The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20022808.tiff • r^ n ME Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ME Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax(303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com Transmittal 0QQa�meoti To: Robert Anderson Qua°°‘oEF�O.. 555 N. 17� Avenue Weld County Planning Services IA c...\.• �p0'L Greeley, CO 8 631 MPS ti vt® From:Alex Schatz Date: 16 May 2002 0.C#t" cc: 98023 — Agency Correspondence Re: Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine, USR-1347 Neighborhood Outreach Efforts Enclosures 1. Copy of 10 May 2002 letter to Bobbie Wilson, neighborhood representative for residents in the vicinity of the proposed Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine r Please incorporate the enclosed letter into the file for USR-1347, the Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine, as part of our efforts to solicit input from neighbors of this project. 2002-2808 1 uXMfan E. OG itself/310 Eli Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 .■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax (303)274-8329 10 May 2002 www.banksandgesso.com Bobbie Wilson 9268 WCR 28 Platteville, CO 80651 Bobbie, Enclosed is the aerial photo with mining plan overlay that you requested for the Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine. This is a reduced size of the exhibit we brought to the May 2"° neighborhood meeting. Please keep in mind that Phase 1 and 2 are likely to be reversed, and some boundaries are subject to adjustment (for oil and gas, and wetland purposes). This exhibit is, however, effective as a template to discuss the maximum extent of mining that would be permitted. We have not heard back from you regarding any other needs, and we await feedback regarding your conversations with Forrest Leaf. Aggregate Industries has voluntarily elected not to ask for a hearing on this case until mid to late June, and I sincerely hope we will be able to use this timeframe, as identified at the neighborhood meeting, to come to an agreement as to what a reasonable groundwater mitigation plan looks like. At this point we need to know if the well owner/neighborhood group has any suggestions regarding the revised plan (as enclosed). Please contact me as soon as you have questions or comments. We understand the complexity of professional hydrological modeling, and Aggregate Industries is willing to assume the burden of remodeling mitigation scenarios. Since we are attempting to incorporate all reasonable input from surrounding well owners, we would certainly like to have any appropriate assumptions or data used by Forrest Leaf before proceeding with this effort. I may be reached at 303/274.4277 or by email at aschatz(a�banksandgesso.com. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, F BAN AND GESSO, LLC Alex Schatz end: Aerial Photo and Mining Overlay, Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine (3 copies) Revised Groundwater Mitigation Plan, Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine cc: Linda Pyeatt, 9826 Hwy 66, Platteville, CO 80651 98028—Other Correspondence Robert R. Anderson - Re: USR-1347 i-. Page 1 J f... From: Robert R. Anderson To: "Aschatz@banksandgesso.com".GWIA.CENTDOMAIN Subject: Re: USR-1347 Alex, The Board does not schedule date specific. I will advise the Clerk to the Boards office that you are ready to proceed and forward the file as well as advise them of your requested date. Once scheduled they should send you the appropriate notice of hearing. >>> "Alex Schatz" <Aschatz@banksandgesso.com> 05/29/02 03:54PM >>> Robert, Attached is a memo requesting scheduling of the Board hearing for the Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine USR (USR-1347) on June 26th. I will also be sending this via mail. Please let me know if you have any questions about the case. Thanks also for sending along the copy of the Green/Croissant floodplain permit. Alex Schatz Banks and Gesso, LLC 303/274.4277 4. EXHIBIT t1SE? I Robert R. Anderson -98023-WeldCo-052➢`°-RequestforHearing.doc Page 1 r Memo To: Robert Anderson Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 From: Alex Schatz Date: 29 May 2002 cc: 98023—Agency Correspondence Re: Request for Board Hearing, Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine, USR-1347 On behalf of Aggregate Industries, West Central Region, Inc., this letter is being sent to you for the purpose of requesting a hearing before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners in case number USR-1347. Three conditions were established for this case prior to a hearing before the Commissioners. As noted in our correspondence to you on April 17th, these conditions have been satisfied. A June Commissioners hearing has been anticipated for the past two months, and this letter formally asks Weld County to proceed with the case. By resolution of the Weld County Planning Commission on August 7, 2001, this Use by Special Review is being forwarded to the County Board with a recommendation of approval. Several neighbors expressed concerns at the time of the Planning Commission hearing, and the Applicant has used the intervening months to confer with these neighbors and attempt to address their concerns. Two recent transmittals to Weld County (May 7th and May 16'h, 2002) specifically document the Applicant's proposal to address groundwater concerns with a monitoring and mitigation plan to be incorporated as a USR Development Standard. We anticipate asking the Commissioners to incorporate the previously transmitted Development Standard for groundwater mitigation, as well as some minor changes to the mining plan consistent with the monitoring and mitigation strategy; please let us know if the Planning Department needs any additional supporting material for its analysis. Aggregate Industries respectfully requests that its USR-1347 case be scheduled for a hearing before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners on the agenda for June 26'h, which we understand to be an upcoming hearing date allowing adequate time for public notice. Please forward this request to the Clerk to the Board, as appropriate. We greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. ME Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 r ■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax(303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com 15 July 2002 Robert Anderson Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80632 Robert, Please find the enclosed drawings and text related to USR-1347, the proposed Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine. In anticipation of the Board of County Commissioners hearing this week, we are submitting these items for the record of the case to be used at the hearing. As noted in the correspondence sent to you at the time we requested a Board hearing, some minor changes to the plans will be requested for approval by the Commissioners. Primarily, Phases 1 and 2 have been reversed, with Phase 1 now being the northernmost mining cells. This change is intended to allow for earlier reclamation of mined areas as wetlands, and the plans have also been annotated to more clearly indicate that a reduction in mining extents may occur as a result of wetlands regulation. All other changes on the three enclosed plans are graphic changes intended to improve legibility of the plat set but in no way modifying the substance of the original plans. Also enclosed is a copy of the proposed development standard for groundwater mitigation. This has already been transmitted to you, but we request your review and testimony regarding at the hearing, and so have retransmitted it to you. The agricultural neighbors of the proposed USR site have expressed particular concern regarding the reliability of their wells and potential drawdown due to dewatering operations. The objective of the enclosed development standard, created with the assistance of a groundwater hydrogeologist, is to systematically monitor and respond to any drawdown. At this stage, we have presented the initial groundwater monitoring results and the mitigation strategy to neighbors, with the only feedback being that wet mining and private agreements are the neighbors' proposed solution. In response, we have noted that wet mining is included in the mitigation strategy as the logical ultimate step, to which the neighbor representative has responded that their primary concern is the need for a quick remedy if drawdowns of a certain magnitude do occur. The Applicant believes that the proposed Development Standard presents the most reasonable accommodation of groundwater interests, and your testimony would be helpful to 4 EXHIBIT` use-son U5R-1347,Transmittal 15 July 2002 Page 2 demonstrate to these neighbors that this is a genuine and enforceable part of the Use by Special Review permit. For the County's record, I have also enclosed a copy of a letter to the USR's nearest neighbor, Scott and Karen Wilson. A copy of a recent email to neighborhood representative Bobbie Wilson is also enclosed. Please let me know if you have questions or comments regarding Wednesday's hearing. Sincerely, BA KS AND GESSO, LLC Alex Schatz End: Revised USR-1347 drawings: Vicinity Map 1, Extraction Plan, Reclamation Plan Proposed Development Standard for Groundwater Mitigation 15 July 2002 Letter to Scott and Karen Wilson 10 July 2002 Email Correspondence with Bobbie Wilson cc: 98023 — Agency Correspondence KURTZ RANCH SAND AND GRAVEL MINE GROUNDWATER MITIGATION STRATEGY Proposed language for new Development Standard: The Operator shall implement the following groundwater monitoring and mitigation program to address well impacts caused by the Use by Special Review activities in the zone of hydrologic influence of the subject site. 1. Natural Conditions a. High Transmissivity Aquifer b. Most wells in area substantially over 4 feet below water table c. Bedrock, soil conditions, and other assumptions of modeling probably more conservative than actual conditions in the area 2. State of Colorado Well Permitting Program a. Mine will have a Gravel Well Permit b. Augmentation of losses due to groundwater exposure (TSSP) c. Notification/Consent of existing well owners (within 600 feet, by State regulation) 3. State Division of Minerals and Geology Permitting �— a. Specific Rules regarding groundwater impacts b. Monitoring and mitigation during operations 4. Weld County Use by Special Review conditions a. Hydrologic study produced to allow for reasonable discussion of groundwater impacts and corrective measures b. Development Standards prohibit nuisance conditions 5. Monitoring Program ('a' and 'b' to begin as soon as practicable) a. Following approval of permits, on-site, dedicated monitoring wells to be installed upgradient, between open mining areas and potentially impacted wells; also in areas presenting potential wetland impacts b. At well owner's discretion and permission, and to the extent necessary for hydrologic inferences to be made, off-site monitoring wells may be installed in proximity of existing wells that may be affected (as defined in 5c, below) c. Persistent drop of more than 2 feet below seasonal low, as established by baseline monitoring, for wells in sensitive areas will trigger further study of potential causes d. Monitoring data will be collected and made available to interested parties to the extent reasonably possible e. Appropriate, targeted mitigation measures will be initiated upon determination by an impartial groundwater professional that well(s) which would otherwise not be damaged are being damaged by the dewatering operations of the Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine 6. On-site mitigation (in successive order, as needed to mitigate drawdown) a. Sequencing: Provided mining continues at the current rate at the Sand Land property, Aggregate Industries may wait until Sand Land mine is no longer actively dewatering to begin Phase 4 dewatering; the worst case scenario modeled in the hydrological study could be totally avoided b. Phasing: Break Phase 4 into two non-concurrent sub-Phases; this follows naturally from the current design of the mining operation c. Recharge trenches: Occur upgradient (at