Laserfiche WebLink
4/10/06 <br />To: Greg Lazear <br />From: Bob Flinn <br />Subject: Red Shale Quarry Report <br />I find it interesting that the proposed quarry site is still being referred to as "undeveloped <br />rangeland" when, in fact, it is a rural residential azea. It is also interesting to note the <br />failure to show all of the existing homes in the immediate azea of the proposed quarry. <br />The testing by R.A. I. as performed by Seistek, Inc. is lacking in some very important <br />elements. Performances of in-situ densities of existing formations of both the Benson pit <br />at Austin and the proposed red shale quarry in the Coalby Canyon azea should have been <br />noted and compazed <br />The sedimentary rock at the Benson Austin pit has a higher degree of porosity and is <br />more likely to buffer and dampen vibration from resultant crusher operations in <br />comparison to the solid red shale material found in the proposed Coalby Canyon site. In <br />essence, particle size distribution in various ranges does exist in-situ at the Austin pit. At <br />the proposed Coalby Canyon site, the relative "in place density" of the pressured <br />sandstone is more capable of transmitting vibrations at a greater distance. <br />Pages 4, 5, and 6 have several "apples" vs. "oranges" and maybe even a banana in the <br />mix. There is absolutely no on-site material testing data shown from the proposed red <br />shale quarry site in Coalby Canyon to make any of the statements relative to the case in <br />point. <br />The conclusions found on page 7 are actually inconclusive because of the lack of actual <br />on-site testing. The geology of Coalby Canyon is not Austin, CO or Frankfort, KY or <br />Castle Rock, CO. Additionally; the comparison of natural material weathering to that of <br />quarry machinery is an unqualified similitude. What takes weathering over eons to effect <br />change in material such as red sandstone, a piece of heavy equipment can do in a matter <br />of minutes. To azbitrarily state that the cliff formation on the south side of the proposed <br />quarry will remain unaffected by quarry operation is irresponsible. There is no hard data <br />evidenced to make the statement credible. In short, the Revey investigation lacks solid <br />evidence to back up its statements. <br />Ro t lir~ <br />jji <br />Indf~strial Engineer Retired <br />Centennial Engineering <br />Moms-Knudsen Engineering <br />