HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022181.tiff JUL-16-2001 MON 03:22 PM BAN AND GESSO LLC FAX NO. 30' 274 8329 P. 02
Wright Water Engineers, Inc
2490 West 26th Ave,.Suite 100A www.wrtghrwarer,rortlhvwd
Denver. Colorado 80211 e•malUNw4ighzSA#nghtwateceem
(3031480.1700 TEL
13031480-1020 FM
July 16,2001
Mr. Chris Gathman
Planner
Weld County Department of Planning
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re; Dewatering Impacts from Nix Sand and Gravel Mining Operation
Dear Chris:
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has been contacted to assist Owens Brothers Concrete
with an evaluation of the potential affects on wetlands and wells adjacent to the proposed Nix
Sand and Gravel operation. WWE has informed our client (the applicant) that there is no
guarantee that there will not be impacts to the adjoining wells and/or wetlands even though our
experience on such projects is that impacts, if they exist, arc generally minor from operations
along alluvial systems. We will develop a list of recommended mitigation measures that could
be used if there are any impacts. We will conduct this investigation in an unbiased manner to
assess the hydrologic conditions associated with the dewatering of this proposed pit.
Should you have any questions regarding this investigation,please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS,INC.
By
ttt, .G.
H o ogist/Pro alter
By
ave . chart, . .S.
Wetland Specialist
cc: Tug Martin,Banks&Gesso,L.L.C.
EXHIBIT
C.\011-074W00aMweldcbltr.doo /) y�
l/I L/
GLENWOOD SPRINGS Dt1RANGO
(9701945-7755 TEL (9701 945-9710 FM (9701 259.7411 TtiL (9701259-8758 FM
100 '8 6S1S 086 f02131 (3MM) NH1YM IIDIUM 1A
pi 1i1AWt rn AT
Tint)
2002-2181
WWE
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
2490 West 26th Ave.. Suite I00A www.wnghtwatercom/wwe/
Denver, Colorado 8021 I e-maihkrwright@wnghtwatercom
1303)480-1700 TEL
3031480-1020 FAX
July 16, 2001 Weld County Planning Dept.
Mr. Chris Gathman 17 2.101
Planner
Weld County Department of Planning RECEIVED
1555 North 176 Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Dewatering Impacts from Nix Sand and Gravel Mining Operation
Dear Chris:
Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE) has been contracted to assist Owens Brothers Concrete
with an evaluation of the potential affects on wetlands and wells adjacent to the proposed Nix
Sand and Gravel operation. WWE has informed our client (the applicant) that there is no
guarantee that there will not be impacts to the adjoining wells and/or wetlands even though our
experience on such projects is that impacts, if they exist, are generally minor from operations
along alluvial systems. We will develop a list of recommended mitigation measures that could
be used if there are any impacts. We will conduct this investigation in an unbiased manner to
assess the hydrologic conditions associated with the dewatering of this proposed pit.
Should you have any questions regarding this investigation, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
By
Gar itt, P.G.
H o ogist/Pro. i*anager
By � �
ave ehan, .W.S.
Wetland Specialist
cc: Tug Martin, Banks & Gesso, L.L.C.
C:\0I I-074\000ard\weldctyltr.doc
GLENWOOD SPRINGS DURANGO
1970) 945-7755 TEL (970) 945-9210 FAX 19701 259-741 I TEL (970)259-8758 FAX
WeldCoUntif rt. Vin.
Luz, g�ePt,
July 9, 2001 /e� 2 pI
Weld County Department of Planning Services ��' VAC
1555 N. 17 Avenue D
Greeley, CO 80631
Attention: Mr. Chris Gathman
Re: USR-1343 Special Use Permit (Owens Brothers Concrete Company)
As Weld County residents, we have several concerns about the permit
requested by Owens Brothers Concrete Company for sand and gravel
mining. The main reason for our recent purchase was to obtain the quality
of life offered by the rural setting. We are concerned that a gravel pit, as
proposed, will result in a marked deterioration in the livability livelihood and
property values of nearby farms and residences.
In order to maintain the existing quality of rural character, we suggest that the
gravel processing plant be located as close to the existing Varra plant as
possible. We are proposing the plant be operated during daylight hours only and
the trucks be routed on paved roads (Hwy 66 &WCR 19). Truck travel on WCR
17 or WCR 28, both dirt roads, would be a major source of air and noise
pollution for nearby residences.
We are requesting that the permit be denied, based on lack of specific
information needed to determine the effect on surrounding areas.
Sincerely,
Gary R. and Debra K. Sutton
EXHIBIT
I
Gary R and Debra K. Sutton, 9533 WCR 26, Ft, Lupton, CO 80621
N M Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117
■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215
WeldCounty Piannipept.
(303)274-4277
Fax (303) 274-8329
JL www.banksandgesso.com
July 12, 2001
Mrs. Bobbie Wilson RE C EP' ED
Wilson Farms
9268 Weld County Road 28
Platteville, CO 80651
RE: ?fix Sand and Gravel Mine
Dear Mrs. Wilson:
On behalf of our client, Owens Brothers Concrete Company, we are providing you with
the following information to help address your concerns regarding the groundwater
issues associated with the Nix Sand and Gravel Mine. The information is based on
concerns raised in your letters in May and June 2001 to Chris Gathman at the Weld
County Planning Department.
The State Engineer and Division of Minerals and Geology are the regulating authorities
for sand and gravel mining projects such as that proposed by our client. Rules and
regulations are in place to protect all nearby structure and well owners, such as
yourself, from possible damages that may occur during and after operations. Concerns
of a dropping water table and possible damages to neighboring water wells, springs,
and wetlands are addressed below. Possible methods for recharging the alluvium in the
case of a decreasing water table are also discussed.
As you know, Owens Brothers has submitted a Substitute Supply Plan to the State
Engineers Office for review and approval. The plan pertains to the groundwater issues
associated with excavating below the water table. The purpose of the State Engineer's
review is to ensure that water rights in the area of a mining operation are protected, as
required through Senate Bill 120, which was enacted in 1989. Substitute Supply Plans
are approved for two-year periods. They are subsequently reviewed every two years
until the completion of the reclamation process. The State Engineer also reserves the
right to revoke or require modification to a plan at any time should it be determined that
injury to other vested water rights in the area has occurred or will occur. The State
Engineer will also notify well owners within 600 feet of the proposed site of changes to
the plan by certified mail. If their office receives responses from the notified well
owners, the State will then schedule a hearing within the time set forth in the notice.
As you are probably aware, water rights in the area surrounding the operation are more
senior than those in the proposed gravel mine. Therefore, the more senior rights are
EXHIBIT
protected to a greater degree. The proposed mining operation is required to replace all
losses in the same time, location and quantity. As part of their purchase of the Nix
property, Owens Brothers Concrete is acquiring approximately 483 acre-feet per year of
water resources in the Last Chance Ditch Company, which is available to replace losses
incurred during the dewatering process. The expected yearly water loss from all
operations will be well below the amount of water for available for replacement.
The rates at which water is depleted from dewatering operations and recharged into
alluvium are a function of hydrologic and geologic data of the alluvium materials such as
transmissivity and specific yield. Owens Brothers Concrete will maintain a monthly
accounting schedule that calculates the amount of water needing to be replaced. The
water accounting is based on the amount of materials mined, exposed surface acreage,
seepage, runoff, and evaporation. This schedule will be made available to the local
water commissioner upon request.
