NCG160220_Correspondence Received_20180125

January 22, 2018
Via U.S. Mail
Michael S. Regan
Secretary, N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality
N.C. DEQ Administration
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1601
o Y i e Spruill LLP
Chad W. Essick
Partner
D. 919 783 2896
F• 919.783.1075
cessick poynerspruill com
Keith H Johnson
Partner
D: 919-783 1013
F• 919 783-1075
kjolmson@poynetspruill com
JAN 2 � 2131li
LY -U-0 QUALIT,A' OEC T [0,r
RE: Response to Ashe County Board of Commissioners' Resolution Requesting DEQ
"Reopen" Permits Issued to Appalachian Materials
Dear Secretary Regan:
This firm represents Radford Quarries ("Radford") and its subsidiary Appalachian
Materials ("Appalachian"), which are private companies owned and operated by the Cecile family
of Boone, North Carolina. Radford operates a modestly -sized quarry near Glendale Springs in
Ashe County, which it acquired and began operating in 2007. Appalachian is seeking the permits
necessary to operate mobile asphalt production equipment within the existing stormwater control
measures in place at the Glendale Springs mine.
Appalachian has received the two necessary State permits.' In August 2015, Appalachian
received a certificate of coverage to operate under the general NPDES stormwater permit issued
by DEQ's Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources ("DEMLR") applicable to asphalt
production operations (Permit No. NCG160000). In February 2016, after holding a public hearing,
DEQ's Division of Air Resources issued an air permit to Appalachian, in compliance with the
requirements of the State air toxics program.2
I Smce the proposed asphalt production operations are within an existing permitted mine, no separate permit under
the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act is required. Appalachian and Radford received written confirmation of
this from Tracy Davis.
2 The air permit was administratively amended in May 2017 to correct a scrivener's error made by DEQ regarding the
coordinates of the equipment.
WWW.POYNERSPRUILL COU RALEIGH / CHARLOTTE / ROCKY MOUNT / SOUTHERN PINES
301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900, Raleigh, NC 27601 PO Box 1801, Raleigh, NC 27602-1801 P 919 783 6400

r
V
Poyner Spruill...
Michael S. Regan
January 22, 2018
Page 2
We are in receipt of a Resolution entered by the Ashe County Board of Commissioners
requesting that DEQ: (i) "reopen" the air and stormwater permits issued to Appalachian,3 and (ii)
that DEQ allow County staff to "participate" in a "comprehensive interagency inspection,
investigation and study" of the property where the asphalt production operation is proposed; and
the cover letter from the Ashe County Attorney by which that Resolution was forward to you, your
counsel, deputies and certain DEQ division managers.
The time has come when we must formally respond to that Resolution on behalf of our
clients, in part to respond to defamatory inaccuracies in both the Resolution and the County
Attorney's cover letter, and to set the record straight regarding the permit compliance history of
the quarry operation.
We also write to request that our clients' representatives be allowed to participate in any
meeting or further discussions between DEQ officials and County representatives about DEQ's
response to the Resolution, the compliance history of the quarry operation, or the permits issued
to Appalachian or Radford by DEQ. A source of considerable frustration is the fact that the County
staff administrator, who the County asks be allowed to "coordinate" with DEQ, has exceeded his
limited administrative authority to process permit applications and launched some wide-ranging
investigation of his own, yet has refused to meet with us to discuss any concerns or additional,
relevant information he needs to issue the local permits to which Appalachian is entitled.
There is No Basis to "Re -Open" Permits Issued By DEQ to Appalachian
We trust you and your staff will agree there is no factual or legal basis for DEQ to "reopen"
or re -consider Appalachian's coverage under the general stormwater permit, or its air permit at
this time.
As an initial matter, as you know, the N.C. Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") affords
a right to third -parties who can establish standing to challenge permitting decisions made by DEQ.
The deadlines for such challenges to DEQ's issuance of an air permit and stormwater certificate
of coverage to Appalachian both expired well over a year before the Ashe County Board issued
their Resolution. At least regarding DEQ's issuance of an air permit to Appalachian, the email
exchange enclosed under Tab 1 between Mr. Adam Stumb, the County's administrator, and DEQ
representatives reflects County officials were informed of those rights of appeal at the time.
Neither County officials nor any concerned citizen timely filed such a challenge under the APA.
The administrative review process under the APA cannot be circumvented by a late request that
DEQ simply "reopen" the permitting process.
3 Since the NPDES stormwater permit is a general permit, the request is apparently that the certificate of coverage for
that permit be "reopened."

POyMer Spruill""
Michael S. Regan
January 22, 2018
Page 3
Regarding the air permit, there is no legal or factual basis to "reopen" or reconsider that
permitting decision at this time, when Appalachian has yet to begin to operate and hence to produce
any air emissions or air sampling data.
Correspondence we obtained from the County via public records request indicate that both
its outside legal counsel and consultant believed, when the Resolution was being prepared, it was
unlikely that DEQ will reopen permitting decisions, but "there is no harm asking for it." To that
end, the County's counsel included asking DEQ to reopen the stormwater permit. See Tab 2. The
request that DEQ do so is characterized as just another step in the path forward to achieve the
County's "goal." Id. Given what has happened at the local permitting level, discussed below, it is
apparent that "goal" is not coordinating with DEQ in fair and transparent permitting processes, but
to oppose Appalachian at every opportunity, at very considerable expense to our clients and to the
taxpayers of Ashe County.
According to their Resolution, the apparent basis for the Ashe County Commissioner's
request that DEQ "reopen" consideration of Appalachian's permit applications is the false,
defamatory allegation that there is a "pattern of chronic and acute compliance issues with the
'operation of the ... quarry," and "water quality degradation by the quarry operator." Radford's
NPDES self -sampling reports, and the extensive record of inspections of this quarry, culminating
in the recent benthic study (Sept. 2017), indicate:
(i) there has never been any pattern of sediment from the quarry entering waters of
the State, and
(ii) its stormwater control measures have been historically effective and the quarry
operation has not had any adverse impact on water quality standards.
Radford's self -sampling reports indicate in many cases there is no discharge at all from its
outfall. That is because of the large amount of pervious surface on the quarry property, and its
stormwater measures are working.
In 2017, the quarry was inspected five times by DEQ inspectors. That is an unprecedented
level of scrutiny, especially in light of DEQ's budget constraints. After the second of those
inspections, in April 2017, Toby Vinson of DEMLR reported there were typical erosion/sediment
maintenance items at the quarry but "no offsite sediment was discovered or noted nor other issues
that warranted elevated enforcement or reinspection until the next annual inspection next
April." See Vinson email, April 24, 2017 (emphasis added) (enclosed under Tab 3). Yet, the
quarry was inspected again in May, June and September of 2017. Each time, no loss of sediment
was noted. The inspection reports reflect DEMLR staff recommendations, none of which are
atypical, for the operator to maintain compliance.