southwest property line) of Phase 4 and diminish groundwater drawdown in same way Phase 2 is mitigated by the Last Chance Ditch; dewatering water, the Last Chance Ditch, and additional diversions of water rights are potential sources of water for recharge trenches d. Temporary cessation of dewatering operations 1 � � ME Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303)274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 www.banksandgesso.com 15 July 2002 Scott and Karen Wilson 8223 Highway 66 Platteville, CO 80651 Mr. And Mrs. Wilson, I have spoken with your real estate agent, Don Rulle, on multiple occasions regarding the pending Weld County Use by Special Review case for the Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine. It is my understanding that you have reviewed the Use by Special Review application submitted in 2001 (USR-1347) and are generally familiar with the location and extent of features at the proposed sand and gravel mine. Mr. Rulle indicated that you were interested in obtaining any updates or revisions to the plans, and that specific information on the timing of the operation would be helpful. Enclosed you will find updated drawings, which we have submitted to the County. This update of the three enclosed plans was intended primarily to improve the legibility of the plans and includes only two minor substantive changes since the original submittal. The order of Phase 1 and Phase 2 are now reversed (allowing for earlier implementation of wetland mitigation at the northern end of the property), and the character and process of wetland mitigation are better defined graphically and in the notes. The drawings do not reflect the proposed additional development standard regarding groundwater impacts. You may have obtained this as a result of the May neighborhood meeting, but a new copy is enclosed for your reference. This development standard would be incorporated directly into the language of the Use by Special Review resolution. Please note that items such as landscape buffering are routinely addressed subsequent to a Board of County Commissioners hearing. In this case, a Condition of Approval specifically requires, prior to plat recordation, the development of a "Landscape and Buffer Plan to... address buffering the impact of the proposed use to adjacent property owners..." Finalizing drawings prior to plat recording also gives an Applicant the chance to address other issues regarding site layout following the hearing. If you have any specific suggestions regarding mitigation measures, it is likely to be productive if you present them at the Board hearing or to us immediately prior to the hearing. Unfortunately very little specificity can be given regarding the timing of the operation. The Kurtz property is intended to be a long-term reserve for the regional market, and depletion of Aggregate Industries' current property in this general vicinity (upstream of the Kurtz property by several miles and on the other side of 1-25) is still likely to be several years away. Groundwater concerns have prompted Aggregate Industries to commit in the proposed development standard, if there is persistent groundwater drawdown, to mining Phase 4 only after the Sand Land ("Varra") operation on the south Transmittal to Scott and Karen Wilson 15 July 2002 Page 2 side of Highway 66 is essentially in the reclamation phase. Given the fact that the Aggregate Industries operation will mine each phase in order, with concurrent reclamation, it is likely that Varra's operation will be at or near completion by the time Phase 4 is reached. Each phase under the current USR plan contains approximately 3 to 5 years of reserves, with the mining rate directly linked to market conditions. Given current market conditions, the Kurtz property is anticipated to begin operations in 5 to 10 years. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. I will attempt to arrive early for the Board hearing on Wednesday if you would like to talk for a few minutes prior to the hearing. Sincerely, 45CarA--Y BANKS AND GESSO, LLC Alex Schatz end: Revised USR-1347 drawings: Vicinity Map 1, Extraction Plan, Reclamation Plan Proposed Development Standard for Groundwater Mitigation cc: 98023—Other Correspondence Don Rulle, Prudential LTM Realtors Norm Roche, Aggregate Industries Robert Anderson, Weld County Planning r-. r-^, Page 1 of I Alex Schatz r From: "Bruce and Bobbie Wilson" To: "Alex Schatz" <Aschatz@banksandgesso.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 9:24 PM Subject: Re: USR-1347 (Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine) I'm leaving early tomorrow & won't return until Tues. I'll call you Tues. Meanwhile, you might want to talk with Linda Pyeatt (970) 785 6203. Bobbie Original Message From: Alex Schatz Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 5:06 PM To: Bobbie Wilson Subject: USR-1347 (Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine) Bobbie and all Kurtz Ranch neighbors - As you are aware, the Kurtz Ranch Use by Special Review hearing is scheduled for next Wednesday, the 17th of July. We understand that the neighborhood group believes that wet mining and private agreements regarding groundwater should be incorporated into the project. Aggregate Industries continues to offer that any specific data, analytical findings, or proposed terms provided in advance of the hearing will be given due consideration and may provide a basis for reacing consensus regarding neighborhood concerns. Please contact me any time in the next week if you would like to discuss the Kurtz Ranch project. Sincerely yours, Alex Schatz BANKS AND GESSO, LLC 303/274.4277 7/15/02 I CAROL Harding - Docket#2002-51 Page 1 /.., From: <TPF11419@cs.com> To: <charding@co.weld.co.us> Date: 7/16/02 4:16PM Subject: Docket#2002-51 Dear Weld County Commissioners, Greetings. I am writing to express concern regarding Docket #2202-51, the USR permit# 1347 for Aggregate Industries, which you will consider in public hearing on Wednesday, July 17, 2002. Aggregate Industries' USR application includes their request for approval of a sand and gravel mining operation and accessory batching operation adjacent to Colorado Highway 66 and between WCR 19 and the St. Vrain River in rural Weld County. This request is for a dry mining operation to my understanding. I am strongly supportive of making certain that this land use request does not compromise the significant agricultural production of the lands adjacent to this site. This means that Aggregate Industries be held accountable for the maintenance of ground water levels which currently support these farmlands and their productivity. It would be wise to require this to be a wet mining operation and to require the applicant to drill and monitor test wells. Such monitor wells are required of other sand and gravel operators in the immediate area. It is also key that Aggregate Industries is proactive in their efforts to mitigate the heavy truck traffic that will be generated by such an operation. The impact on adjacent county roads and on Highway 66 is a deep concern. Highway 66 in already experiencing traffic safety issues generated by the sheer volume of vehicles which use this highway daily, and by the heavy truck traffic currently produced by other operators in the immediate area. We rely on you as our elected Commissioners to represent us fairly and we trust that you will do so as you consider Aggregate Industries' USR permit application. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bruce Rippe 11419 Weld County Road 36 Platteville, CO 80651 es- 1 EXHIBIT .1J #wt7 • 9 .i....."I-4 a f:' '''.4. a ' A4' i 4,. . t :),/,. . M1 -- x , : .,,,,,t-4 4 wi 1 ,ik r 'x'415 ° 1 . '�';t 1 ^rii . c,%•....- e 4'# iGi ta., .za .`* 6Y .,--''',‘"i1;1,-,"', P,A i" t .+. �... >`M - 'v ,. p ,-„,..---4: ".r n«. g3,447' e w �r'�`^'+ wiP 47 :t, +is�«a p +t.,lew " , .Pa. xS. �i ," `'j lirw r+. { �7 !4411 y t °�` �"� '' #.-1/2,et Y' ^-,w. sWhz 'r1 "tP ` *i.0, .. '€^P.^ ..,,,-.4., ".k > .L; �.�., l UIBlUf 'r 1 rfl ,1, , y".. "°i.e., _urt.^"� i� ;et. V.;. A taY'V::-... 7.'"," '." .'","' erns. .. }Y t� { '-s%".1..4.06.7: k^X1.1 �` ` `kt. � 1.t Jj AY ' ..µ � #`3 i ifi" I s C1t �� r t j/'' w hki, lIF it J °°2.' v.y, "'. J e�i 4 U7 , +y"l..ttG+` +. . •ryl M k iz ih. ,.44 R4+n,U J'1 Y x tax} ! i t. . '.I t,'"1,'" 3�jyf� q Yo- ---,,,,.-„„,..:71.; i its Y ,iA yi ��f t 'F�t f"� 6 1.": k,-.„.:4/. ,9 $p... r :#2.,*r£p 3r r `If 1 ( d d+` �,tv .x f y} 3e ,•" ,- a�:. � lt :1-1/4-,.-t‘, , > `t 1 \,4t i14 1 " n } fli�C d ` �. s • —" —+ • dy'4{ !R}- g�y,t tl t ! r. er rho idtr. " $'u��' , �x itiM H; € y� e t ,e "1 f '. r - 1,,,,,/•14,./":'9 ,:, rp b + "�y,;,4. �'� '�fl•IM > 4i1 + C x _ w.. w a4 ' s a5* w Y .;+r,, 5 to f 9�.`'1 ... tie 2L" �'ti R �9- rx .�� '" v. .. f /2 -,/ 7;2/0 2 14 EXHIBIT KK 1 use:13{7 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION w Region 4,Materials Engineer r lu i 3201 W.Service Rd.,Unit B Evans,Colorado 80620 (9'70)350-2131 FAX(970)330-2097 July 18, 2002 To: Robert Anderson Weld County Planning 1555 N 17°Av Greeley,Colorado 80631 From: Gary DeWitt A O Materials Engineer Subject: Comment on proposed gravel pit operation, Weld County Docket tt 20002-5, Special Permit 1347 Realizing the proposed gravel pit operation is adjacent to Hwy 66 in the vicinity of CR 19, please consider a requirement that the gravel pit not be established within 50 feet of,Colorado Department Of Transportation right-of-way. The purpose of this request is to assist in the maintaining of stable slopes for the CDOT roadway_ If at 50 feel,a vertical excavation face is established we would strongly recommend replacement of material to a stable angle of repose immediately. ig EXHIBIT usetI z/z•d suipa WdL0:E0 20, 8T inr ME Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 /' IIII Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 25 July 2002 www.banksandgesso.com Robert Anderson Weld County Planning Department Weld County Department of Planning Services 1555 N. 17th Avenue JUL_ ; J Tuuz Greeley, CO 80632 RECLAVED Robert, Please review the enclosed materials related to the Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine (USR-1347). These materials are generally related to the issue of groundwater impacts, particularly feedback from a group of neighborhood representatives that wet mining would be their preference for the USR-1347 project. For the record, the Applicant would like to note that wet mining is incorporated into this project by virtue of the enclosed (and previously transmitted) supplementary Development Standard/Groundwater Mitigation Strategy. Wet mining is the ultimate contingency plan in the case of substantial downward trends in the water table. The r Applicant notes, however, that stipulation of wet mining from the outset and at all times is not a reasonable approach, based on the shallow nature of the sand and gravel deposit as well as the operator's ability to minimize impacts through other measures, to prevent well impacts due to the USR-1347 operation. Because the bottom of the USR- 1347 deposit averages just over 20 feet below grade, dry mining is by far the most efficient way to recover the resources in this Mineral Conservation zone in accordance with state and local policy. In addition, the likely draw-down surrounding a dewatered mining cell of this depth is substantially less than that of deeper operations. Aggregate Industries has met with neighbors regarding groundwater concerns and continues to negotiate in good faith to reach a possible resolution prior to the July 315` hearing on this case, but we feel it is noteworthy that the evidence regarding well problems in this area is inconclusive at best. It has frequently been articulated by neighbors that documented drops in wells have occurred as a result of dewatering operations at the USR-1219 (Varra/Sand Land) site. The only documentation we have been able to locate specifically addressing this issue is the enclosed 2001 Division of Minerals and Geology inspection report concluding that dewatering at USR-1219 (DMG No. M-1999-006) is in compliance with DMG regulations and that, contrary to complaints from neighbors of the operation, the groundwater system in this vicinity appeared to be