Owens Brothers has already begun monitoring the water levels for those wells located
on the Nix farm. We would gladly take monthly well level readings from any
surrounding well, spring, or wetland area at no cost to the landowner for use in
establishing baseline data. This data can then be compared to data collected during the
mining process to help prevent possible changes in the water table. If the table drops to
a level of concern then appropriate measures will be taken to alleviate the problem.
Possible measures for maintaining historic water levels may consist of diverting portions
of Owens Brothers' water rights directly into the areas of concern via unlined recharge
ditches. Direct pumping, using alternate points of diversion of water rights up-gradient
of the area, and/or the trucking in of water are also possible options. In the meantime,
Owens Brothers has committed to contracting an area hydrologic engineer to conduct
an analysis of the area's water tables to determine the possibility of injury to local water
rights.
Owens Brothers Concrete Company respects your concerns and is willing to work with
you in providing a solution. We look forward to meeting with you and Forest Leaf to
further address these issues.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 303-274-4277.
Sincerely,
Banks and Gesso, LLC
John nningham
cc: Bill Owens, Owens Brothers Concrete Company
Chris Gathman, Weld County Planning
Tony Waldren, Division of Minerals and Geology
20075-Other Correspondence
MN Banks and Gesso, LLC 720 Kipling St.,Suite117
■■ Lakewood, Colorado 80215
(303) 274-4277
Fax (303) 274-8329
July 12, 2001 www.banksandgesso.com
Mr. Chris Gathman Weld County Planning Dept,
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 North 17`h Avenue `'JL i 7 2001
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Nix Sand and Gravel Mine RE C E! V E D
Revisions to Submitted USR Permit
Mr. Gathman:
As we have discussed in several conversations over the course of the last few weeks, there have
been some changes proposed by Owens Brothers Concrete regarding the Nix Sand and Gravel
Mine. These changes are discussed below and are hereby submitted as revisions to the USR
permit for the Nix Sand and Gravel Mine.
Plant Location:
Due to neighborhood concerns, Owens Brothers will initially situate the processing plant in the
Northwest corner of what is depicted on the original mine plan maps as Mine Area 1. Due to
contractual obligations, they cannot relocate the plant to the Northwest corners of Mine Area 5 or
the Stage II area because they will not own those parcels of land outright at the onset of mining.
Once Owens Brothers does obtain full ownership of those pieces of land, they may relocate the
plant site to the north, toward a more central location.
Access Point
Due to neighborhood concerns for safety and protection of the Sage Hill Farm Wetland area to
the south of the Nix property, Owens Brothers Concrete commits to moving its access point from
the previously proposed entrance onto Weld County Road 28 to a point on Weld County Road 19,
approximately one-half mile south of State Highway 66. This location will provide direct access
onto an already paved road.
Groundwater
Due to neighborhood concerns over possible impacts on groundwater supplies, Owens Brothers
commits to instituting a well-monitoring program that will help determine any adverse affects to
neighboring water tables caused by the proposed mining operation. The monitoring wells will be
placed in strategic locations across the site, and may include wells owned by any neighbors who
agree to let Owens Brothers use their well data in the study. Five-quarters of data will be
gathered before any mining below existing groundwater levels take place.
Sage Hill Wetland:
Due to concerns that Cynthia Parker, owner of the Sage Hill Wetland, has over potential loss of
her wetland resulting from the proposed mining operation, Owens Brothers Concrete agrees to
institute a monitoring program that track water levels in the adjacent wetland. The program will
run for the life of the mine.
Mine Plan:
As a result of discussions with Patina Oil and Gas Company and Duke Energy Field Services, the
tank battery and collection facility currently located in the Northwest corner of the area originally
identified as Mine Area 1 will be relocated to the Northeast corner of same ar- -- --•-
EXHIBIT
pipelines will then be relocated to run at diagonals from those wells to the newly placed tank
battery and collection facility. The pipeline currently running up the southern portion of the north-
south centerline of Section 28 will be relocated to run along the south edge of the property, then
turn north at the natural rise in topography and run to the newly located oil and gas facility. These
relocations will enable Owens Brothers to extract more material from the site than originally
planned. As such, Owens Brothers proposes the following change to the Mine and Reclamation
Plan:
Instead of mining commencing in the Southeast corner of the property, mining will begin in the
western end of the area originally defined as Mine Area 3. Mining will then move into the area
currently known as Mine Area 4. Once the western portions of the site are mined, extraction will
begin in current Mine Area 2, and then proceed east into Mine Area 1 and then north into Mine
Area 5. Essentially, Mine Area 3 becomes new Mine Area 1, Mine Area 4 becomes new Mine
Area 2, Mine Area 2 becomes new Mine Area 3, and Mine Area 1 becomes new Mine Area 4.
Mine Area 5 will remain the fifth area to be mined. I have enclosed a revised mine plan map
depicting these proposed changes.
The Reclamation aspect of the plan will have one change. The landbridge that is separating
original Mine Areas 1 and 2 will be mined out and not replaced. This will effectively create one
larger body of water rather than the two smaller bodies depicted on the original maps. A revised
reclamation map is enclosed for your reference.
If you have any questions or concerns about these proposed changes, please call me at (303)
274-4277.
Sincgrely,
v
Tug Min
Planner
Cc: Bill Owens, Owens Brothers Concrete
Tony Waldren, Division of Minerals and Geology
20075—Agency Correspondence
PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN POSTING CERTIFICATE
THE LAST DAY TO POST THE SIGN IS: �l LA Vi -7 -200 c . THE SIGN SHALL BE
POSTED ADJACENT TO AND VISIBLE FROM A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN THE
EVENT THE PROPERTY BEING CONSIDERED FOR A SPECIAL REVIEW IS NOT ADJACENT TO A
PUBLICLY MAINTAINED ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES SHALL
POST ONE SIGN IN THE MOST PROMINENT PLACE ON THE PROPERTY AND POST A SECOND SIGN
AT THE POINT AT WHICH THE DRIVEWAY (ACCESS DRIVE) INTERSECTS A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THE SIGN WAS POSTED ON THE
PROPERTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING FOR USR- (?,- •3 .
THE SIGN WAS POSTED BY:
/' t'
NAME OF PERSON POSTING SIGN
f �
//1 e \:,___ 1(
//... ...._—
SIGNATURE FOR PERSON POSTING SIGN
STATE OF COLORADO)
)ss.
COUNTY OF WELD )
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME THIS V-141" DAY OF 1 k- ,L.3 11 zrx t .
OTARY PUB '4C
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: SEPTEMBER 14. 2003
THIS FORM SHALL BE PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE FILE FOR THE ABOVE CASE.
EXHIBIT L r7( _c-,2- (3`'
Forrest Leaf,P.E.
(j_S 13946 CR 56
3 Hillrose, CO 80733
i,( (970)396-8906
(970)352-1982 FAX
ccwcdleaf@yahoo.com
LEAF ENGINEERING
July 13, 2001
Mr. Gilbert Y. Marchand, Jr., Esq
2539 Spruce Street
Boulder, CO 80300
Re: Owens Brothers Gravel Pit - Well Injury Analysis
Dear Gib:
I have completed my preliminary analysis of potential injury to the Mayer Family Farms wells.
This letter report will summarize the aquifer conditions prior to the mining of the proposed gravel
pit (historic conditions) and the aquifer conditions during diy-mining of the proposed gravel pit.
The Owens Brothers Concrete Company proposes to mine a sand and gravel pit in Section 28,
3N, 67W. The pit will consist of dry-mining 112 acres over the next 18 to 22 years. The dry-
mining proposed by the applicant will result in a decrease in aquifer water levels and adversely
impact irrigation and domestic wells in the area.
