Note: The following is not a verbatim transcript of the Zoning Hearing Board meeting; it is simply one person’s summary of the major points made by those involved in the hearing process.  For that reason, quotation marks are not used unless a direct quote was recorded.  For information about obtaining an official ZHB transcript, contact the New Hanover Township office.

Mr. Bob Brant continued with his witness Mr. Joseph G. Casey, a hydrogeologist employed by Mignatti Company. He is director of land approvals and acquisition and responsible for directing land development activities and acquisitions.  He interfaces with DEP and EPA.

Casey said that he reviewed the reports and testimony of the Gibraltar Rock Inc.’s (GRI) Mr. Walter B. Satterthwaite, principal of Walter B. Satterthwaite Assocs. Inc.  This included the 72 hour pump test data plus a hydrologic investigation report. See the summary of July 2002 for more information.]

Note: During the course of the evening, all parties began talking about portions of the proposed quarry North and South of Hoffmansville Rd.  In the following summary, whenever compass directions are mentioned, they are in reference to Hoffmansville Rd. 

Casey reported that the rock in the Northern portion is less permeable, which yields less ground water.  He said that ground water occurs in fractures of the Brunswick formation. And, the deeper you dig, the more fractures there are, and hence the more water.  His conclusion is that the deeper you dig (to the North) the greater the volume of water you will find, which he says is in direct opposite of the Satterthwaite report.

Casey then went on to discuss the different parts of Satterthwaite’s study.  He began with the pesiometric map, which shows location of test wells and measures surface to water level.  It shows the contour of the water level (below ground). See diagram.

Casey said that it appears that the measurements in Satterthwaite’s report are not controlled; the methods that Satterthwaite used are appropriate, but that his elevations are wrong.  This is critical because the measurements are important to how water flow is estimated.  His conclusion is that Satterthwaite’s pesiometric map is inaccurate.

Casey next talked about Satterthwaite’s 72-hour pump test data. He said that Satterthwaite’s methods were appropriate, but that his conclusions were inaccurate.  Satterthwaite said that there is really no impact on water draw-down on the site and no draw-down off site.  Casey said that if the area to be mined was the same as drinking water wells, there could be impacts to the surrounding water supply.

In summary, Casey said he had concerns about the elevation of the maps, the effects of the off site draw-down because of the significant depth (over 400’). In ended this discussion by saying that he would not rely on Satterthwaite’s judgment, based on his interpretation of the data.

Casey next talked about Satterthwaite’s Ground Water Report (Exhibit A88).  Casey talked about the data provided by another GRI consultant, EarthRes Group.  In their report they conclude that there could be a significant impact to drinking water.  EarthRes also said that the aquifer under the Southern portion is 625’ thick, with 90% of the water-bearing zone being above 200’ below ground surface. 78% of the total aquifer is above 200’ deep.  And, Casey mentioned, many of the local wells are less than 200’ deep. His conclusion was that the more shallow the well, the more impact the quarry will have on it’s production.

Casey then went on to discuss the fact that the aquifer has a preferred path for water flow---it yields more water in one direction than another.  That is why Satterthwaite’s mistakes in earlier data is significant---people to the East and West of the quarry will experience a more negative impact on water and wells.

The remainder of Casey’s testimony dealt with the differences in Satterthwaite’s data and that of EarthRes.  He concluded that there are two very different reports with different impacts on the aquifers.

Note: During this discussion Mr. Stephen Harris began objecting. His reason was (he believes) that Casey is interpreting data based on reports and studies that were done for the larger (GR2) area, and that in GR1 we are not allowed to discuss GR2 data.  During this exchange, members of the zoning hearing board were visibly angry at Harris’s tactic, one even voicing his concern that there are two separate hearings.  Mr. Brant mentioned that there had been discussion to combine the hearings, but that some of the attorneys (remember, between GR1 and GR2 there are sometimes five attorneys involved) refused to combine the hearings.

Ms. Rebecca Bell, attorney representing the zoning hearing board, and the attorney in charge of the hearing, over-ruled Harris, allowing Casey to proceed and asking Harris to question Casey on cross-examination.

Casey then went on to say that, in the South pit, Satterthwaite estimated a flow of water of 38 gallons/hour versus EarthRes data that said it would be 85 gallons/hour.

Casey ended his testimony.

Harris began his cross-examination by asking if EarthRes had used the appropriate protocols and yielded valid results. Casey said they had.  Harris next spent time questioning Casey on RQD (Rock Quality Designation).  RQD is a measurement that geologists use to indicate how susceptibility of a given piece of rock to fracture.  Harris said that Satterthwaite did not indicate RQD and Casey said he did.  Harris also tried to get Casey to say that by the time he (Casey) reviewed the rock core samples, that the RQD could not be identified properly. 

At this point Harris said he wanted to review Casey’s handwritten notes and would continue questioning after that was done. 

The next GR 1 meeting is December 9, 2003 at the New Hanover Township Building, 7:00 PM.

See Also:
Summary of the previous meeting (October 29, 2003)