operating at full capacity without noticeable effect from dewatering operations. In the current case, the enclosed letter from Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. provides additional detail regarding the hydrological analysis of the USR-1347 proposal, specifically demonstrating that recent criticism of the Applicant's proposal to use dry mining techniques, offered by Mr. Forrest Leaf on behalf of and as a consultant to well owners in this area, offers only very limited insight into the cause of current well draw- down and the likely effects of USR-1347. The record in this case should reflect that '_ EXHIBIT u jti 7 Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine(USR-1347) Supplementary Information regarding Groundwater Protection 25 July 2002 Page 2 persistent drought and dry climate may be the cause of most, if not all, well impacts currently experienced in this vicinity, especially at any significant distance from a mine. Aggregate Industries does acknowledge the concerns of neighboring well owners and believes the record should reflect that the Applicant's effort to resolve this issue has been undertaken voluntarily and with the intent to assure that groundwater impacts from the USR-1347 operation will not have a detrimental effect on the wells of these neighbors. The enclosed supplementary Use by Special Review Development Standard has been revised to clearly define preemptive measures to be taken by the Operator to minimize groundwater impacts and to explicitly provide for monitoring and mitigation measures that trigger corrective action prior to damage to alluvial wells. Aggregate Industries intends this Development Standard to be an enforceable part of its Use by Special Review permit, and we have met and conversed with neighbors on multiple occasions in order to incorporate all feedback that reasonably advances the goal of preventing groundwater well impacts. Please call me or Paul Banks at 303/274.4277 if you have questions prior to the July 31st hearing date. Sincerely yours, BA KS AND GESSO, L C Alex Schatz encl: Proposed Development Standard for Groundwater Protection, as revised DMG Inspection Report, dated 6/27/02, regarding USR-1219/M-1999-006 (Varra) Letter from Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. regarding USR-1347 cc: Norm Roche, Aggregate Industries Paul Banks, Banks and Gesso, LLC 98023— Client Correspondence KURTZ RANCH SAND AND GRAVEL MINE GROUNDWATER MITIGATION STRATEGY Proposed language for new Development Standard: The Operator shall implement the following groundwater monitoring and mitigation program to address well impacts caused by the Use by Special Review activities in the zone of hydrologic influence of the subject site. Preemptive Measures The operator will continuously and consistently apply the following preemptive measures at the USR-1347 operation: 1. Through partitioning of mining cells into mining subareas, no more than 40 acres of groundwater surface area will be exposed or dewatered at any one time. 2. To the greatest extent possible, concurrent reclamation will reduce exposed area and prevent delays in completion of reclamation that would extend periods of dewatering beyond that absolutely necessary for efficient aggregate mining. 3. Timing of mining operations will minimize overlapping dewatering operations in the vicinity of other sand and gravel operations to the greatest extent possible: The first Phase of USR-1347 mining will be at the far northern end of the USR- 1347 site, and Phase 4 dewatering (at the southwest corner) will not be initiated prior to the cessation of dewatering operations immediately across Highway 66. Monitoring Program The operator will participate in and/or establish a well monitoring program to effectively determine the impacts of dewatering on potentially affected well owners. 1. The monitoring program will establish a baseline condition that identifies seasonal and climatic influences, as well as the effects of other sand and gravel operations. 2. The monitoring program will be of sufficient extent and frequency to make reasonable and accurate inferences about the impacts of dewatering the USR- 1347 site. 3. Monitoring data will be collected and made available to potentially affected parties. 4. Where there is a persistent draw-down of more than 2 feet below the seasonal low, the operator will obtain an impartial expert study to determine the cause of the draw-down. r USR-1347,Proposed Development Standard Groundwater Strategy 16 July 2002 Mitigation Program The operator will engage in a groundwater mitigation program that seeks to prevent irreparable injury to owners of potentially affected wells. Mitigation steps will be taken based on the recommendations of any report produced under the monitoring program above, or in case of any emergency that in fact or is reasonably determined to threaten the availability of water in potentially affected wells. In successive order, the following steps will be taken to mitigate groundwater impacts. The timing and level to which mitigation steps are taken shall be commensurate with the nature of the impact, or potential impacts, to wells. 1. The operator will further limit the size and timing of dewatering operations, to reduce draw-down potential. Seasonal dewatering and stockpiling may be introduced to the USR-1347 site. 2. The operator will introduce recharge areas, using either dewatering water or ditch water, or both. Recharge areas shall be located between dewatering operations and impacted or potentially impacted wells, and shall be designed to effectively mitigate draw-down for sustained periods of time. 3. The operator will temporarily cease dewatering operations, using wet mining techniques in an interim period to the extent that aggregate production continues beneath the groundwater surface. Cessation of dewatering operations shall precede injury to wells in all circumstances where there is a clear trend that would result in damage to wells. Temporary cessation of dewatering operations is also appropriate in other circumstances where preemptive measures and other mitigation techniques have failed to prevent wells from nearing injuriously low levels. Temporary cessation of dewatering shall be continued for at least the length of time necessary to adequately recharge affected wells or implement other corrective measures. Responsibility for Mitigation Measures The operator shall not be responsible for mitigation measures in any circumstance wholly caused by an agency external and unrelated to the USR-1347 operation, such as neighboring sand and gravel facilities. Where the USR-1347 operation is deemed to partially contribute to the cause of any draw-down, the operator's responsibilities under this USR development standard shall be assessed equitably. r .--z .a�"'r� COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY 1 MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT . "1/4.- y/ PHONE: (303) 866-3567 The Division of Minerals and Geology has conducted an inspection of the mining operation noted below. This report 'documents observations concerning compliance of the mining operation with the permit and the regulations of the Mined Land Reclamation Board. The report notes I) Areas of successful compliance; 2) Problems and suggested .corrective actions and/or 3)Possible violations to be considered for possible enforcement action by the Mined Land Reclamation Hoard. OPERATORS SHOULD READ THIS REPORT CAREFULLY__BECAUSE IT MAY REQUIRE CORRECTIVE ACTION AND/OR RESPONSES TO THE DIVISION IN ORDER TO AVOID CONSWERATIUN .OF POSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT AC.rION BY TIIE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD. MINE.NAME: kuntz Resource Recovery Pit OPERATOR: Varna Companies COUNTY: Weld MINERAL: Sad ILO Gravel TYPE OF OPERATION: I 12e R INSPECTO 'S): Kate Pickford II- 74/114,7/ MINE ID NOR PROSPECTING ID t M-IaM{c :INSPECTION DATE: 06/27/02 DATE OF COMPLAINT: 06/17/02 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: KAP TIME OF DAY(MILITARY): 1400 'INSPECTION TYPE CODE"): MI POST INSP.CONTACTS"': CH.SE 'JOINT INSP.AGENCY CODs."1: NO REASON FOR INSP.CODEm: Cr 'WEATHER CODE."): CR BOND CALCULATION ME's): NN OP.REP.PRESENT: Chris Varna.Brad Janes INSPECTION TYPE(Y)DE-IC W N: Il:lagd Operation,MI-Monka.iaa.MP=Miami Proven,SI=Sarery•+elated,PR-Pre-opentkal .,705T INSPE(TIO`t CONTACTS e$D JOINT INSPECTION AGENCY CODE-ICL.AC: NO Noae,BL=BLJH,C11=CtN.Dept.!leash;CL- and board. ' CTzCWres;CW= ildarg 1^t=I rat Scnke,Itw=11wy,nept.,t .rpl Gdvemnrnt,Sr.Sta.c Eaer i 3.!SEASON ran INSPECTION CODE-(CI.RS;AG-OtkerApaq Kwitny;CT-CkirAn CampWiat.IE Normal Iht Tinton IIP=IGt3 Prierky.PYarrietityl it nPATtIER COOP-KT.-WE: CL-O..dy.CR CIcer,IN4arlcmed-prevented taspMba,RN-Rdain ,SN-Snowlaa.N D'Wladyl '3 pose CALCULATION TIRE:-InCeCamplete Baa0.RP=Pant Rand,NN-Nunn :This list Identifies the environmental and pennil parameters Inspected and gives a categorical evaiaalon of each. IF rB OR PV IS INDICATED. YOU SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING PAGES CAREFULLY IN ORDER TO SSURE COMPLIANCE WITIi THE TERMS UI+ YOUR PERMIT AND APPLICABLE RULES AND EGULATIONS. If PV is Indicated,you will be notified under separate cover when the Mined Land reclamation L win consider possible enforcement action. . • GENERAL.INSPECTION TOPICS BAR)RECORDS . (FN)FINANCIAL WARRANTY NL (RD)ROADS ILL YHB)HYDROLOGIC BALANCE (BG)SACKFUL!.&GRADING .Ii (EX)EXPLOSIVES...........NA_ PROCESSING WASTE/TAILING JiL (SF)PROCESSING FACII.rrtcS...«,IL (TS)TOPSOIL N— (Mlq CENL MINE PLAN COMPLIANCE... (FK)FISII&WILDLIFE 1'L (RV)REVEGETATION..._M_ ICBM)SIGNS AND MARKERS 1'L (SP)STORM WATER mar PLAN-. N (SR)COMPLETE INSP.....&L. kES)OVERBURDEN/DEV.WASTE 1'L (SC)EROSION/SEDIMENTATION II... (RS)RECLPLAN/COMP_y_. kAT)ACID OR TOXIC MATERIALS VGA (On)OFFSITE DAMAGE (S17 STIPULATIONS NA it Iarp cted sad Paged to Coa.yaoeae ry w loapented mod Towage Viewless*sotto rte w'aspected an rnbkwa Holed t4 It Not 1rpMed NA a:Not AppbeaNc ORIGINAL-PVBWC Pitt . .-;• (Page 2) 'MINE ID If OR PROSPECTING ID•: M-1440-nn& INSPECTION DATE: 0027/02 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: KAP c OfiVRVATIONS 1. This inspection was conducted in response to a complaint received on June 17, 2001 from Bruce and Roberta Wilson. Subsequently, multiple complaints were received under the title of Crow Responsibly In Platteville(GRIP) in the form of a form letter based on the letter nweived as the initial complaint Present at the inspection were Kate Picicford, ()MG,and Chris Varra and Brad Janes,Varra Companies. Weather at the time of inspection was clear,calm,and about 85 degrees. 2. The complaint concerning the Kuntz Resource Recovery Pit indicates that wells in the vicinity of the pit have gone dry and wells within a radius of 1.5 miles of the pit have experienced a drop in groundwater level. 3. Varra Companies has been operating under a UMG permit al the Kuntz Resource Recovery site.since.August, 1999. ; According to Mr.Varra,Varra Companies has been dewatedng the Kurt Pit since 1999. 4. Al the time of the Inspection,It appeared that the groundwater level at the site was approximately 35 feet below ground surface(bgs). the pump used to dewater the pit Is in the same location It has been in since the start of the operation,in the southwest corner of the pit. According to Mr.Van-a,discharge rate of the water being pumped from the pit is approximately 1,500 gallons per minute(gpm). '5. During the Inspection it was observed that adjacent pivot irrigation systems were operational and the crops served by these systems appeared to be successful. Seep ditched within the pit and adjacent to the ditch were filled with water during the inspection. A well to the east of the pit was activated during the inspection and water was discharged from the well as expected. The discharge rate of this well and other wells used for irrigation In the area is estimated at 800 gpm. All irrigation systems to the south and east of the pit were operating during the inspection. the Wilson property appeared to be well irrigated during the Inspection and a well to the north of the property was operating. �,. Mr.Varra and Mr.Janes indicated that the day they received the complaint,they checked the areas around the pit and made the following observations: • The Wilson property had been flood irrigated on the day of the complaint, • Ponds and ditches in the area were full of water on the day of the c ornplaInt, • A pond north of the Wilson property was full on the day of the complaint but the water level has subsequently dropped,possibly due to water usage, • the well lo the north of the Wilson property whkb was observed to be operating during the Inspection has been operating continuously since the day of the complaint. 