My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-04-18_PERMIT FILE - M2016010 (6)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2016010
>
2016-04-18_PERMIT FILE - M2016010 (6)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2021 10:36:46 AM
Creation date
4/19/2016 6:03:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2016010
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/18/2016
Doc Name
Letter of Opposition
From
Jerry & Karen Moore
To
DRMS
Email Name
AME
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Refutation of BBA Water Consultants Executive Summary of Potential Ground and <br /> Surface Impacts <br /> Note: Numbered paragraphs below are copied from the BBA Water Consultants report. <br /> Underlined items in those paragraphs are items I am addressing in my refutation. My <br /> refutations are italicized and underlined immediately following the BBA sections. Refer to <br /> Figure B on the following page for the Transit Mix geologic interpretation used by the BBA <br /> consultants. <br /> 1. The operation of the proposed quarry is not expected to directly affect surface or <br /> ground water systems. <br /> What exactly do "not expected to"and"directly affect"mean?What assurance is that to <br /> the proper(y owners? <br /> 2. Test drilling at the property performed for Transit Mix did not reveal saturated bedrock <br /> conditions within the mining interval and,therefore,mining will probably not impact <br /> surface or ground water systems by intercepting ground water. <br /> The test coring was done usin"g_water based mud in a hi hl fractured zone, This makes <br /> the statements about"highly productive aquifer zones not encountered'; "no ground <br /> water interception '; and "probably not impact surface_orground waterstems"a-g-uess <br /> based on easily misinterpreted data. <br /> 3. Mining operations will be limited to areas 100 feet away and elevations 10 feet above <br /> the existing channel of Little Turkey Creek,the primary drainage within the property. <br /> Mining will not induce seepage from the creek and will,not directly impact flow in the <br /> creek. Mining adjacent to Deadman Creek will extend below the elevation of the creek <br /> (subject to the 100 foot setback),but the creek is typically dry and saturated conditions <br /> therefore do not exist immediately below the streambed.There is not a hydraulic <br /> connection between the streambed and the deeper aquifer system and,therefore <br /> mining will not interact with this drainage. <br /> The 100 foot lateral and 10 foot vertical separations are not sufficient aquitards in this <br /> structural setting to support the statements that 1 have h4ghlighted in the above <br /> paragraphs. Fractured crystalline rock sitting on highly brecciated faulted creek beds <br /> that intersect with a regional thrust fault system make the effectiveness unpredictable. <br /> Also,after blasting and removal of 393 acres ofgranite, it is possible that communication <br /> may be created between isolated aquifers if they were not already. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.