A Letter to the Orange County Planning Commission

   Dear Mrs. Kendall, et al.:

   In  reference  to  your  letter dated December 12, 2001, regarding the
   public  hearing  of  January  3,  2002,  I am submitting the following
   written comment.

   My  husband,  Walter,  my  father-in-law,  Tuffy,  and  I  live at the
   intersection  of  Routes 20 and 738, in the house nearest the railroad
   crossing.  The  proposed  site  of  the  mining operation, the Darnell
   property,  lies  across  Old  Barboursville Road from a section of our
   property.  Our location ensures that we have a serious interest in the
   outcome  of  this application. We have a number of questions about the
   proposed mining activity, and I shall address each in turn.

   1. The asphalt road which General Shale proposes to use to carry
   the double-axle dump trucks or tractor-trailers from the site to Route
   20  at  least 30 - 50 times each day, measures on average only 16 feet
   in  width.  The potential for disaster exists when one of those trucks
   encounters  the  county  school buses traveling the road at least four
   times each school day.

   2. The space between the railroad tracks' barrier on Route 738 and
   Route  20  is  52  feet. Trucks waiting for one of our 200-car freight
   trains  to cross will have to block traffic on Route 20 completely, as
   there is no passing zone there.

   3. Removing the topsoil from rolling hills and then digging down 50
   feet  or  more  to extract minerals is not, and cannot be, a dust-free
   activity.  Although I imagine that having rubber tires on the scrapers
   will reduce the amount of loose particles floating in the air compared
   to  the  metal  belt tracks of other equipment, nothing can completely
   eliminate  the  air pollution. Having the worst of the pollution occur
   in  the  summer  when clothes would be dried outside and all residents
   would  normally  be  spending  more time outdoors only exacerbates the
   situation.

   4. General Shale proposes to wash down the trucks before they
   leave  the  site.  They  have  suggested drilling wells to provide the
   water  for  this.  One  neighbor,  directly  across  from  the Darnell
   property,  has  already had to drill a new well not two months ago. We
   cannot  see  how  drilling wells to wash down trucks will not endanger
   our water supply.

   5. General Shale says that no blasting is proposed. They do not say
   that  none will occur. What guarantee do we have that there will be no
   blasting?

   6. General Shale "proposes" a wooded buffer of 25 feet in width
   along adjoining properties, and of 50 feet of width along Blue Run and
   its  tributary  that  crosses  the site. On the map submitted with the
   application,  the  only trees shown are along the section of Route 738
   between  the  first  entrance  to  the  property  and the proposed new
   entrance  at the bridge. Not one tree is shown as a buffer zone to the
   Deane  Farm, the Spencer Farm, the Brownland, or to protect any of the
   families of Careytown.

   7. General  Shale  says  that  low lying mine areas that retain water
   will be left as ponds, and that  mine  runoff  will be directed into a
   detention  basin.  "Ponds will be maintained by routine inspection and
   repair."  By  whose inspector? On what schedule? Should we be prepared
   to  host  a large mosquito colony nearly year-round? Has the West Nile
   Virus already crossed into the state? Please note that we are only one
   of  at least four families on the perimeter of this site to raise beef
   cattle.

   8. General Shale says none of the heavy equipment will be stored on
   site,  so  we  must expect to have all vehicles hauled across our road
   each spring, and again each fall.

   9. Blue Run is a vital water resource in Barboursville, as well as in
   Somerset. What is General Shale's specific plan to protect its purity,
   and to prevent water pollution?

   10.  One  section  of the site property near Blue Run is a swampy area
   all year. What plans are in place to protect this wetland?

   11. General Shale says they will haul all year, excluding Sundays and
   holidays,  during  daylight  hours.  Taking  their figures for current
   production,  they  plan to move 100,000 cubic yards or 135,000 tons or
   9,000  loads per year. If we divide 9,000 loads by 304 workdays a year
   [365  days  less 61 Sundays and federal holidays], we get a minimum of
   30  [29.6] round trips each workday. Their proposed maximum production
   of  180,000 cubic yards or 243,000 tons or 16,200 loads divided by the
   same  304  workdays yields 53 [53.3] round trips each workday. That is
   what is quoted in the application.

   Later, during a conversation with one of their employees, we were told
   that  they don't work on Saturdays. Therefore, the 304 workdays a year
   becomes 251 workdays a year. So, at current production, we now have 36
   [35.8]  roundtrips  a  day, increasing to 65[64.5] roundtrips a day at
   maximum  production.  They  expect  to  pass  by our house every eight
   minutes, five days a week?

   12. General  Shale  states  that the raw material reserves at the site
   are estimated  to  last  15  years,  so they anticipate possibly adjusting
   their  post  mining  land  use  forecast.  If their estimate is for 15
   years,  just  how  long  do  they plan to keep using the site? Fifteen
   years as stated? Thirty years? Fifty years? Longer?

