willfully disturb, destroy, remove, vandalize, or desecrate any human
remains that have been interred in a cemetery.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a professional archaeologist as defined in G.S. 70-
28(4) acting pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of Chapter 70 of the General Statutes. (1889, c. 130, Rev., s.
3681, 1919, c. 218, C.S., s. 4321; 1981, c. 752, s. 2; c. 853, s. 5; 2007-122, s. 2.)
Article 3.
Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act.
§ 70-26. Short title.
This Article shall be known as "The Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection
Act." (1981, c. 853, s. 2.)
§ 70-27. Findings and purpose.
(a) The General Assembly finds that:
(1) Unmarked human burials and human skeletal remains are subject to vandalism and
inadvertent destruction at an ever-increasing rate;
(2) Existing State laws do not provide adequate protection to prevent damage to and destruction
of these remains;

(3) There is a great deal of scientific information to be gained from the proper excavation, study
and analysis of human skeletal remains recovered from such burials; and
(4) There has been no procedure for descendants or other interested individuals to make known
their concerns regarding disposition of these remains.
(b) The purpose of this Article is (i) to provide adequate protection from vandalism for unmarked
human burials and human skeletal remains, (ii) to provide adequate protection for unmarked human burials and
human skeletal remains not within the jurisdiction of the medical examiner pursuant to G.S. 130A-383 that are
encountered during archaeological excavation, construction, or other ground disturbing activities, found
anywhere within the State except on federal land, and (iii) to provide for adequate skeletal analysis of remains
removed or excavated from unmarked human burials if the analysis would result in valuable scientific
information. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 2007-484, s. I1(a).)
§ 70-28. Definitions.
As used in this Article:
(1) "State Archaeologist" means the head of the Office of State Archaeology section of the
Office of Archives and History, Department of Natural and Cultural Resources.
(2) "Executive Director" means the Executive Director of the North Carolina Commission of
Indian Affairs.
(3) "Human skeletal remains" or "remains" means any part of the body of a deceased human
being in any stage of decomposition.
(4) "Professional archaeologist" means a person having (i) a postgraduate degree in archaeology,
anthropology, history, or another related field with a specialization in archaeology, (ii) a
minimum of one year's experience in conducting basic archaeological field research,
including the excavation and removal of human skeletal remains, and (iii) designed and
executed an archaeological study and presented the written results and interpretations of such
study.
(5) "Skeletal analyst" means any person having (i) a postgraduate degree in a field involving the
study of the human skeleton such as skeletal biology, forensic osteology or other relevant
aspects of physical anthropology or medicine, (ii) a minimum of one year's experience in
conducting laboratory reconstruction and analysis of skeletal remains, including the
differentiation of the physical characteristics denoting cultural or biological affinity, and (iii)
designed and executed a skeletal analysis, and presented the written results and
interpretations of such analysis.
(6) "Unmarked human burial" means any interment of human skeletal remains for which there
exists no grave marker or any other historical documentation providing information as to the
identity of the deceased. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 2002-159, s. 35(a); 2007-484, s. 10(a); 2015-
241, s. 14.30(s).)
§ 70-29. Discovery of remains and notification of authorities.
(a) Any person knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that unmarked human burials or
human skeletal remains are being disturbed, destroyed, defaced, mutilated, removed, or exposed, shall notify
immediately the medical examiner of the county in which the remains are encountered.
(b) If the unmarked human burials or human skeletal remains are encountered as a result of construction
or agricultural activities, disturbance of the remains shall cease immediately and shall not resume without
authorization from either the county medical examiner or the State Archaeologist, under the provisions of G.S.
70-30(c) or 70-30(d).
(c) (1) If the unmarked human burials or human skeletal remains are encountered by a professional
archaeologist, as a result of survey or test excavations, the remains may be excavated and
other activities may resume after notification, by telephone or registered letter, is provided to
the State Archaeologist. The treatment, analysis and disposition of the remains shall come
under the provisions of G.S. 70-34 and 70-35.
(2) If a professional archaeologist directing long-term (research designed to continue for one or
more field seasons of four or more weeks' duration) systematic archaeological research
sponsored by any accredited college or university in North Carolina, as a part of his research,

recovers Native American skeletal remains, he may be exempted from the provisions of G.S.
70-30, 70-31, 70-32, 70-33, 70-34 and 70-35(c) of this Article so long as he:
a. Notifies the Executive Director within five working days of the initial discovery of
Native American skeletal remains;
b. Reports to the Executive Director, at agreed upon intervals, the status of the project;
C. Curates the skeletal remains prior to ultimate disposition; and
d. Conducts no destructive skeletal analysis without the express permission of the
Executive Director.
Upon completion of the project fieldwork, the professional archaeologist, in consultation
with the skeletal analyst and the Executive Director, shall determine the schedule for the
completion of the skeletal analysis. In the event of a disagreement, the time for completion of
the skeletal analysis shall not exceed four years. The Executive Director shall have authority
concerning the ultimate disposition of the Native American skeletal remains after analysis is
completed in accordance with G.S. 70-35(a) and 70-36(b) and (c).
(d) The State Archaeologist shall notify the Chief, Medical Examiner Section, Division of Health
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, of any reported human skeletal remains discovered by a
professional archaeologist. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 1997-443, s. I IA.118(a); 2007-484, s. 10(b).)
§ 70-30. Jurisdiction over remains.
(a) Subsequent to notification of the discovery of an unmarked human burial or human skeletal remains,
the medical examiner of the county in which the remains were encountered shall determine as soon as possible
whether the remains are subject to the provisions of G.S. 130A-383.
(b) If the county medical examiner determines that the remains are subject to the provisions of G.S.
130A-383, the county medical examiner will immediately proceed with the investigation.
(c) If the county medical examiner determines that the remains are not subject to the provisions of G.S.
130A-383, the county medical examiner shall so notify the Chief Medical Examiner. The Chief Medical
Examiner shall notify the State Archaeologist of the discovery of the human skeletal remains and the findings of
the county medical examiner. The State Archaeologist shall immediately take charge of the remains.
(d) Subsequent to taking charge of the human skeletal remains, the State Archaeologist shall have 48
hours to make arrangements with the landowner for the protection or removal of the unmarked human burial or
human skeletal remains. The State Archaeologist shall have no authority over the remains at the end of the 48-
hour period and may not prohibit the resumption of the construction or agricultural activities without the
permission of the landowner. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 2007-484, ss. 10(c), I I(b).)
§ 70-31. Archaeological investigation of human skeletal remains.
(a) If an agreement is reached with the landowner for the excavation of the human skeletal remains, the
State Archaeologist shall either designate a member of his staff or authorize another professional archaeologist
to excavate or supervise the excavation.
(b) The professional archaeologist excavating human skeletal remains shall report to the State
Archaeologist, either in writing or by telephone, his opinion on the cultural and biological characteristics of the
remains. This report shall be transmitted as soon as possible after the commencement of excavation, but no later
than two full business days after the removal of a burial.
(c) The State Archaeologist, in consultation with the professional archaeologist excavating the remains,
shall determine where the remains shall be held subsequent to excavation, pending other arrangements
according to G.S. 70-32 or 70-33.
(d) The Department of Natural and Cultural Resources may obtain administrative inspection warrants
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15, Article 4A of the General Statutes to enforce the provisions of this
Article, provided that prior to the requesting of the administrative warrant, the Department shall contact the
affected landowners and request their consent for access to their land for the purpose of gathering such
information. If consent is not granted, the Department shall give reasonable notice of the time, place and before
whom the administrative warrant will be requested so that the owner or owners may have an opportunity to be
heard. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 2007-484, s. 10(d); 2015-241, s. 14.30(s).)

§ 70-32. Consultation with the Native American Community.
(a) If the professional archaeologist determines that the human skeletal remains are Native American,
the State Archaeologist shall immediately notify the Executive Director of the North Carolina Commission of
Indian Affairs. The Executive Director shall notify and consult with the Eastern Band of Cherokee or other
appropriate tribal group or community.
(b) Within four weeks of the notification, the Executive Director shall communicate in writing to the
State Archaeologist, the concerns of the Commission of Indian Affairs and an appropriate tribal group or
community with regard to the treatment and ultimate disposition of the Native American skeletal remains.
(c) Within 90 days of receipt of the concerns of the Commission of Indian Affairs, the State
Archaeologist and the Executive Director, with the approval of the principal tribal official of an appropriate
tribe, shall prepare a written agreement concerning the treatment and ultimate disposition of the Native
American skeletal remains. The written agreement shall include the following:
(1) Designation of a qualified skeletal analyst to work on the skeletal remains;
(2) The type of analysis and the specific period of time to be provided for analysis of the skeletal
remains;
(3) The timetable for written progress reports and the final report concerning the skeletal
analysis to be provided to the State Archaeologist and the Executive Director by the skeletal
analyst; and
(4) A plan for the ultimate disposition of the Native American remains subsequent to the
completion of adequate skeletal analysis.
If no agreement is reached within 90 days, the Archaeological Advisory Committee shall determine the
terms of the agreement. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 2007-484, s. 10(e).)
§ 70-33. Consultation with other individuals.
(a) If the professional archaeologist determines that the human skeletal remains are other than Native
American, the State Archaeologist shall publish notice that excavation of the remains has occurred, at least once
per week for four successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the burials or
skeletal remains were situated, in an effort to determine the identity or next of kin or both of the deceased.
(b) If the next of kin are located, within 90 days the State Archaeologist in consultation with the next of
kin shall prepare a written agreement concerning the treatment and ultimate disposition of the skeletal remains.
The written agreement shall include:
(1) Designation of a qualified skeletal analyst to work on the skeletal remains;
(2) The type of analysis and the specific period of time to be provided for analysis of the skeletal
remains;
(3) The timetable for written progress reports and the final report concerning the skeletal
analysis to be provided to the State Archaeologist and the next of kin by the skeletal analyst;
and
(4) A plan for the ultimate disposition of the skeletal remains subsequent to the completion of
adequate skeletal analysis.
If no agreement is reached, the remains shall be handled according to the wishes of the next of kin. (1981, c.
853, s. 2; 2007-484, s. 10(f).)
§ 70-34. Skeletal analysis.
(a) Skeletal analysis conducted under the provisions of this Article shall only be accomplished by
persons having those qualifications expressed in G.S. 70-28(5).
(b) Prior to the execution of the written agreements outlined in G.S. 70-32(c) and 70-33(b), the State
Archaeologist shall consult with both the professional archaeologist and the skeletal analyst investigating the
remains.
(c) The professional archaeologist and the skeletal analyst shall submit a proposal to the State
Archaeologist within the 90-day period set forth in G.S. 70-32(c) and 70-33(b), including:
(1) Methodology and techniques to be utilized;
(2) Research objectives;
(3) Proposed time schedule for completion of the analysis; and
(4) Proposed time intervals for written progress reports and the final report to be submitted.

(d) If the terms of the written agreement are not substantially met, the Executive Director or the next of
kin, after consultation with the State Archaeologist, may take possession of the skeletal remains. In such case,
the State Archaeologist may ensure that appropriate skeletal analysis is conducted by another qualified skeletal
analyst prior to ultimate disposition of the skeletal remains. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 2007-484, s. 10(g).)
§ 70-35. Disposition of human skeletal remains.
(a) If the skeletal remains are Native American, the Executive Director, after consultation with an
appropriate tribal group or community, shall determine the ultimate disposition of the remains after the analysis.
(b) If the skeletal remains are other than Native American and the next of kin have been identified, the
next of kin shall have authority concerning the ultimate disposition of the remains after the analysis.
(c) If the State Archaeologist has received no information or communication concerning the identity or
next of kin of the deceased, the skeletal remains shall be transferred to the State Archaeologist and permanently
curated according to standard museum procedures after adequate skeletal analysis. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 2007-
484, s. 10(h).)
§ 70-36. Financial responsibility.
(a) The provisions of this Article shall not require that the owner of the land on which the unmarked
human burials or human skeletal remains are found, bear the cost of excavation, removal, analysis or
disposition.
(b) If a determination is made by the Executive Director, in consultation with an appropriate tribal
group or community, that Native American skeletal remains shall be reinterred following the completion of
skeletal analysis, an appropriate tribal group or community may provide a suitable burial location. If it elects
not to do so, it shall be the responsibility of the North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs to provide a
suitable burial location.
(c) The expense of transportation of Native American remains to the reburial location shall be borne by
the party conducting the excavation and removal of the skeletal remains. The reburial ceremony may be
provided by an appropriate tribal group or community. If it elects not to do so, the reburial ceremony shall be
the responsibility of the Commission of Indian Affairs. (1981, c. 853, s. 2.)
§ 70-37. Prohibited acts.
(a) No person, unless acting under the provisions of G.S. 130-198 through G.S. 130-201, shall:
(1) Knowingly acquire any human skeletal remains removed from unmarked burials in North
Carolina after October 1, 1981, except in accordance with the provisions of this Article;
(2) Knowingly exhibit or sell any human skeletal remains acquired from unmarked burials in
North Carolina; or
(3) Knowingly retain human skeletal remains acquired from unmarked burials in North Carolina
after October 1, 1981, for scientific analysis beyond a period of time provided for such
analysis pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 70-32, 70-33 and 70-34, with the exception of
those skeletal remains curated under the provisions of G.S. 70-35.
(b) Other provisions of criminal law concerning vandalism of unmarked human burials or human
skeletal remains may be found in G.S. 14-149. (1981, c. 853, s. 2.)
§ 70-38. Rule -making authority.
The North Carolina Historical Commission may promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of this Article. (1981, c. 853, s. 2.)
§ 70-39. Exceptions.
(a) Human skeletal remains acquired from commercial biological supply houses or through medical
means are not subject to the provisions of G.S. 70-37(a).
(b) Human skeletal remains determined to be within the jurisdiction of the medical examiner according
to the provisions of G.S. 130A-383 are not subject to the prohibitions contained in this Article. (1981, c. 853, s.
2; 2007-484, s. I I(c).)