7. Based upon this Inspection,the site dues not appear to be in violation of any laws, rules,or regulations which fall under ' the Jurisdiction of the Division of Minerals and Geology. • &E Contact Address a OTHER: Cad Mount,DMG Kevin Rein,Of ice of the State WUMf: Brad Janes Engineer tDnis Cates,Colorado bVLRA I OR• Vain Companies Department of Public Health C�T`RE'FT: p n Tiny 7044 and Environment LI T/STMl•//IP: Rrnamfnld,en emcee CE rr O BL U FS d liW O HMWMD(CH) U Si O WQCD(CH) 2002 07/25 THU 15:40 FAX 3035262624 MARTIN AND WOOD WATER ?j002/004 4 A I≥Tl N 602 Park Point Drive,Suite 275.Golden,CO 80401 Phone:(303)526-2600.Fox(303)526-2624 AN !) email:pjrnwl@aol.com ( ()I) July 24, 2002 Mr. Alex Schatz Banks and Gesso,LLC 720 Kipling Street, Suite 117 Lakewood,Colorado 80215 Re: Kurtz Mine Dewatering Analyses Job No. 536.1 Dear Mr. Schatz: This letter presents a brief rebuttal to the report prepared by Mr. Forrest Leaf regarding the potential impacts from dewatering of the Aggregate Industries, Inc. Kurtz gravel mine to be located on the St Vrain river in Weld County, Colorado. Mr. Leaf prepared his report (Draft Report Kurtz Aggregate Mine Local Aquifer Impact Analysis, March, 2002) on behalf of an entity identified as Wilson Farms, but also indicates that local property owners are concerned over the potential for negative impacts on their irrigation and domestic wells due to dewatering of the proposed Kurtz mine and the adjacent Vain pit, also to be dry mined. Mr. Leaf claims to have reviewed our modeling report dated December 20,2001, but dismisses it outright with little discussion. In place of an examination of the merits of the ground water modeling carried out and the results generated by the model,Mr. Leaf presents an analytical exercise carried out in an attempt to predict the effect on the local water table resulting from the dewatering to take place at the Kurtz mine in combination with the operation of the numerous irrigation wells in the vicinity. A review of Mr. Leafs analysis reveals fundamental and significant flaws with both the basic approach taken and the interpretation of the results of his analysis. Mr.Leaf claims to have utilized the Theis and Hantush-Jacob methodologies in his analysis. These methods are applicable to confined flow and leaky confined aquifer problems, respectively. In the subject case, the aquifer is a classic unconfined water table aquifer to which these particular analytical ' methodologies are not applicable. The analysis is thus rendered invalid at the onset by the choice of methodologies made by Mr. Leaf He further fails to define the assumptions that would be inherent in either method (or in one that would be correct and applicable in this case) and that would have major bearing on both the application of the methods and the interpretation of the results. Examples of this are the fact that these methods cannot incorporate any aquifer heterogeneity, boundariy effects such as the river(recharge boundary) or the edge of the alluvium (no low boundary) or changes in aquifer geometry. It is noted that these were easily and accurately incorporated into the ground water flow model developed for our analyses. 2002 07/26 THU 18:41 FAX 3036262824 MARTIN AND WOOD WATER Q4003/004 Mr. Alex Schatz July 24, 2002 Page Two Utilizing this inappropriate methodology, Mr. Leaf first attempts to predict the drawdowns that would result from 60 days of operation of all the high capacity wells(defined by Leaf as any well pumping over SO gallons per minute) in the vicinity of the pit. Decreed pumping rates were input for each well. No discussion is presented as to whether or not these rates are still appropriate relative to actual recent history. That the Leaf analysis approach is inappropriate is borne out by the first set of results presented. The "Historic Well Effects" map, Figure 2, presents the results of the first of these analyses. It is noted that the figure fails to specifically identify just what the contours are but it is assumed that they are what is referred to in the text as "saturated thickness" contours reflecting the change in water levels or drawdowns induced by combined pumping of the wells at their decreed rates. An examination of the contours reveals that the Leaf analysis predicts drawdowns extending up to and beyond the St. Vain River, indicated as a straight double line on the figure. Given the actual hydrology of the alluvial aquifer and the river channel, this is an unlikely, if not impossible situation_ The river is the primary source of recharge and one would logically expect the saturated thickness to be the greatest at the rivet It is obvious that no recharge boundary, as is mandated by the presence of the river, was included in the Leaf analysis, nor as noted above, could it have been. Turning to the combined well pumping and dewatered pit scenario as presented in Figure 4, the "Cummulative (sic)Drawdown Effect" map, an even more unlikely scenario is described. Mr.Leaf; utilizing cumulative and erroneously applied superpositioning of his predicted well and pit drawdown effects, has predicted an alluvial aquifer in which the water table is being somehow held down to zero-feet of saturated thickness over an area some 2000 feet in width extending out from the Kurtz and Varra pit locations. This is predicted for an area in the presence of a large flowing stream channel overlying this dewatered area. Without belaboring the many hydraulic reasons why this scenario is an impossibility, one can simply turn to reality to see that there is no merit to the analyses and predictions presented by Mr. Leaf. An inspection carried out by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology • ("DMG") on June 27, 2002 is of great assistance in bringing the true conditions at the site to light. While the Kurtz pit has not yet commenced actual mining and is thus not yet a tlbctor,the Varra pit has been in progress for some time and has thus been dewatering since commencement of mining. Further, at least some of the local irrigation wells appear to be in operation. Thus,we have a hybrid of Mr.Leafs scenario in which there are pumping wells and some significant level of pit dewatering. Added to this is the effect of the worst drought in Colorado history and the impacts that this is having on river flows and associated alluvial ground water levels. Drawing from the Leaf analyses, one would expect a wide-spread dry-up area in the alluvium extending eastward from the Varra pit and a significant lowering of the water table below the river (potentially as much as half the saturated thickness of the aquifer or more). Major impacts on the operation of the irrigation wells would be expected if one were to believe the predictions made by Mr. Leaf Instead, the DMG report indicates that wells adjacent to the pit were operating and that the crops served by those wells "appeared to be successful", A well east of the pit was started and operated as expected, pumping some 800 gpm. "All irrigation systems to the south Martin and Wood Whirr dominants,Inc. 2002 07/26 THU 16;41 FAX 3036262624 MARTIN AND WOOD WATER c4004/004 Mr. Alex Schatz July 24, 2002 Page Three and east of the pit were operating during the inspection". Finally, it is noted that this inspection, carried out in response to a complaint filed June 17, 2002, indicated that the well north of the Wilson property"has been operating continuously since the day of the complaint". None of these facts and observations comport with the scenarios predicted by Mr. Leaf He closes his report with a statement, dearly without valid technical support or based on any defensible scientific analyses, that 'the proposed Kurtz Pit will cause significant injury to area well owners...". While it is noted that Mr. Leaf does not define"significant" nor does he appear to acknowledge that Colorado Water Law specifically rejects lowering of the water table as a basis for a claim of"injury", this statement is meaningless in light of the completely erroneous work described in the Leaf report. In conclusion, it is our opinion that any effects being felt on producing wells are likely more the result of regional water table declines caused by the historic drought now being experienced than the result of Varna pit mining operations. We stand by the conclusions presented in our modeling report as being far more accurate predictions as to impacts from dry mining in the vicinity. r-� Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this letter or the opinions presented_ Sincerely, 'llippe L.Martin, C.P.G. Vice President Marini and Wood Water Consuttanta,iNC. Draft Report Kurtz Aggregate Mine Local Aquifer Impact Analysis Prepared for: Wilson Farms Prepared by: LEAF ENGINEERING Forrest Leaf, P.E. March 2002 EXHIBIT use.�_ Table of Contents Page No. Introduction 3 Technical Concerns 3 Historic Alluvial Groundwater Conditions 3 Future Conditions 7 Conclusions 7 Table 1: Well Irrigation Well Information 5 Figure 1 4 Figure 2 6 Figure 3 8 Figure 4 9 2 Introduction This report discusses the technical concerns raised by the Martin and Wood Modeling Report Aggregate Industries Kurtz Gravel Pit. This report presents the analytical results of potential well injury from the proposed Kurtz Aggregate Mine, located in Section 21, 3N, 69W, Figure I. The proposed Kurtz Pit is located adjacent to the Varra Pit and the Owens Brothers Pit. The proposed Kurtz Pit is intended to be"dry mined". The Varra Pit is presently being"dry mined". The Owens Brothers Pit is to be "wet mined" by agreement between local property owners surrounding the pit. This agreement was precipitated due to the quantification of potential impacts to locate domestic and irrigation alluvial wells by the author. These same property owners are concerned that the proposed "dry mining" will cause injury to their existing domestic and irrigation alluvial wells. Technical Concerns Review of the Martin and Wood Modeling Report Aggregate Industries Kurtz Gravel Pit raised numerous concerns. Foremost, the subject report does not present the necessary technical information to validate the report modeling results. It is unknown what aquifer properties were used, such as saturated thickness,transmissivity, gradient direction, etc. In addition,the report did not present a detailed de-watering plan,time frames for de- watering and the anticipated discharge rate for de-watering. Finally,the Martin and Wood report did not even consider existing impacts for the numerous large capacity irrigation wells. The neglect to consider existing local alluvial water conditions resulting from existing wells in the area is a fatal flaw in Martin and Wood's investigation, and renders the results of their analysis useless and un-creditable in the opinion of the author. Historic Alluvial Groundwater Conditions The alluvial aquifer in the area surrounding the Kurtz Pit is tributary to the St. Vrain River. The Width of this alluvium is approximately 2 miles based on review of USGS maps from the USGS Open-File Report Hydrologic Characteristics of the Valley-Fill Aquifer in the Brighton Reach of the South Platte River Valley, Colorado, T. Hun& P. Schneider, 1972. In addition,this report shows that the average saturated thickness of the alluvium in the vicinity of the Kurtz Pit is 35 feet, and has a transmissivity of 100,000 gallons per day per foot. The gradient of the local groundwater in the vicinity of the Kurtz Pit is 0.004 feet per feet. This gradient was calculated from recent groundwater depth-to-water samples collected from monitoring wells and irrigation wells adjacent to the Owens Brothers Pit. These samples were collected by Wright Water Engineers and used in a groundwater investigation report on the Owens Brothers Pit. In addition, the saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer ranges from 35 feet in the alluvium south of the Kurtz Pit and 15 feet r 3 G a '' n. . ' ( - \/''''.2'S1';`, r/M/: 11 f CIS el - - �,..