P03Mr Spruill"P
Michael S. Regan
January 22, 2018
Page 4
The benthic study conducted in September 2017, in conjunction with the last multi -
divisional inspection conducted by DEQ, completely refutes the County Commissioners'
allegation that the quarry has degraded water quality. As indicated in the results of that study, the
data from that "bug study" is that the quarry is currently not adversely affecting the invertebrate
community in the stream reach. See Tab 4.
We are aware that DEQ has conducted an exhaustive, inter -divisional review regarding the
quarry's permit compliance history, possibly in response to the Resolution. Combined with the
rash of inspections over 2017, no one can credibly still criticize DEQ for less than stringent permit
enforcement regarding this quarry. To the contrary, if anything DEQ has devoted a
disproportionally large amount of limited resources to inspections and reviews of the Glendale
Springs quarry.
Appropriately so, DEMLR staff have concluded there is no condition on site that should
have prohibited DEMLR from issuing the stormwater NPDES certificate of coverage to
Appalachian. See Mike Randall email, July 7, 2017 (enclosed under Tab 5). Mr. Randall's report
mirrored the 2017 inspection reports — that while there were some maintenance recommendations
for Radford, it did not appear that any stormwater from the quarry was getting into the unnamed
tributary, nor any evidence that sediment was leaving the site, and stormwater control measures
appear to be functioning. See id.
In conducting that review, DEQ also reviewed an issue the County continues to take issue
with — the circumstances surrounding grading that occurred in 2015. The County Attorney, like
the County's consultant in communications with DEQ, repeats the false allegation that that grading
activity was for the future asphalt plant, not part of the existing quarry operation. As reflected in
an email exchange with Dr. Cecile and Tracy Davis in October 2015 (attached under Tab 6), and
the Notice of Deficiency ("NOD") DEQ issued to Radford at that time, Radford self-reported that
it had graded outside it's approved mine plan but within its mine permit limits. Radford promptly
submitted a modification request and supplemented its bond. As Mr. Davis indicated in that email,
the NOD was consistent with DEMLR's response to such occurrences, and the fact that Radford
self-reported, submitted a mining permit modification request, and that no off site sediment was
documented during inspections is why a notice of violation was not issued. Radford was noted as
being in compliance with that NOD when it was next inspected. As Mr. Vinson noted, the Division
of Air Quality held up issuance of Appalachian's air permit pending Radford's compliance with
this NOD. Regardless of whether a local watershed permit is needed for grading property that is
covered under a mining permit, the County has never issued a notice of violation for this grading
activity and, as discussed below, has refused to process Appalachian's watershed permit
application that covers the precise area the County contends was graded without a local watershed
permit.

PoyMer SpMillLLP
Michael S. Regan
January 22, 2018
Page 5
The County Staff Administrator is in Violation of a Court Order, and is Abusing His
Authority In Contravention of Basic Due Process
In light of the County's request that its staff be allowed to "participate" in any further
investigation by DEQ, and prior representations that the "County seeks to cooperatively coordinate
its local permitting and compliance programs with DEQ." See Westall May 5, 2017 email to DEQ
officials (Tab 7), you also need to be briefly apprised of how that same local County staff has
mishandled and obstructed.Appalachian's local permit applications.
First, Mr. Stumb, the County staff administrator, has failed to comply with an Order entered
in Superior Court in late November 2017, affirming a unanimous Order entered by the County
Planning Board, ordering that he issue a permit to Appalachian under the County's Polluting
Industries Development ("PID") Ordinance within ten days of the Superior Court Order.
Regarding Appalachian's watershed permit application, Mr. Stumb takes the position that
he has wide discretionary authority. For instance -
Even though the ordinance says "built upon area" is to be measured based upon the whole
tract of land, and that is the universal practice under the watershed program, he has the
discretion to deviate from that (so that the low density built upon area threshold can no
longer be met);
He contends that even if the objective standards under the watershed program are met (e.g.,
below built upon area thresholds, stream buffers), he has the authority to make a subjective
evaluation of whether the proposed asphalt production facility poses a threat to water
quality and to deny a watershed permit on that basis, despite his lack of background on the
subject and limited ministerial role, the resulting redundancy in DEQ's role under the
stormwater program, and again without any hearing afforded to Appalachian in advance.
• The lack of a definition of what constitutes a "spill containment plan" in the watershed
ordinance gives him broad discretion in reviewing and approving what is submitted, and
he can require more than what suffices under federal regulations for spill prevention,
control and countermeasure plans.
Purportedly under his authority under the watershed program, his file reflects Mr. Stumb
otherwise has undertaken a broad investigation regarding Radford and its affiliates, gathering
documentation about other facilities besides Glendale Springs. His scope of review is hardly
limited to whether the existing and planned activities at the Glendale Springs quarry comply with
the watershed program. He has or is conducting some comprehensive audit, with a clear agenda to
try to find anything he can that, in his judgment, is in violation of any federal, state or county law.

Poyner Spruill...
Michael S. Regan
January 22, 2018
Page 6
Through his new legal counsel, Mr. Stumb retained Mr. Forest Westall, who met with
representatives of three divisions in DEQ about the regulatory status of all Radford -affiliated
facilities. Appalachian is subsequently told about this investigation, and that it will be apprised of
the results. That never takes place before they are presented to a County board. Furthermore,
Appalachian requested a meeting with Mr. Stumb to discuss its local watershed permit application
so that Appalachian could provide Mr. Stumb any additional information he needed to approve its
application. See Essick June 27, 2017 letter, pp. 2-3 (Tab 8). Mr. Stumb has declined such a
meeting, has unilaterally declared an "impasse" and has refused to further process Appalachian's
watershed permit application.
While the local requirements of a watershed program can be more stringent than State
minimum requirements, that merely addresses what requirements may be in the local watershed
ordinance. It does not change the fact that Mr. Stumb is an administrator, whose role is supposed
to be limited to reviewing an application to determine if it was complete and whether it complies
with objective standards clearly set forth in the ordinance. See County ofLancaster v. Mecklenburg
County, 334 N.C. 496, 434 S.E.2d 604 (1993).
The local watershed permitting process has been in contravention of basic due process in
several ways. It is a fundamental tenant of due process that standards for permits or conduct must
be sufficiently specific in an ordinance, to avoid arbitrary and capricious determinations. Another
fundamental tenant of due process is an unbiased decision -maker. Also, a staff administrator is
limited to a purely administrative or ministerial role, under basic concepts of due process. See
County of Lancaster, 434 S.E.2d at 612. Yet, in a July 2017 Order, Mr. Stumb makes the
extraordinary statement that he is forbidden by law to even process Appalachian's watershed
application, which has been pending with him since June 2015, until:
" [A]11 issues related to existing violations of County and State law on the Lot have been
fully and unambiguously addressed and all County and State law have been fully satisfied
and implemented in the Lot."
The clear implication is that Appalachian and Radford must satisfy this (obviously biased) local
administrator that there are no violations of any County or State law on the property before he
will complete what is supposed to be his limited administrative task of processing a watershed
permit application. This is an abuse of due process, and the limited authority bestowed upon a
local staff administrator. It is a course of conduct that has unfortunately resulted in hundreds of
thousands of County taxpayers' dollars being wasted and has come at considerable expense to
Appalachian.

