PERMFILE69411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ObbJ'~~i~~~ AQUATIC AND WETLAND COMPANY Consulting Construction Nurseries RECE9VED May13, 2003 MAY 1 61003 Division of Minerals and Geology Division sf Minerals as@ ~~l 1313 Sherman Street, Room 2l5 Denver, Colorado 80203 eb~`~ RE: Heit Sand and Gravel Mine Reclamation Permit Application (Doc. 1 -Feb. 2003) and Application for a Use by Special Review (Mining)(Doc. 2 -Feb. 2003) prepared by Banks and Gesso, LLC. Dear Sirs: The purpose of the following is to state my strong opposition to the above referenced permit applications. My opposition is based on a review of the applications and the companion document entitled: GROUNDWATER EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED HEIT AGGREGATE OPERATION WELD COUNTY, COLORADO prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) and dated March 2003, 7 pages. Specific reasons for opposing the project are as follows. 1. The groundwater evaluation report is based on 1969 data that may have no basis of reality. 2. The report is ambiguous. For example, Page 3, "the resulting model should be considered to be a conceptual level only," whereas, on Page 5 it is stated, "the proposed pit will have a minimal impact on the water levels at the well owned by AWC"... (Aquatic and Wetland Company Nursery Operations) "immediately north of the proposed pit." 3. The report does not mention the so-called "shadow effect" that is a common negative impact caused by lined basins (in this case 80-acres). In my case, current groundwater flow is from north to south. The lined basin will form an artificial barrier that will force groundwater to the east and west creating a zone of depression, 4. Ground water depth within the boundary of the available 115-acre nursery operation has approximated 3-feet during the past 12-years. Tree and shrub growth and production has been maximal and rapid as a result. Any negative changes in the water table and groundwater flow must be mitigated. No mitigation is mentioned. 5. Consider the following sentence. "The projected lowering of the water table by 2.2 feet represents less than 10 percent of the estimated saturated thickness of the well and is likely within the range of expected natural water table fluctuations." The word ~~likely" is extremely speculative and cannot be supported by the modeling data used. Pleased be advised that the water table is very high during each annual growing season such as 3 feet. Lowering the groundwater table an additiona12.2 feet during the growing season means the water table will be 5.2 feet deep. This implies an unacceptable decreased DESIGN BUILD • GROW n:~cr99~[~r9~9~14P+L~E3tl4~i~lfd!o£5 Ft. Lupton, Colorado 80621 • (303) 442-4766 / (303) 857-2455 FAX