J 7049. Penalties.
(a) Violation of the provisions of G.S. 70-29 is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) Violation of the provisions of G.S. 70-37(a) is a Class H felony. (1981, c. 853, s. 2; 1993, c. 539, s.
543; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
In summary, this project moving forward will encroach on three existing abandoned cemeteries- two of which,
the Prospect Hill community and myself are aware of and soon, on Monday November 18', the Caswell County
Board of Commissioners will be aware of, have been destroyed and therefore these actions violate NCGS 14-
148 and NCGS 14-149. As one of the stewards of abandoned cemeteries in Caswell County- this is simply
unacceptable and I expect the law to be adhered to and the property owner be held accountable.
Because these cemeteries were likely the peaceful burial of former enslaved African Americans, this now will
involve genealogical and advocacy efforts of surrounding churches, the NAACP and the Caswell County
Historical Association. As a genealogist myself, I hope to connect those buried in these desecrated graves to
their living descendants.
Because they are now unmarked human burials, this will initiate the procedure set forth in NCGS 70-29 through
70-40, the Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act of North Carolina involving
the Chief Medical Examiners Office and the Office of State Archaeology.
Knowing that these violations have occurred due to the neglect of the landowner prior to the development of the
site, and neglected during the mining permit application process on part of the applicant, how can you approve a
permit for mining at this location? Ili
Do your duty- deny the permit.
Respectfully,
qaZ19
Sterling Carte
Caswell County Commissioner
144 Court Square PO Box 98 Yanceyville, NC 27379
Phone: [phone] Fax [phone]

We are Mark and Heather Langan. Our land is at 1078 Wilson Road, Hurdle Mills and sits in
both Caswell and Person counties. We oppose the quarry and asphalt plant Carolina Sunrock
wants to open in Caswell County on Wrenn Road. This document augments and organizes the
comments we made at the public meeting on November 4.
Caswell County is home to people, important waterways, farms and endangered and protected
wildlife. The proposed quarry is TOO CLOSE to these things and threatens them directly. This is
not an urban environment with inherent protections and buffers and/or little risk to municipal
water, land or wildlife. This is a highly natural, wild, landscape. It is not the place for a heavily
industrial, polluting operation.
The North Carolina Mining Act of 1971 indicates that a permit for a quarrying operation may be
denied on any of seven different criteria.
Regarding Denial Criteria #1:
(1) That any requirement of this Article or any rule promulgated hereunder will be violated by
the proposed operation;
Carolina Sunrock has failed to follow the rules regarding adequate evaluation of appropriateness
for a potential quarry site. The water testing they did was limited, the equipment they used broke
and they did not resume the test. Qualified hydrologists have entered public comment that
several of the wells in the area went dry during these tests, which was performed during a
particularly rainy season. There is no plan for what would happen during a drought, which
occurred just after this inadequate test was performed.
There are several inadequacies in the hydro -geological study commissioned by Carolina
Sunrock. This includes the failure to re -sample groundwater for the presence of mercury after
initial results showed elevated levels, possibly because of lab contamination. Nor was there
testing for radium, which is naturally occurring in granite deposits.
Carolina Sunrock has not performed or requested adequate surveys of the impact of the
quarry on the natural environment. There are endangered species in the streams that run through
the proposed quarry land (James River Spiny Mussel, two types of crayfish). There are protected
species (eagles) nesting on the lake, just a few hundred feet from the proposed quarry site. The
Neuse River Waterdog is being considered for the list of federally protected animals and is in the

areas of Person and Caswell Counties. Nowhere in their application does Sunrock address any of
these things.
Carolina Sunrock has ignored the fact that there is a church just across the street from the
proposed site, which falls under criteria #4. They did not address this in their application,
making it out of compliance with the Mining Act.
Carolina Sunrock has ignored the presence of historical grave sites on the property. In fact,
two cemeteries are in the proposed pit area. It is possible that some of these old graves contain
the remains of enslaved peoples. There are two statutes in North Carolina (14-148 and 14-149)
that address "Defacing, desecrating, plowing over or covering up graves." Should the quarry
project go forward, Sunrock would be in violation of these laws and therefore subject to a Class I
Felony and any additional violations serving as Class 1 Misdemeanors. "The next of kin must be
identified under these circumstances.
In short, Carolina Sunrock's application for a quarrying and asphalt operation is out of
compliance with the law from the very beginning, on multiple fronts.
Regarding Denial Criteria # 3&4:
(3) That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water quality, or groundwater
quality that have been promulgated by the Department;
(4) That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard to public health and
safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital, commercial or industrial
building, public road or other public property, excluding matters relating to use of a public road;
Air and Water:
The Environmental Protection Agency reports that quarries produce tons of particulate matter
every year.
"Particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely
small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components,
including acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.

Emissions from the production of sand and gravel consist primarily of particulate matter (PM)
and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM-10) in aerodynamic diameter, which are
emitted by many operations at sand and gravel processing plants, such as conveying, screening,
crushing, and storing operations (EPA).
There are too many research articles to cite here. Multiple research studies indicate that PM less
than 10 micrometers is highly dangerous to humans, animals and water quality, though PM of
10+ is also dangerous and potentially life -threatening.
There are a number of elderly people and children in the area of the proposed quarry in
Caswell County. In addition, there are military veterans with health conditions and
disabled people living in close proximity. In fact, Caswell County is home to a number of
Vietnam War veterans, as well as veterans of more recent conflicts. Some of them have
physical and mental health challenges which would be adversely affected by a quarry.
According to the World Health Organization: "People with pre-existing lung or heart disease, as
well as the elderly and children, are particularly vulnerable. For example, exposure to PM affects
lung development in children, including deficits in lung function, chronically reduced lung
growth rate and a deficit in long-term lung function."
Particulates are strongly associated with respiratory diseases, hypertension, cardiovascular
conditions, allergies, inflammatory reactions, birth defects and deficiencies in child development.
Elderly people and those with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung diseases such as
COPD are especially sensitive to particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated
particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and premature
deaths.
That high levels of ambient particulate matter from combustion sources could have severe
adverse effects on health was noted in the air pollution episodes of the 1940s to 1960s. Indeed,
one such episode in London, England, in 1952 was responsible for several thousand premature
deaths within a week. However, until the publication of new studies beginning in the early
1990s, there were no data to suggest that relatively low concentrations of particulate matter, as
currently experienced in urban areas of North America and Western Europe, had effects on
human health.

Health Concerns Specific To Asphalt:
Asphalt plants mix gravel and sand with crude oil derivatives to make asphalt. The EPA says
these plants release millions of pounds of chemicals to the air during production each year,
including many cancer -causing toxic air pollutants such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and
cadmium. Other toxic chemicals are released into the air as the asphalt is loaded into trucks and
hauled from the plant site.
Asphalt Fumes are Known Toxins. The EPA states "Asphalt processing facilities are major
sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane and phenol. Exposure to these
air toxins may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, liver damage, respiratory
problems and skin irritation.".
In addition to smokestack emissions, large amounts of harmful "fugitive emissions" are released
as the asphalt is moved around in trucks and conveyor belts, and is stored in stockpiles. A small
asphalt plant may release up to 50 tons of toxic fugitive emissions into the air every year.
The amounts of pollutants released from a facility are estimated by computers and mathematical
formulas rather than by actual stack testing, Experts agree these do not accurately predict toxic
emissions released. According to Dr. Luanne Williams, a North Carolina state toxicologist, 40%
of toxins from asphalt plant smokestacks meet air quality standards and for the other 60%, the
state lacks sufficient data to determine safe levels.
Even if an asphalt plant meets all air pollution standards, people living nearby are still
exposed to cancer -causing substances that can cause long-term damage. These standards are
based on the principle of "acceptable risk", and assume each state will adequately enforce the
standards, the plants will operate perfectly, and the owners can be trusted to operate on an honor
system where they are expected to follow all the laws and regulations that apply to their facility
without any government oversight.
Finally, there are serious mental health concerns regarding an operation that includes large,
loud, frequent blasting. Such noise, and the accompanying vibration, can be intensely distressing
to humans and animals. People suffering from PTSD, such as veterans, may experience severe
recurrence of symptoms with exposure to such disturbing stimuli. As a trained, practicing trauma

therapist, I (Heather) have been witness to the consequences of such trauma triggers and know
the deep, damaging fallout that can occur. This worries me greatly, should the proposed quarry
come to pass.
The effect of blasting on livestock is less well known but can be assumed to be similarly
disturbing, as their nervous systems and their built-in threat -response cycles are essentially the
same as ours. It should be noted that there are large chicken houses adjacent to the proposed
quarry property. It is likely that the dust and blasting could cause substantial risk to the ability of
this operation to remain viable, due to multiple factors (dust in the fans, disturbance to the
animals by blasting and vibration). The effect on animals such as horses is also at issue. What
might happen if people are riding horses nearby when blasting occurs? This could cause terrible
disturbance to the horses, who could run into the road or buck their riders off.
Regarding Denial Criteria #2:
(2) That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable groundwater supplies, wildlife,
or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries;
Effects on Waterways:
There are 3 streams running through the land where the quarry is proposed. Hyco Creek
Lake/Roxboro Lake is very close by and is a protected, Class II Watershed drinking water source
for the city of Roxboro. Carolina Sunrock indicates in its application that it will discharge its
waste water into local streams, which feed the watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey has
indicated that when quarries are pumped, groundwater is diverted away from streams and drain
nearby ponds and wetlands — of which there are least a half dozen on the property. Blasting can
change the flow of groundwater, as well as that in creeks and streams.
The NC DEQ itself indicates that "Land uses in the (Roxboro Lake) watershed include
agricultural, forest and residential areas". Notice you do not indicate that this is an industrial
area. DEQ spokeswoman Christy Simmons has said the region "does not have other

examples of mines/quarries of this size" located in areas with this classification of high
quality waters.
The Environmental Protection Agency indicates that particles can be carried over long distances
by wind and then settle on ground or water. Depending on their chemical composition, the
effects of this settling may include:
• making lakes and streams acidic
• changing the nutrient balance in river basins
• depleting the nutrients in soil
• damaging sensitive forests and farm crops
• contributing to acid rain effects.
Several serious environmental impacts related to quarrying activities on and near the river, such
as vibrations, land degradation, land subsidence and landslides, water pollution, occupational
noise pollution, and air pollution, will lead to health -related problems and loss of biodiversity.
Quarrying operations can adversely alter pre-existing ecosystems, and change hydrogeological
and hydrological regimes. This adverse influence of stone and sand quarrying induces damage in
property, depletion of ground water, loss of fertile topsoil, degradation of forests, deterioration in
aquatic biodiversity and public health. Haphazard quarrying of sand from riverbeds may cause a
rapid change in bed configuration in response to the changes in flow. Quarrying basically
destroys landscape. This can lead to downstream movement, scouring, or accumulation of
sediment while provoking shoreline erosion. When riverbeds are composed of sand, this on-
going pattern of erosion and deposition causes meanders to progress slowly downstream in time.
(Abstract, Sci Total Environ. April 2016)
Effects of Quarrying on Water Quality (from SafeWater.org):
There are four main types of mining impacts on water quality:
1. Acid mine drainage: acid leaches from rock and is carried off by rainwater or surface
drainage and deposited into nearby streams, rivers, lakes and groundwater. This severely
degrades water quality, and can kill aquatic life and make water virtually unusable.

2. Heavy metal contamination and leaching: heavy metal pollution is caused when metals
are leached out and carried downstream as water washes over rock surface.
3. Processing chemicals pollution occurs when toxic chemical agents used by mining
companies spill, leak or leach from the mine site into nearby water bodies.
4. Erosion and sedimentation: mining disturbs soil and rock in the course of constructing
and maintaining roads, open pits and waste impoundments. Erosion of the exposed earth
may carry substantial amounts of sediment into streams, rivers and lakes. Sediment can
clog riverbeds and smother watershed vegetation and wildlife.
[Note that this has happened at another Sunrock quarry — see comments under
Denial Criteria #7]
Quarry owners claim that "fugitive dust" will be "mitigated on site". However, this requires
enormous amounts of water. Again, this use of water can deplete an aquifer, as well as
contaminate it with carcinogenic heavy metals.
The proposed quarry will pump 3 million (THREE MILLION) gallons of water per day, putting
local wells and the aquifer itself in critical danger of depletion. The Environmental Protection
Agency says that mining can deplete surface and groundwater supplies. Further, it indicates that
withdrawals may damage or destroy streamside habitat many miles from the mine site.
Sunrock's water- and well -testing was incomplete and flawed. Carolina Sunrock's permit
application indicates its waste water will go into Sugar Tree Creek, Hyco Creek and Lake
Roxboro. Surely, this cannot be allowed. Thousands of people rely on this water and they rely
on it to be clean and unpolluted. These waterways are protected as part of the watershed and are
home to protected and endangered species.
From GeoSciences Journal, 2007:
Effect of mining and geology on the chemistry of stream water and sediment in a small
watershed:
Chemical characteristics of the stream water and sediment in the small watershed with two
distinctive mineralization zones (Cu and Pb—Zn), 7 abandoned mines and an active quarry were

investigated to examine the effects of mining activity and regional geology on the chemistry. The
stream water affected by the abandoned mines had Ca—SO4 type but the other had
Ca—HCO3 type. The mine -affected stream water and sediment showed relatively high
concentrations of metals.
The Center For Biological Diversity reports that mining practices have had a serious impact on
the environment, ecosystems and human health since the industry's inception. Hardrock mining
releases more toxic substances — such as mercury, arsenic, lead and cyanide — than any other
industry in the United States. And here are just a few other "side effects" of mining on public
lands in the West: cyanide spills; wildlife habitat destruction and fish kills caused by poisoned
waters; and water pollution caused by acid mine drainage, which leaches potentially toxic heavy
metals like lead, copper, and zinc from rocks.
According to the Mineral Policy Center, damaging effluents from mines have polluted more than
12,000 miles of American rivers and streams and 180,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs,
destroying drinking -water supplies and crucial wildlife habitat and presenting a burgeoning
threat to already overtaxed underground aquifers.
Effects of Quarries on farming:
Many, many people in Caswell County make their livings by farming, often farming land that
has been in their families for generations. High concentrations of trace metals from particulate
matter and water pollution pose a great threat to general ecosystems due to their persistence,
inherent toxicity, consequent bioaccumulation and biomagnification in the food chain. In plants
the blockage of stomata hinders photosynthesis around quarrying sites. The environmental
impact of a quarry on local farms could be devastating to farmers.
Multiple scientific articles report on a broad range of negative impacts of quarries on
surrounding communities. Quarrying activities impact the life of the communities living around
the quarry zones and those working in the quarry ( Nartey et al., 2012). The negative impacts on
the socioeconomic status includes increase in health complications and diseases such as
pneumonia, eyes and ears infections and other respiratory illnesses associated with the dust,
smoke, fumes and noise emitted in the quarrying operations; accidents and health hazards due to

existence of quarry pits (Olusegun et al., 2009;Nartey et al., 2012;Saliu et al., 2014;Wanjiku et
al., 2014); increase in conflict in the society; water source pollution; loss of agricultural
productive land and illegal stone extraction (Lad and Samant, 2014)....
Regarding Denial Criteria #5:
(5) That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes of a publicly
owned park, forest or recreation area;
The proposed quarry is just a few hundred feet from Hyco Creek Lake/Roxboro Lake, a publicly
owned body of water which is not only used as a secondary drinking water source, but also
functions as a vibrant, attractive and well -used recreational area. People swim, boat and fish on
the lake. A quarry, with its attendant loud blasting, flyrock, particle pollution, and destruction of
the surrounding land would be devastating to this beloved and beautiful local resource. This also
applies under Denial Criteria #3.
Regarding Denial Criteria #7:
(7) That the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or parent has
not been in substantial compliance with this Article, rules adopted under this Article, or other
laws or rules of this State for the protection of the environment or has not corrected all
violations that the applicant or any parent, subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or
parent may have committed under this Article...
Carolina Sunrock has demonstrated in the past that they are not good stewards of the land, water
and air. In spite of paying lip service to the motto "Do the right thing", they have demonstrated
that they do just the opposite.
In 2010, the company's 81-acre facility in Kittrell, which sits near the Tar River off U.S.
Highway 1, was cited for illegally depositing sediment into waterways. The operation
deposited up to a foot of dirt into a stream channel and affected nearly an acre of wetlands and
75 feet of stream, plus 2,000 square feet of buffers.