� • .r r" •Ro tiA ' a \ ' I m '�I HI Ik 94iGfi. $ill • s - t. ii.,spim ti p. �_ �.� \i` --4-.)------ . _ k \ I a ` 1 �7 � 'r F� _. • z#,.. 1 L Il 1-- . l� � lI . c ti_• \�-77C { • LJ -Th 'NIA' CK7 y�� / vi, arc / av1'- �1�°� S ) Co i,.-' t1 , LVA I .. O ��_ r. I -// _ )� 'I .1 i- A'a 11. .' i is , $:`� I N ( /.10., Li 0 > , < it / „ Y...�,•��`" f�j( O 4 adjacent to the river. The general direction of groundwater flow is to the northwest, as shown by the USGS Open-File Report and confirmed by the WWE wells sampling. For this analysis, a transient pumping scenario was simulated using a simple analytical model based on the groundwater radial flow estimates developed by Theis (1935), Hantush and Jacob (1955). Based on the authors experience and work in agricultural water resources over the past 16 years, a typical dry year continuous pumping period of 60 days was simulated using the aquifer conditions discuss previously. This analysis simulated the drawdown effects of 37 large capacity irrigation wells pumping continuous for 60 days (July—August) at each wells' respective decreed flow rate. For this analysis, only the pumping from permitted large capacity irrigation wells (flow rate> 50 gpm), as identified in the State Engineer's water rights tabulation, was simulated. It was assumed that this pumping period represents the typical dry year pumping stresses on the local alluvium. Table 1 contains the permitted flow rate of each of the 37 wells used in the historic simulation. Table 1: Well Irrigation Well Information Well Decreed Well Decreed No. Name Dischar a No. Name Dischar e (cfs) (cfs) 1 PARKER W 1-11262-F 1.9400 19 MAYER WELL 1-13776 2.0000 2 HERREN-STRONG WELL 15750 2.2200 20 NISHIMOTO WELL 4-12016 2.0000 3 KURTZ WELL I3-04124F 2.0000 21 NISHIMOTO WELL 3-12015 2.0000 4 STRONG HERREN WELL 6 1.8400 22 ULRICH WELL 1-0133 3.0000 5 STRONG HERREN WELL 4 1.8700 23 DAVIS WELL 2-10740 1.1100 6 PENNINGTON WELL 1-13987 0.8900 24 KAMMERZELL WELL 3-RF-795 2.4400 7 MILLER WELL 2-15080 2.0200 25 KAMMERZELL WELL 4-14134 2.6700 8 BOHN WELL 13269 1.3300 26 DAVIS WELL 1-10739 1.1100 9 STRONG HERREN W 1-9705-F 2.3300 27 DAVIS WELL 3-2680-F 2.2200 10 STRONG HERREN WELL 3 2.4300 28 GEBBIE WELL 2-10712 2.2200 11 YAMAGUCHI WELL 3 2.8000 29 MAYER WELL 1-2881-F 3.3000 12 ASMUSSEN WELL 1-14762 1.3300 30 MAYER WELL 2-2882 2.2000 13 STRONG WELL 3-28583 1.5800 31 GEBBIE WELL 1-10711 2.4400 14 NISHIMOTO WELL 2-15399 2.1100 32 PUBLIC SERVICE 16-2583-F 4.3800 15 NISHIMOTO WELL 1-15398 2.4400 33 NORGREN WELL 1-15331 2.1826 16 STRONG WELL 13 1.9900 34 CHAMBERLAIN WELL 11192 1.6700 17 MAYER WELL 2-13777 2.0000 35 MAYER WELL 3-RI1624 3.3000 18 STRONG WELL 10 1.9900 36 MAYER WELL 1-14378 2.4400 37 YAMAGUCHI WELL 1 2.5000 Figure 2 shows the saturated thickness contours (in feet) for the simulation. As can be seen from Figure 2, the saturated thickness that results after 60 days of continuous pumping from all 37 simulated is significantly decreased in the vicinity of the irrigation wells. The minimum saturated thickness simulated is approximately 8 feet. At this saturated thickness, the production of existing irrigation wells would be reduced, and in some instances, surging would result depending on the discharge rate of the well. This analysis does not consider local recharge from irrigation returns, since during dry periods, surface water irrigation diversions are essentially zero. 5 00'6 ,e / " 28 \\ 3 � 1 I, 2® O 262 O 0 ID O ® M ° mac 1 18 19 20 • , 4 0 0 0 „/' CO, 2 c9 1® .O 15 5 O 12 1 14 °° 0 ^n). / °° S% / i / SOY / 37 / i, 00 7- - / j �3 i% ;// /O° /<0. i— ' ___-------44(,--- i OD " 7,/b1 nrb. CV Kurtz Pit Drawdown Analysis Historic Well Effects Figure 2 6 Future Conditions Figure 3 shows the impact from the de-watering of both the Kurtz and Varra pits for a period of 120 days (over a typical irrigation season). This simulation was conducted to determine the potential impact to the local alluvium over the high aquifer stress irrigation season. De-watering was simulated using a line sink, or simple drain. It was assumed for this simulation that the entire area of the pit would be de-watered in 120 days. To accomplish this, the combined flow rate for each pit was 20 c.f.s. or 9,000 gallons per minute. As can be seen from Figure 3, the saturated thickness of the alluvium, without any irrigation well pumping, is greatly reduced within a mile of the de-watering operation. This simulation assumes that both the Kurtz and Varra pits are de-watering at the same time, which is assumed to be the worst case de-watering situation. Figure 4 shows the superposition of the historic well pumping impacts after 60 days of continuous pumping from the 37 irrigation wells and the drawdown impacts after 120 days of de-watering. For this simulation, de-watering commenced on day 1 of the 120 simulation period. Well pumping commenced on day 60 of the 120 simulation period. This is intended to replicate the combined aquifer stresses that may result during a dry year irrigation season(May—August). Figure 4 shows that the superposition of de-watering and well pumping results in a saturated thickness of zero within one-half mile of the pits. Furthermore, Figure 4 shows that numerous wells will experience a decrease in saturated thickness that will result in a significant decrease in production or surging. This decrease in production will be greater than that experienced under historic pumping conditions previously discussed. Conclusions The Martin and Wood report does not provide sufficient technical documentation of historic, and future conditions. Moreover, the Martin and Wood report does not demonstrate that injury will be prevented to area well owners. Based on three simulations, the proposed Kurtz Pit will cause significant injury to area well owners if mining operations consist of"dry mining" This potential injury will be greatest during dry years and will reduce the amount of water that will be necessary to irrigate crops, water livestock or domestic drinking water requirements. 7 ' 00.9 1 /1 / 1 7 704 1 11/ � O d i p pp 0 C O O CC OO O CV CV cy N OO ,`W' N 12p N.0o moo. / % / O feet %' / / j / / / / i - Kurtz Pit Drawdown Analysis Drawdown from De-Watering Figure 3 8 28 2 3 / l i ul \47�o n �� % r D \\ 3 j 4�, , // / / / , \\ \ \ OO� ( 0 ® 0 3 Kurtz Pit Os16 Q ® 0 O d CO. 3 P m 2 ® OO a O O / Yarn Pit o 00 &.\/. CV 9 0 11 3 0 a a S east 3 ® O ® 7 O OO O �_ -- 10.0 �p gyp. p�. 120 �i �� / �1� Kurtz Pit Drawdown Analysis Cummulative Drawdown Effect Figure 4 9 O Liu _ \ \ 2 i I, !, I / �\ p� \\\\O i0 ' / / O � Q ( �%�`�� \ O 2� 73 k- o �` �___/ 7 / /� / i N �� A2? \ � , i % \w 188, �� i J / ti / / •Kurtz P•t N 16 / /I ,/1 r i r I O L �O ' \ i i 5 I! O o / Op , 2 13/ ms /J/,i e i / j /�'" /O,� ; a / O i / ( / i / / • O , Varra Pit ! t 10 I ( / / /f/// / /� / / ,0 C � /N 9 10i / / � / i / / � � 1 i b / Varna LS east 3 _ /////j� /c�/�// / O / i �, \\ ��i��% i O �C, /�, / // /8 / / / / 6 i ,-------/ / � /;j /,,Q. 8 00-71-2-1--------; 7777//O� /c9/ O // . ---- _ 0.00 , /, � ' ,g, V �' � ' i i zzy / / / 1 i _%-- _.----.:-->---r 7 � / / ,_,----- _____----22/5 WC- 7 ///// / / / r Kurtz Pit Drawdown Analysis Phase 1 Cummulative Drawdown Effect Figure 5 v�^• \_ R� �,\ / �\ cS' 2Q \ \ N 31 I o li , I !/ / 1 O'er+ 25 \\ �; 001.4 �� / - I , ,� bo ! // :' \ N X23: IT • �, l 1 \ v I / Dr ' li % A I SI C+ �i . I I C 17 X19 , ) I I IIi ti / KurtzP� O 1 � �� 21/ � NCO l / O -- _ A \ C`1 '13 %/ // bO/�� / 35, /f i I // / /O ' i / i a I I / / 1 � / / ;ti•/ / / j l i l / / i i r^ I , Varra Pit I 'I l l I O ' ) 9 1)b � � � X11 � � / � : if , ,0 J / / e- 7 / / / / Z y ,/ / / /2 / , , ,, VV ,, LS east_ __ / / /7,,,, ,, ,,O / �. �� I „ // / / / / / ,/, \ %�// 4 i / 37 // _7,// // / i � za // �OO 8.6O % / / ///(O,rr• i .p �/ 70,00rt00 u 100O_ � �� / / % % %j / / / / / / � i / ' ,/// / / Kurtz Pit Drawdown Analysis Phase 2 Cummulative Drawdown Effect Figure 6 0� Q 'Na -- __T(( 11 / / � \ \ l i 3 Ii -- l'9 _ cA \ \ IL / 1 / / , i �'0 � � i lo ( l / ll �� o �o /31 N 25 \ A� b I I I I .,�� : , p I /,� \ I x ' 23O Ij OO/� / \\ Q \\ I i \ ��17 �1p19 2 / l I I I31/ ; / X41gb " � 1 i Kurtz Pit 7 16 7/ ,/S?O / / / i 1 I , \ / / • / / i / $- / / it 0 17 _ / // 7/ 0 kV / Varra Pit E. \ /1l i' C iN I I C ; 911 ' j I / 3 O' O , i O ICI ; / / % / _/ /O \� arrr LS east 3 / /� �I / �// iii , , _ _ oO �j !/ i ,!� 60 O3, / / 3y / /\% i///✓/i/, �,/// ,---- ,/,/ / 000 O --- - 8.160 : / 77 '7; Oo 00 ri, toy• . ___--- -----------A__ 0. 6 jam; �O ' ,<�b• // `�' j - - —A2•0u !�p� i!'�C°j'/ /�� / // / Kurtz Pit Drawdown Analysis Phase 3 Cummulative Drawdown Effect Figure 7 v v 74-!3---* \ \ \ LI / O \,_ \ \ 3,1 \ / V O / ( �,' \, i /i /l it \\ � V ' / /�� '� \ ,,, / \ b vo / 'cam 2 ,0 Fill& l .AN- , / , , , , • , , , i --___, �� ( ' I iii �� _� 00•x , % �1 '7iO�r--- MI 1 18 '12 A / 4 t�� / k�u Pit �� 7 ` 0-i 4)) ;ti loin. \ � �o / / i �/ - - eb d �( \ l 1,77-vet =C /��5 I I 1 , ��/ 0.,.. Varra Pit 5 / 0 / / / / / // � / i ' l /I p • /N /99210 / i iI // // j i3 I CD C I / / / :45/ / / / / 7 , / / Aortv V�r 4S east - 3 / / / ,� /' � /Cam•;- , j // /p e///// / !,-4)//� i \ _ il \------T--)2-G0. ';Vii%%� j / // /7 = 8.00 //�//7 AN //o°/O°/ti`/�`1,t.c/ - _ 10• / _/�' / 1/ /� //72,1 / //% i i �i % / l Kurtz Pit Drawdown Analysis Phase 4 Cummulative Drawdown Effect Figure 8 _ " ` ill . . . W - - - - -fir I 1 ' I oot • .f _ / <% I I. / ✓. s I .I NIM N I I o A4 ;' x .An "es Ill I / min e me7 \k Morin • • /( • � _ ;11 I I Matt i -� e I ii f anteaseramenes AIMS ..C _ tai_-- u/ IOW 2 ;, / a -� --__ — — — x / /,-. / il : ----• \- / / iii IMAM / WAS .1 + / `‘,,-- /•qqc- ,!�•_ ten ,r , 1— — ua .COQ / 'Si..�.vr 3/4 a / �l Nita 4- / ' �� P ��. Ftei) l i AIWA n MIMS IaIAIAAAII/�' ...moo h[ � I Hale y / ��U// /hl '^ •—Y �� •� 1 ,j,' / / aura = s WON NIAIN4 I ( )i / r '�__ LEGEND =._. C /"• • 1 i _I err — � —._rein NNW CONS awaeaa raamaaasas-cmN — — —mew ■IIr—L @NNR111SJL51 Nr��rr—�•� —L�nur sew ri—r urarsw —s a— was maw •• mewl s-NOWT aaAAa —WWII= LESEEDirearirjaral.na so 0 2N NO wmoloi WENV=III- - EXTRACTION PI AN NAP a - Ur BY SPECIAL NEWS r.�—a-- - - ` ¢ ■ruient up AK Otllgil�,1C 11@1.1101 r arm AO EXHIBIT -sA" mar f mon 1 a/sAi . I All[ VP i iii U: 4ll PL / L (4,- a tS/c≥ /SV7 Pyeatt Farms Ritchie and Linda Pyeatt 9826 Hwy 66 Platteville, CO 80651 970.785.6203 August 1,2002 Mr. Carl Mount Division of Minerals and Geology 1313 Sherman Street Room 215 Denver, CO 80203 RE: July 13, 2002 Letter of Concern and Subsequent Inspection on June 27`"of Sand Land,Inc. Sec 28, 3N,R67W,Weld County,CO M-1999-006 Dear Mr. Mount, With due respect we request a re-inspection of the Sand Land Inc. (Varra Companies)and we request that we be made part of the inspection process. We feel that the inspection done on June 27, 2002,by Kate Pickford falls considerably short of a genuine effort on the part of the DMG to address our concerns of well draw down possibly caused by Sand Land. It is not our intention to stop Sand Land from mining gravel,but to protect our farms and our livelihood. First, we must note that the inspection report was not forwarded directly to us from the DMG. The first we knew of the inspection was July 31 at a Board of Commissioners hearing in Weld County regarding a Use By Special Review Request from Aggregate Industries for a gravel mine to be permitted directly north of Sand Land. Paul Banks of Banks and Gesso,LLC referenced the inspection report in his presentation to the Commissioners and submitted a copy of the report to Planner Robert Anderson for inclusion into the record of the Aggregate proceedings. Mr. Banks intention in making note of the inspection report appeared to be to somehow conclude that Sand Land, according to the report filed by Ms. Pickford,was not damaging groundwater by their dewatering operations and therefore, Aggregate Industries would not damage the ground water either. Phil Martin of Martin and Wood Water Engineers went even further in quoting Ms. Pickfords observations in a