Poyner Spruill"'
Michael S. Regan
January 22, 2018
Page 7
The fact that it is being done in the context of the watershed program is something that will
need to be considered at the State level given the purposes for that program, and its relationship to
the State -administered stormwater program and water supply rules.
If you, or anyone receiving or reviewing this letter, should have any questions regarding
our response to the County's Resolution or the unfortunate factual history of this matter outlined
in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.
Very truly yours,
�w
Chad W. Essick
Partner
-�ic-� ' Ute•
Keith H. Johnson
Partner
Enclosures

Poyner Spruill"P
Michael S. Regan
January 22, 2018
Page 8
cc: Bill Lane, Esq., NCDEQ General Counsel
N.C. DEQ Administration
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Carolyn McLain, Assistant Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, NC 27602
Sheila Holman, Assistant Secretary for Environment
N.C. DEQ Administration
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Toby Vinson, Interim Director of DEMLR
N.C. DEQ Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Jay Zimmerman, Director of DWR
N.C. DEQ Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
John Kilby
Ashe County Attorney
P.O. Box 24
West Jefferson, NC 28694

Froin: Adam S b mailto:adam stumb(a ashecountygov.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:26 PM
To: Mather, Tom <tom mather(a@ncdenr.�ov>
Cc: Edwards, Lisa <lisa edwards(a�,ncdenr.yov>; Holman, Sheila <sheila holman(c�ncdenr.ov>; Abraczinskas,
Michael <michael abraczinskas(a acd, nr.gov>>; Adouli, Jalal <jalal.adouli&cdenr.&ov>
Subject: Re: General Statutes regarding Permit Appeal
Thank you Tom and all for your help.
Adam Stumb
Ashe County
Director of Planning

Sent from my Wad
On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:06 PM, Mather, Tom <[e-mail]> wrote:
Mr. Stumb,
You had inquired about the process for appealing permits issued by the Division of Air
Quality. Please see the email below from DAQ Director Sheila Holman, which contains
the relevant legislation regarding the appeals process for state agency decisions.
Please note that appeals should be filed with the state Office of Administrative
Hearings, as noted in Section 150B-23 copied below. Appeals must be filed within 30
days of the final agency decision, which was Feb. 26, 2016, for the Appalachian
Materials air quality permit.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions. I have attached a copy of the air pgrmit,
and it also can be accessed through this page on our website:
https•//dea nc gov/about/divisions/air-quality/air-quality-permitting
Tom Mather
Public Information Officer
Office of Public Affairs - Division of Air Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919 707 8446 office
919 607 5424 mobile
tom.mather(a)-ncdenr.gov
217 West Jones Street

1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1641
-�'"„othfnq Compares,--,.,,
Email correspondence to and from this address Is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Holman, Sheila
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:14 AM
To: Mather, Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: General Statutes regarding Permit Appeal
Tom,
Here are the two relevant parts of the General Statutes regarding permit appeal:
§ 143-215.108. Control of sources of air pollution; permits required.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (al) and (a2) of this section, no person shall do any of
the following things or carry out any of the following activities that contravene or will be likely
to contravene standards established pursuant to G.S. 143-215.107 or set out in G.S. 143-
215.107D unless that person has obtained a permit for the activity from the Commission and has
complied with any conditions of the permit:
(1) Establish or operate any air contaminant source, except as provided in G.S. 143-
215.108A.
(2) Build, erect, use, or operate any equipment that may result in the emission of an air
contaminant or that is likely to cause air pollution, except as provided in G.S. 143-215.108A.

(3) Alter or change the construction or method of operation of any equipment or process
from which air contaminants are or may be emitted.
(4) Repealed by Session Laws 2003-428, s. 1, effective August 19, 2003.
(al) The Commission may by rule establish procedures that meet the requirements of section
502(b)(10) of Title V (42 U.S.C. § 766la(b)(10)) and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §
70.4(b)(12) (1 July 1993 Edition) to allow a permittee to make changes within a permitted
facility without requiring a revision of the permit.
(a2) The Commission may adopt rules that provide for a minor modification of a permit. At a
minimum, rules that provide for a minor modification of a permit shall meet the requirements of
40 Code of Federal Regulations § 70.7(e)(2) (1 July 1993 Edition). If the Commission adopts
rules that provide for a minor modification of a permit, a permittee shall not make a change in
the permitted facility while the application for the minor modification is under review unless the
change is authorized under the rules adopted by the Commission.
(b) The Commission shall act upon all applications for permits so as to effectuate the
purposes of this Article by reducing existing air pollution and preventing, so far as reasonably
possible, any increased pollution of the air from any additional or enlarged sources.
(c) The Commission shall have the power:
(1) To grant and renew a permit with any conditions attached that the Commission believes
necessary to achieve the purposes of this Article or the requirements of the Clean Air Act and
implementing regulations adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency;
(2) To grant and renew any temporary permit for such period of time as the Commission
shall specify even though the action allowed by such permit may result in pollution or increase
pollution where conditions make such temporary permit essential;
(3) To terminate, modify, or revoke and reissue any permit upon not less than 60 days'
written notice to any person affected;
(3a) To suspend any permit pursuant to the provisions of G. S. 150B -3(c);
(4) To require all applications for permits and renewals to be in writing and to prescribe the
form of such applications;
(5) To request such information from an applicant and to conduct such inquiry or
investigation as it may deem necessary and to require the submission of plans and specifications
prior to acting on any application for a permit;
(5a) To require that an applicant satisfy the Department that the applicant, or any parent,
subsidiary, or other affiliate of the applicant or parent:
a. Is financially qualified to carry out the activity for which a permit is required under
subsection (a); and
b. Has substantially complied with the air quality and emission control standards applicable
to any activity in which the applicant has previously engaged, and has been in substantial

compliance with federal and state laws, regulations, and rules for the protection of the
environment.
As used in this subdivision, the words "affiliate," "parent," and "subsidiary" have the same
meaning as in 17 Code of Federal Regulations 240.12b-2 (1 April 1990 Edition); ,
(6) To adopt rules, as it deems necessary, establishing the form of applications and permits
and procedures for the granting or denial of permits and renewals pursuant to this section; and all
permits, renewals and denials shall be in writing;
(7) To prohibit any stationary source within the State from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts that will prevent attainment or maintenance by any other state of any national ambient
air quality standard or that will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other state to prevent deterioration of air quality or protect visibility;
and
(8) To designate certain classes of activities for which a general permit may be issued, after
considering the environmental impact of an activity, the frequency of the activity, the need for
individual permit oversight, and the need for public review and comment on individual permits.
(d) (1) The Commission may conduct any inquiry or investigation it considers necessary
before acting on an application and may require an applicant to submit plans, specifications, and
other information the Commission considers necessary to evaluate the application. A permit
application may not be deemed complete unless it is accompanied by a copy of the request for
determination as provided in subsection (f) of this section that bears a date of receipt entered by
the clerk of the local government and until the 15 -day period for issuance of a determination has
elapsed.
(2) The Commission shall adopt rules specifying the times within which it must act upon
applications for permits required by Title V and other permits required by this section. The times
specified shall be extended for the period during which the Commission is prohibited from
issuing a permit under subdivisions (3) and (4) of this subsection. The Commission shall inform
a permit applicant as to whether or not the application is complete within the time specified in
the rules for action on the application. If the Commission fails to act on an application for a
permit required by Title V or this section within the time period specified, the failure to act on
the application constitutes a final agency decision to deny the permit. A permit applicant,
permittee, or other person aggrieved, as defined in G.S. 150B-2, may seek judicial review of a
failure to act on the application as provided in G.S. 143-215.5 and Article 4 of Chapter 150B of
the General Statutes. Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 15013-51, upon review of a failure
to act on an application for a permit required by Title V or this section, a court may either: (i)
affirm the denial of the permit or (ii) remand the application to the Commission for action upon
the application within a specified time.
(3) If the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency validly
objects to the issuance of a permit required by Title V within 45 days after the Administrator
receives the proposed permit and the required portions of the permit application, the Commission
shall not issue the permit until the Commission revises the proposed permit to meet all objections
noted by the Administrator or otherwise satisfies all objections consistent with Title V and
implementing regulations adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(4) If the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency validly
objects to the issuance of a permit required by Title V after the expiration of the 45 -day review
period specified in subdivision (3) of this subsection as a result of a petition filed pursuant to
section 505(b)(2) of Title V (42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b)(2)) and prior to the issuance of the permit by
the Commission, the Commission shall not issue the permit until the Commission revises the
proposed permit to meet all objections noted by the Administrator or otherwise satisfies all
objections consistent with Title V and implementing regulations adopted by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(dl) No Title V permit issued pursuant to this section shall be issued or renewed for a term
exceeding five years. All other permits issued pursuant to this section shall be issued for a term
of eight years.
(e) A permit applicant or permittee who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission
on a permit application may commence a contested case by filing a petition under G.S. 150B-23
within 30 days after the Commission notifies the applicant or permittee of its decision. If the
permit applicant or permittee does not file a petition within the required time, the Commission's
decision on the application is final and is not subject to review. The filing of a petition under this
subsection will stay the Commission's decision until resolution of the contested case.
(e 11-A: parson' other thap'a periiiit applicant' or -,permittee who'.is a personaggrieved by the `
-:{
Commissi'on's decision°on,a"pei t.applicatior may�'commence ea contested casehlay'filing'a`pefition
under G.S.150$=23 uitl in 30,:days'after.tlie Commission"nprovides notice.ofits"dec`ision"' oriaa'permit
application,;as provided G:S.` 150
B=23, or.by posting the; decision ori a°publicly,available=Web
site. Tfi'e'filirig of>a petition ;under this` subsection does riot stay;tha Commi'ssion's, decision except_as
ordered bythe.adriiirii'strative law judgeunder
(f) An applicant for a permit under this section for a new facility or for the expansion of a
facility permitted under this section shall request each local government having jurisdiction over
any part of the land on which the facility and its appurtenances are to be located to issue a
determination as to whether the local government has in effect a zoning or subdivision ordinance
applicable to the facility and whether the proposed facility or expansion would be consistent with
the ordinance. The request to the local government shall be accompanied by a copy of the draft
permit application and shall be delivered to the clerk of the local government personally or by
certified mail. The determination shall be verified or supported by affidavit signed by the official
designated by the local government to make the determination and, if the local government states
that the facility is inconsistent with a zoning or subdivision ordinance, shall include a copy of the
ordinance and the specific reasons for the determination of inconsistency. A copy of any such
determination shall be provided to the applicant when it is submitted to the Commission. The
Commission shall not act upon an application for a permit under this section until it has received
a determination from each local government requested to make a determination by the applicant.
If a local government determines that the new facility or the expansion of an existing facility is
inconsistent with a zoning or subdivision ordinance, and unless the local government makes a
subsequent determination of consistency with all ordinances cited in the determination or the
proposed facility is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be consistent with the
cited ordinances, the Commission shall attach as a condition of the permit a requirement that the
applicant, prior to construction or operation of the facility under the permit, comply with all