DEMLR required the company to repair the damage, which included removing the sediment
using "hand labor" because of the sensitivity of the damaged areas.
Four years prior, in 2006, Carolina Sunrock applied for an "after -the -fact" permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, again for its Kittrell plant. Operations had affected 1.5 acres of
wetlands and 62 linear feet near the Tar River. In a letter to the company, the Corps noted that
the Tar River is a habitat for endangered and threatened mussels. "The applicant" — Carolina
Sunrock — was aware of the presence of these species, the Corps wrote, because state wildlife
officials "specifically requested" that the company "avoid wetland and steam impacts in future
mine expansion."
Given the above evidence, it is clear that Carolina Sunrock has not been in substantial
compliance with the NC Mining Act of 1971.
Conclusion:
Caswell County is a highly rural place, clean, agricultural, undefiled. "Acceptable Risk" is not a
concept that we in Caswell County accept. There are too many people, animals, farm lands,
protected and endangered wildlife, and water sources (including a fragile aquifer) in the
vicinity of the proposed quarry to make this a viable, legal enterprise. We citizens hope that
you, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, will embrace your mission and
protect our health, our livelihoods and natural environment by denying Sunrock's application for
a quarry in Caswell County. Once done, it cannot be undone.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Heather, Mark and Emily Langan
Caswell/Person Counties

Sources
https://files.nc.govincdeq/Water%200uality/Environmental%20SciencesIReportsIROA2014Fina
1Lakes.pdf
https:Hng2is.epa.g_ov/Exe/Z PD F.cgi?Docket/=P l 001 EX6.txt
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch 11 /final/cl 1 s 19-1.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.goy/pubmed/31550597
https://www.nebi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31479977
https://www.canada.calenlhealth-canadalservices/environmental-workplace-health/reports-
publications/environmental-contaminants/canadian-environmental-protection-act-1999-priority-
substances-list-assessment-report-respirable-particulate-matter.html#a2412
https://www.biologicaldiversiiy.org/prop,rams/public lands/mining/
https://www.research atg e.net/publication/235793394 Environmental impact analysis of quarr
iing_activities established on and near a river bed by using_remotely sensed data
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollutionlhealth-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm
http://www.euro.who.int/ data/assets/pdf file/0006/189051/Health-effects-of-particulate-
matter-final-Eng_pdf
https:Hedocs.deg.nc.gov/Stormwater/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=636291 &page=l &cr=1
https://www.researchgate.netlfigure/The-effect-of-dust-from-mining-activities-on-crops-in-the-
study-area-a-Crops-on fig? 268294817
https:Hdatausa. io/profile/geo/caswel l-county-nc
http://www.ncpolicywatch.com/2019/11/04/pw-exclusive-proposal-for-massive-caswell-count -
granite -mine -fires -up -local s/

NCDEQ Committee Members
To whom it may concern,
November 4, 2019
The comments below are in regard to the DEQ Public Hearing concerning Carolina Sunrock
LLC's application for a mining permit for a crushed stone mining operation located near
Prospect Hill in Caswell County, NC. Below I have described how Carolina Sunrock's permit
application has met several of these denial criteria listed under G.S. 74-51 of The Mining Act of
1971.
Comment 1: "That the operation will have unduly adverse effects on potable ground
water supplies, wildlife, or fresh water, estuarine, or marine fisheries"
A scientific study performed in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New
Hampshire investigated the effect of whole -tree clear -cutting within a watershed on nutrient
cycling, water chemistry and soil erosion. They published their results in the Journal of Plant
and Soil in 1994 and found that when several acres of forest are cleared adjacent to
waterbodies, there was an increase in water acidification, and a significant input of nitrogen,
phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon into these waterbodies. Furthermore, the reduction in
canopy cover led to a significant increase in water body temperatures, thus enhancing the
conditions necessary to eutrophication and hypoxia, resulting in devastating effects of the
aquatic ecosystem. According to the permit application, sediment basins and silt fences will only
be installed during the construction and will be removed when a "good stand of grass has
become established." Given that we have seen a significant increase in the occurrence of 50-,
100- and 500-year floods in the last decade, we know that these engineered controls are not
equipped to handle these storm events. The permit application lacks the necessary controls to
prevent the deleterious effects of deforestation, increased soil erosion, stream sedimentation
and acidification, eutrophication and hypoxic or even anoxic water conditions. Lastly it is unclear
who is responsible for making sure these controls are functioning effectively and who will be
monitoring water quality before construction to establish a baseline, and during and after
construction to understand if any changes have occurred. Sunrock acknowledges that they will
be disturbing wetlands during the construction process and plan to install 48-inch culverts to
allow waterbodies to flow while moving their equipment through the wetlands. Several scientific
studies have shown that wetlands create a migration barrier for crayfish, preventing them from
moving any further upstream. Furthermore, culverts have been shown to significantly increase
the typical flow velocity of the stream due to friction relative to a normal, rocky bottom,
vegetated streambed. This increases the chances of soil erosion, and thus stream
sedimentation.
Comment 2: "That the operation will violate standards of air quality, surface water
quality, or ground water quality which have been promulgated by the Department"
Unfortunately, NC has been gaining notoriety for environmental tissues, particularly with
drinking water quality. In 2015, a colleague of mine at the EPA detected GenX in the Cape Fear
River. In 2018, over 19,000 homeowners in Eastern Wake county were notified that their private
wells may be contaminated with radiological chemicals such as uranium, radon and radium from
the underlying granite. Just this summer, 1,4-dioxane was detected in the drinking water of
thousands of residents in Pittsboro. Individuals here in Prospect Hill and the surrounding area
on private wells, and thus, there is no one checking on the level of chemicals in these wells. As
you are aware, the watershed that this.quarry is planned to occupy is used as a secondary

water supply for the city of Roxboro. I think the last thing the DEQ wants is another
contaminated drinking water supply. In the application, Carolina Sunrock has failed to disclose
which blasting materials and chemicals they plan to use, and therefore, we do not know what to
monitor for. Furthermore, comments provided by the EWR and Carolina Wildlife have
recommended monitoring water quality before, during and after mining operations. We need
specific details on what water chemistry parameters they plan to monitor to be sure we are
protecting our drinking water fully. It is also unclear as to who will be monitoring water chemistry
and how contaminated waste water will be prevented from entering our waterways. .
Comment 3: "That the operation will constitute a direct and substantial physical hazard
to public health and safety or to a neighboring dwelling house, school, church, hospital,
commercial or industrial building, public road or other public property, excluding matters
relating to use of a public road"
There are several residents within the blasting zone that have a significantly increased
risk of fly rock entering their property. 3 homeowners near the Carolina Sunrock Woodsdale
have had significant structural damage to their home and Sunrock and has denied
responsibility. While the use of a public road is not a violation, large trucks carrying thousands of
pounds of rock on country roads occupied by farming equipment is a safety violation. A loaded
truck would not have time to safely avoid hitting a slow -moving tractor around one of the several
blind curves on Ridgeville Rd.
Comment 4: "That the operation will have a significantly adverse effect on the purposes
of a publicly -owned park, forest or recreation area"
Sunrock estimates they will pump million gallons of water into surrounding streams in
order to keep their quarry from flooding. This tremendous volume of will undoubtedly have
significant adverse effects on the publicly owned Roxboro Lake, a secondary drinking water
supply for the City of Roxboro. As mentioned earlier, this project is expected to have a
significant adverse effect on water quality
Comment 5: "That previous experience with similar operations indicates a substantial
possibility that the operation will result in substantial deposits of sediment in stream
beds or lakes, landslides, or acid water pollution"
A scientific study performed in the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New
Hampshire investigated the effect of whole -tree clear -cutting within a watershed on nutrient
cycling, water chemistry and soil erosion. They published their results in the Journal of Plant
and Soil in 1994 and found that when several acres of forest are cleared adjacent to
waterbodies, there was an increase in water acidification, and a significant input of nitrogen,
phosphorus and dissolved organic carbon into these waterbodies. Furthermore, the reduction in
canopy cover led to a significant increase in water body temperatures, thus enhancing the
conditions necessary to eutrophication and hypoxia, resulting in devastating effects of the
aquatic ecosystem.
Thank you for offering the opportunity for the public to provide comments and I look forward to
the DEQ deciding to deny the application.
-Matthew Ruis
909 Goodwin Rd, Durham NC 27712

1200 Hurdle Mills Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231
November 4, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
My name is Pam Schwingl and my husband, Patrick Mann, and I live 5 miles, as the crow flies,
from the center of the proposed quarry site in Prospect Hill, NC; we live on 27 acres of farm land
in Northern Orange County in the South Hyco watershed an environmentally sensitive watershed
supplying Class Water Supply-2 B High Quality Water. We are opposed to the siting of the
Sunrock quarry in Prospect Hill on Wrenn Road for a number of reasons —1) we have a farm
dependent on our wells, and 2) as an epidemiologist, I am concerned about the health and well-
being of my neighbors based on their projected exposure to silica dust and noise pollution.
Over the past three years we have installed irrigation for our perennial blackberries and
asparagus beds which are part of our plan to help support our retirement, and for the sheep,
chickens, and turkeys which we raise for ourselves and sell in small quantities. In the process, we
have brought back to life two shallow wells for a gravity fed irrigation system.
We are worried about climate change and have seen the devastating effect even two months of
drought has had on plants on our land. Given the threat of climate change to water resources in
general, locating a quarry which has extremely high water use in a sensitive watershed at this
time is irresponsible and shortsighted. If the quarry in its operation causes problems with water
over the course of decades of its lease - either to ground water or streams — the livelihood of
persons, not to mention wildlife and domestic plants and animals will be negatively impacted.
Furthermore, for the past 35 years I have worked as an epidemiologist, with the last 20 years on
contract with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). Most recently I
have been conducting systematic reviews of various substances in relation to cancer for the
NIEHS National Toxicology Program. Prior to this I was Research Director for 15 years of the
NIEHS support services contract tasked with conducting multiple observational human studies of
cancer and non -cancer conditions in relation to various exposures.
At least two exposures that will be of relevance to the health of residents living near the
proposed quarry are silica dust from quarry operations, and the effect of noise from blasting. I
have not conducted a systematic review of the literature of either of these, however, I feel that I
can provide high level, credible comments about what is known about the effects of these two
exposures on health outcomes.
Silica induces the transcription of pro -inflammatory cytokines, stimulates T cell responses and
decreases regulatory T cells, increases oxidative stress, and induces apoptosis. Exposure to silica
1

has long been known to be associated with lung diseases, most notably silicosis. In 2009, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified respirable crystalline silica as a
human carcinogen of group 1(sufficient evidence) (1).
Silica has been associated with several autoimmune diseases, including lupus, scleroderma and
rheumatoid arthritis. The association between silica exposure with lupus has been reported in
both agricultural and urban settings (2-4). Several studies have demonstrated dose -response
associations by type of exposure, and by increasing intensity or duration (5-7).
Regarding noise exposure, there is mounting evidence that connects noise exposures with
cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, stress, complex task performance, modified social
behavior, general annoyance, and impaired learning and concentration (8).
Multiple studies of occupational and environmental noise exposure suggest an association with
hypertension as noise activates the body's sympathetic nervous system, raising blood pressure
and heart rate (9).
If the quarry operates at night, while inhabitants may be able to tune out noise during the day,
that tuning out doesn't occur for nighttime exposures (10). Repeated arousals at night prevent
the normal lowering of blood pressure that occurs at night during sleep (11). Disrupted sleep is
also associated with increased levels of lipids and the stress hormone cortisol, potentially
increasing the risk of disorders such as depression (12-14).
Environmental noise pollution may also be a risk factor for pregnancy -related hypertension, and
particularly more severe variants of preeclampsia (15,16).
Longer lifetime occupational noise exposure has been consistently associated with higher risk of
ischemic heart disease, with the effect being more pronounced among certain subgroups of the
population, including older people and among those with established cardiovascular disease.
These individuals have a greater susceptibility to the effects of environmental stressors (17-19).
Noise also affects the animals and creatures around us, as the literature describes a range of
effects across animal species and biodiversity resources (20-23).
Beyond this information on how noise affects our health, I found a large literature about how to
mitigate noise pollution (8, 9, 24-26). However, Arline Bronzaft, an environmental psychologist
and professor emerita of City University of New York, cautions that the communities that are
quiet today "could be intruded upon in the near future." It's therefore important to focus on
quieting communities overall, not just separating people from noise today, advising we control
noise at its source, before it begins (9). Thus, we have the opportunity to PREVENT this
problem before it occurs and eliminate the need for mitigation.
Please d the per it for this uarry in Prospect Hill

References
1. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks. Arsenic, metals, fibres, and
dusts. IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2012; 100(PT C): 11-465.
2. Parks CG, Cooper GS. Occupational exposures and risk of systemic lupus erythematosus:
a review of the evidence and exposure assessment methods in population- and clinic -
based studies. Lupus. 2006;15(11):728-36.
3. Cooper GS, Gilbert KM, Greidinger EL, James JA, Pfau JC, Reinlib L, et al. Recent advances
and opportunities in research on lupus: environmental influences and mechanisms of
disease. Environ Health Persp. 2008;116(6):695-702.
4. Parks CG, Conrad K, Cooper GS. Occupational exposure to crystalline silica and
autoimmune disease. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107(Suppl 5):793-802.
5. Parks CG, Cooper GS, Nylander-French LA, et al. Occupational exposure to crystalline
silica and risk of systemic lupus erythematosus: a population -based, case -control study in
the southeastern United States. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(7):1840-50.
6. Finckh A, Cooper GS, Chibnik LB, et al. Occupational Exposures and Risk of Systemic Lupus
Erythematosus [abstract] Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(9S):S733.
7. Cooper GS, Wither J, Bernatsky S, et al. Occupational and environmental exposures and
risk of systemic lupus erythematosus: silica, sunlight,
solvents. Rheumatology. 2010;49(11):2172-80.
8. Hammer MS, et al. Environmental noise pollution in the United States: developing an
effective public health response. Environ Health Perspect 12202115-119.2014;
10.1289/ehp.1307272
9. Holzman DC. Fighting noise pollution: a public health strategy. Environ Health
Perspect. 2014 Feb;122(2):A58. doi: 10.1289/ehp.122-A58.
10. Haralabidis AS, et al. Acute effects of night-time noise exposure on blood pressure in
populations living near airports. Eur Heart J 295658-664.2008;
10.1093/eurheartj/ehn013
11. Sforza E, et al. Heart rate activation during spontaneous arousals from sleep: effect of
sleep deprivation. Clin Neurophysiol 115112442-2451.2004;
10.1016/j. cl i n p h . 2004.06.002
12. Meedo P, et al. Restricted and disrupted sleep: effects on autonomic function,
neuroendocrine stress systems and stress responsivity. Sleep Med Rev 123197-210.2008;
10.1016/j.sm rv.2007.07.007
13. Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: non -auditory effects on health. Br Med Bull.
2003; 68:243-57.
14. Tzivian L, Winkler A, Dlugaj M, et al. Effect of long-term outdoor air pollution and noise
on cognitive and psychological functions in adults. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2015
Jan;218(1):1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2014.08.002. Epub 2014 Sep 3.
15. Auger N, Duplaix M, Bilodeau-Bertrand M, et al. Environmental noise pollution and risk of
preeclampsia. Environ Pollut. 2018 Aug;239:599-606. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.04.060.
Epub 2018 Apr 25.
16. Sears CG, Braun JM, Ryan PH, et al.. The association of traffic -related air and noise
pollution with maternal blood pressure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in the
3

HOME study cohort. Environ Int. 2018 Dec;121(Pt 1):574-581. doi:
10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.049. Epub 2018 Oct 6.
17. Cai Y, Hansell AL, Blangiardo M, et al. Long-term exposure to road traffic noise, ambient
air pollution, and cardiovascular risk factors in the HUNT and lifelines cohorts. Eur Heart
J. 2017 Aug 1;38(29):2290-2296. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx263.
18. Ha J, et al. The magnitude of mortality from ischemic heart disease attributed to
occupational factors in Korea —attributable fraction estimation using meta -analysis. Saf
Health Work 2170-82.2011; 10.5491/SHAW.2011.2.1.70
19. Tetreault LF, Perron S, Smargiassi A. Cardiovascular health, traffic -related air pollution
and noise: are associations mutually confounded? A systematic review. Int J Public
Health. 2013 Oct;58(5):649-66. doi: 10.1007/s00038-013-0489-7. Epub 2013 Jul 26.
20. Francis CD, Kleist NJ, Ortega CP, Cruz A. Noise pollution alters ecological services:
enhanced pollination and disrupted seed dispersal. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Jul
22;279(1739):2727-35. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0230. Epub 2012 Mar 21.
21. Luo J1,2, Siemers BM1, Koselj K1. How anthropogenic noise affects foraging. Glob Chang
Biol. 2015 Sep;21(9):3278-89. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12997. Epub 2015 Jul 4.
22. Lucass C, Eens M, Muller W. When ambient noise impairs parent -offspring
communication. Environ Pollut. 2016 May;212:592-597. doi:
10.1016A.envpol.2016.03.015. Epub 2016 Mar 14.
23. McMahon TA, Rohr JR, Bernal XE. Light and noise pollution interact to disrupt
interspecific interactions. Ecology. 2017 May;98(5):1290-1299. doi: 10.1002/ecy.1770.
Epub 2017 Mar 29.
24. EPA. Noise in America: The Extent of the Noise Problem. EPA Report 550/9-81-101.
Washington, DC:Office of Noise Abatement and Control, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1981). Available: http://www.nonoise.org/epa/Rol16/rol16doc7.pdf
25. National Academy of Engineering. Technology for a Quieter America. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press (2010).
26. Waitz IA, et al. Challenges and Promises in Mitigating Transportation Noise. Burlington,
MA:Harris Miller Miller & Hanson.
Available: http://www.hmmh.com/crosdocuments/Transportation_Noise—CEH07.pdf
n