I estimated aquifer conditions using a two-dimensional steady-state groundwater flow model
developed by Dr. Strack from the University of Minnesota. Aquifer properties were estimated
from the USGS open file report "Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Valley-Fill Aquifer in the
Brighton Reach of the South Platte River Valley, Colorado" (T. Hurr& P. Schneider, 1972).
Aquifer transmissivity was estimated at 150,000 gallons per day per foot and a saturated thickness
ranging from 10 - 30 feet.
Historic conditions were simulated for 32 well clusters in the area as shown on Figure 1, enclosed.
Pumping rates for irrigation wells were taken from well permits obtained from the State
Engineer's well database. Pumping rates for domestic wells were assumed to be 15 gallons per
minute. Pumping rates for all irrigation wells were assumed to be continuous. It was assumed
that domestic wells pumped continuous for study period of January thru August. Wells were
clustered based on each wells respective location to one another and if owned by the same owner.
For the purposes of this analysis, I assumed that if an owners' wells were within 1000 feet of one
another, the wells were clustered and modeled as one well. While this may not be the actual
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology ` Hydraulics ' Water Resources e Water Quality
E Teat\Wilson\Marchand Injury Opinion Letter.wpd
Marchand Well Injury Letter
Page 2
operating procedure, it is a conservative estimate of well pumping for this analysis. The enclosed
figure "Owens Bro Pit - Historic Conditions" shows the results of the model for the 33 well
clusters.
Future conditions were simulated for the same 32 well clusters using the same pumping pattern as
in the historic simulation. However, a well simulating the Owens Brothers perceived de-watering
operations was overlaid on the historic conditions. The pumping rate for the de-watering well
was assumed to be a continuous 10 c.f s.. The figure " Owens Bros Pit - Future Conditions"
shows the results of the model for the 32 well clusters and the de-watering well attributed to the
Owens Brothers dry-mining operation. As ca n be seen from the enclosed figure "Owens Bros
Pit - Future Conditions" , the de-watering of the gravel pit will have a significant impact on area
water levels, whereby, alluvial water levels will cause area wells to surge and eventually go dry.
Sincerely,
rt . EE/t1
•
•
Forrest Leaf, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mrs. Wilson (970-785-2981 Fax)
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology Hydraulics ' Water Resources ` Water Quality
E-\Leat\Wilson\Marchand Injury Opinion Letter.wpd
m
N i e
w ti
N 0 •
l
32 30 •0 m
rl N
N
/i / 98_ N N U co
ON
i4�i . �; Y J O U OO
<° v o 0-
Z U . /}
0� i CoMo cio .1" c 2 `/D• p�•2 CO M✓. E - CC/�(oar O.
2 el o ca ,* GI i c
kp M C -C r Q'.
0
••
0 O O.
0 S4 CI
O O. O
C
N O O• .-
ch O O
C t-) •
NO O0
N -O _
Nf c
O Q Ni -
-
t-) \ \ \- \ \ . N., -'a ----- .- az-- -- - / 0. / O i
. ,
N---,-- ', \ co , O�
O
-----,_< 0 cc
28,00
00 � '
W 1 \
W C\ \j
•
L
,.
.... .
. ..
,,
/ .
. ... OOZZ � „.
. ,
M "
IS
/
-- � N,�� w
N-../. U-) CD ,N (U
O L a, i2'
V
Mr U N
2 E
V/ mo T - }
N
•
co C:>
,_ L- c") c Co rn
® 'A'S O' N
'.aa �✓ an,. Nv2G. . "4 T C) COC
Z. 2- @8 06 CO�i CE
C O
@ 06 .__ O) w C✓.
2 (t) M N C
2 L.i C U �,
LL Icpcp1
•�O g Q
CN a
2 / a_
r
o
a
C) CO
M r •
22.Q _ a a U
,,
Co
C O
O
�g Y :1?
711-
oCL\ j
494,,vu�ej 24.00 ',
� !s, C
ZONING ORDINANCES RELATING TO
REQUIRING ADDITONAL LANDSCAPED BUFFERS
24.5.1.10 Buffering or SCREENING of the proposed USE from adjacent
properties may be required in order to make the determination that the
proposed USE is compatible with the surrounding USES. Buffering or
SCREENING may be accomplished through a combination of berming,
landscaping, and fencing.
44.4 Operations Policies. The policies outlined below represent a
minimum model for operations standards proposed for the USE. Stricter
standards may be imposed by the Board of County Commissioners or their
duly authorized representative during the review process to ensure the
protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Weld
County.
44.4.4 Existing trees and ground cover along public road frontage and
drainageways shall be preserved, maintained and supplemented if necessary,
for the depth of the setback in order to protect against and reduce noise, dust
and erosion.
24.7.4.5.3.11 [Application Requirements for a Use by Special Review
include] location, amount, size and type of any proposed LANDSCAPING,
fencing, walls, berms, or other SCREENING.
EXHIBIT
OPERATIONS
• Location of Processing Plant & other facilities:
Stage 5 best - North end of permitted property for all facilities
• Hours of Pit and Loading Operations:
Daylight only — No exceptions except declared emergencies (Weld
County Ordinances 44.4.2 & 23-4-290B)
• Noise, Lights and Other Disturbances:
Quiet power source
Lighting location
Noise study
• Dust:
Dust Abatement Study
• Term of Permit:
Minimize & include stage 5 in permit ap.
• Discrepancy in Acres to be Permitted:
Which is correct: 112 acres (USR - 1343) or 312 acres (Division of
Minerals)?
• Fencing:
Safety
• Concrete Batch Plant:
Request withdrawn. Deny in permit.
EXHIBIT
1619
07 OFFICE OF THE STATE E-clINEER
818 Centennial Bldg.,1313 r St,Denver,Colorado 80203 r
(303)866-3581 ECEiVED
PRIOR TO COMPLETING FORM, SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE AUG 0 41997
\4?El-u_IANGE IN OWNERSHIP/ADDRESS / LOCATION
PERMIT, LIVESTOCK TANK OR EROSION CONTROL DAM wSTATE ENG E"S
COLO.
1. NEW OWNER
NAME(S) MAYER FAMILY FARMS, LLC
Mailing Address 97.0.4...HI.GNWAY...66 I
City, St. Zip PLALT.EY.ILLE., CO 80.65.1
Phone (..970.. ) .78.5-2371 CO?
2. THIS CHANGE IS FOR ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: Qt S
i
WELL PERMIT NUMBER R-15750-RF RE � ED
❑ LIVESTOCK WATER TANK NUMBER
El EROSION CONTROL DAM NUMBER CZ-..20 - 9 Z
3. WELL LOCATION: COUNTY WELD OWNER'S WELL DESIGNATION IRRIGATION S2R...
(Address) (City) (State) (Zip)
NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 33 Twp, 3 ®N. or❑S., Range 67 ❑ E. or ®W. ....6th P.M.
Distances from Section Lines 140 Ft. from X N. or❑S. Line, ..2.3.0.0 Ft. from X E. or❑W. Line.
Subdivision Lot Block Filing (Unit)
.t. LIVESTOCK TANK OR EROSION CONTROL DAM LOCATION: COUNTY
1/4, Sec. Twp ❑ N. or El S., Range ❑ E. or❑W. P.M.
5. The above listed owner(s) say(s)that he (they) own the structure described herein.
The existing record is being amended for the following reason(s):
X Change in name of owner. ❑ Change in mailing address. El Correction of location.
