My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-01-03_PERMIT FILE - M2017036 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017036
>
2018-01-03_PERMIT FILE - M2017036 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2021 2:47:38 AM
Creation date
1/4/2018 12:32:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017036
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/3/2018
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete
To
DRMS
Email Name
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
146
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
To: Jared Ebert <br /> Date: December 29. 2017 <br /> Page 19 <br /> domestic lawn and gardening at pumping rates less than 20 gpm. Well drawdown <br /> required in this aquifer to achieve 20 gpm is less than 1 foot. Thus, deepening of wells is <br /> a viable mitigation strategy, assuming that the wells are legally permitted. <br /> Comment 38 <br /> Please explain how LRM will prevent groundwater drawdown from impacting adjacent <br /> vegetation. <br /> Response 38 <br /> LRM is unaware of any vegetation that requires protection as there are no jurisdictional <br /> wetlands in the area. The groundwater report shows the anticipated extent of drawdown <br /> during each phase of mining. The subsequent figures show the current depth to <br /> groundwater (average of 5 feet) and the maximum depth from anticipated drawdown (10 <br /> feet). The aerial photograph shows that there are currently no vegetation species in the <br /> area of maximum drawdown that could survive on groundwater alone given the current <br /> depth-to-water. Ergo, they must be currently irrigated. LRM does not plan on engaging <br /> in activities that will inhibit adjacent lands from continued irrigation. As always, LRM is <br /> open to discussing potential impacts with its neighbors and providing mitigation as <br /> necessary. <br /> Comment 39 <br /> Section 7.3.2 of the application claims that "ground water quality is not anticipated to be <br /> an issue. " Exhibit G cites a groundwater study (Telesto, 2017b) that was not submitted <br /> with the application. Has LRM analyzed the baseline groundwater quality? If so, please <br /> provide this data. Please provide a prediction of the probably hydrologic impacts to the <br /> groundwater quality from excavating the alluvial material and exposing the Pierre Shale. <br /> Response 39 <br /> The statement that "ground water quality is not anticipated to be an issue" comes from <br /> three fundamental pieces information: <br /> • Nearly every gravel pit on the Poudre River has exposed the Pierre Shale and <br /> there are not wide-spread water quality issues associated these activities <br /> • Constituent mobility requires two principal components: <br /> — Source chemistry <br /> Response to DRMS comments T E L E S T <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.