November 7, 2019
Samir Dumpor
943 Washington Regional Office
Washington, NC 27889
Regarding Proposed Sunrock Quarry, Prospect Hill, NC
Our names are Ed Dougherty and Dawn Leith Dougherty, 2685 Ridgeville Road,
Prospect Hill, NC 27314. Our Historic Home is directly across Ridgeville Rd. from
the proposed Quarry site. When I walk out my front door, cross the street to my
mailbox I am standing on the property. My bedroom directly overlooks this pro-
posed site. Therefore my concerns are serious and many.
Our 130 year old home, Our Dream Home, built in 1890, sits on the original brick
and mortar foundation, from bricks cast on site. She retains the original plaster
and wire lathe walls. Maintaining such a home is a labor of love for us and the
prospect of persistent mining and blasting adjacent to our home is terrifying. Sun -
rock downplays the blasting as only twice a week and describes the effect as a
momentary vibration. We see that as, two times a week, week after week, year
after year they plan to detonate a charge forceful enough to fracture the bedrock
with vibrations traveling far enough shake our aging home. Such ground vibra-
tions are one of the fundamental problems in the industry and known to cause
severe damage to nearby structures. It's not hard to find examples of this includ-
ing ones with the same operator at their other locations.
I quote from aogregateresearch.com, article titled : Rock Quart' Not A Good
Neighbor, Butner NC"At first you feel the earth trembling, and then comes the
sound of an explosion. Quarry neighbors say pictures shake on their walls and
virtually everyone blames the cracks in their walls and foundation problems on
the blasts that routinely shake the ground. Our Historic home would be particular-
ly vulnerable because of both its age and proximity as would our water well. Lav-
ern Marks, who lives on Gate One Road about a mile from the Butner Sunrock
quarry, has has significant damage to her home. (Our 130 year -old home built in
1890, on its original brick foundation with the original plaster and lath walls, will
be much closer, about a football field from the quarry.) Mrs. Marks said her home
was built in 1952 using double -brick walls and footings for each room. It was in
fine shape until the mid-1980s, when Sunrock started blasting, she said. Marks
blames an especially powerful blast in July 1985 for cracking the living room wall
completely through to the outside. And continuous blasts caused more cracks

throughout the house, she said. In the mid-1990s, she filed and won a lawsuit
against Sunrock.
The disruptive effects of deep pit mining to the local hydrology are well known
putting both water flow and quality at risk. Quoting from Sunrock's own hydrology
report "As there is no municipal water supply for area residents, all potable and
non -potable water is obtained from private water supply wells. Potential impacts
to nearby properties from quarry dewatering could include decreased groundwa-
ter supply/production, or even dry wells."
139 page report from the State of Minnesota studying hydraulic impacts of quar-
ries and gravel pits, and the wells/aquifers.
Aggregate mining is an extractive use of resources: mining alters the landscape
and its natural hydrologic system.
Quarries and pits can affect ground -water and surface -water systems in various
ways. This project focused on the following potential impacts: • lowering of local
ground -water and surface -water levels from mining operations and mine dewa-
tering, -D changes in turbidity levels in ground water due to blasting and quarry
operations, • interruption of ground -water conduit flow paths by rock removal, and
temperature change (thermal impacts) in springs and surface -water streams.
Dewatering operations can depress the water table, alter ground water flow paths
affecting nearby wells, springs and surface water bodies.
Our studies have shown that in certain areas, these mines can affect the local
water resources. Quarries and pits that actively dewater may have impacts on
neighboring wells."
That impacts adjacent Lake Roxboro that serves as a reservoir for our neighbor-
ing County. It is simply not reasonable to expect us, along with our neighbors to
accept this severe threat to our sole supply of clean water the loss of which,
could be devastating to us and our community.
With each detonation fine particulates are released to the air. They pose a severe
health risk to our community, especially to senior residents and those with al-
ready diminished lung capacity. Minerals, including Silica and Sulfur Dioxide are

known to cause cancer as well as degenerative heart and lung disease. As a
passionate gardener and aspiring beekeeper my husband and I spend as much
time possible outdoors. If approved we will be forced to consider forgoing our
passions to limit our exposure to these hazards. We both work from home, and
Dawn is home all day. Dawn is an aromatherapist, herbalist, and Reiki Master -
Teacher. I (Dawn) had planned on growing many of my own organic herbs for
use in my healing business, as well as the beeswax from hives we plan on main-
taining. We have some of the herb boxes ready to put together to plant, and
some herbs already growing. As a holistic healer and teacher, I had planned on
having clients to my quiet home for healings (think acupuncture/massage, etc.),
as well as to teach Reiki to students. I will not be able to do any of these things if
this quarry goes in, due to blasting, plant and truck noise, and particulates in the
air from rock dust and hazards of flyrock, and asphalt plant fumes. This plant will
operate 6 days a week, starting at 7 a.m. at the latest. Quite simply, this would
not be a healing and healthy environment for myself, patients/clients/students,
bees and my animals, or for growing my healing herbs and my organic vegetable
garden. We are vegetarians that grow as much of our own food as possible.
In closing, we wish to say that on a personal basis, we find it unacceptable that
an industry with this kind of environmental impact could come into our residential
farming community, potentially damage our homes, alter the landscape forever,
pollute the air, deplete and corrupt and drain our water with no recourse for the
citizens, and move on. This is predatory and this WILL negatively alter this quiet,
pastoral community, prevent new residents from moving here and cause others
to leave. The negative impacts will be disruptive and far-reaching to our commu-
nity and to us, personally. This
directly affects our personal safety and the safety of our animals and property, as
well as the sanctity of our extremely old home, and our financial future and secu-
rity.
Thank you for hearing us on Monday, November 4th, as well as reading our
statements today.

i

Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Objections to the proposed QUARRY in Caswell County, NC, 11/5119
Quarry sites are an aesthetic disaster. Granite quarries are unsightly and
due to their size, impossible to disguise. They are highly visible from the air
and for long distances. They destroy forests and land, leaving a barren
dustbowl of a landscape in their wake.
The environmental impacts are considered permanent. They take away
the habitats of animals and leave an ecological footprint that is irreparable.
There is no proposal to make this quarry into a favorable landscape so it can
blend in with the larger environment over time, as this would be an additional
cost. This speaks to the lack of concern for environmental impact by this
operator. Even if the landscape design was undertaken, the composition of
the soil and the topography is altered forever. In this respect, it is very similar
to the impact of mining coal.
Quarrying as a process has its own large carbon footprint. The transport of
quarried granite leads to more environmental degradation, use of fossil fuels
for extraction and transport, and increased engine -driven exhaust. All uses of
extracted materials have varying adverse impact on the environment. The
dust is perhaps the least considered, but most impactful side effect of
quarrying on everything and everyone nearby
Quarries can have a negative impact on wildlife habitats.
Indigenous animals, insects, and trees all struggle to survive when a quarry is
established. Already endangered species in the area including plants, bees,
amphibians, and avian species, may be pushed to brink by the imbalance
resulting from the various detrimental aspects of quarrying, including loss of
habitat, disruptive blasting, increased dust, and negative effects on the
aquafer and water supply. Widely viewed as some of the best hunting land in
North Carolina, a quarry's impact on Caswell game and fish will not be
viewed as positive by a large sector of the local and tourist populations who
enjoy these outdoor pursuits year-round.

Some of the negative health impacts that the proposed quarry may cause,
but which are not subject to environmental regulation include: Inhaling the
dust from locations near and downwind of the site (known to cause silicosis
and pneumoconiosis), worsening of existing respiratory conditions (asthma in
children and COPD/emphysema in adults), subtle and overt changes in water
quality, shifting foundations of nearby dwellings which can result in water
entry, mold overgrowth, indoor dust, and ultimately diminished indoor air
quality. This is not to mention the costs of repair of these structural damages,
inducing financial hardship and lost productivity from illness. Thus, the
increased stress from quarry impacts can cause unique and unpredictable
health concerns to the local population.
We already have a quarry in Pelham, so the need for a second operation is
of questionable economic benefit. Though quarries may create jobs, they
create costs which offset the local economic gains. Traffic can be a major
problem for small communities near a quarry. There may be infrastructure
costs required to support the quarry before it can begin operations. Noise
pollution, traffic exhaust, and other related traffic problems become part of the
quarry experience as well.
The benefits proposed by Sunrock do not seem to come close to outweighing
the deficits which have observed in quarries undertaken elsewhere. The
cost/benefit ratio is thus entirely unfavorable as presented for
consideration, and as a Caswell resident and local health care provider, I
object to the project as proposed.
Margaret M Martin, MD
Pediatrician, Caswell Family Medical Center,
439 US HWY 158 West
Yanceyville, NC 27379

Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Objections to the proposed QUARRY in Caswell County, NC, 11/5/19
Quarry sites are an aesthetic disaster. Granite quarries are unsightly and
due to their size, impossible to disguise. They are highly visible from the air
and for long distances. They destroy forests and land, leaving a barren
dustbowl of a landscape in their wake.
The environmental impacts are considered permanent. They take away
the habitats of animals and leave an ecological footprint that is irreparable.
There is no proposal to make this quarry into a favorable landscape so it can
blend in with the larger environment over time, as this would be an additional
cost. This speaks to the lack of concern for environmental impact by this
operator. Even if the landscape design was undertaken, the composition of
the soil and the topography is altered forever. In this respect, it is very similar
to the impact of mining coal.
Quarrying as a process has its own large carbon footprint. The transport of
quarried granite leads to more environmental degradation, use of fossil fuels
for extraction and transport, and increased engine -driven exhaust. All uses of
extracted materials have varying adverse impact on the environment. The
dust is perhaps the least considered, but most impactful side effect of
quarrying on everything and everyone nearby
Quarries can have a negative impact on wildlife habitats.
Indigenous animals, insects, and trees all struggle to survive when a quarry is
established. Already endangered species in the area including plants, bees,
amphibians, and avian species, may be pushed to brink by the imbalance
resulting from the various detrimental aspects of quarrying, including loss of
habitat, disruptive blasting, increased dust, and negative effects on the
aquafer and water supply. Widely viewed as some of the best hunting land in
North Carolina, a quarry's impact on Caswell game and fish will not be
viewed as positive by a large sector of the local and tourist populations who
enjoy these outdoor pursuits year-round.

Some of the negative health impacts that the proposed quarry may cause,
but which are not subject to environmental regulation include: Inhaling the
dust from locations near and downwind of the site (known to cause silicosis
and pneumoconiosis), worsening of existing respiratory conditions (asthma in
children and COPD/emphysema in adults), subtle and overt changes in water
quality, shifting foundations of nearby dwellings which can result in water
entry, mold overgrowth, indoor dust, and ultimately diminished indoor air
quality. This is not to mention the costs of repair of these structural damages,
inducing financial hardship and lost productivity from illness. Thus, the
increased stress from quarry impacts can cause unique and unpredictable
health concerns to the local population.
We already have a quarry in Pelham, so the need for a second operation is
of questionable economic benefit. Though quarries may create jobs, they
create costs which offset the local economic gains. Traffic can be a major
problem for small communities near a quarry. There may be infrastructure
costs required to support the quarry before it can begin operations. Noise
pollution, traffic exhaust, and other related traffic problems become part of the
quarry experience as well.
The benefits proposed by Sunrock do not seem to come close to outweighing
the deficits which have observed in quarries undertaken elsewhere. The
cost/benefit ratio is thus entirely unfavorable as presented for
consideration, and as a Caswell resident and local health care provider, I
object to the project as proposed.
Margaret M Martin, MD
Pediatrician, Caswell Family Medical Center,
439 US HWY 158 West
Yanceyville, NC 27379

November 4 2019
My name is Dorothy Dix. I live at 915 Russell Loop Road, Prospect HIII NC
I lived near a quarry in Pelham. I don't want to live near one again.
I don't want all that comes with it. My grandson hunts and the quarry will
affect the wildlife. There will be noise, vibrations and traffic. My well will be compromised.
Sam oz?"j W
��e�►b�r, �� �Ol9
/��/ name �:r �I c tiaCd WJ��me

STEFFAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
2411 Old NC 86
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Kim K. Steffan
kim.steffan@ steffanlaw.com
November 7, 2019
Mr. Samir Dumpor, P.E.
NC DEQ, Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Telephone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]
Re: Opposition to Carolina Sunrock, LLC's Permit for Quarry in Prospect Hill
Dear Mr. Dumpor:
Thank you for hosting the public hearing in Yanceyville this week. My husband, John,
and I have lived for 30 years on Corbett Ridge Road in the Prospect Hill community, about .3.5
miles from the proposed quarry site. Although I live in Prospect Hill, my law office is in
Hillsborough.
We strongly urge DEQ to deny this permit request because the proposed location is
totally unsuitable for a quarrying operation, and does not pass muster for the Mining Act
permitting criteria. Our concerns are summarized as follows:
1. Under Section 2 of N.C.G.S. 74-51, there will be unduly adverse effects on potable
ground water supplies. The entire Prospect Hill area relies on wells to be able to inhabit
our homes and work on our farms. Sunrock's permit says they will be pumping between
768,733 gallons and 1,925,683 gallons of water per day — for decades - from the aquifer
all of us depend on. Common sense should tell you that such an enormous draw of water
will dangerously deplete the water table, and that rainfall will not sufficient recharge it.
It. will mean that area homes and farms will become uninhabitable and livelihoods will be
destroyed because we will not have water.
2. Also under Section 2 of the statute, depletion of the water table will have unduly adverse
effects on wetlands above that aquifer, not just at the proposed site, but more broadly
across the aquifer. It will cause wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed site to dry out
and be lost.
3. Under Section 2 and 3 of the statute, the 9/27/2019 Memorandum from Olivia Munzer of
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission notes:

Letter to Samir Dumpor
November 7, 2019
Page 2
a. The proposed site is adjacent to the Russell Loop -Dry Forest Natural Heritage Area
that has special biodiversity significance. The torrent of silty water from mine
dewatering will unduly adversely affect this, as will the depletion of the water table.
b. The application claims that the project will only temporarily adversely affect
wetlands during construction, but the detailed sheets attached to the application show
it will permanently adversely affect and even destroy wetlands (e.g., Sunrock will
expand a pit through a creek, subsuming it).
c. The sheets attached to the permit application also show a smaller buffer than the
application claims will be used. Such discrepancies raise questions of credibility
and/or competence as to the entire application.
d.. Crayfish species that are of interest to DWR are in the area. The proposed dewatering
would likely destroy habitat that these species use.
4. It is inconsistent with the letter or spirit of the law to allow a quarry less than 900 feet
upstream from Roxboro Lake, which is the drinking water supply for Roxboro, and
which is a publicly owned recreation area. Permitting it would be contrary to Sections 2,
3, and 5 of the statute.
Unfortunately, our county's leaders historically have chosen not to protect the county's people
from threats like this by adopting zoning. You are our only line of defense, and our only
protection against these unduly adverse and downright dangerous effects of the proposed quarry.
We are depending on you. We trust you will do the right thing and deny Sunrock's permit for a
quarry in Prospect Hill. Thank you.
Sincerely,
k--, ti,
Kim K. Steffan