6. I (we) have read the statements made herein, know the contents thereof, and state that tney are true
to my (our) knowledge.
[Pursuant to Section 24-4-104 (13)(a) C.R.S., the making of false statements herein constitutes perjury in
the second degree and is punishable as a class 1 misdemeanor.]
Name/Trtle (New Owner) Please type or print Signature (New O,ner)3i ...4 � -Ca, Date
MAYER FAMILY FARMS, LLC 7-SI- 9 7
- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY'
ACCEPTED AS A CHANGE NO RSHM EXHIBIT
AND/OR MAILING ADDRESS.
/42/e--; SEP 1 8 1997
State Engineer By Date
Court Case No./e2-4/4/(P Div. / Co. Z WD - Basin MD Use EXHIBIT
A
.,
, WRJ•5-Rbv. 76 COLO' ' J DIVISION OF WATER RESOURt
818 Centei....al Bldg., 1313 Sherman St., Denver, Colorado ...J‘03Jz03
v a
/` DECEIVED PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
Application mu
omplete where ( ) A PERMIT TO USE GROUND WATER
icable. TypeorjUN20 1989 (x) A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WELL 06-20-89 2.55 P
print in BLACK FOR: ( ) A PERMIT TO INSTALL A PUMP 032472 60.00
INK.No overstrikes IN wanJ�ODEI P0017
or erasures unlessspa (X) REPLACEMENT FOR NO, R 1 5750Tr 1_ 60.00
initialed. ( ) OTHER
♦+a WATER COURT CASE NO. W11 46 CHEQUE 60.00
CHG 0.00
(1) APPLICANT . mailing address FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:JDO1NO RITE IN THIS COLUMN
uA 8JJllI)
NAME Walter Mayer Receipt
No.3a \% 0 Cr /
• STREET 9704 HWY 66 Basin VERB A4"' 21. WiSt6 ,4- cp n 7
CITY Platteville , CO. 80651
(state) min CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
TELEPHONE NO. 785-2371 This well shall be used in such a way as to cause
no material injury to existing water rights. The
(2) LOCATION OF PROPOSED WELL issuance of the permit does not assure the applicant
that no injury will occur to another vested water
right or preclude another owner of a vested water
County Weld right from seeking relief in a civil court action.
NW '. of the NE '., Section 33 1 APPROVED PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 37-90-137(2) FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING WELL PERMIT NO.
Twp. 3 N, Rng. 67 W 6 P.M. 15750—R, DECREED BY THE DIV. 1 WATER COURT IN
IN.si (e,WI CASE NO. W-1146. THE EXISTING WELL MUST BE
PLUGGED AND ABANDONED ACCORDING TO THE WATER
fl' WATER USE AND WELL DATA WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PUMP INSTALLATION RULES.
THE ENCLOSED AFFIDAVIT FORM MUST BE COMPLETED
AND SUBMITTED WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE
Proposed maximum pumping rate (gpm) 1 000 CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW WELL, AFFIRMING THAT
WELL NO. 15750—R WAS PLUGGED AND ABANDONED.
Average annual amount of ground water 2) THE MAXIMUM PUMPING RATE OF THE WELL SHALL
to be appropriated (acre-feet): 200 NOT EXCEED 1000 G.P.M.
3) APPROVAL OF THIS REPLACEMENT PERMIT SHALL
Number of acres to be irrigated: 160 NOT RESULT IN AN EXPANDED USE OF GROUND WATER.
Tills USE OF GROUND WATER FROM THIS WELL AND
Proposed total depth (feet): 55 ' APPLICANT'S SURFACE RIGHTS IS RESTRICTED TO
p IRRIGATION OF 160 ACRES IN THE NE1/4, SECTION
33, TOWNSHIP 3N, RANGE 67W, 6TH P.M.
Aquifer ground water is to be obtained from: 4) A TOTALIZING FLOW METER MUST BE INSTALLED ON
THE WELL AND MAINTAINED IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.
Gravel PERMANENT RECORDS OF ALL DIVERSIONS MUST BE
MAINTAINED BY THE WELL OWNER (RECORDED AT LEAST
Owner's well designation ANNUALLY) AND SUBMITTED TO T DIVISION
LING IZZE t UPON REQUEST. •
GROUND WATER TO BE USED FOR: 5) THE OWNER SHALL MARK THE WELL IN A
CONSPICUOUS PLACE WITH APPROPRIATE WELL PERMIT
( ) HOUSEHOLD USE ONLY - no irrigation (0) NUMBERS, NAME OF THE AQUIFER AND COURT CASE
( ) DOMESTIC (1) ( ) INDUSTRIAL (5) NUMBERS. HE SHALL TAKE NECESSARY MEANS AND
( 1 LIVESTOCK (2) (X) IRRIGATION (6) PRECAUTIONS TO PRESERVE THESE MARKINGS-,Ivy) e- I
( 1 COMMERCIAL (4) ( ) MUNICIPAL (8)
( ) OTHER (9) APPLICATION APPROVED
DETAIL THE USE ON BACK IN (11) p
PERMIT NUMBER il 5 O — 1�F
(4) DRILLER 89
�►i F'` ,. � , L E ' DATE ISSUED JUN
ie R SFP & Pump I.Act i% S EXPIR TION DATE JUN 2 81990
Street P0. Box 577•`fsr`N^ ').(' /,� . ,(Q „ /,.w
L y 1j y t • t/t �ti utnu ca
City Greeley, GO. 80632 (S TE ENG EER)
(State) (Zip) /...1�
Telephone No. 353-3118 Lic. No. 857 .D. ` CO.---o /COUNTY c 2
of ccot°
e ert
ROY ROMER .11:\!!!!!!!:7
'ate + p JERIS A. DANIELSON
Governor " * State Engineer
*7876
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR WELL PERMIT
Please note that this permit is valid for only one year after the date
issued unless extended for good cause shown by the issuing agency. This means
that the well must be constructed, the water therefrom put to beneficial use,
and then the enclosed Statement of Beneficial Use of Ground Water completed,
signed, notarized, and received by the Division of Water Resources prior to
the expiration date of the permit. Unless this is done, the permit shall
expire and be of no force or effect at the expiration of that one year. The
enclosed Statement of Beneficial Use of Ground Water should be filed as soon
as possible after the water has been put to beneficial use; but, in any event,
no later than the expiration date of the permit.
If you are unable to construct the well , put it to beneficial use, and
submit the Statement of Beneficial Use prior to the expiration date of the
permit, you may request an extension of time. The State Engineer may, with
good cause shown, grant one (1) extension for a period not to exceed one (1)
year. In order for such a request to be considered, it must be received, in
writing, by the State Engineer prior to the expiration date of the permit and
must be accompanied by a filing fee of sixty dollars ($60) . The request must
state the reasons why the well has not been completed and put to use and give
an estimate of time necessary to complete it and put it to beneficial use.
"Beneficial Use" is generally defined as the use of that amount of water
that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to
accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully
made.
Your well must be constructed and the pump installed by a contractor or
contractors licensed by the State of Colorado, or one or both can be done by
you with equipment owned and operated by you.
Please note the "CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL" on your permit. These must be
complied with for the permit to be valid.
The original of the well permit is on file in the Office of the State
Engineer, and additional copies may be obtained therefrom if needed. A fee of
fifty cents (50t) per page must accompany requests for copies.
NON-EXEMPT WELL PERMIT REFERENCE C.R.S. 1973, 37-90-137 AND 37-80-110.
Form #0946
Forrest Leaf,P.E.
