Laserfiche WebLink
DISCUSSION: In the original permit (Amendment I), Phase 2 was divided into a western and <br />an eastern portion. For now, the eastern portion has been deleted as that land is currently considered too <br />low compared to the elevation of the river and too covered with jurisdictional wetlands to be considered <br />for mining. If it is reinserted into the plan i[ would be done through a separate amendment. Thus, [he <br />eastern edge of [he operation is defined by the eastern edge of Phase 1. Phase 2e no longer is even shown <br />on the maps as a possible future phase. Areas such as that will require more study before they can be <br />considered for mining. <br />General Groundwater Considerations <br />Requirement: Agreements with all well owners within 600 feet of the affected land boundary must <br />be honored. These agreements state that if a problem with a well occurs AND [hat problem is due <br />to the operation, the operator is responsible for correcting the problem. <br />DISCUSSION: Because mining gravel in alluvial deposits can impact the groundwater, <br />especially when dewatering is done, it is important to have a good understanding of [he groundwater <br />system. For this reason, as described in Exhibit G -Water Information, ongoing studies are being <br />conducted of the groundwater system. This involves pump tests to determine the rate of flow as well as <br />monitoring wells [o more fully describe [he dynamics of [he system and how it changes in response to the <br />dewatering, changes in [he river flows, and the effects of drought or flood. A great deal has been learned <br />over the years and to present all of [his information would require volumes. Collected data have been <br />used to continuously modify the groundwater model for this area. The modeling has provided an <br />increased ability to predict how a particular action is likely to affect the groundwater. Because of the <br />complexity of the groundwater system in this area those predictions are not always completely correct, <br />but as time goes on the precision improves. <br />One of the reasons for doing these studies is to provide information that can aid in corrective <br />action if a nearby well is adversely affected. Sometimes declining production in a nearby well is initially <br />thought [o be a result of a declining water table due to dewatering. But if the monitoring wells between <br />the operation and the affected well do not show the same decline then it can be concluded that the <br />dewatering is probably not causing [he reduced well output. When this occurs the cause is often <br />discovered to be due to the age of the well, silt build up in the well, or other causes unique to that well. <br />But in other cases the monitoring wells con£rm [hat the reduced output is in fact due to the operation. The <br />operator, which is actually Transit Mix of Pueblo, always responds to concerns over problems with <br />adjacent wells. Sometimes corrective actions were taken even when it was clear that the operation was not <br />causing the problem. Transit Mix of Pueblo has agreements with all well owners within 600 feet of the <br />Pueblo East Pit Amendment 3 (2007) Exhibit D Page 14 of 34 <br />