11/8/2019 , Gmail - Caswell County Quarry
MGmail Patricia Warren <[e-mail]>
Caswell County Quarry
13 messages
Daniel Parkhurst <[e-mail]> Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:19 PM
To: June Blotnick <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Cc: Heather Hillaker <[e-mail]>
Good Afternoon Ms. Warren,
I hope you are doing well. First, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner regarding the upcoming public hearing
in for Carolina Sunrock, LLC November 4th. I'd like to be of assistance in any way I can.
So, to start, I have a number of materials that I hope will be helpful.
(attached) One -Pager of the Health Impacts of Ground Level Ozone and Particulate Matter.
o According to the Carolina Sunrock Air Inspection Report, the facility will be a source of fine particulate
matter both PM 10 and PM 2.5. This one -pager should help to inform about the effects of those.
o In addition, the facility will be a source of Toxic Air Pollutants. During hot summers, some of these can
combine to create ground -level ozone.
(attached) A presentation about the health effects of emissions and climate change
o The attached presentation and notes will help to inform in more detail about the health effects of all of
these. While the focus of this presentation is on the health effects of climate change, it includes helpful
information about Particulate Matter and it's health effects.
o Slides 11, 12, 14, and 17 will help specifically.
North Carolina Medical Journal, Sept -Oct 2018
c This issue focuses exclusively on the health effects of different sources of air pollution. I'd highly
recommend:
o Climate Change and Public Health through the Lens of Rural, Eastern North Carolina
o Health and the Environment in North Carolina
o The Unexpected Health Effects of Air Pollution
I believe our AirKeepers program is also planning to contact you to try and help with air monitors that measure fine
particulate matter (PM).
I've also CC'd Heather Hillaker, Attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, who may also be able to help. I
believe she is out of the office today but may be able to offer some help at the beginning of next week.
Some of the articles are very technical and I would highly recommend our one -pager as a good place to start for the
health impacts. I'm also happy to be a resource as much as I am able. I will be at an all -day event on Monday but will try
my best to answer any questions you may have that day.
I hope that is of some help!
-Daniel
0 HEALTH IMPACTS_ OZONE & PARTICULATE MATTER.pdf
Air Quality, Health & Advocacy 082019
Daniel Parkhurst
Policy Manager
1A + Gj�a l
OV) lg4/H
https:llmai l.google-wmlmail/u/0?ik=a7f l285dfa&view=pt&search=all&permth id=thread-f°I.3Al
1/3

Clean Air
HEALTH IMPACTS:
PARTICULATE MATTER & OZONE
PARTICULATE MATTER
Particulate matter (PM10 &
PM2.5) is made up of air pollutant
particles, either emitted directly
or as byproducts from a chemical
process. These particles come
from a variety of sources, such as
factories, automobiles,
construction vehicles, wood
burning, and agriculture sites.
GROUND -LEVEL OZONE
Ground -level ozone (03) is
formed from a chemical
reaction between oxides of
nitrogen and volatile organic
compounds that are emitted
from car exhaust, paint,
aerosol products, and
manufacturing facilities.
Both particulate matter and ozone are
leading contributors to air pollution. Air
pollution can affect more than just the
lungs; it can be a significant factor of
many health issues, including
*3 OF THE 5
LEADING CAUSES
OF DEATH IN NC
'STROKE
ANXIETY, DEPRESSION,
& OTHER MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES
'CHRONIC LOWER
RESPIRATORY DISEASE
SHORTNESS OI
BREATH,ASTHf
COPD, RESPIRAT
ILLNESSES, WHEEZ
COUGHING
HEART DISEAS
DIABETES &
OBESITY
14W t
'
O LOW BIRTH WEIGHT, a �
r
PREMATURE BIRTHS, &
MISCARRIAGE ,
For more information,
Clean Air CarolinaMN A please contact our MAHA
Medical Advocates for Healthy Air Manager, Rachel Mclntosh-
www.cleanaircarolina.org/maha ' Kastrinsky, MSPH.
• [e-mail]

Particulate Matter
Airborne particles found in
smoke, dust, dirt, soot, and
salt. The sources of these
particles include vehicles,
factories, fires, and other
natural or human activity
resulting in the addition of
particles into the air.
Human hair
50-70 microns in diameter
Source: -IS EPA
Fine beach sand
90 microns in diameter
CAr , PM2.5
l Combustion particles.
organic compounds,
metals, etc.
<2.5 microns in diameter
`► PM10
Dust, pollen, mould, etc.
< <10 microns in diameter

The Unexpected Health Effects of Air Pollution
David & Peden
As noted in the 2018 Lancet Commission on pollu-
tion and health, pollution of all types (air, water, and soil)
accounts for 9 million deaths per year, roughly 16% of all
deaths worldwide [1]. Air pollution accounted for approxi-
mately 6.5 million of these deaths. A substantial fraction
of these (4.2 million) are due to ambient air PM25, which
is particulate matter with mean diameter less than 2.5 µm.
There is clear evidence that air pollution results in mortal-
ity due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
cardiovascular disease, and lung cancer [1]. In the United
States, air pollution is also a leading cause of asthma
exacerbations [2]. However, there is a growing body of
evidence that contamine dAair impacts a much broader
scope of human disease.
Among those potential pollutant -related diseases
listed in the Lancet report are a number of neurocognitive
diseases, including autism, attention -deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), and adult neurodegenerative disease.
A number of investigators have reported that ambient
air NO2, 03, particulate matter (PM) and traffic -related
air particulates (TRAPS) are linked to an increased risk of
autism [3-5]. The periods of exposure to ambient air pol-
lutants associated with autism were during pregnancy and
in the 1st year of life. PM, TRAPS, and NO2 appear to have
the strongest effect on autism development, while ozone
was linked to a modest increase in ADHD in a small num-
ber of studies, though there remains a need for more defin-
itive studies [3 7]. Overall, PM2s seemed to be the most
important pollutant associated with Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD), and perinatal exposure appears to be the
most significant exposure period.
Again, perhaps not surprisingly, there is increasing evi-
dence that early life exposure to pollutants increases the
risk of ADHD. In 2013, Newman et al observed that early
life exposure to elemental carbon (a surrogate marker for
PM25) had increased hyperactivity scores in surveys com-
pleted by their parents when their children reached age
7 [8]. Min and Min used the National Health Insurance
Service -National Sample Cohort to explore the relation-
ship between pollutant exposure and ADHD and observed
an increased risk of ADHD associated with PM,o and NO2
exposure [9]. Perera et al used assessments of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH, a common component of
PM) -DNA adducts (modifications of DNA by PAHs) in
maternal and cord blood collected at delivery to estimate
perinatal exposure to PAHs, and urinary levels of these
adducts from children aged 3 and 5 in a cohort of Puerto
Rican and Dominican children in New York. They found
that high maternal adduct levels (but not those from the
children) were associated with increased risk of ADHD in
this cohort [10,111.
Air pollution impacts adult neurodegenerative disease
as well. Chen et al examined the incidence of dementia,
Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis in Toronto
between 2001 and 2012 related to distance from a heavily
traveled roadway [12]. They found no relationship between
roadway proximity and Parkinson's disease or multiple
sclerosis. However, living within 50 meters of a roadway
had a hazard ratio of 1.07 for development of dementia.
For urban residents this risk was 112. Investigators in
Madrid examined the relationship between acute ambient
air PMu and emergency room admissions for Alzheimer's
disease and dementia, finding an increased odds ratio
of 1.38 related to PM2S 2 days prior to admission for
Alzheimer's disease, with a weaker association with
increased admissions for dementia associated with ozone
NCMJ VOL. 79, No. 5 309
NCMEDICAUOURNAL.COM

With a 5-day lag time [13,141. A number of earlier studies
have shown relationships between ambient air PM25 and
decreased cognitive function in older populations.
Recent studies demonstrate that osteoporosis is
affected by air pollution. This should not be too surprising,
as smoking and 2nd-hand tobacco smoke exposure have
long been known to contribute to bone loss and osteo-
porosis, likely because of increased oxidative stress and
inflammation [15-18]. However, it has not been until very
recently that epidemiologic data has shown that persons
living in polluted areas have increased risk for acute and
longitudinal markers of osteoporosis. A Taiwanese regis-
try study showed increased risk for low bone mineral den-
sity associated with increased levels of CO and NO2 [19].
More recently, the risk of bone fracture was reported to
be higher in areas with increased ambient levels of PMzs
[16]. PM2S was also associated with decreased parathy-
roid hormone in exposed persons. Carbon black exposure
was associated with increased bone density loss. Likewise,
living near a heavily traveled roadway has been reported
to enhance bone density loss in obese or overweight
Mexican -Americans in the Los Angeles region [20].
Air pollution also impacts diabetes. Lim et al reported
that diabetes mortality is increased with PM25 (OR =119)
and NO2 (OR=1.09), but not ozone [21]. Hernandez et
al reported an association between PM25 (OR =110) and
ozone 0.06) and incidence of diabetes mellitus using CDC
data [22]. Yang et al examined the effect of PM and preva-
lence of diabetes in China in the 33 Communities Chinese
Health Study. They found an increase in diabetes mellitus
associated with PM2s and PMw (OR =113 and 110, respec-
tively) [23]. They also reported increased blood glucose
associated with PM levels. Qui et al reported that long-
term exposure of residents in Hong Kong to pollutants
such as PM25 was also associated with increased risk for
type 2 diabetes mellitus [24]. Schneider et al reported in
2008 in a North Carolina -based panel study that persons
with type 2 diabetes had increased endothelial dysfunc-
tion associated with PM25. This effect was increased with
increased glucose levels and hemoglobin Alc [25].
These all seem to be disparate health effects related
to air pollution. However, each of these diseases is likely
impacted by inflammation. This suggests a common
mechanism by which air pollution may modulate each of
these diseases. Air pollutants, including ozone and PM2-,,
have been shown to have pro -inflammatory responses,
most notably activation of the innate immune system
[26]. In the lung, both ozone and PM25 have been shown
to increase neutrophilic inflammation and inflammatory
cytokines and to enhance response to inhaled allergens
in persons who are sensitized to those allergens. There
is also evidence that as PM25 increases systemic inflam-
mation occurs, with direct impact on cardiovascular
biology and blood pressure. It has also been shown that
anti-inflammatory agents reduce the impact of inhaled
pollutansts on airway inflammation. As pollutants have
been shown to impact systemic cardiovascular processes,
it is very likely that systemic inflammation results in other
pollutant -related health effects [27]. Taken together, the
effect of air pollutants on the most common lung, cardio-
vascular, neurodevelopmental, and metabolic diseases
demonstrates that air pollution is a crucial public health
risk, equally important to those posed by poor food qual-
ity, infectious agents, tobacco, and alcohol use. NCNJ
David B. Peden, MD, MS Andrews professor of pediatrics, senior
associate dean for Translational Research, director, Center for
Environmental Medicine, Asthma and Lung Biology, The School of
Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
Acknowledgments
Potential conflicts of interest D.B.P. receives funding from the
US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for
Environmental Health Sciences, the National Heart, Lung and Blood
Institute, the National Instutute for Allergy and Infectious Disease,
the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the
National Science foundation.
310 NCMJ VOL. 79, No. 5
NCMEDICAUOURNAL.COM

References
16. Prada D, Zhong J, Colidno I:, et al. Association of air particulate
1. Landrigan PI, Fuller R. Acosta NJR, et al. The Lancet commission
pollution with bone loss over time and bone fracture risk: analy-
on pollution and health Lancet. 2018;391(10119):462-S12.
sis of data from two independent studies. Lancet Planet Health.
2. Drummond MB. Obstructive airway disease in urban populations.
2017;1(8):e337-e347.
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2014;20(2):180-185.
17. Christianson MS, Shen W. Osteoporosis prevention and manage-
3. Weissloopf MG, Kioumourtzoglou MA, Roberts AL Air pollution
ment; nonpharmacologic and lifestyle options. Clin Obstet Gyne-
and autism spectrum disorders: causal or confounded. Cuff Envi-
col. 2013;55(4):703-710.
ron Health Rep. 2015;2(4):430-439.
18. Kim KH, Lee CM, Park SM, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure
4. Volk HE, Lurmann F, Penfold B. Hertz-Picciotto 1, McConnell R.
and osteoporosis in never -smoking postmenopausal women: the
Traffic -related air pollution, particulate matter, and autism. JAMA
Fourth Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Psychiatry. 2013;70(1):7177.
Osteoporos Inn. 2013;24(2):523-532.
S. Fordyce TA, Leonhard MJ, Chang ET. A critical review of develop-
19. Chang KH, Chang MY, Muo CH, et al. Exposure to air pollution in -
mental exposure to particulate matter, autism spectrum disorder,
creases the risk of osteoporosis: a nationwide longitudinal study.
and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Environ Sci Health A
Medicine (Baltimore). 2015,94(17).e733.
Tox Hazard Subst Environ Eng. 2018,;53(2).174-204.
20. Chen Z, Salam MT, Karim R, et al. Living near a freeway is associ-
6. Goodrich AJ, Volk HE, Tanaedi DJ, et al. Joint effects of prenatal
ated with lower bone mineral density among Mexican Americans.
air pollutant exposure and matemal folic acid supplementation on
Osteoporos Inc 2015;26(6):1713-1721.
risk of autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res. 2018;71(1):69-80.
21. Lim CC, Hayes RB, Ahn 1, et al. Association between long-term
7. Becerra TA, Wilhelm M, Olsen J, Cockburn M, Ritz B. Ambient air
exposure to ambient air pollution and diabetes mortality in the
pollution and autism in Los Angeles county, California. Environ
US. Environ Res. 2018;165:330-336.
Health Perspect. 2013;121(3):380-386.
22. Hernandez AM, Gimeno Ruiz de Porras D, Marko D, Whitworth.
8. Newman NC; Ryan P, Lernastei�s G, et al. Traffic -related air pol-
. KW. The Association between PM25 and Ozone and the Preva-
lution exposure in the first year of life and behavioral scores at 7
lence of Diabetes Mellitus in the United States, 2002-2008.1 Oc-
years of age. Environ Health Perspec . 2013;121(6):731--736.
cup Environ Med. doi:101097/JOM.0000000000001332.
9. Min JY, Min KB. Exposure to ambient PMw and NOz and the in-
23. Yang BY, Qian ZM, U S, et al. Ambient air pollution in relation to
cidence of attention -deficit hyperactivity disorder in childhood.
diabetes and glucose-homoeostasis markers in China: a cross-
Environ Int 2017;99:221-227.
sectional study with findings from the 33 Communities Chinese
10. Perera FP, Chang HW, Tang D, et al. Early4ife exposure to polycy-
Health Study. Lancet Planet Health 2018;2(2):e64-e73.
clic aromatic hydrocarbons and ADHD behavior problems. PLoS
24. Qiu H, Schooling CM, Sun S, et al. Long-term exposure to fine par -
One. 2014,901):e111670.
ticulate matter air pollution and type 2 diabetes mellitus in elder-
11. Perera FP, Wheelock K, Wang Y, Tang D, Margolis AE, Badia G, et
ly: A cohort study in Hong Kong. Environ Int 2018;113350-356.
al. Combined effects of prenatal exposure to polycyclic aromatic
25. Schneider A, Neas L, Herbst MC, et al. Endothelial dysfunction.
hydrocarbons and material hardship on child ADHD behavior
associations with exposure to ambient fine particles in diabetic
problems. Environ Res. 2018;160:506-513.
individuals. Environ Health Perspec . 2008;116(12):1666-1674.
12. Chen H, Kwong JC, Copes R, et al. Living near major roads and the
26. Bauer RN, Diaz -Sanchez D, Jaspers 1. Effects of air pollutants on
incidence of dementia, Parkinson's disease, and multiple sclerosis:
innate immunity. the role of Toll -like receptors and nucleotide -
a population -based cohort study. Lancet 2017;389(10070).718-
binding oligomerization domain -like receptors. J Allergy Clin lm-
726.
munol. 2012;129(1):14-24.
13. Linares C, Culqui D, Carmona R. Ortiz C, Diaz J. Short-term as-
27. Hernandez MI, Peden DB. Air Pollution: Indoor and Outdoor. In:
sociation between environmental factors and hospital admissions
Adkinson NF, Bochner B, Burks AW, et al., eds. Allergy: Principles
due to dementia in Madrid. Environ Res. 2017;152:214 220.
and Practice_ 8th Ed Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier (Saunders); 2014.
14. Culqui DR, Linares C, Ortiz C, Carmona R, Diaz J. Association
between environmental factors and emergency hospital admis-
Electronically published September 10, 2018.
sions due to Alzheimers disease in Madrid. Sci Total Environ.
2017;592:451-457.
Address correspondence to David B. Peden, [e-mail].
15. Law MR, Hackshaw AK. A meta -analysis of cigarette smoking,
N C Med J. 2018;79(5)-.309-311. ©2018 by the North Carolina Institute
bone mineral density and risk of hip fracture: recognition of a ma-
of Medicine and The Duke Endowment. All rights reserved.
jor effect BMJ.1997;315(7112):841-846.
0029-2559/2018/79507
NCMJ VOL. 79, NO.5 3"
NCMEDICALJOURNAL.COM