lawfully adopted local ordinances, including those cited in the determination, that apply to the
facility at the time of construction or operation of the facility. If a local government fails to
submit a determination to the Commission as provided by this subsection within 15 days after
receipt of the request, the Commission may proceed to consider the permit application without
regard to local zoning and subdivision ordinances. This subsection shall not be construed to
affect the validity of any lawfully adopted franchise, local zoning, subdivision, or land -use
planning ordinance or to affect the responsibility of any person to comply with any lawfully
adopted franchise, local zoning, subdivision, or land -use planning ordinance. This subsection
shall not be construed to limit any opportunity a local government may have to comment on a
permit application under any other law or rule. This subsection shall not apply to any facility
with respect to which local ordinances are subject to review under either G.S. 104E-6.2 or G.S.
130A-293.
(g) Repealed by Session Laws 2014-120, s. 38(c), effective September 18, 2014.
(h) Expedited Review of Applications Certified by a Professional Engineer. - The
Commission shall adopt rules governing the submittal of permit applications certified by a
professional engineer, including draft permits, that can be sent to public notice and hearing upon
receipt and subjected to technical review by personnel within the Department. These rules shall
specify, at a minimum, any forms to be used; a checklist for applicants that lists all items of
information required to prepare a complete permit application; the form of the certification
required on the application by a professional engineer; and the information that must be included
in the draft permit. The Department shall process an application that is certified by a professional
engineer as provided in subdivisions (1) through (7) of this subsection.
(1) Initiation of Review. Upon receipt of an application certified by a professional engineer
in accordance with this subsection and the rules adopted pursuant to this subsection, the
Department shall determine whether the application is complete as provided in subdivision (2) of
this subsection. Within 30 days after the date on which an application is determined to be
complete, the Department shall:
a. Publish any required notices, using the draft permit included with the application;
b. Schedule any required public meetings or hearings on the application and permit; and
C. Initiate any and all technical review of the application in a manner to ensure substantial
completion of the technical review by the time of any public hearing on the application, or if
there is no hearing, by the close of the notice period.
(2) Completeness Review. Within 10 working days of receipt of the permit application
certified by a professional engineer under this subsection, the Department shall determine
whether the application is complete for purposes of this subsection. The Department shall
determine whether the permit application certified by a professional engineer is complete by
comparing the information provided in the application with the checklist contained in the rules
adopted by the Commission pursuant to this subsection.
a. If the application is not complete, the Department shall promptly notify the applicant in
writing of all deficiencies of the application, specifying the items that need to be included,
modified, or supplemented in order to make the application complete, and the 10 -day time period
is suspended after this request for further information. If the applicant submits the requested
information within the time specified, the 10 -day time period shall begin again on the day the

additional information was submitted. If the additional information is not submitted within the
time periods specified, the Department shall return the application to the applicant, and the
applicant may treat the return of the application as a denial of the application or may resubmit
the application at a later time.
b. If the Department fails to notify the applicant that an application is not complete within
the time period set forth in this subsection, the application shall be deemed to be complete.
(3) Time for Permit Decision. For any application found to be complete under subdivision
(2) of this subsection, the Department shall issue a permit decision within 30 days of the last day
of any public hearing on the application, or if there is no hearing, within 30 days of the close of
the notice period.
(4) Rights if Permit Decision Not Made in Timely Fashion. If the Department fails to issue a
permit decision within the time periods specified in subdivision (3) of this subsection, the
applicant may:
a. Take no action, thereby consenting to the continued review of the application; or
b. Treat the failure to issue a permit decision as a denial of the application and appeal the
denial as provided in subdivision (2) of subsection (d) of this section.
(5) Power to Halt Review. At any time after the permit application certified by a
professional engineer has been determined to be complete under subdivision (2) of this
subsection, the Department may immediately terminate review of that application, including
technical review and any hearings or meetings scheduled on the application, upon a
determination of one of the following:
a. The permit application is not in substantial compliance with the applicable rules; or
b. The applicant failed to pay all permit application fees.
(6) Rights if Review Halted. If the Department terminates review of an application under
subdivision (5) of this subsection, the applicant may take any of the following actions:
a. Revise and resubmit the application; or
b. Treat the action as a denial of the application and appeal the denial under Article 3 of
Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.
(7) Option; No Additional Fee. The submittal of a permit application certified by a
professional engineer to be considered under this subsection shall be an option and shall not be
required of any applicant. The Department shall not impose any additional fees for the receipt or
processing of a permit application certified by a professional engineer.
(i) Rules for Review of Applications Other Than Those Certified by a Professional
Engineer. - The Commission shall adopt rules governing the times of review for all permit
applications submitted pursuant to this section other than those certified by a professional
engineer pursuant to subsection (h) of this section. Those rules shall specify maximum times for,
among other things, the following actions in reviewing the permit applications covered by this
subsection:

