My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-03-09_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (29)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017049
>
2018-03-09_PERMIT FILE - M2017049 (29)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2021 11:47:59 PM
Creation date
3/9/2018 3:38:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017049
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
3/9/2018
Doc Name Note
PART 1 OF 3
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Transit Mix Concrete Co.
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Application Materials
Email Name
TC1
ERR
ECS
WHE
AME
PSH
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.
/
170
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
o Transit Mix Concrete Co. <br /> 32) In Figure C-9c, on the C-C' cross-section, please indicate the location of the proposed <br /> affected land boundary (near the C' side). Also, on the D-D' cross-section, please indicate <br /> the locations of the proposed affected land boundary, the proposed permit boundary/Little <br /> Turkey Creek (which appear to be aligned in this area), and Little Turkey Creek Road (on <br /> the D side). <br /> Response: Figure C-9c has been revised to include the locations of affected land boundary, <br /> permit boundary, Little Turkey Creek, and Little Turkey Creek Road on cross-sections C- <br /> C' and D-D'. <br /> 33) Please specify the estimated maximum length of highwall to remain for reclamation above <br /> the final grade of the F2 backfill area. <br /> Response: The maximum length of highwall above F2 on the south side of the quarry area <br /> remaining for reclamation is approximately 2,000 feet long, but most of the remaining <br /> highwall is 1,000 feet long or less. On each side of the highwall, there are vegetated slopes <br /> or a ramp specifically retained for wildlife ingress and egress. <br /> 34) In Figure C-11, on the B-B' cross-section, please identify the location of Little Turkey <br /> Creek. If the creek is located at the far right edge of the cross-section (B' side), please <br /> explain why the generalized water level is shown to be below the creek elevation on this <br /> cross-section. Are groundwater levels not at creek elevation at this location? <br /> Response: Figure C-11 has been revised to indicate the creek location on cross-section B- <br /> B'. The groundwater level at the creek has been revised to match the creek level. <br /> 35) In Figures C-II and C-12, a generalized water level is indicated on the cross-sections. <br /> Please provide clarification on the information used to locate the generalized water level. <br /> Does the generalized water level represent anticipated saturated conditions? Additionally, <br /> please explain what information was used to indicate the approximate 100 foot drop in <br /> elevation of the generalized water level just east of the West Fault. <br /> Response: The groundwater levels in Figure C-I I and C-12 have been revised to better <br /> represent the water levels measured in the nearby monitoring wells and piezometers. The <br /> decrease in water level just east of the West Fault is based on stream measurements along <br /> Little Turkey Creek; these measurements demonstrated that the creek loses water east of <br /> the West Fault. The water level elevations between the monitoring well locations are based <br /> on professional judgment of a hydrogeologist with approximately 40 years of experience <br /> on the overall hydrogeologic system. The potentiometric surface of the project area is <br /> included in Attachment G-2. <br /> 36) In Figures C-II and C-12, the locations of all monitoring wells are shown on the Insert <br /> Plan View except for MW-LTC-7. Please add the location of MW-LTC-7 to the inset. <br /> Additionally, monitoring wells MW-LTC-2 and MW-LTC-6 appear to be mislocated, as <br /> they are placed outside of the proposed permit boundary. In Exhibit G and in other figures <br /> Hitch Rack Ranch Quarry(M-2017-049) <br /> Response to Comments—March 9,2018 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.