Comments on the Proposed
Prospect Hill Sunrock Quarry
This is a summation of the comments by criteria in Mining Act given at the
public hearing in Yanceyville,NC on the proposed Sunrock Quarry (details of
each one are in the comments sent by those who spoke:
Criteria #1
Incomplete information in permit application with no mention of Roxboro
reservoir and recreational area.
Incomplete information of refuse materials used in blasting
Incomplete information in reclamation plan for storm runoff, maintaining high
level of clean water in 3 streams within quarry area
Inconsistencies in interpretation of observation wells.
Noncompliance with capping test rock drilling sites.
Use of herbicides on stream beds.
Criteria # 2
Undue adverse effects on 3 streams near quarry with highest level of clean
water
Undue adverse effects of groundwater supplies due to 500 foot quarry opening
water fractures in rock including draining water supply to 3 county area and/or
contaminating well water supply due to water in fractured layer of rock drifting
into deeper rock where well water is obtained.
Undue adverse effect on water supply, air quality and uninhabited areas for
wildlife including deer, raccoons, coyotes, rabbits, etc.
Undue adverse effect on crayfish, mussels and other species that can only live
in the high quality of clean water found in the streams surrounding quarry.
Undue adverse effect on endangered mussel found in stream beds.
Undue adverse effect on water supply of 3 county rural area that is dependent
on well water for their drinking water.
Undue adverse effect on drinking water supply for town of Roxboro due to
proximity to Roxboro lake.
Undue adverse effect on fresh water streams, lakes and wetlands downstream
from Quarry because of quantity of water displaced by Quarry and additional
storm water.
Undue effect on agricultural strawberry and vegetable farms within a few miles
of the Quarry.

Criteria #3
Adverse effect of air quality with increase in particulates in the air within an area
where church, school and residents reside.
Changes ground surface water quality due to blasting contaminants and sediment
flow.
Adverse effect on ground water quality due to greatly reducing water level in
rock layers leading to contamination from upper fractured layers.
Criteria #4
Creates physical hazard to brick homes near blasting site, creating cracks in
buildings
Creates physical hazard to public health and safety because of air pollution,
- —water contmination-; high- explosive -noise to-resiflents;Tscho-ol (Z miles -away),
church (1 /2 mile away).
Creates public safety hazard with proximity of blasting to homes and church.
Creates public safety hazard to slow moving vehicles such as farm equipment
and school buses stopping on two lane winding country roads.
Criteria #5
Severe adverse effects to the recreation area of Roxboro Lake
Severe adverse effects on hunting in forested areas surrounding site.
Sever adverse effects on park where children play
Criteria #6
Similar operations have created excess sediment deposits in stream beds
Similar- operations being bought out by other affiliates with noncompliance to
rules and regulations, with no oversight or review.
Similar operations that do not rectify the damage they have done to the site,
leaving sediment, open pit and debris once the mining is completed.
Criteria #7
Sunrock's violations to mining act in other mines they are currently operating.
Misinformation at website, in permit application and to the public concerning
their severe adverse effect on water supply, health and safety.
Because of these aspects of the seven criteria, the fact that North Carolina has no
follow up or oversight on the project and the County Commissioners along with
other two counties are against the project, I ask that you deny the permit for the
Sunrock Prospect Hill Quarry, Asphalt and Cement Plants. Thank you for your
commitment to a safe and healthy environment for all of North Carolina.
Sincerely, Libby Outlaw
9812 Allison Road
Cedar Grove, NC 27231

Hello, my name is Mark Wrenn, I live at 2372 Ridgeville Rd Prospect Hill. I am here today to ask that you
deny the Mining Permit here today. I ask this based on item number 2, as this operations will have
unduly adverse effects on potable ground water.
According to the information provided by Sunrock's hydrologist there will be an enormous amount of
dewatering. In the calculations, which was provided by Sunrock, there will be an estimated 3.5 million
gallons a day at max depth for both pits. In the conclusion section of the hydrologist report, it states
that there was significant draw down of the aquifer while the tests were performed over only a couple
of days. It also states that when the quarry is in operation with daily dewatering there will be an even
great draw down of the aquifer. I will add that this test was performed in the spring of the year where
the area was very saturated from heavy rains. What would the test look like if it is a dry year?
Based off this report there is no evidence that our wells will not be impacted. In fact it appears to infer
that there will be impacts to wells and even dry wells. The Hydrologist also suggests adding more test
wells to monitor if the quarry goes into operation. Do you think Sunrock will stop pumping water if
there are well issues? The answer is no because they cannot let the pits fill with water. If they stop
watering the rock and roads then silica dust will be spread all over.
There is a cattle farm and a chicken farm located next to the proposed quarry. Both of these farms
already use large amounts of water. These farms cannot operate without the water from there wells.
There are also many tobacco farms with barns that use large amounts of water curing tobacco. What
will be the effect on the aquifer when the quarry is in operation and all the farms using well water? Will
we all have enough?
I ask you, would you take this risk? How would you feel if you were one of the more than 30 families
within a half mile of this proposed site? If there is no way to prove that this operation will not affect our
wells then there is only one thing to do. Sunrocks motto is "Do the right thing'. I ask you today to do
the right thing and deny this permit. Please protect our families and our right to water.
Thank you,
Mark Wrenn
2372 Ridgeville Rd
Prospect Hill NC

Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor and members of the Department of Environmental Quality,
My letter pertains to the permit request by SunRock to build a quarry on Wrenn Rd.,
Prospect Hill, North Carolina.
My concern is for the continuing use of Roxboro Lake as a public recreation area. The
lake was formed in the 1970's and has been in continuous use as a major public
recreation area. Since its inception, it has offered fishing, boating, tubing, kayaking, and
swimming. Thousands of NC residents have -benefited from the public recreational use
of Roxboro Lake over the years.
The water quality of the lake has been maintained by the residents and public users for
40 plus years. Lake residents and its users have been mindful of development issues
and boat leakage and we have been successful. As a Class II reservoir, it has gotten
high water quality marks from the state.
The status of the lake as a recreation area is dependent on the maintenance of this high
quality water evaluation. Recreational privileges can be rescinded by the City of
Roxboro at any time, if water quality is degraded.
My great concern is that effluent from the mining operation will find its way into the very
close and immediate South Hyco Creek, and thereby into the lake. Roxboro Lake is at
the upstream mercy of whatever toxins and particulate matter reach its headwaters. The
position of the watershed and proximity of South Hyco Creek will be affected by the
water used in the mining process. There is no such thing as a mining process of this
scale without outfall...particulate matter and chemicals will not just disappear, they will
go somewhere. The lake or our wells? Both unacceptable.
We urge you to deny this permit based on criteria outlined in item 5 in which, the mining
operation will have "significant adverse effect on the purposes of a publicly owned ....... or
recreational area
Thank you for your attention to this significant matter.
Karen and Skip Anderson
1827 Wilson Rd.
Hurdle Mills NC 27415

4w"`

My name is Jeffrey Whitfield. This letter is in response to the proposed rock quarry in Caswell county.
I have been a resident of Person county my entire life. Where I live borders the Caswell county line. My
property is also on the Frogsboro lake (aka , Roxboro city lake). The proposed rock Quarry concerns me
in many ways. I was present in the meeting that was held in Yanceyville court house. Many great points
were brought up.
This proposed rock quarry will only benefit a select few. And will destroy the quality of living for
residents of Caswell and Person county. Im all about progress, but not at that expense. This quarry is
fueled by Greed. Both in the land owner, and Sunrock. Why should they get rich at the expense of an
already poor county. The people in Caswell and Person county count. We work hard for what we have,
and we enjoy the nature around us and the peace and quiet that comes with it. A rock quarry in our area
is completely unacceptable.
Environmentally:: The endangered muscle that is indigenous to our lake would truly suffer. No
measures are fool proof, and the wrath of mother nature can never be predicated. The only protection
for the muscle is to not allow a quarry of any size anywhere close to its environment.
Environmentally :: The Bald Eagle has nested and raised young on the lake for at least 15 years if not
longer. 15 years is when I first started noticing them, it could very well be longer. With the blasting of
the proposed quarry, and the increased dust particels in the air would deter any future nesting on the
lake. The Bald Eagle has made a great come back, knowing that our small but important lake had some
form of rebirth of the Bald Eagle is something to be proud of.
Environmentally:: The water quality has always been a concern, because it is a back up water supply for
Roxboro. From the very beginning the water has always been excellent quality. In the past few years
they have hired someone to specifically look after the water quality of the lake. The increased water
usage of the proposed rock quarry would endanger the water quality with the increased sediment.
Environmentally :: Even though there's no noise ordinance in the county , It's a fact that the blasting and
increased road traffic will destroy the local wildlife as well as the farm animals that the families in
Caswell and Person county depend on for a living. I know, I farmed for most of my life, I know how noise
affects animals.
The lake itself is used for recreational purposes, I know, I have'fished and hunted the surrounding lands
and waters for most of my life. I have taught generations of kids to do the same. Our family routinely
boats on the lake. For all purposes it is our park. Just in the form of water. It's always had public access,
and always been enjoyed by the public. And it's a lot closer than 5 miles.
There are many more concerns that could be brought to the table. The proposed rock quarry would
destroy all that is precious to a lot of people both in Person county and Caswell county. Environmentally
the proposed Rock quarry would be a disaster. Please do not issue any permits for such an operation.
Please contact me if there are any questions, or if you just want to enjoy a day of crappie fishing.

Jeffrey Whitfield
336-504-7047
[e-mail]
5494 Gordonton rd. Hurdle Mills, NC 27541
740 Whitfield Farm rd. Hurdle Mills. NC 27541

rt\c-) 0,�, ki, a. cl�)
..'"- .1.,ir� ='mot::
.. .- .,.
•,
-

7,okLy The commerce -engine
Nov 6th, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mail
Washington, NC 27889
samir dumDor(cpncdenr gov
Hi Samir,
I'm the CEO of Klickly and am writing in hopes you'll read my thoughts (yes it's a tad long
write to you as an extremely concerned North Carolinian asking you to DENY the
ill-informed Sunrock mining permit.
I'll explain. I recently learned that The Sunrock Group has applied for a permit from you (N.C.
Department of Environmental Quality) to build a 620-acre quarry Prospect Hill. Sunrock couldn't
have found a worse place to site a quarry operation if it had tried. Even the county
commissioners passed a resolution against the quarry.
As a great organization dedicated to environmental impact, DEQ should think about the
implications to the endangered wildlife in the area AND the potentially horrific public health
ramifications of a mining operation situated on top of 3 tributaries that feed a Class II
Drinking Water Reservoir.
The mine will have an undeniable negative impact on public health. And Sunrock's feeble
attempts to claim they have experience working around waterways appears to be nothing but
lip -service. Looking at their other operations, they have zero track record or experience in this
area whatsoever.
Thus, the DEQ should assume that this area will suffer negative impact similar to countless
other mining sites around the nation, impact that is well -documented and none of it good By
allowing the mine to go ahead, the DEQ will be giving Sunrock a blank check to:
1. Contaminate a Class II Drinking Reservoir
2. Deplete our wells
3. Seep mercury into the soil
4. Leak asbestos and dust into the atmosphere
5. Potentially exacerbate asthma due to the asbestos, dust, and heavy transportation
6. Harm long-term health of the nearby population (with possible water -borne implications
throughout a few counties for years to come)
Klickly, Inc. wvAv.klickly.com c: 919-619-3072 0: 424-272-6573

nl *Ly Thecommerce-engine
This is not acceptable. It is not worth the meager economic value (which won't go to the local
public) and the pitiful 15 jobs they bring. Even the county commissioners passed a
resolution against the mine.
Samir, your bio and Linkedin show you've spent a huge amount of time studying the
complexities of waterflow and impacts of unclean water (stormwater / sewage / etc) as well as
mining -like operations in general. You know the ramifications here. You are also familiar with
the frequent ways contractors and corporations cut costs and pay lip -service to compliance just
to get a permit. In the service of their business.
I am the CEO of a fast-growing, award -winning company backed by folks @ Google, Amazon,
and Adobe. I "get" business. But it is NOT OKAY to grow businesses in North Carolina at
the expense of the health and well-being of good, hard-working North Carolinians. You
don't have to have proof people will die! The mere possibility of damaged health should
prompt a big fat "no" from the DEQ.
Please DENY the ill-advised Sunrock permit.
We do not want Prospect Hill being the next Hinkley, CA made famous by Erin Brockovich. Or
Libby, MT. Or Picher, OK.
I'd encourage you to keep us safe and healthy. And if you're worried about the 15 jobs, I'll
personally hire 15 ppl in Prospect Hill at my company today.
Respectfully,
Cooper Harris
PS— including some other info for you, below
Cooper Harris:
Founder & CEO
MMM kllddV rnm
[e-mail]
0. 424-272-6573 1 c 919.619.3072
Wikippdia I LinkedIn
MORE INFO WORTH READING:
1. Article in the Person County Courier Times:
htto://www r)ersoncountvlife c m/stories/quarry not a good fit 24188
2. And another post here:
htto://pulse ncoolicvwatch ora/2019/11/07/caswell county residents to deg caroling sunr
ock-mine-wi II -ruin -our -land -our -lives/
Klickly, Inc. www.klickly.com c: 919-619-3072 0: 424-272-6573

kl�'7kLy The commerce -engine
'u
3. An account from Prospect Hill Town Hall on Tuesday (below)
1. Person County Courier Times -
To the editor
Recently, residents of Caswell County learned that The Sunrock Group has applied for a permit
from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality to build a quarry on a 620-acre parcel of
land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. Sunrock couldn't have found a worse place to site a
quarry operation if it had tried.
The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco
Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one, not two, but three tributaries
feeding Roxboro Lake literally crisscross the quarry property.
Why is that important? Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves as the
back-up water source for the more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When the main Roxboro
reservoir, City Lake, is low, due to little rainfall, Roxboro residents drink water from Roxboro
Lake. They have been drinking Roxboro Lake water since the end of the summer.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the streams and an
erosion control plan. The problem is Sunrock has no experience mining around streams; its
other operations are far from waterways. In fact, of the more than 100 aggregate stone mines in
North Carolina, only one is in a watershed like this one and it doesn't have any streams near the
property. In short, no one can know for sure how this large industrial operation will affect water
relied on by a town for its drinking water because no one here has any experience with a site
like this one.
Quarries blast bedrock. Heavy machinery crushes and transports the stone. Vibrations, ground
water seepage and dust from all aspects of the operations are byproducts of running a quarry.
Given a choice, you wouldn't choose to live by one. Residents living near the Sunrock
Woodsdale quarry in Person County have expressed their concerns about life in dose proximity
to a quarry. Prospect Hill neighbors won't be given that choice. Person County residents in
Bushy Fork are within a half mile of the proposed quarry. Their wells may be impacted. Finally,
City of Roxboro residents should be concerned. Since this mining will be occurring right next to
waterways, you may not want to live downstream from the mining, either.
Sunrock claims it will be diligent in complying with the requirements for operating its quarry.
However, recently two helicopters were observed spraying herbicide over the quarry land. That
would also include the vegetation within the stream buffers. Buffers don't matter if nothing is
Klickly, Inc. www.klickly.com c: 919-619-3072 0: 424-272-6573

kt,�'7,*Ly The commerce -engine
'u
growing there. If those areas were hit, one has to question Sunrock's commitment to stream
protection.
Prospect Hill is a peaceful community with an important watershed running through it. For
now, anyway. Over 200 concerned citizens in that area are working to get DEQ to deny the
Sunrock permit. They could use some help, though. Roxboro elected officials ought to be
diligent in protecting its water supply from the unknown impacts of this proposed quarry. They
should be engaged in the permitting process with DEQ. Many people's lives, especially among
their constituents, may be affected by this decision.
Also:
Dust from mining of aggregates and asbestos and transportation will exacerbate asthma,
especially in vulnerable populations - the elderly, children and the poor.
3. An account from Prospect Hill Town Hall on Tuesday
There was a hearing last Monday at the Caswell Courthouse that was amazing —more than 200
people filled the courtroom and spilled down the stairs. Not one person was in favor.
Families who have been on their land since before the Revolution literally wept and pleaded
with the DEQ not to approve this permit. One 98 year old man managed to get to the mic and
read a 3 page statement. It was heartbreaking. The cardnoa -ns from the quarry and plant can
literally travel 50 miles which means Qbap@l Hill Durham au dington HillatnLoggh. etc,
One young woman completely broke down —she had grown up near a quarry in NY and just
kept saying, "It will wreck all these people's lives." Blasting 6 days a week, 75 heavy truck trips a
day (that's about one every 6 minutes).
Many farmers who supply the Weaver St. Markets in NC and others spoke about how the toxic
waste would ruin some of the cleanest streams in the state.
A geologist and hydrologist spoke about mis-information in Sunrock's applications and
tests.
Anyway, I could go on but you get the drift. This quarry and accompanying plants are a horrible
idea —three pristine streams that feed Lake Roxboro (drinking water) cross the property.
There is an elementary school a few miles away.
The county commissioners passed a resolution against it.
Klickly, Inc. www.klickly.com c: 919-619-3072 0 424-272-6573