(1) Determining that the permit application is complete;
(2) Requesting additional information to determine completeness;
(3) Determining that additional information is needed to conduct a technical review of the
application;
(4) Completing all technical review of the permit application;
(5) Holding and completing all public meetings and hearings required for the application;
(6) Completing the record from reviewing and acting on the application; and
(7) Taking final action on the permit, including granting or denying the application.
0) No Power to Regulate Residential Combustion. - Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to give the Commission or the Department the power to regulate the emissions from
any combustion heater, appliance, or fireplace in private dwellings, except to the extent required
by federal law. For purposes of this subsection, "combustion heater, appliance, or fireplace"
means any heater, appliance, or fireplace that burns combustion fuels, including, but not limited
to, natural or liquefied petroleum gas, fuel oil, kerosene, wood, or coal, for heating, cooking,
drying, or decorative purposes. (1973, c. 821, s. 6; c. 1262, s. 23; 1979, c. 545, ss. 2, 3; 1987, c.
461, s. 2; c. 827, ss. 154, 206; 1989, c. 168, s. 30; c. 492; 1989 (Reg. Sess., 1990), c. 1037, s. 2;
1991, c. 552, s. 5; c. 629, s. 1; c. 761, s. 27(a) -(c); 1993, c. 400, s. 8; 1995, c. 484, s. 2; 1995
(Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 728, s. 1; 2002-4, s. 2; 2003-340, s. 1.8(b); 2003-428, ss. 1, 2; 2011-398, s.
60(a); 2013-413, s. 29; 2014-115, s. 17; 2014-120, ss. 24(g), 38(c).)
`Coiiiinericement LLass gntnentof,adrriinistrative`law R99 hearing$reggjp;_ pq__;
- - J_�.g - -c
iriterveiitiori;
A_ contested caseshall be. commenced by'paying 7a fee 'in'an'-arrourit established ;in 'G:,S.
150B 23.:2 aiid by�filing ,a',petition with the Office of Admin strative-Heapings ari, "excep"t as
rovded in Article �3A-.of this Chapter; shall be coridiicted bythat OfficeiThe ;party who f les sthe
petition:shall Ysorves a copy of I e_petitiori on, other sparties .al d, if the: dis'pu a ;coricerns, `a
Trcense,';theaperson who.holds the;license.' A party who files a petition's a f le a certificate of
service togethef'with the petition. -A petition shall -lie signed by.a"party;,an attorney representing a
party, brI other reproserltative .of the parry, as may specifically be authori2e , by law, `and; =if filed
by a -party other_.thaii an agericy,ahall,state,.facts tending ao. establish thatahe=-ageiicy named as�the
resp ondeiit,has;depriyed theepetltloner__ ofsproperty, has ordered the petitioner to pay a fine for
�..
civil penalty;�;orLhas._ ofherwlseA substantially ;prejudlced the petitioner s rights and that the agency:
(1)= EXceeded_,its,authority-or jurisdiction;
(2), - �_�Acfed erroneously;
Eailed.to'use4proper_procedure
10

(4) Acted arbitrarily, or y 0
N"
to act�as:regiiired by_'law or rule:
The parties in a contested case shall be given an opportunity for a hearing without undue delay.
Any person aggrieved may commence a contested case hereunder.
A local government employee, applicant for employment, or former employee to whom Chapter
126 of the General Statutes applies may commence a contested case under this Article in the
same manner as any other petitioner. The case shall be conducted in the same manner as other
contested cases under this Article.
A business entity may represent itself using a nonattomey representative who is one or more of
the following of the business entity: (i) officer, (ii) manager or member -manager, if the business
entity is a limited liability company, (iii) employee whose income is reported on IRS Form W-2,
if the business entity authorizes the representation in writing, or (iv) owner of the business entity,
if the business entity authorizes the representation in writing and if the owner's interest in the
business entity is at least twenty-five percent (25%). Authority for and prior notice of
nonattorney representation shall be made in writing, under penalty of perjury, to the Office on a
form provided by the Office.
(al) Repealed by Session Laws 1985 (Regular Session, 1986), c. 1022, s. 1(9).
(a2) An administrative law judge assigned to a contested case may require a party to the case
to file a prehearing statement. A party's prehearing statement must be served on all other parties
to the contested case.
(0) A Medicaid enrollee, or network provider authorized in writing to act -on behalf of the
enrollee, who appeals a notice of resolution issued by an LME/MCO under Chapter 108D of the
General Statutes may commence a contested case under this Article in the same manner as any
other petitioner. The case shall be conducted in the same manner as other contested cases under
this Article. Solely and only for the purposes of contested cases commenced as Medicaid
managed care enrollee appeals under Chapter 108D of the General Statutes, an LME/MCO is
considered an agency as defined in G.S. 150B -2(l a). The LME/MCO shall not be considered an
agency for any other purpose.
(a4) If an agency fails to take any required action within the time period specified by law, any
person whose rights are substantially prejudiced by the agency's failure to act may commence a
contested case in accordance with this section seeking an order that the agency act as required by
law. If the administrative law judge finds that the agency has failed to act as required by law, the
administrative law judge may order that the agency take the required action within a specified
time period.
(b) The parties to a contested case shall be given a notice of hearing not less than 15 days
before the hearing by the Office of Administrative Hearings. If prehearing statements have been
filed in the case, the notice shall state the date, hour, and place of the hearing. If prehearing
statements have not been filed in the case, the notice shall state the date, hour, place, and nature
of the hearing, shall list the particular sections of the statutes and rules involved, and shall give a
short and plain statement of the factual allegations.
11

(c) Notice shall be given by one of the methods for service of process under G.S. 1A-1, Rule
40) or Rule 403). If given by registered or certified mail, by signature confirmation as provided
by the United States Postal Service, or by designated delivery service authorized pursuant to 26
U.S.C. § 7502(f)(2) with delivery receipt, notice shall be deemed to have been given on the
delivery date appearing on the return receipt, copy of the proof of delivery provided by the
United States Postal Service, or delivery receipt. If giving of notice cannot be accomplished by a
method under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 40) or Rule 403), notice shall then be given in the manner
provided in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 401).
(d) Any person may petition to become a party by filing a motion to intervene in the manner
provided in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 24. In addition, any person interested in a contested case may
intervene and participate in that proceeding to the extent deemed appropriate by the
administrative law judge.
(e) All hearings under this Chapter shall be open to the public. Hearings shall be conducted
in an impartial manner. Hearings shall be conducted according to the procedures set out in this
Article, except to the extent and in the particulars that specific hearing procedures and time
standards are governed by another statute.
(f) Unless another statute or a federal statute or regulation sets a time limitation for the filing
of a petition in contested cases against a specified agency, the general limitation for the filing of
a petition in a contested case is 60 days. The time limitation, whether established by another
statute, federal statute, or federal regulation, or this section, shall commence when notice is given
of the agency decision to all persons aggrieved who are known to the agency by personal
delivery or by the placing of the notice in an official depository of the United States Postal
Service wrapped in a wrapper addressed to the person at the latest address given by the person to
the agency. The notice shall be in writing, and shall set forth the agency action, and shall inform
the persons of the right, the procedure, and the time limit to file a contested case petition. When
no informal settlement request has been received by the agency prior to issuance of the notice,
any subsequent informal settlement request shall not suspend the time limitation for the filing of
a petition for a contested case hearing.
(g) Where multiple licenses are required from an agency for a single activity, the Secretary
or chief administrative officer of the agency may issue a written determination that the
administrative decision reviewable under Article 3 of this Chapter occurs on the date the last
license for the activity is issued, denied, or otherwise disposed of. The written determination of
the administrative decision is not reviewable under this Article. Any licenses issued for the
activity prior to the date of the last license identified in the written determination are not
reviewable under this Article until the last license for the activity is issued, denied, or otherwise
disposed of. A contested case challenging the last license decision for the activity may include
challenges to agency decisions on any of the previous licenses required for the activity. (1973, C.
1331, s. 1; 1975, 2nd Sess., c. 983, s. 65; 1985, c. 746, s. 1; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), C. 1022, ss.
1(9), (10), 6(2), (3); 1987, c. 878, ss. 3-5; c. 879, s. 6.1; 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1111; s. 5;
1991, c. 35, s. 1; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 572, s. 2; 2009-451, s. 21A.l(a); 2011-332, s. 2.1;
2011-398, s. 16; 2012-187, s. 6; 2013-397, s. 4; 2014-120, ss. 7(a), 48, 59(a).)
Sheila Holman
12