   13. Has General Shale coordinated with the Virginia Dept. of
   Environmental  Quality and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission? I
   understand  that  both  agencies  have  a  role in such a project, yet
   neither was mentioned in the application submitted.

   14. General Shale does not address in any way the matter of our
   property  values.  Even  if  we were far enough away that the dust and
   noise  were tolerable all year, and our wells were not endangered, and
   our  general  safety  was  not threatened, our property would still go
   down  in  value.  Our  taxes  will  be  raised  several  more times to
   accommodate  the  recent county public expenditures. On paper, nothing
   will  be different, because this mining site will not be considered as
   part of our property.

   In reality, however, we know that true property value is the amount an
   owner  can  get  for a property from a buyer. Who wants to buy a house
   next to an active surface mining operation? Do you? Do your children?

   For that matter, how many of you want to live next door to one for the
   rest of your lives?

   15. We have been told by Mr. Roberts and Mr. Speiden that General
   Shale has been a good neighbor to Somerset. That's great! Why not stay
   in Somerset? Isn't the same mineral available much closer to the plant
   than Barboursville?

   When  the  contact person for General Shale, who told us all that he'd
   show  us  any  data  and  answer any questions, was asked for the test
   results  that were used to determine that the Darnell property was the
   best  choice  for this mining operation, we were denied. After several
   hours  of  foot-dragging  we were informed that it was against company
   policy. Company policy? Well, actually the corporate attorney said no.
   Why?  If  the test results actually show that the many other locations
   where  the  preferred mineral is available--according to geologic maps
   and  surveys  available  from the state--why not show us? It certainly
   can't  be  due  to fear that we'll share such confidential data with a
   General Shale competitor!

   General Shale has made no promises to any of the adjoining landowners.
   The application submitted to this Commission makes proposals, and then
   qualifies  them  by  saying  that  things may change. Indeed they may.
   There  may be more damage than anyone can anticipate at this time. And
   General Shale only says: "We may do this." "We don't anticipate that."
   "We don't expect to have to do this." "We may need to revise that."

   And if we have two 25-year floods in two consecutive years? Or by some
   horrible  accident  Blue Run is poisoned? Then what? Do we all rethink
   this application then?

   General Shale has said that they want to be a "good neighbor" and that
   they  want  to  have  a  working  relationship  with the Barboursville
   residents.  However,  the  carefully  staged timing of the application
   submission,  the  use  of "according to industry standards" in lieu of
   specifics,  plus  the  simple  refusal  to  give  us access to certain
   reports, do not reflect an attitude of cooperation.

   If  this  application  is  approved,  the  landowners  will not have a
   snowball's  chance  in  hell of conserving our resources or protecting
   our  land from any "change." It will simply be too late. There are too
   many  questions  without answers here. There is too much potential for
   irreparable  harm.  Old  Barboursville  Road  is  a quiet, residential
   street,  with  a  35-mile  speed limit. We don't want to see a surface
   mining operation destroy our farmland.

   We don't want to have our land and homes covered in dust and permeated
   by  diesel  fumes. We don't want to have the school buses compete with
   tractor-trailers  or tandem-axle dump trucks for space on our road, or
   have our driveways blocked by trucks waiting at the railroad crossing.
   We  want  to  keep our rural, agricultural neighborhood as it is. It's
   why most of us bought property here, or have stayed here.

   We  want to keep our bald eagles and hawks, white-tailed deer and even
   those  dratted  groundhogs.  A  mining operation does not belong here,
   where an historical conservation area meets ecological fragility.

   Thank you.

   Sincerely,

   (Mrs.) Walter L. Williams, Jr.



   APPENDIX

   [Quoted from the 20-Year Comprehensive Plan for Orange County]

   "E. Environment.

   Goal  9: Shield the rural character of the county from the undesirable
   effects of uncontrolled growth.

   Implementing  Means:  D.  Assess  the  effects  of  mining  and  other
   land-disturbing  activities  that  diminish  ground  and surface water
   supplies,  endanger  water  quality,  or pose health hazards to county
   residents, wild life and domestic animals."

   "G. Future Land Use.

   Goal 12: Encourage development in the existing growth areas ...

   Implementing  Means:  C.  Divide the agricultural zone into two types:
   Agricultural  Conservation  and  Agricultural, Rural. The conservation
   zone  would be appropriate for areas such as the Madison-Barbour Rural
   Historic District ..."

   "H. Historical Endowment.

   Goal 15: Promote preservation of appropriate historic sites, areas and
   buildings, and promote them as cultural attractions.

   Implementing Means: I. Encourage the preservation and integrity of the
   Madison-Barbour Rural Historic District."

   A  mining  operation  does not belong in such an environment, where an
   historic conservation area meets ecological fragility.