•
kt
'7,w* The commerce -engine
Representatives Graig Meyer and Mike Woodard are against it
The only body that has any power in the situation is the DEQ. We hope and trust they will also
follow suit in denying this short-sighted plan.
Klickly, Inc. www.klickly.com c: 919-619-3072 0: 424-272-6573

6919 Lee St.
Mebane, NC 27302
11/8/2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mail
Washington, NC 27889
Dear -Mr. -Dumpor: - -
I am writing to request a denial of a permit for Carolina Sunrock of Raleigh to build a cement
plant, asphalt plant and quarry in Caswell County, NC. I'm sure you have all the facts about the
pollution and health effects that such operations cause, but will detail a few here. According to
the NJ Dept. of Health and Senior Services in their "Hazardous Substances Factsheet: Asphalt,"
• Extracts of certain Asphalts have been shown to cause cancer in animals;
• Asphalt fumes can irritate the eyes on contact;
• Breathing Asphalt fumes can irritate the nose, throat and'lungs causing coughing,
wheezing and/or shortness of breath. Repeated exposure may cause bronchitis to
develop;
• Exposure to Asphalt fumes can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea and vomiting; and
• Long-term contact can cause skin pigment change.
In addition, numerous explosions have occurred at asphalt plants:
• In April of this year, Hazmat crews were able to stop the flow of asphalt after an
explosion in Leesburg, FL, "but not before more than 20,000 gallons of tar spilled...."
• Also in April, a dust explosion caused a fire in an asphalt plant in West Virginia.
• Just this past August, a major fire damaged an asphalt plant near Statesville, NC. NCDEQ
investigated to determine if liquid asphalt reached waterways.
• After fighting an explosion at an asphalt plant in Georgia,
... firefighters say one false move on their part could have lead to an even more
dangerous situation. Assistant Chief Steven Miller described the scenario: "We
fight it inappropriately, we can cause it to boil over and cause problems for our
personnel."
Note that firefighting in Prospect Hill, the site of the proposed plants, is by a Volunteer
Fire Depuarti. rrt----- - — -- -- ----- -
As you know, there are many other health effects related to increased truck traffic, etc. but I
will let others address those issues. Thank you for your considerati
Ann Moss Joyner

November 6, °2019
Sam.ir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
I am a long-time resident of North Carolina - since 1976 - and care deeply about our
state. I have been active in local issues including serving two terms as a County
Commissioner in Orange County.
I expect that there will be a thorough environmental assessment of Sunrock's proposal
of a quarry and asphalt plant on the edge of Orange, Person and Caswell counties. The
N.C. Department of Environmental Quality is required to consider environmental quality,
endangered species and public health in making decisions about approving mining
permits. As it appears now, there is incorrect information about the effects of the
proposed quarry and cementlasphalt plant, particularly on water quality and air quality. I
am particularly concerned that a determination has been made without sufficient study.
Just today I found that Sunrock's website has the following statement about the
PROPOSED Prospect Hill site - "This facility will supply Asphalt and Aggregates to
Prospect Hill, NC and surrounding areas. Sunrock's Prospect Hill, NC facility is coming
soon. We will keep you updated on our progress." This leaves citizens the impression
that they have already been promised a permit? How can citizens trust the agency
responsible for protecting their health if permits are informally approved before due
diligence of possible effects is completed.
Among my community activities, I served on the Orange Water and Sewer Authority - a
public utility - for over eight years. I learned the importance of protecting the
headwaters of drinking water supplies. The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and
remove is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco Creek, the headwater for Roxboro
Lake. This is important because Roxboro Lake is a Class 11 drinking water reservoir.
Furthermore, three tributaries feeding Roxboro Lake crisscross the quarry property.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the streams and
an erosion control plan. However, Sunrock has no experience mining around streams;
its other operations are far from waterways. How will this enormous operation ensure
clean water for Roxboro? In addition, residents recently observed two helicopters
spraying herbicide over the quarry land. What constraints will there be for where and
when herbicides are sprayed?

Air quality and noise must also be throughly assessed. For example, how far will the
silica dust be carried? Will the 50 lar -downers within 1000 feet of the proposed quarry
suffer from respiratory problems? What e a effect be on nearby farming?
Given the above points, it appears that the best decision would be to deny this permit
which would allow Sunrock to build a quarry and cement/asphalt plant which would last
decades. The health of residents and the ability of local farmers to' produce safe and
healthy food will be jeopardized.
Respectfully,
Bernadette rellssler-
4516 Mystic Lane
Hillsborough, NC 27278

Samir Dumpor
The Dept. of Environmental Quality
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
I am a resident of Orange County, North Carolina, and I am writing you to request that you deny the
permit application made by The Sunrock Group to build a quarry and asphalt plant on a 620-acre parcel
of land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less
than 1,000 feet from South Hyco Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Moreover, three
tributaries feeding Roxboro Lake cross the quarry property. Quarries have a permanent and adverse
effect on the landscape that cannot be remediated. The quarry and plant have a high potential of
polluting ground water near these tributaries and streams in addition to nearby residential wells.
Finally, other environmental impacts, such_ as traffic, dust and noise will adversely affect the local
community. As a longtime resident, business person, and parent in this state, I am asking you to protect
the rights of all citizens rather than the prerogatives of destructive and polluting industries.
Thank you,
Erik Reavely
1723 Valley Creek Drive
Hillsborough NC
27278

November 9, 2019
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
My name is Donna Nicholais and my husband and I have an old log home on
Goose Creek Road in Prospect Hill, 1000 ft from the proposed Sunrock Quarry
site. We attended the meeting at the Yanceyville Courthouse. It was an
impressive group of folks with an amazing wealth of information to present to the
NCDEQ!
I know I don't have to go over all of that good information again, you saw and
heard it for yourself, and have written copies of it as well. I do have to say that I
was, and still am disturbed that some of the most obvious concerns of the
taxpayers/homeowners/farm owners, in fact ALL of the people in the surrounding
area, were NOT allowed to be addressed in reviewing mining permit applications
and modifications to existing permits....
1. property values (which will plummet, my house is within the half mile blasting
loop)
2. Increased truck traffic ( on country roads, 75 round trips a day!)
3. Operating hours ( Consideration of your neighbors!)
4. Noise ( 120db and up for blasting, constant background noise and smell from
machinery operation)
5. Any other considerations not specifically covered by the mining act (my old log
home cracking, collapsing foundations, broken windows and other structural
damage, etc. drinking water and wells drying up)
All of these concerns are important and should be considered, not just on a local
level but on a state level as well. They are ALL part of the horrible impact that
this Quarry will have on, not just Prospect Hill, but all of Caswell County and
Person County and should be included in the consideration of the permit along
with all of the other issues that have been spoken about and continue to be
spoken about regarding this accident just waiting to happen!!!
�LEASE DENY THIS PERMIT for the Sunrock Quarry in Prospect Hill NC!!
1ill(�C,
Donna Nicholais
Goose Creek Road
Prospect Hill, NC 27314
mailing address:
3813 Cloee Circle, Hillsborough, NC 27278

Dear Samir,
I'm writing to express my extreme opposition to a proposed mine, cement, and hot mix asphalt
plant that Carolina Sunrock LLC is attempting to build near Prospect Hill in Caswell County, NC.
It's my understanding that The Sunrock Group has applied for a permit from you (N.C.
Department of Environmental Quality) to build this 620-acre quarry.
I grew up a few miles away from the proposed site and have been part of this community my
whole life. No one here wants this. The impact on air quality, the potential of running our wells
dry, the increase in heavy truck traffic, the blasting, and the loss of our historic and agricultural
legacy is unacceptable. Not to mention the longer -term environmental impact - three creeks run
through the proposed site and form the headwaters of a Class 2 drinking reservoir. This is all
located in the South Hyco Creek Watershed and the Roanoke River Basin.
Further, early studies show mercury and asbestos will be byproducts of this project with
estimates that it may affect wells for a 5-mile radius. The quarry offers little more to our
community than a small handful of jobs (like 10), many of which will disappear in the near future
as the trucks are equipped with computer controls. No drivers, no operators, just giant trucks
and pollution ruining our community for others' benefit.
We do not need the gravel or asphalt or cement in this area; the demographics make this clear.
This mine is just another_ instance of industry taking advantage of rural areas that lack the
zoning to prevent this kind of predation and environmental destruction.
We have organized at the local level to address these issues. Everyone here, including the
county commissioners and local representatives are publicly opposed to this project (which
apparently and peculiarly carries little weight when there's a few bucks to be made). So we
need your help in protecting our community.
Please stop this short-sighted environmental travesty.
Thank you,
Noah Cooper _....... . . . .. .

Miry
V 6 G>
Csmcwred Noah CarolihiAkI resi&vd, - rmec GAd
CM,Os�
fmV �j� I�UL ��� �; �5 jS
hrs `1 + k Wd) 64r �[ drAtlYy� 0h1 au (�I%14th1'
and ILIA Alt Cmmll' n(.
Sun rot,rr / '
�C Mlni� _
�ermi�
I C6 -u L eY)YlGYMmo✓tAl Omr 1esef'yores
anel ub�� L Sho,,l a f w &4 we.i 4kt Cor or�J�
Im Ou wf, &,, of I--&s ploln-- will �niz+wli►� OlAr
dri,nK�"� ('�5ef'wa, Cttp6k c)ur 1rJS as vvefi GS P613op,
cyvr Sc,I
C4 4i-rr cr Comiut 4
Just rits v s GvJ Cue- -� m l l i 2 s_ v

November 7, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
I am aware that Caswell County learned that The Sunrock Group has applied for
a permit from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality to build a quarry on
a 620-acre parcel of land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. Sunrock couldn't have
found a worse place to site a quarry operation if it had tried.
The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet
from South Hyco Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one,
not two, but three tributaries feeding Roxboro Lake literally crisscross the quarry
property.
Why is that important? Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves
as the back-up water source for the more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When
the main Roxboro reservoir, City Lake, is low, due to little rainfall, Roxboro
residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They have been drinking Roxboro
Lake water since the end of the summer.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the
streams and an erosion control plan. The problem is Sunrock has no experience
mining around streams; its other operations are far from waterways. In fact, of
the more than 100 aggregate stone mines in North Carolina, only one is in a
watershed like this one and it doesn't have any streams near the property. In
short, no one can know for sure how this large industrial operation will affect
water relied on by a town for its drinking water because no one here has any
experience with a site like this one.
Quarries blast -bedrock. Heavy machinery crushes and transports the_ stone.
Vibrations, ground water seepage and dust from all aspects of the operations are
byproducts of running a quarry. Given a choice, you wouldn't choose to live by
one. Residents living near the Sunrock Woodsdale quarry in Person County have
expressed their concerns about life in close proximity to a quarry. Prospect Hill
neighbors won't be given that choice. Person County residents in Bushy Fork are
within a half mile of the proposed quarry. Their wells may be impacted. Finally,
City of Roxboro residents should be concerned. Since this mining will be
occurring right next to waterways, you may not want to live downstream from the
mining, either.
Sunrock claims it will be diligent in complying with the requirements for operating
its quarry. However, recently two helicopters were observed spraying herbicide

over the quarry land. That would probably include the vegetation within the
stream buffers. Buffers don't matter if nothing is growing there. If those areas
were hit, one has to question Sunrock's commitment to stream protection.
Prospect Hill is a peaceful community with an important watershed running
through it. For now, anyway. Over 200 concerned citizens in that area are
working to get DEQ to deny the Sunrock permit. They could use some help,
though. Roxboro elected officials ought to be diligent in protecting its water
supply from the unknown impacts of this proposed quarry. They should be
engaged in the permitting process with DEQ. Many people's lives, especially
among their constituents, may be affected by this decision.
Also: Dust from mining of aggregates and asbestos and transportation will
exacerbate asthma, especially in vulnerable populations - the elderly, children
and the poor.
I am an extremely concerned North Carolinian and would like you to
deny the permit to Sunrock for the quarry and associated plants
By the way, the DEQ mission is to provide: environmental stewardship for
the health and prosperity of ALL North Carolinians."
Thank you very much
Michael) Weil
1119 Roosevelt Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
travel(a)magichappens.com

November 6, 2019
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
I recently learned that The Sunrock Group has applied for a permit from the N.C. Department of
Environmental Quality to build a quarry on a 620-acre parcel of land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill.
Sunrock couldn't have found a worse place to site a quarry operation if it had tried.
The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet from South Hyco Creek,
the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one, not two, but three tributaries feeding Roxboro
_Lake literally crisscross the quarry property_. _
Why is that important? Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves as the back-up water
source for the more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When the main Roxboro reservoir, City Lake, is
low, due to little rainfall, Roxboro residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They have been drinking
Roxboro Lake water since the end of the summer.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the streams and an erosion
control plan. The problem is Sunrock has no experience mining around streams; its other operations are
far from waterways. In fact, of the more than 100 aggregate stone mines in North Carolina, only one is
in a watershed like this one and it doesn't have any streams near the property. In short, no one can
know for sure how this large industrial operation will affect water relied on by a town for its drinking
water because no one here has any experience with a site like this one.
Quarries blast bedrock. Heavy machinery crushes and transports the stone. Vibrations, ground water
seepage and dust from all aspects of the operations are byproducts of running a quarry. Given a choice,
you wouldn't choose to live by one. Residents living near the Sunrock Woodsdale quarry in Person
County have expressed their concerns about life in close proximity to a quarry. Prospect Hill neighbors
won't be given that choice. Person County residents in Bushy Fork are within a half mile of the
proposed quarry. Their wells may be impacted. Finally, City of Roxboro residents should be concerned.
Since this mining will be occurring right next to waterways, you may not want to live downstream from
the mining, either.
Sunrock claims it will be diligent in complying with the requirements for operating its quarry.
However, recently two helicopters were observed spraying herbicide over the quarry land. That would
probably include the vegetation within the stream buffers. Buffers don't matter if nothing is growing
there. If those areas were hit, one has to question Sunrock's commitment to stream protection.
Prospect Hill is a peaceful community with an important watershed running through it. For now,
anyway. — -
PLEASE DENY THE PERMIT TO SUNROCK FOR THE QUARRY AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS.
From an EXTREMELY CONCERNED North Carolinian,
Oriana Galardi -Este lDze_c surer
102 Hayes Street,
Hillsborough, NC 27278
336-715-0027

Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities
6919 Lee Street
Mebane, North Carolina 27302
phone [phone]
www.cedargroveinst.ora
November 7, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor:
I write in opposition to the proposed Sunrock quarry and associated asphalt plant in Prospect
Hill.
This proposed quarry is in Caswell County, but it is very close to both Person and Orange
Counties. The health of residents in all three counties will be at significantly increased risk if the
quarry and plant are permitted to be built. The risks from the quarry are to the water supply —
both groundwater and surface water —and to air quality from dust and other particulates. The
EPA has identified asphalt plants as a major source of hazardous air pollutants including
formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter and toluene.
On its website, Sunrock states that it "strives to integrate social and environmental imperatives
into business operations and interactions with our communities." Further, Sunrock states "we
are continuously engaging our employees, stakeholders, and the community to maintain a culture
of safety and civic involvement." These are platitudes without substance. Sunrock held a single
meeting in September before the scale and scope of their proposed project were widely known.
There have been no further community meetings, and Sunrock has not addressed environmental
concerns.
I strongly urge you to deny the permit for Sunrock's proposed quarry and asphalt plant.
Sincerely yours, InW
Allan M. Parnell, Ph.D.

k-f Z9
-47).
r/4"A"OTarIPAI1 M-IWI.
/ It

(�IOU q A_
44, 'tire
ir
CA
04Z
10
!•ti • •v is • • • � - '
A-L
qv�

Hi Samir,
I'm writing to express my extreme concern over the proposed mine, cement, and hot mix
asphalt plant that Carolina Sunrock LLC is attempting to build near Prospect Hill in Caswell
County, NC. Please deny this permit.
From the data I've seen, there is too much risk to allow this to go forward. Especially
considering the site sits atop 3 tributaries to a drinking water reservoir! The potential
environmental impact could be significant. Meanwhile, the economic value it brings is
non-existence — no one in the area (other than the company itself) will profit from this facility.
The rewards to some corporation should not outweigh even moderate environmental damage,
much less the groundwork for a awful and long-lasting public health debacle
Please DENY the Sunrock permit
Christiana Chavez

Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, DC 27889
November 7, 2019
Dear Sir,
My husband and I are property owners in Leasburg, NC, close to the proposed site of
Sunrock's Quarry.
We are very much opposed to a quarry so close to our property, which would be located
in the midst of several streams that feed drinking water and recreational lakes. The
possibility of well contamination concerns us also.
We object to the noise of blasting and the increased traffic on small country roads of
heavy dump trucks and other quarry traffic.
Please refuse the permit to Sunrock for this quarry and any other plants they propose in
the area of eastern Caswell County, NC.
Thank you for your consideration of this very important decision. '
Susan Bellinger
312 N. Churton St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
and
7846 U.S. Hwy 158 E
Leasburg, NC 27291

1235 Waterstone Park Circle
Hillsborough, NC 27278
November 7, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Dear Mr. Dumpor,
r
I am an extremely concerned North Carolinian and just recently read about
the Sunrock Group's request to build a quarry in Prospect Creek, NC less
than 1000 feet from South Hyco Creek, which will pollute nearby waterways
with dangerous byproducts and industrial waste. I don't want that in my
drinking water, or my neighbors, and I don't want my local produce to be
negatively impacted by it either. I have children who need clean water and
food to eat, as do I and all North Carolinians that will be affected by this
badly planned project.
Please deny the permit to Sunrock-for the quarry and associated plants.
Thank you,
Heather Murphy

v
My name is William Sharpe, I have worked in the on highway / off highway
engine and transmission market for 43 years.
I started as a technician. Then shop foreman, spent time in sales,
VP of Operations and Training and Inducted into NADC Hall Fame.
In my 43 year career, I have learned that trucks and equipment leak fluids.
Most components on trucks and equipment have vents that can release
pressure and fluid to the atmosphere.
90% of the trucks and equipment we work on have leaks. 50% continue to
leak even after they leave our shop due to warranty or customers won't
spend money to correct the issue. These fluids are Engine and Gear Oil,
Antifreeze, Hydraulic, power steering, and Transmission Fluids.
These fluids contain wear metals.
I don't think you want these in your drinking water.
Leaks are so common in this industry that warranty managers have to
identify, if it's a leak or is it a seep. Sometimes pictures and video are
required before a warranty claim can be paid.
The biggest problem in the trucking industry today is the shortage of skilled
technicians and truck drivers.
Maintenance technicians who take care of the equipment in a quarry,
receive little to no training on the equipment. They can't attend classes
because they are not a distributor or dealer.
Electronic computer control systems for engines and transmissions were
introduced in the 80's. Technicians, drivers and managers rely on the
electronics to warn them about problems. This works fine if you are in the
middle of nowhere, but doesn't work if you are located upstream from Lake
Roxboro. The lake is used for drinking water. An example is a coolant
level sensor, they are located below the normal operating levels and you
have to leak out several gallons before a leak is sensed. Even then, it's up
to the driver to take action about the code or light. If the truck will move,
they usually continue their shift, even leaking antifreeze.

Ar
Hundreds of trucks coming on site daily to pick up product will have more of
the same leaks and poor maintenance. These are older trucks that don't
meet the latest emissions.
There is no emission testing for on/off highway diesel engines.
These trucks picking up product will be traveling on narrow, winding, 2 lane
highways.
Some surveys, including ours, show as many as 30% of the trucks traveling
highways have Antilock Brake System lights on. This puts farmers on
tractors and school buses picking up children at a high risk. Imagine a
dump truck loaded with 80,000 pounds, traveling 55 mph that can't stop.
Last year a logging truck ran thru a school classroom at Lamb's Chapel in
Haw River due to brake failure.
Quarry blasting will crack brick, mortar joints and foundations.
My parent's home was damaged from runway expansion in Burlington.
Quarry workers may be protected for silica and dust
but what about children at playing and farm workers.
Some of the best fishing and abundant wildlife surround the proposed site,
including a family of eagles.
Please don't allow this community and environment to be destroyed.

1
My name is Pat Warren and I live at 36 Main Street in Prospect Hill. I have deep roots in
Prospect Hill, going back to the early 1800's.
I along with a 150 plus strong group of citizens in Caswell and the surrounding counties
adamantly oppose the siting of the proposed 680-acre rock quarry at Ridgeville Road and
Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. We are united, determined, persistent, and forthcoming in our
efforts. We are in it for the long haul and we will not stand down. It is not too late.
I would like to recognize our leader Leslie Zimmerman who continues to do an incredible job of
organizing. Please stand Leslie. I would also like to recognize our other members. Will you
please stand if you have attended organizational meetings, written letters or emails, attended
Board of Commissioners or county board meetings, handed out flyers, made calls, or taken
any other actions in opposition to the quarry. It is not too late.
We are in consultation with more than 15 environmental groups, two of which are speaking
tonight, Clean Water for NC and Dan River Keepers. Three other groups and perhaps more
plan to submit a report to you within the 10-day period. These are Clean Air Carolina, Sierra
Club North Carolina Chapter, and through North Carolina Environmental Justice, the University
of NC at Chapel Hill City and Regional Planning Department. It is not too late.
We are also in consultation with other experts, elected officials, county departments, attorneys,
medical doctors, and various community groups, one of which is speaking tonight, The
Piedmont Progressive Farmers Group. It is not too late.
When speaking with others around the state who are fighting similar battles, one fact in
particular stood out to me. Most of their battles are centered on keeping their environment from
getting FURTHER polluted. Caswell's is a different story though. We are starting from clean
and it is not too late to keep Caswell County's rivers, streams, ground water, and air clean,
clear, and flowing and to protect our beautiful and pristine Caswell County. It is not too late.
We have installed air particulate monitors adjacent to the proposed site in order to get a
baseline reading of air quality. Out of 6 levels, all monitors now show the lowest particulate
level. It is not too late!
Our county commissioners and appointed boards cannot shoulder this burden alone. Their
hands are tied in ways that ours are not. We need to support each other, and that is our
intention. It is not too late.
We invite anyone who would like to join us in our efforts with open arms. It is not too late for
Caswell County. In fact, it is exactly the right time.
Thank you very much.
Pat Warren

Environmental Groups, Departments, and Officials Contacted
Environmental Groups
• Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
• Clean Air Carolina
• Clean Water for NC
• Dan River Basin Association
• Dan River Keeper
• Environment North Carolina
• Haw River Assembly
• NC Conservation Network
• NC Environmental Justice
• Piedmont Conservancy
• Piedmont Environmental Alliance
• Sierra Club North Carolina Chapter
• Southern Environmental Law
• Wild Law
County Departments
• Caswell County Planning Board
• Caswell County Soil and Water
• Person County Soil and Water
• Orange County Soil and Water
• Roxboro Water Department
• Roxboro City Manager
L q(; nFA e 1 I S Aq C L
(�t -(-1z I i � I �
Elected Officials
• Caswell County Board of Commissioners
• Governor Roy Cooper
• Senator Phil Berger - Caswell County
• Senator Mike Woodard - Person County
• Jeannie Osborjne /Office of Congressman Mark Walker
• Rep Graig Meyer - Orange and Caswell County
• Rep Larry Yarborough - Person County

A
November 7, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
I am aware that Caswell County learned that The Sunrock Group has applied for
a permit from the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality to build a quarry on
a 620-acre parcel of land on Wrenn Road in Prospect Hill. Sunrock couldn't have
found a worse place to site a quarry operation if it had tried.
The land which Sunrock proposes to dig up and remove is less than 1,000 feet
from South Hyco Creek, the headwater forming Roxboro Lake. Worse, not one,
not two, but three tributaries feeding Roxboro Lake literally crisscross the quarry
property.
Why is that important? Roxboro Lake, a Class II drinking water reservoir, serves
as the back-up water source for the more than 8,000 residents of Roxboro. When
the main Roxboro reservoir, City Lake, is low, due to little rainfall, Roxboro
residents drink water from Roxboro Lake. They have been drinking Roxboro
Lake water since the end of the summer.
Sunrock maintains it will protect that water supply with buffers around the
streams and an erosion control plan. The problem is Sunrock has no experience
mining around streams; its other operations are far from waterways. In fact, of
the more than 100 aggregate stone mines in North Carolina, only one is in a
watershed like this one and it doesn't have any streams near the property. In
short, no one can know for sure how this large industrial operation will affect
water relied on by a town for its drinking water because no one here has any
experience with a site like this one.
Quarries blast bedrock. Heavy machinery crushes and transports the stone.
Vibrations, ground water seepage and dust from all aspects of the operations are
byproducts of running a quarry. men -a choice; you wouldn't choose to Live -by
one. Residents living near the Sunrock Woodsdale quarry in Person County have
expressed their concerns about life in close proximity to a quarry. Prospect Hill
neighbors won't be given that choice. Person County residents in Bushy Fork are
within a half mile of the proposed quart'. Their wells may be impacted. Finally,
City of Roxboro residents should be concerned. Since this mining will be
occurring right next to waterways, you may not want to live downstream from the
mining, either.
Sunrock claims it will be diligent in complying with the requirements for operating
its quarry. However, recently two helicopters were observed spraying herbicide

over the quarry land. That would probably include the vegetation within the
stream buffers. Buffers don't matter if nothing is growing there. If those areas
were hit, one has to question Sunrock's commitment to stream protection.
Prospect Hill is a peaceful community with an important watershed running
through it. For now, anyway. Over 200 concerned citizens in that area are
working to get DEQ to deny the Sunrock permit. They could use some help,
though. Roxboro elected officials ought to be diligent in protecting its water
supply from the unknown impacts of this proposed quarry. They should be
engaged in the permitting process with DEQ. Many people's lives, especially
among their constituents, may be affected by this decision.
Also: Dust from mining of aggregates and asbestos and transportation will
exacerbate asthma, especially in vulnerable populations - the elderly, children
and the poor.
I am an extremely concerned North Carolinian and would like you to
deny the permit to Sunrock for the quarry and associated plants
By the way, the DEQ mission is to provide: environmental stewardship for
the health and prosperity of ALL North Carolinians."
Thank you very much.
Margaret ink -Weil
C,
1119 Roosevelt Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
PLinkWeil1 ()omail.com
j - - VV,,X

To Whom it may concern:
I ask that you deny the mining permit proposed by Sunrock for Prospect Hill NC.
This is based off previous experiences this operation will result in sediment
deposits in up to three creeks that feed Roxboro lake. These three creeks run
about the proposed quarry pit site. Roxboro lake is a drinking water source for
the city of Roxboro which serves approximately 8000 residents. The enormous
amount of dewatering coupled with flooding from rain such as the recent
hurricanes will definitely cause deposits in these creeks and into Roxboro lake.
The proposed quarry is located in the Hyco Creek Water Shed. This is a protected
water shed for a reason, to protect the drinking water sources. We have learned
a lot over the past couple of years in NC. We have learned from the coal ash
spill(which is still in courts) and we have learned about flooding with two recent
hurricanes. Both of these incidents caused major problems with our water.
Please don't allow this to happen in Prospect Hill. There are so many more
suitable locations for a quarry, asphalt and cement plant that will not jeopardize a
water source in a protect water shed.
Regards,
Mark Wrenn
2372 Ridgeville Rd
Prospect Hill, NC 27314

100
iT
BRVH
Where Pets Come First
November 7, 2019
Samir Dumpor
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Article II Permit Application
Dear Samir Dumpor,
I am writing with regards to issuing a permit for a rock quarry (27314) in Prospect Hill, NC. My business
partner in the 80's and 90's operated a livestock farm in Rougemont, NC. His farm was within one mile
of the quarry that opened on Bacon Road in Rougemont. Prior to the quarry starting to blast for rock,
his farm well had an output of 20+ gallons a minute. Within six months of the quarry opening, his well
output dropped to less than four gallons a minute.
As a practicing veterinarian in North Carolina for the past 38 years, my colleagues and I have noticed
behavioral changes in livestock near the quarry on blasting days. While my background in Animal
Science and Veterinary Medicine has been predominately dealing with domestic livestock, I would
imagine that wild animals are also restless and apprehensive on blasting days.
With those notations applying to article II, please do not grant Sunrock the permit to open a rock quarry
in Prospect Hill, NC.
Sincerely,
JoP Bianco, BS, MS, DVM
Bahama Road Veterinary Hospital
Bahama Road Veterinary Hospital • 101 Bahama Road, Bahama, North Carolina 27503 • [phone]

�,, �'�w,n�- � �. �

V (�
SV,,,cr-
ov-
Zoe-
f e-y-
�S �r Ut V Lo�.�, G��D `�
rti .J
�]4n rU L�,
P�Mtvt
A
a;�1 �, sc °fiery s r`�'" -f

-M P I'll,.
i
, ' � -; I °i
r
SEA TURTLES
Each year, thousands of whales, dolphins, and sea turtles die as bycatch—animals
accidentally injured or killed in fishing operations. Ocean Conservancy integrates
wildlife protection into all of our programs, from advancing practices that protect
whales and sea turtles from entanglement to promoting underwater parks that
ensure a rich, safe habitat for sea life.
To learn more about marine life entanglement and bycatch, and what Ocean
Photo Q Donna Goodwin Conservancy is doing to prevent these harmful practices, please visit our webs ite at
www.oceancon servancy.org.
r �'
,
Ocean Conservancy
Start a Sea Change
1300 ig" Street NW, 8n Floor • Washington, DC 2oo36 • w .oceanconservancy.org
Printed on recycled paper using soy based inks

1 -60
Y is -
eyi' 55L0-99£ (lb6) • epuolq 'eloseieg. roul'6ugugd uigiag Fq pagspgnd
Au
0
N pQs
s
—Cv S

7