Director
NCDEQ, Division of Air Quality
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1641
Phone/Fax: [phone]
www.ncalr.org
Sheila.holman@,nedenr.gov
<appalachian materials permit.pdf>
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 132, Public Records, this electronic mail message and any attachments hereto, as
well as any electronic mail message(s) that might be sent in response to it may be considered public record and as such are subject to
request and review by, and disclosure to, third parties.
13

From: Adam Stumb[mailto:adam.sttunbgmashecountygov.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 4:12 PM
To: Mather, Tom <tom.matherancdenr.Qov>
Cc: Edwards, Lisa <lisa.edwards. cncdenr.gov>; Adouli, Jalal <jalal.adouli cr ncdenr.gov>; Holman, Sheila
<sheila.holman�ncdenr.izov>; Abraczinskas, Michael<michael.abraczinskas(a,,ncdenr.aov>
Subject: Re: Air Permit 10445R00
Thanks I'll look for that.

Adam Stumb
Ashe County
Sent from my Wad
On Mar 11, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Mather, Tom <tom.mather cr ncdenr.ov> wrote:
Mr. Stumb,
Citizens can appeal air permit decisions but we will have to get back to you on the
process. The General Assembly passed a law in the last session that changed the
appeal process on permit decisions and I am not familiar enough with the details to fill
you in. However, I will try to send you some information on that next week.
Tom Mather
Public Information Officer
Office of Public Affairs - Division of Air Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
919 707 8446 office
919 607 5424 mobile
tom mather Mcdenr.gov
217 West Jones Street
1641 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1641
lo, 'ng Compares
P:j'q� ,� a
3

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties
From: Edwards, Lisa
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:57 PM
To: Mather, Tom <tom.mathernncdenr.gov>
Cc: Adam Stumb<adam.stumbaashecountYgov.com>; Adouli, Jalal
<j alal.adouli@,ncdenr. gov>
Subject: RE: Air Permit 10445R00
Tom.
Can you answer Mr. Stumb's questions?
Lisa Edwards, PE
Regional Supervisor
Division of Air Quality - WSRO
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9800 main
336 776 9637 direct
Lisa Edwards(o)-ncdenr gov
450 West Hanes Mill Rd, Ste 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
<image003.png>

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Adam Stumb [mailto:adam.stumb a,ashecounty og vcom]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:55 PM
To: Adouli, Jalal <jalal.adouli cr,ncdenr.gov>
Ce: Edwards, Lisa <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Air Permit 10445R00
Thank you again for your help with this.
Another question if you'll indulge me; can the Air Quality Permit be appealed at the Division of
Environmental Quality or can it only be appealed in court? And who would have standing to
appeal the permit?
Thanks!
Adam Stumb, AICP, CZO, CFM
Ashe County
Director of Planning
150 Government Circle, Suite 2400
Jefferson. NC 28640
Office - 336-846-5528
Cell - 336-977-3074
www. ashe countygov. com
k,

From: Sarah Roark
To: "Ann Clark"
Subject: FW: Final Resolution.DOCX
Date: Monday, June 19, 2017 8:46:19 AM
Attachments: Final P. -solution DOCX
Good morning Ann,
John wanted to me to send this to you
Thank you,
Sarah
From: Cooke, John [mailto:JCooke @wcsr.comj
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:39 AM
To:'[e-mail]' (sarah@khhattys com) <[e-mail]>
Cc: Forrest Westall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Final Resolution.DOCX
John,
Attached is a final resolution which incorporates many of Forrest's very good ideas.
Three big points:
1. Forrest believes that blaming DEMLR too much in the resolution would be
counterproductive and believes that the County will likely have to "live with DEMI-R." So, I
removed much of the focus on DEMLR.
2. We both believe that it is unlikely that DEQwill reopen permitting decisions, but there is
no harm asking for it. To that end, I included asking DEQ to reopen the stormwater
permit.
3. This is just another step in the path forward to achieve the County's goal.
John
John C. Cooke I Partner
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
555 Fayetteville Street
Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27601
Office: 919. 755. 21921 Fax [phone]
Email- icooke(a—)wcsr corn
PETITIONER'S;
-:EXHIBIT, = A
F t-;,•-
9

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This alertron c mad transmission has been sent by a la,vyer It may contain information that is confidential
privileged, proprietary, or othermsa legally exempt from disclosure If you are not tFs intended recipient you are hereby notified that you
=_ra not authonzed to read, print, retain copy cr disssminata this message, ami par of it, or any at`achments If you have race ived this
massage in error, please delete this message and any attachments from your system without reading the content and notify the sender
immediately of trie inadvertent transmission There is no intent on the par of the sender to -,varve any pnvnege, incluoing tha attorney-
client pnvilege, that may attach to this communication Than9 you for your coot=rat on

3
Thanks for your continued excellent and timely assistance with this project!
racy
From: Vinson, Toby
Sent: Monday, April 24, 201710:15 AM
To: Davis, Tracy < [aay davis��Y>
Cc: Cole, Brad <brad cote @n .denr.gov>
Subject: FW: Glendale Springs Inspection Report
Tracy
Please replace my prior e-mail from 4/21/17 with this one as that prior e-mail had cut and paste other separate e-
mail chains for background information but wasn't necessary for the response to your inquiry and could cause
confusion to others not completely familiar with this situation as to who and what was sent and received.
Here is the 4/11/17 report. Looks like Matt and Tim primarily documented new work completed since the last
inspection on 2/23/17. DOT had installed the new culvert under Glendale Springs Road which they think will
alleviate the issues caused by the runoff across the entrance. Slope repair and/or maintenance had taken place,
installation of a new excavated pit below the newly excavated slope within the processing area near the lower
entrance and suggestions to consider a larger slope drain were disucussed. There are typical E&SC maintenance
items but no offsite sediment was discovered or noted nor other issues that warranted elevated enforcement or re-
ispection until the next annual inspection next April.
I've asked Janet to pull up the inspection repdrts going back to 2010 so that Brad and I can review on Monday to
address your questions from paragraph 2 in your previous email. We'll get back to you on that Monday.
Reminder, this site was under NOD through early 2016 to address disturbed limits exceedances although they were
still within Permit limits, adequate E&SC measures as well as modifying their permit to address the deficiencies.
DAQ held up their AQ permit for the asphalt plant until they came into compliance with the NOD from us.
William E. Toby Vinson, Jr., PE, CPESC, CPM
Chief of Program Operations
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
Department of Environmental Quality
919-707-9220
tgby vinson�nr.eoy
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
-�'~­-Nothing Compares •-tip