13946 CR 56
Hillrose, CO 80733
• (970)396-8906
, (970)352-1982 FAX
ecwedleaf@yahoo.com
LEAF ENGINEERING
July 13, 2001
•
P. Andrew Jones
Lind, Lawrence & Ottenhoff
1011 Eleventh Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Owens Brothers Gravel Pit - Mayer Family Farms Preliminary Well Injury Analysis
Dear Andy:
T have completed my preliminary analysis of potential injury to the Mayer Family Farms wells.
This letter report will summarize the aquifer conditions prior to the mining of the proposed gravel
pit (historic conditions) and the aquifer conditions during dry-mining of the proposed gravel pit.
The Owens Brothers Concrete Company proposes to mine a sand and gravel pit in Section 28,
3N, 67W. The pit will consist of dry-mining 1 1 2 acres over the next 18 to 22 years. The dry-
mining proposed by the applicant will result in a decrease in aquifer water levels and adversely
impact irrigation and domestic wells in the area.
I estimated aquifer conditions using a two-dimensional steady-state groundwater flow model
developed by Dr. Strack from the University of Minnesota. Aquifer properties were estimated
from the USGS open file report"Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Valley-Fill Aquifer in the
Brighton Reach of the South Platte River Valley, Colorado" (T. Burr & P. Schneider, 1972).
Aquifer transmissivity was estimated at 150,000 gallons per day per foot and a saturated thickness
ranging from 10 - 30 feet.
Historic conditions were simulated for 32 well clusters in the area as shown on Figure 1, enclosed.
Pumping rates for irrigation wells were taken from well permits obtained from the State
Engineer's well database. Pumping rates for domestic wells were assumed to be 15 gallons per
minute. Pumping rates for all irrigation wells were assumed to be continuous. It was assumed
that domestic wells pumped continuous for study period of January thin August. Wells were
clustered based on each wells respective location to one another and if owned by the same owner.
For the purposes of this analysis, I assumed that if an owners' wells were within 1000 feet of one
LEAF ENGINEERING
Hydrology Hydraulics • Water Resources ' Water Quality EXHIBIT
EM.caMlayeIVono Mayer Family Fenny Injury Opinion Lener.wgl
•i •
Jones Mayer Injury Letter;
Page 2
another, the wells were clustered and modeled as one well. While this may not be the actual
operating procedure, it is a conservative estimate of well pumping for this analysis. The enclosed
figure "Owens Bro Pit - Historic Conditions" shows the results of the model for the 33 well
clusters.
Future conditions were simulated for the same 32 well clusters using the same pumping pattern as
in the historic simulation. However, a well simulating the Owens Brothers perceived de-watering
operations was overlaid on the historic conditions. The pumping rate for the de-watering well
was assumed to be a continuous 10 c_f.s.. The figure " Owens Bros Pit - Future Conditions"
shows the results of the model for the 32 well clusters and the de-watering well attributed to the
Owens Brothers dry-mining operation. As ca n be seen from the enclosed figure " Owens Bros
Pit - Future Conditions" , the de-watering of the gravel pit will have a significant impact on area
water levels, whereby, alluvial water levels will cause area wells to surge and eventually go dry.
•
Specifically for the Mayer:Farnily Farms well"Mayer 8", the de-watering operation will case the
saturated thickness of the aquifer to decrease from 23.7 feet to 0 feet.
Sincerely,
LE G T E •
•
Forrest Leaf; P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Mrs. Mayer(970-785-0455 Fax)
•
LEAF ENGINEERING •
Hydrology ' Hydraulics Water Resources Water Quality
E:Q.etMayerJones Mayer Family Farms Injury Opinion Lcsmr.wpd
V
Fq tie %•
8
. N • �. rte% N .�7e Q
dl /60 1�1 ...6- .".I
2'7
L o
V
a to T
, `—
• • q , /
Sl � y
• / nip 5.'
d
C
VYt ! ;1N .3 :11'
O
\ 1y sr-
tau
N il , ) i 7N''•-•.—\ l‘PIN Ni- I L:4
be
alypC•
�1
• rr
IY� II • ✓ o I t i
it .L; Cr-7r-"..-">(::1.11: i• l'.
\?(--1„
\
Nb.
4
gi
\ .... I, i • • (L:
�� U N
i. J '7 , ° Nay\N./�✓r ....7.•• �\� _ \.• o
;c:,• eliP. I.
N
/ .co 6'1'M\61'',:1
3 m 6
rb0te3 N \
•• — \. , tla
I, ,I NI N ryI
N � �I I I
/ I C\1)<4
CO
. g
`° e t
' M CO I
as ca J o� � I M n>° c9 = Via, �+7 cV to
c"i R T �F ,5` I CO N�
N C C . 52M Q) I I'
823. 73 \d X N L6
lel, = ' cv2 I \ �l co
3. 73 mkS8g o tr-oI M0, -�
Q nj
N o_ y
O o
N
Cb
(P s �co _ �� o_ moti o.
o
um,32 36 _______:______....m.„.„..,,,_, . ,�-- C
36,68 _„. .„...„,..
3
X6.68
CO
ita
el r
`` e0 7.\co
R l (Y en
iiSP
ti
tifeE od �1 'an N N
0.
l } N {II
/t -\ \
m �' I1`{1 N`ten r CO A v n n� \ , ` t
KeA• ;S. dIg. m n ..ra , \l
2 g \\\ I \•15.4
Ca
' >•••• ty0 4.-et-2e. *-,,,- oi \\ ,
\--
\ Mac L 11
CO
*I- N M O
0. � N
\\::, \ 3.J '' !ill y N i
•
Y'• s N:, 3 >3 le..
2 •
� 23 5 LL
��V O
elsb 28.05 2
Proposed Condition
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing, July 17, 2001
USR 1343, Owens Brothers Concrete Co., Nix Pit
Prior to the hearing before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, the
Applicant shall reach a written agreement with Mayer Family Farms, LLC setting
forth the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative impacts of Applicant's
proposed dewatering activities on Mayer Well No. 15750-RF and the Mayer center
pivot pond.
EXHIBIT
C)
`\ MEADGATr \7 I �_
r j
r
STAGE 1 MINE AREA DrzCH II ff� • -
I .1t1' II*V: ' " n GAS' /4
SI
``'N *GAS-- I ;py _ "` u
(' GAS TANK O '&, Y'< y f ' 5f {;
r GAS PUMPllOI
I' GAS T p an f ,,•_
J-J...,. /
_C` —mss \-
{�$'I ei f /r yP`M I t-OA j I r te, I ''' 'I'�' '��I �c -�40
RI UM1�� ir. f 5` 'bT r,..t' l I JIii
/7/7/ 7 ^ ,�s � } 1
1'l 1 Y4 '‘‘ i :.�r r:,1 HI I I e I �,r. OND 2 � I I�i'd N' 4�.. : �' � '.�
Di r'_' r G r�' _ s III I' ACAS\ °4" I p
III /.N/ 'I} I - / / I II 2 '' a „� xs.;'.
j'• --- ?,1''`� / f r�la lul UNLINED / i N I^' • fjPOND 1 }i'�h3 - " `
1' � '' � ., t t DITCHED Ct y 557 `Y{+ .7 M
"at——'N'11------- ' to a t / 1 IIy c{k°{ , //f�JJ/f/fl tr-' 7J •ii
if lI
I� E I I +tea. i ,far `"! -'" yF' g �"'' f�x�v:,x f
' :sue • )IA� • r' r' 4- ,,,.
