[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
Re: E-M:/ Bridgewater wetland/deq comment period
Enviro-Mich message from "David E. Allen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The WI DNR - Exxon ground water model was found, by folks such as Al
Gedicks and "Burroak" (Nom de Plume) and others to be quite
inadequate. Their model was considerably better (and considerably more
damning to mining at Crandon.
You could possibly get more info from Dave Blouin
<email@example.com> (this is an older address - if it doesn't work, I can
probably come up with a new one.)
At 09:47 PM 10/27/03 -0500, you wrote:
><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" />
>TWIMC & helpful environmentally minded everywhere:
>PLEASE: We also are looking, in particular, for instances where claims by
>mining company engineers that aquifers would not be adversely affected (or
>any engineering claim of no adverse result) proved incorrect after the
>fact. In the short period left for the public comment period, we would
>like to establish any record possible of instances where engineers for a
>mining company were incorrect in their assumptions/predictions. PLEASE
>TAKE THE TIME TO FORWARD Information TO ME!
>Literally a bed of acres of trillium, toothwort, bloodroot, arrowroot,
>jack-in-the-pulpit, spring beauties, etc. etc. as well as century-old
>stands of tussock sedge, etc., not to mention all the animals that use the
>wetlands as throughways, cover, and water source, will be lost if this
>gravel expansion goes in. Tetra Tech engineers already documented
>dewatering and predict enough more to make wells go dry and the wetland to
>disappear if the mine expands to another huge lake project.
>This year for the first time you can WALK in the sedges, cross what was a
>five-foot wide stream, etc. A great blue heron all summer stopped daily
>for crayfish and other critters (which he sometimes dropped in the
>backyard en route to the nest site along the River Raisin...odd to find
>crayfish in the back yard which is home only to birds and dogs!). 50
>native birds species have nested here, including a number of raptors. It
>doesn't look like much from the road, but there's a wide diversity of
>wetland life in the 15 acres that hasn't been tiled, graded, or otherwise
>altered for ag use (the rest of the farm is arable).
>If anyone wise in wetlands, geology, plant id, etc. wants to come out, I'd
>welcome them. Anyone with prior experiences with Stansley or other mining
>operations, your advice would be invaluable! Because of the short time
>line, we are desperate for any and all types of ammunition to convince the
>DEQ that even the possibility of further dewatering of the area is
>Thanks, all. I hope more people will get interested.
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > Hello. I'm a resident of Bridgewater Twp., Washtenaw County. 15 or
>more of my 38 acre farm is distinctive wetland (the whole thing is part
>of a greater wetland); interesting sedges, lake and marsh grasses,
>oak/hickory wood, (invasive pampas & cattails too), and a wide variety
>of wildflowers including acres of thick trillium, bloodroot,
>toothworts, jack-in-the-pulpit, and hundreds more I haven't
>identified. Some of the sedges (particularly tussock) have been
>established a century to reach their current development.
> > About 1/4 mile from me a 40+ acre lake, 110 feet deep, has been
>excavated for gravel mining. This affected runoff patterns to my land.
>Stansley Mineral Resources now proposes a 58-acre lake directly
>opposite a narrow dirt road, and down-gradient from, my wetland. The
>area surrounding me on the north (higher ground) and west (wetland and
>former wetland) recently was sold to Daniels Management who, it's
>reported, has or is selling it to Adrian Sand and Gravel.
> > Bridgewater Twp. hired Tetra Tech to do a quick study for comments at
>the Oct. 21 DEQ Inland Lakes permit hearing. Public notice of that
>hearing appeared Oct. 16 in the local paper for the hearing on the 21st
>and adjacent property owners received notice by mail that arrived after
>Oct. 10 for many and even after Oct. 14 for some.
> > Wells immediately up-grade of the current lake have dropped 10-13
>feet consistently, while wells farther away and those down grade from
>the existing operation remain basically the same (the latter could have
>been expected to show a rise). Run-off studies show the wetlands have
>suffered a significant reduction in recharge, and the groundwater
>change indicated by the well testing would indicate a decrease in
>groundwater feeding it, too (it is both stream and spring fed). IF THE
>PROPOSED LAKE IS APPROVED, water available to the wetland could be
>reduced by 40% or more, according to Tetra Tech.
> > I am trying to document the species in the wetland, and have been
>told it contains a much greater than average diversity of wetland
>species. I cannot, nor can a citizens group - Stewards of Bridgewater -
> afford an extensive hydro-geological study to determine where natural
>barriers (there are clay hills nearby) to groundwater, springs, aquifer
>depth may be, etc.
> > A spring that used to produce 15 gallons/second and ran nine months
>out of the year ran only a few weeks this year at a MUCH reduced rate.
>A smaller wet area that's spring fed had far less water this year,
>also. It's assumed the groundwater level WAS very high, as last year
>we pulled several illegal straight pipe "wells" the previous owner used
>to water livestock...these were 10-20 feet deep. The old dug well on
>the property was 12 feet deep. Stansley claims groundwater level is
>about 50 feet on property just a hundred feet from mine. I KNOW the
>level here is no more than 20 feet in many places, as the straight
>pipes were still producing a year and a half ago when I moved in.
> > All this is happening within 2000 feet of the River Raisin itself.
>The field where the lake is proposed has been tiled for agricultural
>use, and re-tiled within recent years because it was still too wet.
>Thus, that 147 acres of former wetland and some wetland northwest of
>mine already have been lost by "reclamation" for agriculture.
> > I and the "Stewards of Bridgewater" are seeking any support we can
>find, in the form of expertise, tips, records of other Stansley
>engineer "miscalculations" in Findlay OH or elsewhere, spreading of the
>word, comments to the DEQ (address below) by November 1st, and
>suggestions for how to go about fighting the mining expansion (just
>part of a huge expansion which would include up to five more lakes) to
>protect our wetlands, wells, and flood plain.
> > We also would be very interested in finding out which townships or
>other entities have sued the MDEQ in order to get them to enforce their
>own DEQ restrictions/guidelines or any instances where criteria for
>permit granting was overlooked or treated in a questionable manner.
> > We are looking for legal help, particularly in reference to violation
>of the statutes of '69 RE "not less than 10 nor more than 60 days"
>public notice of a hearing.
> > Comments urging denial of the mining application may be sent to:
> > James Sallee (Reference: File #03-81-0065-P)
> > Geological and Land Management Division
> > 301 E. Louis Glick Highway
> > Jackson, MI 49201-1535
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com
> > Any help, suggestions, contact information or ideas may be sent to
>me, Nancy Hebb, at my farm:
> > 11840 Hogan Rd.
> > Clinton, MI 49236
> > (517) 456-8024.
> > <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com
>ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
>and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
>For info, send email to
><mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>email@example.com with a
>one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"
ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
Postings to: firstname.lastname@example.org For info, send email to
email@example.com with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"