---------- Forwarded message
From: Knight, Sherri <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:03 PM
Subject: RE: [External] Re: Glendale Springs Quarry
To: "D.J. Cecile" <dicecilenradfordquarries.com>
Cc: "Risgaard, Jon" <jon.risgaard@ncdenngov>
I'm sorry, I have been waiting for a response but wanted to get you what information I have., I do not have a
full report from the Environmental Science Unit but I am attaching their benthic count report and the table of
information and conclusions they provided. I assume the report will just be a summary of this information.
Below is the summary of benthos metrics for the three study sites:
Biotic Index
EPT Biotic Index
EPT Abundance
Total Diversity
EPT Diversity
Habitat Score
BIOCLASSIFICATION
UT S FK NEW R (UPSTREAM OF
QUARRY)
3.32
2.64
123
56
30
57
GOOD
UT S FK NEW R (DOWNSTREAM OF
QUARRY)
2.82
2.2
127
46
30
74
GOOD
UT S FK
Based on these data, there is virtually no difference in the invertebrate communities upstream of the quarry
versus downstream of the quarry. Both locations are comprised mostly of pollution intolerant taxa, both
locations have nearly identical EPT abundances, -both locations have precisely the same EPT taxa richness, and
both received Good bioclassifications (based on EPT criteria). In summary, these data suggest that the quarry
is currently not adversely affecting the invertebrate community in this stream reach.
Now, the site on the tributary below the DOT culvert (relative to the other two sites) did have a lower EPT
species richness (21), and lower total species diversity (38), but this stream was also much smaller than either
of the other two sites and lower diversities are typical with a reduction in stream size. In other words, the
lower diversities in this stream is most likely a natural condition and is not significantly attributable to
anthropogenic activities. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the pollution tolerance of the
invertebrate community in this stream (measured by both the biotic index, and the EPT biotic index) were the
lowest values measured among all study sites. In summary, the benthos data in the stream segment below the
DOT culvert also does not appear to be significantly affected by anthropogenic activity.
Currently, none of these sites are impaired based on biological data and all are generally supporting
invertebrate communities typical of streams of this size in this ecoregion.

5'
From: Randall, Mike
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 4:36 PM
To: Davis, Tracy <t�r cy.davisCcDncdenr.gov>; Holman, Sheila <sheila holmani

I
From: "Davis, Tracy" <tracv.davis a,ncdenngov>
Date: October 21, 2015 at 10:04:54 EDT
To: D J Ceciles.com>
Cc: "Vinson, Toby" <toby.vinsonna ncdenr.ov>, "Cole, Brad" <brad.cole ca ncdenr.4ov_>,
"Boyer, Janet" <janet.boyerna ncdenr.ov>, "Wehner, Judy" <iudy.wehner(a�ncdenr.ov>,
"Gantt, Matt" "Latham, Tim" <tim.latham(a�ncdenr.ov>
Subject: Re: NOD
Mr. Cecile,
Thank you for your message. Our issuance of an NOD for your site is consistent with our
issuance of NODS for sites that affect areas outside of their approved mine plan within the
mining permit boundaries that do not result in offsite sedimentation. The fact that you self
reported, submitted a mining permit modification request to address the exceedence, and that no
offsite sedimentation was documented during our inspection are the reasons why a Notice of
Violation (NOV) was not issued.
We appreciate your cooperation in making the adjustments at the site that were noted during our
recent inspection and look forward to timely completion of the mining permit modification
process to bring this site into compliance.
Regards,
Tracy E. Davis, PE, CPM
Director - Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
NC Department of Environmental Quality
[phone]
[e-mail]
512 N Salisbury Street - Archdale Building
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 21, 2015, at 8:33 AM, D J Cecile <djcecile radfordquarries.com> wrote:
Mr. Davis:
I reviewed the Raleigh office files for permit 05-05 yesterday. I also spoke with
some of the mining permit staff. It is my understanding we will receive an NOD
in the future. I hope that you, as the Director, have ensured this is consistent with
policy to which other mines across the State have been held. It would be a shame
to find out we are being treated discriminatorily because of a single citizen who is
angry that we have applied for an asphalt permit and who is a promulgator of non -
truths about us and our firm.
I submit for your consideration and for the record: When I was apprised we had
disturbed acreage outside the permit boundary, I immediately requested our
consultant submit a modification to the Division. Further, as quickly as possible, I
submitted sufficient reclamation bond coverage. Mining staff admitted, based on
my understanding, that we had no loss of sediment from the additional acreage.
Would a willful and intentional violator of the Mining Act have contacted the
Division and essentially self-reported the disturbance outside the permitted
acreage? In all likelihood, no, in my opinion. I therefore submit to you my request
that our firm not be issued the proposed NOD.
Sincerely,
DJ
D. J. Cecile
Sent from my iPhone

To: 'Edwards, Lisa'; Gantt, Matt; Knight, Sherri; Smith, George
Subject: RE: Regulatory Review: Proposed Appalachian Materials LLC Asphalt Plant, Ashe County, Glendale Springs Area
Thanks Once I've heard from others I will coordinate one of the remaining days to come to the Regional Office.
Forrest
Forrest R. Westall, Sr., PE
Principal
4r,
cGM,
55 Broad Street I Asheville, IVC 23801
Phone- 828 252 0575 I Cell- 828 231.6840 I Fax. [phone]
forrest westallOmcgilienF4rneers com I www rncgillengmeers corn
From: Edwards, Lisa[mailto:lisa,edwards(&ncdenr,aov]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 4:34 PM
To: Forrest Westall; Gantt, Matt; Knight, Sherri; Sink, Scott; Smith, George
Subject: RE: Regulatory Review: Proposed Appalachian Materials LLC Asphalt Plant, Ashe County, Glendale Springs Area
I am not available on May 26
Lisa Edwards, PE
Regional Supervisor
Division of Air Quality - WSRO
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336 776 9800 main
336 776 9637 direct
Lisa.Fdwardsancdenr aov
450 West Hanes Mill Rd, Ste 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
y t#MD
r
Ye, 0;
Email correspoPdenc2 t0 and Tfom thl'3 address is subject in the
Nort: CarClina rubiiC Bacot"Cis Law and n, ay be disclose{to th rt'parftas.
From: Forrest Westall [mailto Forrest Westail(EiMcQillenameers Com]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Edwards, Lisa <lisa edwardsancdenr aov>; Gantt, Matt <ma -Lt EanttrEncdenr co,>; Knight, Sherri
<shern knight(@ncdenr gov>; Sink, Scott <scoit sinkd)ncdenr gov>; Smith, George <aeorge smaNDncdenr 6ov>
Subject: Regulatory Review Proposed Appalachian Materials LLC Asphalt Plant, Ashe County, Glendale Springs Area

Hello,
I am providing support to Ashe County in developing regulatory information about a proposed Appalachian Materials
LLC asphalt plant on a site in the Glendale Springs area My role is one simply of information gathering relative to
DEQ regulatory status of this proposed facility and agency interaction with any otherfacilities planned or existing, in
your region, and owned by Appalachian Materials LLC, Radford Quarries, Inc, Radford Properties, Inc. or other
companies or entities owned or operated, in part or whole, by a gentleman named D J Cecile.
I'm sure that you are aware of the pending local permitting processes underway in Ashe County that have been
requested by Appalachian Materials LLC, for the Glendale Springs asphalt plant The County seeks to gather all
available State regulatory compliance information on this site and the general compliance history of the
owner/operators so it can make a reasoned decision in acting on these permit requests. The County seeks to
cooperatively coordinate its local permitting and compliance programs with DEQ.
In order to develop a fact based understanding of the regulatory DEQ compliance status of all operations and
proposed operations by these entities, I am requesting the opportunity to meet with appropriate Regional Office
representatives for the Divisions of Air Quality, Water Resources, and Energy, Mineral and Land Resources. I would
like to discuss permitting status, compliance status (agency inspections, reports, NOVs, NODS, responses to citizen
complaints, etc ) and all agency communication with the identified entities
I would like to identify a date where I could meet with you as a group or individually on the same day My availability
over the next few weeks is May 16, 19, 25, 26, 30 and June 1 1 hope that your availability will allow us to meet on
one of these dates. Please let me know the best date for meeting with you in the Regional Office.
Prior to the meeting date I will provide a list of general questions and identify issues and materials that I would like
to secure from your files and review with you during our meeting.
I greatly appreciate your time and consideration. If there are questions, please let me know.
Thanks,
Forrest
Forrest R. Westall, Sr., PE
Principal
55 Broad Street ) Asheville, NC 28801
Phone- 828 252.0575 1 Cell: 828.231.6840 1 Fax. [phone]
forrest westall0mr,Eillengineers,com I www mrg!llengineer.s.cOm