,
y
a---. k ocR a 1
L Qp
..... du o `�
/ =- Shel xbact ;I\ + aro½
/ ; §:ale /4.4( 4 , •
EXHIBIT
I
_____
/ z
% / i
._
HI t.;
S 4 t3 e
_669 lie 1 I
E :6� p�oy aE p y '
s y "-vodzga fai e
3 a.§ — aon < 5, ' _
9
q Y 9i k97 mo2auO �� i S:" ;il e
OF
y VIP °3e I aw::o hi > . '
P VII $ vi iow�.
* 3P t;
• ig1 Egg
° Es6
- - 8c
rte.
q:
g S
al
m,.air.
el 4 '$ '. _ w
.1-'-')\
S li
4lie . ; y p3, e I Irev) all
WI Lz., .O,... ik /
w
cl jI14 � �0et
/ 3 Q � � r
N
W9"'(II 5 ��
Th r ii °a 9 q°
_ 1.
6- to E
ja ` � ( II c
g' Y a., 3 Ilt
Ps
CO
ry
q p`3
al
11 q
6 6
'�LI . 060 122 P.t g ® a
--_ r__...J .04 MC 0.K.LOON •••
JUL-12 01 16: 13 FROM:CDOW 303-496-9742 TO: '656034 PAGE:01
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens,Governor GotORA,O
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER e•'
Russell George, Director 17F
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 8021e For l4tldlifr-
Telephone:(303)297-1102 For People
July 11, 2001
Cynthia Parker
Sp a Hill Farm
8234 WCR 28
Platteville, CO 80651
RE: Weld County Planning Department USR-1343
Division of Minerals and Geology M2001-046
Dear Ms. Parker:
I am writing this letter at your request to document the two recent Division of Wildlife Cooperative
Habitat Improvement Program(CHIPS) grant projects on your farm which may be impacted by the
proposed Nix Sand and Mine mining operation referenced above.
• 2000 CHIPs project: Shelterbelt Adjacent to WCR 28
Four rows (470 trees and shrubs) of this eight-row shelterbelt were planted under a grant for 52,661.
One factor in the Division's decision to award this grant was the proximity of this shelterbelt to the Sage
Hill Farm Wetland.
• Concerns: The trees and shrubs of this shelterbelt could be impacted if a drawdown of the water
table level takes place due to the dewatering of the gravel pits next door. The possibility exists that as
the trees and shrubs are growing, they will adapt their roots to the lower water table level resulting
from the drawdown. When the water table eventually rises again, returning to its historically high
level after the dewatering operations are complete, the deeper roots of the trees may rot out. This
could weaken the plants, creating a higher susceptibility to insect attack and other problems, or could
actually kill the trees.
• 1996 CHIPS project: Spring Pond Shelterbelt
A six-row shelterbelt of 500 shrubs adjacent to the spring-fed pond on Sage Hill Farm. The initial total
cost of this planting, including the landowner's 15% contribution, was $1,998. This shelterbelt was
located near the pond in order to provide good cover for animals approaching the pond to drink and as
potential nesting habitat for ducks.
• Concerns: If the spring were to go dry due to the proposed mining operation, the value of this
habitat may be lessened significantly.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Greg E.Walther,Evacutiae Director
W ILOL WE COMMISSION,Rick Ertstrom,Chair•Robert Shoemaker,Vice-Cne*r•Marianna Rattopoubs,Secretary
Members.Barnard Blade•Tom eurke•Philio James•Brad Phebs •Ce.e Valdez
JU.-12 01 1614 FROM:CDOW 303-498-9742 'O:T '8S6234 PAGE:02
En addition, I would like to point out that both the above grants have a contractual term of 10 years. The
landowner is required to maintain the above habitat improvement practices for the duration of the
contract. Failure to do so would result in the landowner being liable to repay the Division of Wildlife's
investment in her property.
Sincerely,
�
r4
Mike Sherman
Field Habitat Biologist
Cc: Rick Moss,NE Senior Habitat Biologist, CDOW
Katie Kinney, Area Wildlife Manager, CDOW
Mike Babler, District Wildlife Manager, CDOW
REQUEST THESE CONDITIONS
1 . Move Mine Access to WCR 19
2. Move Processing Plant to NW Corner of Nix
Property
3. Daylight Hours of Operation Only
4. Concentrate Night Lighting Away from Wetland
5. Generous Buffers Zones Along County Roads
6. Recharge Aquifer
7. Maintain Historic Groundwater Levels On
Neighboring Properties
•
•
HYDROSPHERE EXHIe1T
nest) r t. Cons UIla OrS I �
July 13, 2001
Ms. Cynthia Parker
Sage Hill Farm
8234 WCR 28
Platteville, Colorado 80651
Re: Initial Comments on Potential Impacts of Nix Property Sand and Gravel Mine
Dear Cynthia:
With this letter, we are responding to your request for comments on the potential water
resources-related impacts of the proposed Nix Property Sand and Gravel Mine. We have
focused on impacts to water resources aspects of the Sage Hill Farm.
We have based our comments on a review of the following documents:
• Application For A Use By Special Review (Mining) for the Nix Property Sand And
Gravel Mine — Weld County, Colorado, dated May 2001
• Application for Temporary Substitute Supply Plan—Owens Brothers Concrete
Company Nix Sand and Gravel Mine, Weld County Colorado, dated June 2001
Based upon our initial review and evaluation of the proposed project, we believe that
there are several potential impacts of concern.
General Identification of Water Resources Impacts of Concern
We. have identified the following potential impacts of the proposed Nix Property Sand
and Gravel Mine on the water resources of the Sage Hill Farm. Our preliminary
evaluation indicates that several of these impacts may be significant, and that they may
result in material changes to the Sage Hill Farm if they are not avoided or mitigated.
In our opinion, these issues should be addressed in the permitting process for the
proposed Nix Sand and Gravel Mine.
l- hc' Amok sic Fin iftuni]Futa] A«C'SPm F`nl Infoni taboo Systems-
_
-- .- r - _. _ _. _
F'.U- H:r. calf. ,'vc AItiNI( • ,511:,1 ti _SSG • i(H FaA I5O5I 83 -2609
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 13, 2001
Page 2
It is convenient to categorize the impacts with respect to their relationship to the phasing
of activities and operations of the proposed mine.
1. The first phase may be regarded as the "active operations period," in which the actual
mining and related activities (including dewatering and reclamation) take place. We
assume that this period may last around 20 years for the first project phase. During
this period, the major activities which may have an impact on the water resources of
particular interest to you are:
• The local alluvial aquifer dewatering activities which would be necessary to
implement the proposed "dry mining" sand and gravel resource exploitation. Because
the sand and gravel being extracted by the proposed operation is a portion of the
continuous regional South Platte River/ St. Vrain River alluvial aquifer, the impacts
of aquifer dewatering and removal are likely to extend beyond the immediate area of
operations. If not mitigated, the consequent decline in groundwater levels is likely to
be the cause of significant adverse impacts to Sage Hill Farm wells, spring and
wetlands. We address this matter in greater detail below.
• The manner in which water pumped during the dewatering activities is used and
disposed of. The dewatering operations are likely to result in the production of
significant amounts of water, requiring suitable disposal to avoid causing undesirable
impacts.
• The manner, location, timing, sequencing, duration and extent of the mining and
dewatering activities will affect each of the issues identified above.
