Laserfiche WebLink
_~. <br />Engineer determines that conditions so warrantor if a waiver of objection is obtained. <br />That 600-foot threshold is not necessarily the distance at which all wells at a lesser <br />distance will be injured and all wells at a greater distance will not be injured; rather, it is a <br />distance specified by the General Assembly to ensure that the majority of the situations <br />where there will be injury potential will be addressed with at least a certain level of <br />deliberation. At distances greater than 600 feet, the potential for well-to-well injury is not <br />as great and there is more potential for other influences, both man-made and natural, to <br />have an effect of similar magnitude. In most cases, to deny an application for a permit <br />due to the presence of a well at a distance of greater than 600 feet, our office needs <br />evidence that material injury would occur as a direct result, <br />The operator at this pit did apply for a well permit and stated on the application <br />dewatering would occur at a certain rate. In order to allow dewatering at a gravel pit, the <br />same expectations apply when it comes to replacing depletions. They must be replaced <br />in the same time, location, and amount. At this pit, like many others, the applicant is <br />pumping the water from the pit directly into the river with no consumption along the way. <br />Therefore, the depletions are replaced in the same time, location, and amount. <br />Your first question was whether the application is an associated document upon <br />which the permit is conditioned. The answer is yes; the application is an associated <br />document. However, I suspect you also question whether or not each statement on the <br />application becomes an implicit condition of approval on the well permit. The answer to <br />that question is no. The applicant's response on that portion of the application was not <br />incorporated as a condition of approval on the well permit. For the operation that was <br />approved in the most recent SWSP renewal, dated February 21, 2001, the applicant <br />intends to dewater the mined area and replace the water on aone-for-one basis. This <br />satisfies the need to replace the depletions to the stream system. The inFluence that this <br />dewatering may have on the surrounding water table is directly related to the depth to <br />which the water table has been lowered at the pit's location, whatever pumping rate is <br />necessary to achieve that condition. <br />Regarding our administration of this operation, it is important that the pit operate <br />within the limits specified in the SWSP and on the well permit. If those are not being <br />met, our office will have cause to take action. However, the applicant's failure to operate <br />with the same dewatering pumping rate that was provided incidentally on the application <br />is not cause for our office to take enforcement action with the operator of the pit. <br />Kevin and I will continue to meet with you as the situation requires, should you <br />find additional information or have additional questions on the matter. Please call me if <br />you have questions. <br />Sincerely, ,G J <br />~~ ~Ll <br />-D--icD k Wolfe, P.E. <br />Water Resource Engineer <br />cc: Scott Cuthbertson, Division 1 <br />Kate Pickford, DMG <br />File <br />