20031023 Ver 1_Attorney Correspondence_20020131

WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
107-B NORTH SECOND STREET
POST OFFICE Box 1049
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28402
JOHN C. WESSELI. III
WnJAAM A. RANEY. JR.
January 30, 2002
Mr. Charles Gardner, Director
Division of Land Resources
1612 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1612
Re: Martin-Marietta, Rocky Point Mine
Dear Mr. Gardner:
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
E-MAILMANDRI®DELLSOUTH.NET
r
J'AlV, 3 1
I have had an opportunity to review the letter of January 18,
2002 from Horace Willson, Director of Environmental Science for Martin-
Marietta, to you with regard to certain issues involving the Rocky Point
mine in Pender County. My review and comment is on behalf of Calvin
Wells and David Sloan who are owners of property adjacent to the mine and
who are also owners of the surface rights of much of the mine site. I
also submit these comments on behalf of John Thomas who owns property
adjacent to a proposed expansion of the current mining area.
Martin-Marietta's permit expired on May 17, 2001. Martin-
Marietta has continued to operate for 258 days without a permit. On June
22, 2001 the Division of Land Resources asked Martin-Marietta to provide
additional information on wetland and sinkhole impacts and to provide a
more detailed reclamation plan. On the issue of wetlands and sinkholes
they were given 60 days to submit information. They were given 180 days
to provide more detail on the reclamation plan. Pending the responses
they were allowed to continue mining.
On August 31, 2001, Martin-Marietta submitted a purported pia.Li
to address the issues related to wetlands and sinkholes. Their response
was very brief and totally inadequate to address the concerns raised. I
submitted comments on their purported "recharge plan" by letter dated
December 17, 2001.
On January 18, 2002, Martin-Marietta submitted its response to
the request for more detail on its reclamation plan. This response was
246 days after the permit expired and 210 days after the June 22, 2001
letter from the Division of Land Resources requesting the information.
Presumably the response was well beyond the 180 day deadline which ran
from Martin-Marietta's receipt of the June 22, 2001 letter from DLR.
Mr. Charles Gardner
January 30, 2002
Page 2
The response to the requested information was that Martin-
Marietta did not understand the request. It is unbelievable that it took
Martin-Marietta approximately 210 days to determine that they needed
clarification of what was being requested. This is especially true in
view of the June 22, 2001 DLR letter which urged Martin-Marietta to
submit the information before the deadline to enable DLR to process the
application in a timely manner. The DLR letter also indicated that a
decision would be made after the 180 day period unless the deadline had
been extended for good cause. The Martin-Marietta letter also indicates
that there were other reasons for its lack of response. The reasons
cited deal with regulatory issues involving wetlands that exist within a
mine expansion area and have absolutely nothing to do with submitting an
adequate reclamation plan for the entire mine site as required by law.
Mr. Willson's letter implies that Dr. Sloan and Mr. Wells are
seeking reclamation of the mine to an unreasonable standard. Willson
references the lease of the mineral rights by Martin-Marietta from
Georgia-Pacific and implies that Dr. Sloan and Mr. Wells who purchased
the land subject to the lease are seeking actions not required in the
lease. To the extent there are rights and obligations between Dr. Sloan
and Mr. Wells as property owners and Martin-Marietta as lessee, these are
a matter between the parties and are not relevant to the current issues
involving a reclamation plan meeting statutory standards. The
reclamation plan is required by the Mining Act and the State should
enforce the provisions of the Act.
Mr. Willson compares the proposed reclamation of the mine to
the reclamation done at Martin-Marietta's New Bern quarry. Based on the
photographs shown to Mr. Wells and Dr. Sloan of the New Bern quarry
reclamation, it would appear that such a plan might meet the requirements
of the Mining Act. However, the so-called reclamation plan for the Rocky
Point quarry appears to them to be substantially different from what they
have been shown concerning the New Bern quarry. If Martin-Marietta is to
reclaim the Rocky Point quarry the same way as the New Bern quarry as Mr.
Willson implies, then Martin-Marietta should provide a detailed plan as
requested by DLR. The plan should show the reclamation of the area that
is within the permitted mining area even if that area is not currently
being mined. This is consistent with the Mining Act's requirement that
a plan be submitted and approved prior to any mining activity.
It appears that Martin-Marietta is attempting to continue its
mining operations as long as possible with no intention of making a
serious and adequate response to the State's request for necessary

Mr. Charles Gardner
January 30, 2002
Page 3
information. Dr. Sloan and Messrs. Wells and Thomas respectfully request
that Martin-Marietta be ordered to cease mining without a permit and to
implement a reclamation plan meeting the requirements of the Mining Act.
Sincerely,
WESSELL & RANEY, L.L.P.
tj 0. -?e? -
W. A. Raney, Jr.
WAR: dc
WAR\ENVIRON\R(
CC: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
)1-104-C13
Bradley Bennett
Mickey Sugg
Dan Sams
Joanne Steenhuis
Tracy Davis
Judith Wehner
Mike Wylie
Danny Smith
Calvin Wells
David Sloan
John Thomas
Rob Moul
Jim Cornette