Laserfiche WebLink
137 <br /> 1 A. The additional data showed pretty 1 sinkhole throat, as we call it, and the air shaft, <br /> 2 clearly that we did have a linear feature. I 2 and then backfill with well-compacted material above <br /> 3 believe the depth was 12 or 16 feet. I'd have to 3 that so that we don't create additional subsidence. <br /> 4 look back at the report for specific depth, but we 4 And that was option A. <br /> 5 were able to fairly clearly identify a clear path 5 The second option was to undertake a <br /> 6 from the surface expression of the sinkhole and the 6 compaction grouting program whereby we inject <br /> 7 air shaft. 7 low-mobility grout into the ground. I've used that <br /> 8 Q. All right. Were there any other 8 technique on sinkholes before, as indicated in my <br /> 9 near-surface anomalies that the later Fugro report 9 resume. And that densifies the soil in between <br /> 10 would reveal? 10 these grout columns and also seals holes in the <br /> 11 A. The second one, I think it's called 11 subsurface. <br /> 12 the northern surface anomaly, that showed up in the 12 The grouting program is higher cost <br /> 13 data, but it doesn't appear to connect to anything, 13 but less surface disturbance, and obviously the <br /> 14 and we weren't able to -- to correlate it with any 14 excavation is lower cost but more subsurface <br /> 15 kind of connection to the subsurface. 15 disturbance. <br /> 16 Q. All right. What about -- there was a 16 Q. Okay. And you didn't propose any <br /> 17 rock pile just west of the Ute waterline. Was any 17 grouting on the Carey property to the west? <br /> 18 analysis undertaken with respect to that? 18 A. No. <br /> 19 A. Yeah. The second survey did cover 19 MR. JUSTUS: Move to admit Exhibits <br /> 20 that area. The initial survey, we dumped 20 A-12, A-31, and A-33. <br /> 21 approximately 10,000 gallons into the surface 21 MR. BEC15M: No objection. <br /> 22 sinkhole at the end of the Fontanari Ditch. 22 MR. STUTZ: No objection. <br /> 23 And during the second survey -- I I23 MR. SC1=: No objection. <br /> 24 can't recall the exact quantity of water, but water 24 MR. ROBERTS: They're admitted, <br /> 25 was added to that rock pile in an effort -- that if i25 MR. JUSTUS: One thing we have — <br /> 137 139 <br /> 1 there is -- the intent of adding the water was to 1 MR. BECKWITH: It's a long day. <br /> 2 increase the electrical conductivity of the clay 2 MR. JUSTUS: Members of the Board, <br /> 3 minerals inside of that. 3 quick formality issue. With respect to rebutting <br /> 4 We felt that by adding the water, 4 testimony by experts we anticipate Mr. FOntanari'S <br /> 5 we'd have higher resolution of the features, and 5 counsel will call, because of Mr. Berry's business <br /> 6 unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you 6 schedule, we cannot have him tomorrow for the time <br /> 7 look at it, we weren't able to identify in the 7 that Mr. Fontanari's experts will be present and <br /> 8 survey that that water that went into that, quote, 8 testifying. <br /> 9 unquote, rock pile went anywhere into the 9 So we have a rebuttal report. We <br /> 10 subsurface. 10 would like to submit it into evidence at the <br /> 11 Q. Okay. Ultimately, what were your 11 appropriate time. If you would like him to give <br /> 12 recommendations regarding addressing the hydrologic 12 live testimony on what he is saying in that report, <br /> 13 communication pathway? 13 we can do that now. Otherwise, if the Board is <br /> 14 A. I believe my report had two 14 willing to have that admitted into evidence after <br /> 15 alternatives, with pros and cons. The first was to 15 the testimony of Mr. Fontanari's experts, we would <br /> 16 simply excavate the area. You know, an electrical 16 like to do that -- we can do that as well. <br /> 17 resistivity survey, while it showed us the air 17 MR. ROBERTS: So the question is, <br /> 18 shaft -- we feel pretty confident we know where it 18 does the Board want to hear live testimony in order <br /> 19 is -- it doesn't give us a fine boundary, you know, 19 to admit the report? <br /> 20 a precise 10-by-10 air shaft, whatever it was. 20 MR. JUSTUS: That's correct. <br /> 21 And so the intent was to excavate 21 MR. ROBERTS: Okay. <br /> 22 from the surface feature to the air shaft, expose 22 MR. BECFtFM: If I may respond. For <br /> 23 the air shaft so that we could visibly see the air 23 the record, counsel refers to Mr. John Withers, <br /> 24 shaft and the condition of the air shaft, to seal it 24 Geotechnical Investigations, and Mr. Ken L. Walter <br /> 25 with concrete below the interface between the 25 of Walter Environmental. Neither one will be called <br /> 138 140 <br />