rebuttal letter to a report from Forrest Leaf, P.E., a water engineer retained by the neighborhood group(GRIP)in the Aggregate USR proceedings. With this history, you will understand why we are copying the WC Commissioners on this letter. There was not an attempt by the DMG or Sand Land to contact us regarding our concerns.Neither Ms. Pickford nor anyone from the DMG called/wrote to inquire what the basis of our concern was. Understand that we do not take this matter lightly. There has been a significant drawdown in the water table in our area and it quite possibly could be as a result of the Sand Land Pit. Our letter of concern was intended to either eliminate Sand Land as a source or to affirm that the draw down is a result of excessive dewatering by Sand Land. Since our recourse is with the permitting entities our concerns were addressed to those offices. In regard to Ms. Pickfords report,we feel that we have been cheated. If the inspection process is to ask the operator if the operation is in compliance and to do a drive-by inspection of our farms then we have no recourse at all. No, when Mr. Varra, Mr. Janes and Ms. Pickford drove by our farm directly south of Sand Land on WCR 28,our crops were not dead. Our pivot that irrigates the 160 acres on WCR 28 is operated with 150 shares of Lupton Meadows Ditch water that is contained in a holding pond and is supplemented by an augmented irrigation well permitted to pump 1000 GPM. At the beginning of the irrigation season the well was surging and we have since had to install a flow restrictor to protect our pump. There is a flow meter on the well and it now pumps less than 400 GPM. With ^ six irrigation wells on our farms it is noteworthy to mention that the only well that is surging is the one on (g EXHIBIT d uv- 13`1'7 WCR 28 only one half mile from the Sand Land Pit. Also, I doubt that Ms.Pickford has the experience or expertise to determine if a pivot is operating at full efficiency. The criteria for damage should not include whether or not the crops are dying, or pivots are running,A too little/too late approach is not acceptable. We would have expected Ms. Pickford to have actually measured the discharge water not to just ask Mr. Varra what the discharge amount was. Was Sand Land in compliance? Is the discharge pump operating at full capacity, and what is that capacity? What is the diameter of the discharge pipe? Is it at full capacity? We would have expected her to have measured and examined the well she turned on"east of the pit"to see if it was operating at or near its permitted GPM. Was this pump one of the Sand Land wells and did Mr. Varra also confirm the normal operation? Of course one would expect that water would come out of the well but was it surging? Could that well sustain a satisfactory flow for a substantial period of time? A well on WCR 28 on the Nix property is obviously surging and it sits along the road within easy view. Was this well noted? With constraints on our ditch water we have had to operate our wells twenty-four hours a day for long periods of time. At initial start up a well may appear to operate normally and begin to surge after it is in operation for a period of time. The pond that was full near the Wilson Farm on the day of Ms. Pick fords visit is actually a holding pond(Wheeler Lake)that is filled entirely,by ditch water. It will fluctuate with water usage. Several farms draw from the lake. Most farms in the area are flood irrigated and hopefully the water reaches the lower end of the field. This is in all probability the"ditches" she noted were full on the date of her inspection. Most farms in the area have ditch water rights and although they have been severely limited this year, most ditches in our area have some water in them. In closing, let us say again that we are very disappointed in the way our concerns have been addressed. We'd like to have the opportunity for input into the next inspection. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, xneRitc ie Pyeatt �. Linda Pyeatt CC: Weld County Board of Commissioners Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment State Water Engineer ESTHER Gesick- 98023-B&G-082602-ProposedDeveStdRev.doc Page 1 j e•. USR-I347,Proposed Development Standard Groundwater Strategy 9/6/02 KURTZ RANCH SAND AND GRAVEL MINE • GROUNDWATER MITIGATION STRATEGY 9/5/02 Proposed language for new Development Standard: The Operator shall implement the following groundwater monitoring and mitigation program to address well impacts potentially caused by the Use by Special Review activities in the zone of hydrologic influence of the subject site. Preemptive Measures • The Operator will continuously and consistently apply the following preemptive measures at the USR-1347 operation: • 1. Through partitioning of mining cells into mining sub-areas, no more than 40 acres of groundwater surface area will be exposed or dewatered at any one time. Pit depths will not exceed 25 feet, limiting the propagation of a cone of depression. 2. Concurrent reclamation will reduce exposed area and prevent delays in completion of reclamation that would extend periods of dewatering beyond that absolutely necessary for efficient aggregate mining. The Operator will not engage in the concurrent mining below groundwater of two or more mining cells. 3. Timing of mining operations will minimize overlapping dewatering operations in the vicinity of other sand and gravel operations. The first Phase of USR-1347 mining will be at the far northern end of the USR-1347 site, and Phase 4 dewatering (at the southwest corner)will not be initiated prior to the cessation of dewatering operations at USR-1219, immediately across Highway 66. Monitoring Program The operator will participate in and/or establish a well monitoring program to effectively determine the impacts of dewatering on potentially affected well owners. 1. The monitoring program will establish a baseline condition that identifies seasonal • and climatic influences, as well as the effects of other sand and gravel operations. 2. The monitoring program will be of sufficient extent and frequency to make reasonable and accurate inferences about the impacts of dewatering the USR- 1347 site (see attached map showing location of off-site monitoring wells). 3. Monitoring data will be collected twice a year, in the spring and fall when irrigation l r J EXHIBIT Lae tS-i li ESTHER Gesick 98023-B&G08602-ProposedDeveStdRev.doc Page 2 r USR-1347,Proposed Development Standard Groundwater Strategy 9/6/02 wells are not operating, and the information collected made available to potentially affected parties. However, monitoring data will be collected monthly for the first 24 months of baseline data collection. Mining shall not begin until at least 24 months of baseline data have been collected. • 4. Aggregate Industries, Inc. will monitor off-site wells of potentially affected well owners (if the owners wish to participate in the monitoring program). 5. Where there is a persistent draw-down of more than 1 foot below the seasonal low at a potentially impacted welt, the operator will obtain an impartial expert study to determine the cause of the draw-down. The opinion on the cause of the impact shall be completed within 30 days of notification of the operator. 6. Monitoring wells will be installed, and the monitoring program will commence, upon approval of county and state permit applications. 7. Aggregate Industries will install three monitor holes along the east side of the property and two holes along the north side of the property at locations that will not interfere with the mining pit operations but which will be approximately evenly spaced across the respective sides of the property. 8. The attached list of large capacity irrigation wells will be included in the monitoring program. Mitigation Program The operator will engage in a groundwater mitigation program that seeks to prevent irreparable injury to owners of potentially affected wells. Mitigation steps will be taken based on the recommendations of any report produced under the monitoring program above, or in case of any emergency that in fact or is reasonably determined to threaten the availability of water in potentially affected wells. In successive order, the following steps will be taken to mitigate groundwater impacts. The timing and level to which mitigation steps are taken shall be commensurate with the nature of the impact, or potential impacts, to wells. 1. The operator will further limit the size and timing of dewatering operations, to reduce draw-down potential. Seasonal dewatering and stockpiling may be introduced to the USR-1347 site. The timing of dewatering will be limited to the non-irrigation season if the groundwater impacts occur as defined in this plan. The extent of any dewatered area will be reduced to no more than 10 acres if the groundwater impacts occur as defined in this plan. iii 2. The operator will introduce recharge areas, using either dewatering water or ditch water, or both. Recharge areas shall be located between dewatering operations and impacted or potentially impacted wells, and shall ht: designed to effectively mitigate draw-down for sustained periods of time. To the extent practical, Aggregate Industries will make reasonable efforts to utilize reclaimed pits from r 2 4, . ESTHER Gesick 98023-B&G-082602-ProposedDeveStdRev.doc Page 3 USR-1347,Proposed Development Standard Groundwater Strategy 9/6/02 preceding phases of mining as recharge areas. This will be as an alternative to constructing recharge trenches in areas between active mining and potentially affected well owners. If no such reclaimed areas are available and/or properly located, then recharge trenches will be installed and operated along the property edge between the active mining and the potentially impacted wells. Recharge trenches will be constructed on the east side of the property to alleviate impacts to wells east of the property. 4. The operator will temporarily cease dewatering operations, using wet mining techniques in an interim period to the extent that aggregate production continues beneath the groundwater surface. Cessation of dewatering operations shall precede injury to wells in all circumstances where there is a clear trend that would result in damage to wells. Temporary cessation of dewatering operations is also appropriate in other circumstances where preemptive measures and other mitigation techniques have failed to prevent wells from nearing injuriously low levels. Temporary cessation of dewatering shall be continued for at least the length of time necessary to adequately recharge affected wells or implement other corrective measures. 5. Aggregate Industries will mine the three small pits at the north end of the property prior to mining the larger pits to the south. These small northern pits will be mined during the non-irrigation season (i.e. October through April) or recharge trenches will be constructed just north of these northern pits prior to dewatering. These small pits will be available for use as recharge areas, if needed, during dewatering of the larger pits to the south. 6. If the mitigation measures previously listed do not correct the problem, the operator shall cease dewatering and wet mine the property until the source of the impact has been corrected. Responsibility for Mitigation Measures The operator shall not be responsible for mitigation measures in any circumstance wholly caused by an agency external and unrelated to the USR-1347 operation, such as neighboring sand and gravel facilities. Where the USR-1347 operation is deemed to partially contribute to the cause of any draw-down, the operator's responsibilities under this USR development standard shall be assessed equitably. It is the intent of this development standard that the owner of an impacted well call the operator directly and the operator will then implement the mitigation strategy. 3 ESTHER Gesick- 98023 Kurtz Production Monitoring Wells.xls Page 11 Well Decreed No. Name Discharge (cfs) 1 PARKER W 1-11262-F 1.9400 2 HERREN-STRONG WI 2.2200 3 KURTZ WELL 13-041; 2.0000 4 STRONG HERREN WI 1.8400 9 STRONG HERREN W 2.3300 12 ASMUSSEN WELL 1-1 1.3300 17 MAYER WELL 2-1377 2.0000 r ESTHER Gesick - monitoring wells.bmp Page 11 /1-‘ ' ° YYY"'z ni l nrg 4Yelf l' t k c �i f ''''''Y' ' I �9a .:.1":72:, � k_ :hy� " .