5
June 27, 2017
VIA E-MAIL
John C. Cooke, Esq.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1100
Raleigh, NC 27601
JCooke(c-)wcsr.com
RE: Response to June 7 and June 15 E-mails
Dear John:
Payer Spruill LLP
Chad W. Essick
Partner
D: 919 783.2896
F: 919.783.1075
cessickt7a.00vnersoruwll com
I am writing to respond to your email dated June 7, 2017 and the latter portion of your email sent
on June 15, 2017 about the supplemented information and materials submitted in support of Appalachian
Materials' ("AM") watershed permit application. Your statement in your June 15, 2017 email that AM has
"refused to provide something as basic as a site plan for over two years" is simply wrong, and is
contradicted by the parties' correspondence.
A set of plans in support of the watershed permit application were submitted on June 15, 2015.
Over the next several months, Mr. Stumb and Mr. Goddard exchanged several communications about
that application, before Mr. Stumb indicated on Sept. 2, 2015 that he was effectively putting the
watershed permit application on hold and that the polluting industries permit would be issued first. Before
making that unilateral decision, Mr. Stumb had very few questions about the plans submitted in June
2015. Regarding the details provided In those plans, Mr. Stumb's only inquiry, made on August 5, 2015,
regarded the size of the tanks that will store liquid asphalt and diesel fuel. Mr. Goddard provided Mr.
Stumb with the requested information the next day, and asked Mr. Stumb if he needed any additional
information to issue the watershed permit.' Mr. Stumb testified under oath that he never identified any
additional information needed from AM for the watershed permit and that if he had needed any additional
information, he would have followed up with AM. (See Stumb Deposition, Vol. I, pp. 129-30, 200).
Mr. Stumb did not communicate any further questions or alleged inadequacies in the plans
submitted until 17 months later, in his purported `First Set of Staff Comments dated January 24, 2017,
which was immediately after the Planning Board unanimously reversed his decision to deny AM's
Polluting Industries Development Permit. In response to those staff comments, and subsequent requests
made by the County's counsel, AM has submitted two supplemented sets of plans, the last set dated May
2, 2017.
Those supplemented, detailed plans and the emails transmitting them reflect: (i) all of the
information required for such plans according to the State's watershed protection permit checklist (which
we have used as a guide given the County's Watershed Protection Ordinance ("WPO") references an
' For a more complete recitation of Mr. Stumb's and Mr. Goddard's correspondence in the summer of 2015 regarding
the watershed permit, see pages 2-3 of my letter to Mr. Stumb dated Feb. 27, 2017.
A7 ;444I',)INEPY"RI[ILL (-0%I RALEIGH CHARLOTTE ROCKY MOUNT ! SOUTHERN PINES
301 Fayrll_vil,e St•r,t Situ 1900 Raleigh, NC 2750! PO Boy t80i Raleigt:.dC 27602 1801 r 919 783 6.300

PO Wer SpnAll "'
John C. Cooke, Esq
June 27, 2017
Page 2
application form, but fails to include one) ,2 and (ii) the additional information Mr. Stumb or you have
requested about existing and planned operations on the property. Those plans and transmittal emails
show or address:
• Where the existing quarry equipment is located;
• The approximate location of the planned asphalt and crusher equipment, and liquid
asphalt and fuel storage tanks and containment, with construction details on the
secondary containment for those tanks;3
• The location of the unnamed stream, and 30 foot buffer;
• All existing roads or paths on the property;
• The distances of the secondary containment for fuel and liquid asphalt storage from the
stream;
• All existing berms and those that will be enhanced, sediment traps, lined ditches,
including all such features that lie between the secondary containment and the stream,
with construction details for those that will be added;
• The existing built upon area ("BUK) and calculation (8.4% of the total acreage), and the
subset of that BUA that will be used in the asphalt production operation (3.8% of the total
acreage);
• The on-site truck traffic pattern anticipated for the asphalt operation, see my email dated
May 4, 2017; and
The fact that trucks associated with the asphalt production operation will only be on site
for the time necessary for pick ups and deliveries, and thus, there is no parking plan see
id.
We understood from our phone call on June 9, 2017 that you would confer with your client and let
us know if there was any further information or detail about the plans Mr. Stumb contends he needs, with
an explanation for why any such information or detail is required under the WPO. We received no such
communication. Instead, we got your email on June 15, 2017, claiming AM has refused to provide a site
plan for over two years and declaring we are at an impasse. You also -request that we let you know if
our client prefers to provide "this information and documentation" without any reference to what
information or documentation you or Mr. Stumb are referring to.
If Mr. Stumb has any specific questions about the supplemented plans or something is still not
clear to him on those plans, please let us know. We would be happy to arrange a meeting to answer his
questions, and provide any additional, relevant information.
2 A copy of that checklist is enclosed
I
3 Mr. Stumb also has coordinates for the asphalt equipment as reflected in the air quality permit provided to the
County.

G
Poyner Spniill"'
John C. Cooke, Esq.
June 27, 2017
Page 3
If Mr. Stumb contends there is information or detail missing in the site plans that is required under
the WPO, then we ask again (see e.g. my May 4, 2017 email) that he or you as his counsel tell us: (i)
what information or detail he contends is missing from the site plan, and (ii) what provision in the WPO
he contends requires the information in order to determine compliance with the WPO.
Sincerely,
�J
Chad W. Essick
Partner
CWE:cl
cc:
James R. Morgan, Esq. (via E-mail)
John T. Kilby, Esq. (via E-mail)
Keith H. Johnson, Esq. (via E-mail)
Enclosure
301679-00002000l6016365v8

Watershed Protection Permit Plan Checklist
Applications for Watershed Protection Permits shall be accompanied by plans in duplicate and drawn to scale
showing the following:
(a) Location of Project.
Identify the appropriate classification. WS -11 -CA, WS -II -BW, WS -III -CA, WS -III -BW, WS -IV -CA, WS -IV -PA.
Project included within a 5% / 70% district.
(b) Lot Dimensions
Actual dimensions and acreage of the lot to be built upon and the location of any right of ways that may affect
development on the lot.
Average lot size (in square feet)
(e) Built Upon Area.
_ The accurate location and use of all existing and proposed buildings and other structures, and for non-residential
developments the location and size. in square feet, of all built upon areas including parking and loading facilities.
The percent of the project that will be covered with an impervious surface.
The area, in acres, to be left natural.
(d) Dwelling Units.
The total number of dwelling units proposed on the lot or tract.
(e) Streams/Rivers.
The accurate location of all perennial streams and natural drainage areas on the property.
(f) Adjacent Property Owners.
The names of adjoining property owners.
(g) Buffers.
The location of all required buffer areas.
(h) *Stormw•ater Control Devices (i.e., wet detention basins).
_ When local governments provide for a high density option, the location of any stormwater control devices shall be
shown and shall be designed, constructed and maintained according to the requirements as established by the Division
of Environmental Management.
Storm Water Controls are used
If Storm Water Controls are used, the name of the certifying engineer is provided.
(i) *Private Water and Sewer Systems.
_ Individual water supply systems and/or ground absorption sewage disposal systems may be permitted, subject to
preliminary approval by the County I Iealth Department that there is sufficient space left on the lot for such systems.
*Include if applicable