2. The second phase can be considered "the long term," in which active mining,
dewatering and reclamation operations have ended. During this phase, the major
water resources related issues are:
• The potential impacts of the reclaimed gravel pits on local water resources (including
the local aquifer) due to possible changes in consumptive use of groundwater. Such
impacts are considered by the State Engineer in the review of the required Substitute
Water Supply Application, to the extent that they have an identifiable impact on
decreed water rights, registered wells within 600 feet of the gravel pit, and
appropriated stream systems . For Substitute Supply Plans, the State Engineer does
not normally consider "collateral" environmental impacts unless they are addressed
by Water Court decrees, or other legal or regulatory protection.
• Possible environmental/ecosystem impacts of open water surfaces (and other aspects
depending condition in which the mined area is left) may cause changes in the local
flora and fauna, and human use of the areas. These could result in changes in the
ecosystem in nearby areas as well. There may be differences of opinion about the
desirability of such impacts - some may be regarded as positive (e.g. new and
interesting vegetation and wildlife, etc), and some may be considered to be adverse
(e.g. increased mosquito breeding habitat, safety issues, and nearby parking problems
if the gravel pit ponds are made available for public access, etc).
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 13, 2001
Page 3
Subsequent comments will be concerned with potential impacts to specific water
resources issues which you have identified. These are:
1. The possible impact of proposed mining operations on the wetland located directly
across WCR 28 on Sage Hill Farm.
2. The possible impact on your domestic water supply well.
3. The possible impact on your irrigation well.
4. The possible impact on your spring and the pond fed by it.
The most significant impacts on these resources are likely to be related to the aquifer
dewatering/drawdown proposed for the active operations period. We have therefore
carried out a preliminary analysis using a commonly employed procedure, as described
below.
Comments on local and practical considerations are provided at several points in the
discussion.
Analysis of Project Dewatering Impacts on Area Groundwater Levels
This analysis uses widely accepted theoretical formulations and principles requiring the
use of assumptions and simplifications The results provided here should be regarded as
indicative, and their application should incorporate professional judgement and
knowledge of local conditions. The approach and assumptions used in this analysis are
described below.
It would be reasonable to expect that the applicant to provide sufficient data, discussion
and analysis of relevant issues so that a satisfactory evaluation can be undertaken of the
matters discussed below.
Radial Approach — Modified Theis Nonequilibrium Equation
As groundwater is pumped from an aquifer, a cone of depression results which increases
in depth and extent over time. Drawdown at any point at a given time is directly
proportional to the pumping rate. Drawdown in response to well pumping can be
estimated using a mathematical procedure known as the Theis approach. If aquifer
properties and the pumping rate are known, it is possible to predict drawdown in water
levels at any distance from a well and at any time after the start of pumping, assuming no
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants. 1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 13, 2001
Page 4
external elements interfere with the groundwater level and the aquifer properties are
homogeneous and uniform. A simplified form of the Theis equation (Freeze and Cherry,
1979) is as follows:
h = 264 Q log 0 .3Tt 2
AT r 2 S
Where:
Exh = change in water table elevation (ft)
Q =pumping rate (gpm)
T = transmissivity (gpd/ft)
r= distance from pumping well (ft)
S = storativity
t =time (days)
Aquifer Properties
The following reports were reviewed in order to develop an understanding of
groundwater conditions at the location of concern:
• Hydrogeological Characteristics of the Valley Fill Aquifer in the Brighton Reach
of the South Platte River Valley, Colorado. 1972. R.T. Hun and P.A. Schneider.
USGS Open File Report 73-124.
• Geohydrology of Shallow Aquifers in the Fort Lupton—Greeley Area, Colorado.
2000. S.G. Robson, J.S. Heiny, and L.R. Arnold. USGS Atlas HA 746c.
Based on information contained in these reports, aquifer properties were estimated as
follows:
Transmissivity (T) 50,000-200,000 gpd/ft
Storativity (5) 0.2
Depth to Bedrock 20 - 60 feet below ground surface
Water Table Elevation less than 10 feet below ground surface
Saturated Thickness 10- 400 feet
Results and Discussion
The Theis equation described above was used to estimate the effects of groundwater
pumping during mining operations on the Nix property. The predicted theoretical
drawdowns are based on the assumption that a single well is located 500 feet north of the
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 13, 2001
Page 5
Weld County Road 28 near the southern edge of the Nix property, and pumps at a
constant rate every day. The required pumping rate was estimated by solving the Theis
equation such that the drawdown along the southern edge of the mining pit was equal to
the planned depth of the mine (47 feet) within 3 years of commencement of mine
operations, and that the dewatering activities would go on for 20 years, as indicated in the
application.
Results of the Theis analysis are shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 (attached.)
The initial development and the ultimate consequences of 20 years of dewatering on the
groundwater levels are shown in the figures. To illustrate the sensitivity of this approach
to various assumptions, the analysis has been done for three transmissivity values—
72,300 gpd/ft (used in the application to the State Engineer for the Substitute Supply
Plan), 100,000 gpd/ft and 200,000 gpd/ft.
This analysis does not take into account several factors which may change or diminish
the water table drawdown and related impacts. Although we have not quantified them,
they should be considered . Examples of such factors include:
• The actual dewatering facilities may be different than those assumed in this analysis.
As the application does not provide any description of dewatering facilities and
procedures, we have assumed a very basic arrangement for the purpose of this
evaluation.
• The disposal of pumped water from the mine dewatering facilities could be designed
to partially mitigate water table declines. The application does not indicate how (or
whether) this will be implemented. We have assumed that this water would be
directly discharged from the mine site to St. Vrain Creek.
• There will be considerable aquifer recharge in the area of concern because of the
existing Last Chance Ditch carriage losses and irrigation activities in the area.
• Because the proposed mine is relatively close to St. Vrain Creek, there will be
considerable recharge from the creek. This will, however, generally be on the other
side of the proposed mine from Sage Hill Farm.
• There are withdrawals from and recharge to the aquifer from other sources, including
irrigation and domestic wells, and domestic water/wastewater supplied by pipeline
external sources.
Our analysis indicates that, if pumping / dewatering for mining operations takes place in
the manner assumed in the analysis, the following general impacts may be anticipated for
water-related facilities on your property:
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants,1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 13, 2001
Page 6
• a potentially significant impact could be felt within a short period of time by the
wetlands adjacent to WCR 28, across from the proposed mine operations. This
impact, a decline in existing groundwater level conditions, could result in adverse
impacts to the wetlands. The Theis analysis indicates that significant groundwater
level declines may begin almost immediately with the initiation of mine dewatering,
and that the decline may increase over the 20 year dewatering period to significant
levels - possibly as much as 50 feet. This could result in a major decrease in
groundwater contribution to wetlands water supply.
The wetlands are, to some degree, reliant upon water originating from the Last
Chance Ditch.
• A potentially significant impact to the domestic well on your property. Although this
well is decreed, it is located beyond the 600 foot radius considered by the State
Engineer in its evaluation. The impact could result in the need to drill a deeper well
for continued reliable water supply, as this well is relatively shallow, (around 14 feet).
The Theis analysis indicates that the dewatering activities could cause the
groundwater level to decline to levels below the total well depth.
• An impact could occur at the irrigation well, which is also decreed, but located
beyond the 600 foot radius considered by the State Engineer. Although it is farther
from the proposed dewatering operations, the resulting cone of depression is likely to
result in a decline in groundwater level at that location. This could cause increased
pumping costs and diminished production capability of the well.