� � F _.� !; .:.‘..?.?,--..,,E44-4,,,,,:„.OI- oafs o cii T'i1t =- a'" '� -7,,,, 4 r l #4,2 3, 3 ` " - 41Bill elyer Pro21145tkm Vya3A :�y :; T -ng W,S11) . i1113774._h a �:;;, gr4i�, i ,� V, 1 t r� .cry ,f,( 4 .;; A '; c•i_P, IA Ai .34n•�wet i_ , gyp`".. ti+.- <f.-L.- + - y I i SfaFYd S <,." ' f ', s Figere 1 2000 0 2000 4000 Feet Kura Pit Vicinity Map" e additional atoairariag W e3 s a ege:sx 2002 x Varra Companies, Inc. 12910 Weld County Road 13 Lonpxnont,CO 80504 Telephone(303)666-6657 Fax(303)666-6743 Tuesday 10 September 2002 Weld County Board of County Commissioners Commissioner David Long Commissioner Glenn Vaad Commissioner Rob Masden Commissioner William"Bill"Jerke Commissioner Mike Geile 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Subject: Weld County USR application#1347 Aggregate, Inc. Dear Sirs: It has been brought to our attention that dewatering of gravel pits for mining is adversely impacting area wells. Subsequently, efforts are being made to force wet mining of area operations. Our evaluation is enclosed. The following groundwater report as prepared by Colorado Groundwater Resources Services is presented for your consideration. Joby Adams and representatives of Varra Companies, Inc. will be present at the meeting scheduled for 10:00 AM Wednesday 11 September 2002 prepared to reply to any questions or concerns this report may evoke. Sincerely, Varra C*omBpanies, Inc. Christopher L. Varra, President Enclosure(s): Groundwater study and report performed by C.G.R.S.; Ft. Collins, Colorado; and correspondence from James W. Warner, PhD, P.E., Colorado State University. CLV/blj. j. EXHIBIT CGSF:ivir?ol FavicFS Executive Summary The following letter report presents the opinions of the author (Joby L. Adams) regarding the report generated by Leaf Engineering (Leaf) regarding hydrologic impacts of open cut gravel quarry operations in Weld County and referred to as the Kurtz Pit area. The author also reviewed a report generated by Martin and Wood Water Consultants (Martin), which presented modeling data for the Kurtz Pit area. The comments of this executive summary are focused primarily on the Leaf report as many of the technical flaws presented in the Martin report are repeated in the Leaf analysis I have been involved in groundwater investigation projects for over fifteen years and serve as co-owner and principal hydrogeologist for CGRS, Inc., and direct all operations for CGRS. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in geology and a Master of Science degree in hydrogeology. I hold professional registrations in four states. I have extensive professional experience with aquifer resource evaluations and groundwater hydrology problems. The report generated by Leaf Engineering, as well as my review of that report, was forwarded to Dr. James Wamer, Department Head of the Civil Engineering Groundwater Program at Colorado State University. Dr. Warner's opinion of the referenced report and my review are attached. The following are my observations and opinions. A detailed explanation supporting my opinions is provided for the reader as an Attachment to this executive summary. ➢ Varra Companies operates an open cut gravel quarry operation within the area of interest. The area of proposed mining covers approximately 240 acres. Varra Companies actively mines over a 50-acre area at any given time and dry mines the active mine area. The volume of water pumped to dewater the active mine area is on the order of 4,000 gallon per minute. Pumped water is either discharged to a seep ditch which flows to the Saint Vrain drainage or is pumped into a pond adjacent to the active mine operation. With the exception of evaporative losses (estimated at 40 acre feet per year), all of the water pumped into the pond and drainage ditch is in hydraulic connection with the surficial aquifer and creates a high hydraulic gradient between the active mine area and recharge areas. A majority of the water pumped by the Varra operations is water recirculated from pond and seep ditch infiltration and has little effect on the overall hydrology. Varra Companies has a valid well permit and is in compliance with its substitute supply plan for evaporative losses. > The irrigation well and pit dewatering simulations in the Leaf report show a saturated thickness of between zero and eight feet in the aquifer beneath the Saint Vrain Creek. For this to occur, Saint Vrain Creek must be dry in the vicinity of the Kurtz Pit. This has never occurred and is obviously an unrealistic assumption. > The Leaf report incorrectly simulates complete drawdown of the entire Varra and Kurtz mines with no recharge of pumped water. This is an assumption that grossly C:\My Doammemb .MiN.aftdvw-iv doc Executive Summary Technical Review Leaf Engineering Report Weld County,Colorado n Page 2 overestimates the impact of dewatering operations. Dewatering of the Varra pit only occurs over a 40-50 acre area at any given time. > The Leaf report presents the results of an analytical model and as presented, the author violates many of the underlying assumptions of the model. > The Leaf report ignores the effects of the Saint Vrain Creek, uses an unrealistic pumping rate for irrigation wells and ignores irrigation and mining return flows. S. The Leaf report simulates the pumping of decreed water wells at a rate of over 36,000 gallons per minute and a combined pumping rate of 9,000 gallons per minute for the Varra and Kurtz pits. The simulated pumping rate of irrigation wells is four times the volume of the combined pit operations — yet the author concludes it is the gravel operations that will adversely impact local water wells. Leafs analysis clearly shows the greatest potential impact to the local aquifer is from permitted water wells. ➢ Varra Companies, as well as other quarry operators in the area, hold a valid water well permit and have as much right to appropriate groundwater as any other permit holder. > The consumptive use of the Varra, and other mining operations is much less than that of the irrigation wells. The net stream depletion on Saint Vrain Creek is less affected by mining operations than irrigation operations. ➢ The Division of Water Resources does not view lowering of the water table as "material injury"and will not likely intervene in this controversy. In summary, it is the author's opinion that the operations occurring in the Kurtz Pit area represent a complex hydrogeologic system that cannot be reproduced by a simple analytical model as presented in the Leaf report. The report presented by Leaf Engineering has numerous technical flaws and represents an inappropriate use of the analytical solutions used to simulate field conditions. The data presented should not be used to evaluate the effects of current or proposed mining operations. This report was prepared by CGRS, INC. I ^�� Date 9//O/O 2N Jo y L. Adams, P.G. Principal/Hydrogeologist Co nepsroneat of Civil Engineering Pon Ooaios.Cclondo 80523.1672 (970)491.5046 PAX (970)491-7727 September 9, 2002 hupJt w.esgr.oelnwteadWdepts/ee Mr. Joby Adams C.GAS. 1301 Academy Court Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Dear Mr,Adams: I have reviewed the"Draft"Report Kurtz Aggregate Mine:Local Aquifer Impact Analysis,prepared for Wilson Farm by LEAF Engineering. I have also reviewed the technical review by CGRS of the Lear Report. The LEAF analysis of the hydrogeologic impacts of the pumping by the irrigation wells and also the potential impacts of the Kurtz and Vaal aggregate mining operations neglects several very important components of the local water balance(e.g. neglecting the effect on groundwater levels of surface water flow in the St.Vrain River or simulating the St.Vrain River as being"thy"). The LEAF report also makes several unrealistic assumptions and/or gross violation of the underlying assumptions upon which the analytical solutions used in the analysis by LEAF are based. In my professional opinion,the CGRS technical review is a fair and accurate appraisal of the LEAF report. Since �1 rely,, (1 v`'`alrr8_ James W.Warner, Ph.D, P.E. CSU GmundWater Program Leader TOTAL P.02 TECHNICAL REVIEW Draft Report Kurtz Aggregate Mine Local Aquifer Impact Analysis Prepared for Wilson Farm By LEAF ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION This document is a technical review by CGRS of the above report by LEAF ENGINEERING (LEAF). The LEAF report presents the analytical results of potential well injury from the proposed Kurtz Aggregate Mine which is adjacent to the Varra Mine. In summary the LEAF report has major technical concerns that invalidate the conclusions of the report. These will be discussed below. TECHNICAL CONCERNS The LEAF report presents the results of 3 simulations using analytical methods. The following 3 simulations are presented in the LEAF report: > The transient effect using the Theis solution of pumping continuously for 60 days of 37 high capacity irrigation wells located in the vicinity of the Kurtz Mine. > The effect of de-watering the Kurtz and Varra mine pits over a 120 day time period. > The combined effect of the above 2 simulations (pumping 37 high capacity wells and de-watering the Kurtz and Varra mine pits). Each of the 3 simulations will be discussed below. Irrigation Well Simulation LEAF states that the analysis of the pumping effect of the irrigation wells was simulated using the following analytical solutions: > Theis (1935) non leaky aquifer solution for a well pumping at a constant rate Q in a homogenous and isotropic aquifer of constant saturated thickness and of infinite areal extent, and 1 ➢ Hantush and Jacob (1955) leaky aquifer solution for a pumping well in a homogenous and isotropic aquifer of constant saturated thickness and or infinite areal extent. The Theis and the Hantush-Jacob solutions are mutually exclusive solutions (leaky aquifer versus non-leaky aquifer) and only one applies. LEAF is ambiguous about which solution he uses (Theis or Hantush-Jacob solution) but LEAF does state that "analysis does not consider local recharge from irrigation returns, ..." which would imply the Theis non-leaky aquifer solution was used. There are several technical concerns with using the Theis solution for the analysis of the effect of the pumping of the irrigation wells in the vicinity of the KurtzNarra mines. These are: 1) The Theis solution is valid only for a confined aquifer in which the aquifer is of constant saturated thickness. The aquifer in the vicinity of the KurtzNarra mines is unconfined and of variable saturated thickness. According to LEAF "... the saturated thickness of the alluvial aquifer ranges from 35 feet in the alluvium south of the Kurtz Pit and 15 feet adjacent to the river". LEAF uses in his analysis a constant saturated thickness of 35 feet. 2) The Theis solution can be applied to the case of an unconfined aquifer with small error if the drawdown caused by the pumping wells is small compared with the original saturated thickness. This is not the case in the LEAF analysis. The original saturated thickness used in the LEAF analysis was 35 feet. In the LEAF analysis, drawdowns as much as 27 feet (corresponding to a saturated thickness of 8 feet) were simulated. A drawdown of 27 feet compared to an original saturated thickness of 35 feet is hardly small. In this case the Theis solution would underestimate the drawdown effects of the pumping wells. 