My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-12-22_PERMIT FILE - M2016010
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2016010
>
2016-12-22_PERMIT FILE - M2016010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2021 10:36:41 AM
Creation date
2/1/2017 3:49:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2016010
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/22/2016
Doc Name
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
From
DRMS
To
Transit Mix Concrete Co.
Email Name
AME
WHE
AJW
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.
/
18
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
19. On October 6, 2016, Objector Cheryl Kimble submitted, through <br />counsel, her DRMS Rule 2.6 Pre -Hearing Motion to Deny Application for Mining <br />Permit ("Prehearing Motion"). On October 20, 2016, the Division submitted its <br />response to the Prehearing Motion. In its response, the Division stated, in <br />paragraph 18: <br />The Division has not received the source of the Applicant's legal <br />right to utilize Little Turkey Creek Road as proposed in the <br />Application, i.e., initiate a mining operation on the affected land, <br />specifically Little Turkey Creek Road. <br />20. At the hearing, the Applicant testified that crossings of Little Turkey <br />Creek Road, its planned improvements to the road, and closures of the road for <br />blasting do not constitute an impermissible or unreasonable interference with the <br />use of the easement. <br />21. As proposed in the Application, the Applicant's responses to adequacy <br />letters from the Division, and based on evidence and testimony presented at the <br />hearing, the Applicant planned to affect Little Turkey Creek Road through <br />modification of the road (e.g., straightening the road and adding crossings) and <br />temporary closures of the road for blasting. <br />22. The Applicant has not demonstrated that it has received, or is not <br />legally required to receive, the conveyance of a legal right to enter and initiate a <br />mining operation on Little Turkey Creek Road from the owners of the dominant <br />easement on Little Turkey Creek Road. The Division testified that the adjudication <br />of private property rights are outside the authority of the Division and the Board. <br />23. At the hearing, Timothy Crawford ("Mr. Crawford") of Bishop -Brogden <br />Associates, Inc., testified on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Crawford testified that <br />three primary aquifers exist at or near the proposed mining site, including a <br />fractured rock aquifer associated with Little Turkey Creek, perched on shallow hard <br />rock systems, and sedimentary bedrock aquifers. Mr. Crawford opined that the <br />proposed mining operation will not intercept groundwater, and have no impact on <br />neighboring wells or nearby surface water or groundwater users. Mr. Crawford <br />testified that Little Turkey Creek will buffer potential impacts to wells west of the <br />proposed quarry. Mr. Crawford also testified that if impacts on surface water or <br />groundwater are identified, then the Applicant will remedy such impacts. Mr. <br />Crawford testified that evaluating groundwater resources is not an exact science, <br />and that the magnitude of changes and consideration of available data is important. <br />24. At the hearing, Objector Ingersoll Trust presented testimony from <br />various witnesses about groundwater concerns and potential impacts on <br />Transit Mix Concrete Co. <br />Hitch Rack Ranch QuarrylM-2016-010 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.