Laserfiche WebLink
Timothy A. Cazier, P.E. <br />February 24, 2014 <br />Page 3 <br />5) Comment: The data for MW -10 ends about November 2003. Is this well still functional? <br />Was it abandoned properly? Please provide abandonment documentation. <br />a. Response: MW -10 was also located in an area that has been mined through and <br />therefore the well no longer exists. Documentation of the abandonment status of <br />MW -10 has been filed the Division of Water Resources to document that the well <br />no longer exists and is attached for your reference. <br />6) Comment: Please address the gap in data between May 2010 and March 2011. <br />a. Response: From discussion with Transit Mix, we understand that the gap in data <br />between May 2010 and March 2011 is the result of a personnel change at Transit <br />Mix that occurred around that time. The person responsible at the time for <br />measuring and recording ground water levels became no longer employed with <br />Transit Mix, and a replacement was not immediately found. It is our <br />understanding that there is no data available during this time period. <br />7) Comment: Monitoring well MW -105 is in the vicinity of the property owners submitting <br />the complaint regarding collapsible soils on October 29, 2013. The water level in MW- <br />105 came up approximately 10 feet between March 2011 and May 2011. Some other <br />wells (MW -6, MW -11, MW -101, and MW -103) show only a 2 to 3 foot increase in <br />elevation and about a month later (—June 2011) when the water level in MW -105 is <br />shown declining. Please comment on mine activities in this time frame that may have <br />influenced this increase in water level. <br />a. Response: Upon review of ground water level data, historical Arkansas River <br />stream flow data and local climate data, and after discussion with Transit Mix, it <br />appears that the May 2nd 2011 MW -105 data point is erroneous. Arkansas River <br />flows significantly increased starting at the beginning of June and peaked in July <br />as the result of snowmelt runoff. This explains the temporary increase in water <br />level elevation during the same time period in several monitoring wells (MW -101, <br />MW -299, MW -8, MW -11). Removal of the erroneous MW -105 data point <br />provides a similar trend for MW -105 (see revised Figure 3). <br />8) Figure 4/ Exhibit C -8. Comment: Please address the gap in data between October 2010 <br />and March 2011. <br />a. Response: As discussed in Comment 2e, we understand that the gap in data <br />between October 2010 and March 2011 is the result of a personnel change at <br />Transit Mix that occurred at the time. The person responsible for measuring and <br />recording ground water levels became no longer employed with Transit Mix, and <br />a replacement was not immediately found. It is our understanding that there is no <br />data available during this time period. <br />