My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL35379
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL35379
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:23 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:18:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2003037
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/29/2004
Doc Name
Response to DMG Staff to WestWater Associates Response
From
DMG
To
AGO
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.
/
6
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
• i <br />Page 3, Paragraph 4. <br />"If irrigafion levels are unknown, how can evidence be ovenvhelmina?" <br />Staff review of the information within the report does present a strong case for reconsideration <br />of the no mining for 1-year stipulation. Drill data, when supported by the observable evidence, <br />indicates the conclusion that no water will be encountered, at least to the proposed depth of 13 <br />feet, is very strong. <br />3, Paragraph 6. <br />obtained? Once again strike and dip was confused with erosional feature." <br />Staff cannot answer as to why the objectors did not receive copies of the Geotechnical logs or if <br />the consultant's are one in the same. As to Mr. Lewicki's employment status at the time of the <br />drilling, staff can see no reason why this is relevant, he reviewed the data collected one way or <br />another. The argument of erosional verses structural has already been raised, so staff has no <br />additional comments here. <br />Page 4, Paragraph 2 <br />disconformities, which create a Qreater variability of an erosional surface. There are deep <br />The data collected from this well, legal or otherwise, is useful and pertinent to assess the risk to <br />the hydrological balance by the mining operation. Deep channels, bars and islands may exist <br />under the gravel deposits at this site. Drill data suggests that the shale is very shallow on the <br />south end and over 60 feet deep in the north areas. Phase 1 is in the north and is the primary <br />concern of this Petition to Reconsider. Drill data supports the argument that groundwater is very <br />deep even during imgation season. Future water data in the south area may very well limit or <br />prohibit mining without water augmentation, but that is not the purpose of this review. Seasonal <br />data is currently being evaluated as part of the yearlong monitoring program. Wells established <br />for this program show little water and the first being hit at around 53 feet. Staff feels that weekly <br />monitoring will give the operator ample warning if water levels begin to rise. The Board may <br />consider establishing a benchmark or action level that would require the operator's immediate <br />attention to insure that mining does not expose any groundwater. <br />Page 4, Paragraph 3. <br />is quite common. <br />The bottom of the slope and the toe are the same. Staff feels several factors negate the <br />likelihood of a mounded water table. Drill holes in the north section show consistent layers of <br />gravel to depths below the noted toe of the slope. Percolation and sieve tests show little clay or <br />other fines that would slow and help create mounded groundwater features. Further, if <br />mounding is present, other gravel sites in the area would have encountered this phenomenon <br />before. None has been noted or observed at currently permitted sites in the area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.