3) Leaf also uses the "principle of superposition" in analyzing for the effect of the 37 pumping wells. With the principle of superposition, the pumping effect of each well is simulated individually and the combined effect of all 37 wells is obtained by adding all the individual drawdown cones together. For transient (time varying) simulations, the "principle of superposition" is valid only for a confined aquifer with a constant saturated thickness. As with the Theis solution the "principle of superposition" can be used for the unconfined aquifer if the change in saturated thickness (drawdowns) is small as compared with the original saturated thickness. As pointed out above (bullet 2), a drawdown of 27 feet is hardly small compared with an original saturated thickness of 35 feet. 4) In the LEAF analysis, the effect of the St Vrain River was ignored (not considered). The LEAF analysis (Figure 2) shows a saturated thickness 2 of about 8 feet in the vicinity of the St. Vrain after the wells have pumped continuously for approximately 60 days. This corresponds to a drawdown at the St. Vrain River of about 7 feet. Note, LEAF is unclear in his report how he calculated the saturated thickness shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the report. Apparently LEAF calculates using the Theis solution the drawdown due to pumping using a constant saturated thickness of 35 feet. LEAF next subtracts the calculated drawdowns from an original variable saturated thickness for the alluvium to obtain the saturated thicknesses shown on Figures 2, 3 and 4. This is the only logical explanation for example for a saturated thickness of only 7 feet for the alluvium northwest of the St. Vrain River and in an area with no pumping wells. The St. Vrain River is in very close hydrologic connection with the groundwater in the shallow alluvium. At the St. Vrain River, the water level in the river is essentially for all practical purposes at the same elevation as the groundwater. For a drawdown of 7 feet in the groundwater elevation to occur at the St. Vrain River, the river would have to be dry. This obviously would not be the case even under the worst case scenario. The net effect of ignoring the effect of the St. Vrain River would be to overestimate the drawdown effects of the pumping wells. 5) In the LEAF report, the irrigation wells were simulated to pump at their maximum decreed discharge as permitted by the State Engineers Office. This is not a likely scenario for several reasons. > The St. Vrain River and adjacent groundwater form a stream- aquifer system. The groundwater is tributary to flow in the St. Vrain River. The State Engineers Office (SEO) administers the surface water and tributary groundwater under the doctrine of "prior appropriation". Under this doctrine, first in time is first in right. The senior water right holders are the downstream surface water rights. It is recognized that pumping of the groundwater by the high capacity irrigation wells depletes flow in the St. Vrain River (also effects surface flow in the downstream South Platte River). The wells are required to have a plan of augmentation to prevent injury to the downstream senior surface water rights. If the senior surface water right holders are not getting the water they are entitled to then the SEC) should shut the wells down. This is the case the SEC) is struggling with this year. The SEO has not shut down the wells and the senior surface water right holders are threatening to file suit. Based on the LEAF analyis, the irrigation wells potentially have a significant impact on surface flow in the St. Vrain River. It is possible that the LEAF report may be used in later litigation against the irrigation wells operators. 3 > Typically for most wells, due to wear and tear from past use, the mechanical efficiency of the well has dropped to the point that it would be physically impossible for the well to pump its decreed pumping capacity. For most wells considerable work would be required to restore the well to its original pumping capacity so that it could physically pump at its maximum decreed capacity. The net outcome is that the pumping capacity used in simulating the effect of pumping by the wells is not a likely scenario and over estimates the drawdown impacts of the irrigation wells used in the LEAF analysis. 6) The LEAF analysis also neglects the return flow to the aquifer from the applied irrigation water. The depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the St. Vrain Creek is very shallow and the alluvium is very coarse consisting mainly of coarse sands and gravels. The travel time for applied irrigation water to return to the underlying groundwater would be at a maximum only a few days. Undoubtedly a significant percentage of the groundwater pumped by the irrigation wells would return to the underlying groundwater even under drought conditions. The net effect of neglecting the irrigation return flow is to overestimate the drawdown effects of the irrigation wells. In summary the LEAF analysis of the drawdown effect of the 37 nearby high capacity irrigation wells has several technical flaws that invalidate his analysis. These are: > Inappropriate use of the Theis solution (gross violation of the underlying assumptions). > Inappropriate use of the "Principle of Superposition" (again gross violation of the underlying assumptions). > Ignoring the effect of the St. Vrain River or simulating the St. Vrain as a dry river (unrealistic assumption). > Unrealistic pumping rate used in the analysis for irrigation wells. > Ignoring irrigation return flow to the underlying aquifer. 4 Kurtz and Varra Mine Pit De-Watering Simulation The LEAF secondly presents the effect of de-watering the Kurtz and Varra mine pits over a 120 day time period. This analysis also has major technical concerns. 1) LEAF states that "De-watering was simulated using a line sink, or simple drain". However, LEAF does not provide a reference to the analytical solution used in the analysis of mine pit de-watering. LEAF implies that he performed a transient (time-varying) analysis for a 120 day de-watering period versus a steady state solution. Any transient analysis using analytical solution would be subject to the same limitations and assumptions that was used in the Theis solution for the analysis of the effects of pumping by the irrigation wells. Their potential applicability to the de-watering of the Kurtz and Varra mine pits would require an assumption of a homongenous isotropic confined aquifer of constant saturated thickness. For the case of the shallow alluvial aquifer in the vicinity of the Kurtz and Varra mine pits, the assumption of a homogeneous aquifer of constant saturated thickness would be unrealistic and/or a gross violation of the underlying assumption of the transient solution. 2) LEAF ignores in his analysis the recharge back to the groundwater of the water pumped from the Varra and Kurtz mine pits. Very little of the water pumped from the Varra or Kurtz mine pits is consumptively lost by evaporation. For example, approximately 50% of the water pumped from the Varra mine pit is transported via pipeline to a settling pond and then subsequently transported back to a recharge or infiltration pond which is located immediately adjacent to the de-watered mine pit. The other 50% is pumped into a seepage ditch with flows the Saint Vrain Creek. This seepage water infiltrates through the unsaturated zone back to the ground water. Due to the shallow depth to groundwater and the very high hydraulic conductivity of the stream channel deposits comprising the shallow alluvial aquifer, the travel time through the unsaturated zone would be a maximum of only a few days. Because of the close proximity of the recharge pond and the mine pit, undoubtedly much of the groundwater pumped from the de-watered mine pit is infiltrated water from the recharge pond. Only a very small percentage of the water pumped from the de- watered mine pit is consumptively used and the net effect of gravel pit operations is thought to be minimal on surface water flow in the St. Vrain River. The SEO requires a plan of augmentation for the Varra mine operation for evaporative losses which is on the order of 40 acre-feet per year. LEAF ignores the effect of the recharge back to the groundwater of the pumped water from the mine pit. As a result, LEAF's analysis is overly simplistic and unrealistic. 5 3) The LEAF report shows a zero saturated thickness for the groundwater at the St. Vrain River caused by the Varra and Kurtz mine operations. For this to be the case, the St. Vrain River would need to be dry. Obviously this is not the case now or anticipated in the future. Additionally, if the Varra and Kurtz mine operations were causing a cone of depression in the groundwater of 15 feet at the river (corresponding to zero saturated thickness) as shown in figure 3 of the LEAF report, then downstream senior surface water right holders would be in court petitioning to have the mine operations shut down. This is simply not the case. In summary the LEAF analysis of the drawdown effect of Kurtz and Varra mine operations has several technical flaws that invalidate his analysis. These are: > No reference is provided on the specific analytical solution used in the analysis. > Use of analytical solutions that required an assumption of a homogeneous aquifer of constant saturated thickness For the case of the alluvial aquifer in the vicinity fo the Kurtz and Varra mines, this would be unrealistic simplification and/or a gross violation of the underlying assumption of the analytical solution. > Ignoring the effect of the St. Vrain River or simulating the St. Vrain as a dry river (unrealistic assumption). > Ignoring the recharge back to the groundwater of the water pumped from the mine pit de-watering operations. Combined Simulation of Irrigation Well Pumping and Kurtz/Varra Mine Pit De-Watering LEAF presents the combined simulation of irrigation well pumping and KurtzNarra mine pit de-watering (Figure 4). To do this LEAF uses the principle of superposition which is only valid for transient groundwater flow problems for a confined aquifer with a constant saturated thickness. As pointed out earlier in this review, the principle of superposition introduces considerable error in the analysis. Additionally, both the analysis of the pumping by the irrigation wells and the analysis of the Varra/Kurtz mine operations has numerous major technical flaws which invalidates both analyses. There is no rational basis that would suggest that the combined analysis of the irrigation wells and the Varra/Kurtz mine operations has any validity. 6 -- E. Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117 ■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 274-4277 Fax (303) 274-8329 January 9, 2002 www.banksandgesso.com Mr. Drew Scheltinga Weld County Public Works P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Subject: Traffic Study— USR 1347, Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine Proposed by Aggregate Industries, Inc. West Central Region Dear Drew, Enclosed is a new traffic study, prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants in September 2001, for the proposed Kurtz Ranch Sand and Gravel Mine to be located on the north side of Highway 66 between County Road 19 and the St. Vrain River. This updated study, to be submitted to your department, was a condition that came out of our Planning Commission hearing in August 2001. If you have questions regarding the study, please call me or Ross Horvath at Banks and Gesso, LLC. Eventually, the Department of Planning Services (Robert Anderson) will need an indication of approval of the study from Public Works. Thank you for your interest and attention to this project. Very T my Yours, V° . Scott Keen Cc: Ross Horvath File: 98023—Agency Correspondence Enclosure 4. EXHIBIT 55 dt52 4t EN") TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS,INC. 1889 York Street Denver,Colorado 80206 (303)333-1105 FAX: (303)333-1107 TRANSPORTATION e-mail:1sc@lscdea.com CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSMITTAL To: Mr. Ross Horvath Banks & Gesso, LLC. 720 Kipling Street, Suite 117 Lakewood, CO 80215 Project: Kurtz Ranch Sand & Gravel Mine Project No: (LSC #011170) Date: September 28, 2001 TRANSMITTED: ® As requested ® For your use O For review and comment 0 For approval 0 For submittal 0 COPIES DESCRIPTION REMARKS 1 Figures1 and 2 BY: Alex J.-Ariniello, P.E. COPY TO: O 7 •0 C N L O r CU -11', chi E cin ro Y 1 Y O • it Q a � s o E m O n rotJie AL �_ N v SS2'JJV - 1 0 a U, 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 1/40 1/40 m 2 CM w In N N u u t t u d 0 0 0 0 o u u m n 9 0 "6 O O H H J J O O 12 Y Y 'u N as as 0 w p 1 '� m N •koo m •° r � at ,o U g y L N. ye A O Q N i n E U pn n of PI „ham � 1 ss DDy _ . 0 0 0 0 O co 0 0 0 m 0 o m 2 H -' v a m U 0 V L L m u o > > 0 m 0 0 co 0m u n 2 2 0 w w 0 I- F 0 N O = 20 I I O O co u as C Z W J 5N Hello