• There may be an impact on the spring and pond it supplies. If the spring is supplied
from the shallow alluvial aquifer, any drawdown of the groundwater level in that area
could have a very serious impact, including a decrease or complete cessation of flow
on a permanent or seasonal basis. There may, however, be other hydrogeological
factors involved with the spring and related pond which make the impact of mining
operations difficult to evaluate without further study and analysis. Because the
hydrogeology of the spring is not known to us, a final conclusion regarding the
impact of the proposed mining/dewatering operations on the flow of the spring
requires further study.
We do not know whether the pond is presently in hydraulic contact with the
groundwater surface. A decline in the groundwater table under the pond may result
in increased losses to groundwater and an increased water supply requirement for
maintenance of the existing surface water conditions.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 13, 2001
Page 7
Mitigation Possibilities
There is a wide variety of actions which could be taken to avoid or mitigate the adverse
impacts identified above. We have not investigated the technical or economic feasibility
of these suggestions, but we are aware that they have been implemented in various
locations for various purposes. Some examples are identified below, but this list should
not be understood to be either comprehensive or complete - there are certainly many
other possibilities which are not mentioned here.
• One option which should be evaluated carefully would be the possibility of changing
from the "dry mining" process specified in the application to a "wet mining" process.
This would avoid the need for significant and long term dewatering activities, such
that many of the impacts described above could be avoided altogether.
• Consideration should be given to carrying out the mining activities over a shorter
duration, requiring a shorter period of dewatering activities as well (if the "dry mining
process" is to be used.) The application indicates that the mining activities may take
place over a period of 20 years or longer. This appears to us to be a relatively slow
rate of exploitation of the resource.
• Other options include construction of subsurface water barriers (e.g. slurry
trench/walls, etc) around the areas to be dewatered, and/or aquifer recharge facilities.
These would be designed to maintain existing groundwater conditions in areas of
concern.
We hope that you find these comments to be useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us
if there is any way in which we can be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Inc.
by:
J H. Gerstle
Attachments: Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
cc: Ms. Lori Potter, Esq.
Dr. David Cooper
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, 1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Documcn2 CREATED.July 12,2001 12 05 PM,PRINTED July IT 2001 03 56 PM
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 16, 2001
Page 8
Theis Analysis
Nix Property Sand and Gravel Mine
De-watering Edge of Parker Parker
Well Mine Pit Domestic Irrigation Spring
Well Well
0 500 1000 1500 2000 250'
wetland
0.00
—Time = 1 Mon
-20.00 —Time = 1 Year
I
-40.00 T = ea-60.00
T'=4100,000 gpd/tt, i -Time = 4 Year
R -80.00 P' 6400 gpm?,
-Time = 5Year
-100.00 t� . " w '"' Time = 10 Year;
—Time = 20 Year,
-120.00
Distance From Pit(ft)
Figure 1. Theoretical drawdown curves over time at various distances from de-watering
well, assuming transmissivity value of 100,000 gpd/ft and a constant pumping rate of
6400 gpm.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants,1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 16, 2001
Page 9
Theis Analysis
Nix Property Sand and Gravel Mine
De-watering Edge of Parker Parker
Well Mine Pit Domestic Irrigation Spring
Well Well
Wetland
0.00 200 250
5 0 1000 1500
I —Time = 1 Mon
-20.00 -
� Time = 1 Year
40.00 Time = 2 Year
3 Time = 3 Year
O -60.00
v
3 r 200,000 gpdnt � Time = 4 Year
W -80.00
s o zy Time = 5 Year
-100.00 Time = 10 Year
120.00 Time = 20 Year,
- Distance From Pit(ft)
Figure 2. Theoretical drawdown curves over time at various distances from de-watering
well, assuming transmissivity value of 200,000 gpd/ft and constant pumping rate of
11,800 gpm.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants,1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Ms. Cynthia Parker July 16, 2001
Page 10
Theis Analysis
Nix Property Sand and Gravel Mine
De-watering Edge of Parker Parker
Well Mine Pit Domestic Irrigation Spring
Well Well
i 510 1000 1500 2000 2500
.ctland
0.00
—Time = 1 Mon
-20.00 —Time = 1 Year
c -40.00 Time = 2 Year
--Time = 3 Year
o -60.00
.J 72 30d gpdif wjL j Time = 4 Year
R80.00s+ gp pt 14 -Time = 5 Year
-100.00 � ja'° - ` MTh Time = 10 Year
120.00 —Time = 20 Year
Distance From Pit (ft)
Figure 3: Theoretical drawdown curves over time at various distances from de-watering
well, assuming transmissivity value of 72,300 gpd/ft and constant pumping at 4900 gpm.
Hydrosphere Resource Consultants,1002 Walnut Suite 200,Boulder,CO 80302
Pa-
in a
L rts��, Q 4J i uy
co
. '" . r N N o
} o Qp
c\H '••••,2 g .8 co
no,,,
N tC®
----N----- --Ni 2 c5 .fie
rot
a m • N (.6
4
2�� \ r
r 0 t.
I-
[3,.0�o Z�•
s' • (7-----____
or'r
23 7 1:3• u.%,. (fa;
es, 28.05 0
• z.,,x/
z/
07/15/2001 15:20 9703521982 LEAF ENGINEERING PAGE 03105
V
�
•
` �. •.aid rf.ig s, 14
` kick:
_ t Ise
. • tn :
Pau s N •
N la
l•
•
P C,_ •
v,
•
•
Ht l
a. ii
j - • •
L4 sr /
(� - a o
fir +
mil„ 'ti
O
07/15/2001 15:20 9703521902 LEAF ENGINEERING PAGE 04/05
/ 43 7"--------
-----.NT\ cc; \
0\ - , timti's m
co
rip , a , ..) \
g N
/ -6$56 L co
r / r \ CC).
M
.., I®
! 24®1
! T ®
f® °5 {Y 1co
ne �� CO
S13.73 ®� � i
N
2`?73 °° CO
�O 9 2S8 m / Ncoca
"3 cro
� �� tl
Y "' N
MG.)
TW 'enPo ;Jib%
ao Orye/\`` ^ AvJ�-` 7r �O.V
O
.1/71/1/
36.65
`------ -- 36.68
• Page 1 July 16, 2001
DavidDavid J.Cooper Phone 303 499 6441
J. Cooper, Ph.D• 2680 Lafayette Drive Fax 303 499 6441
Boulder,CO 80305 e-mail:d000per@rmi.net
Ecologist
einlen
July 16, 2001
Cynthia Parker
Sage Hill Farms
8234 WCR 28
Platteville, CO 80651
Dear Cynthia:
Subject Potential Impacts of Nix Property Sand and Gravel Mine
Wetland ecosystems develop and persist in sites where saturated and anaerobic
soils occur for extensive periods of time during the growing season on most or all
years. Some wetlands have saturated soils at all times of the year, while others are
saturated for shorter periods of time. Wetlands also vary in whether the ever have
standing water, and for those that do, how deep the water ponds. Wetland plant
species are adapted for life in saturated and anaerobic soils. However, different
wetland plant species occupy different hydrologic niches. For example, hard-stem
bulrush (Schoenoplectus lcustris) can tolerate perennially saturated soils, and deep
standing water, while arctic sedge (Juncus arcticus) grows in seasonally saturated
soils and is intolerant of deep standing water. Thus, along a complex hydrogeologic
gradient, such as is found where a depression intersects a seasonally variable water
table, a wide range of plant species are found, producing diverse and highly
productive communities.
A large wetland with a complex hydrogeologic gradient and a wide range of plant
species occurs in the northeastern portion of your Sage Hill Farm. This wetland
occupies a depression that intersections the South Platte River/ St. Vrain River
shallow unconfined alluvial aquifer. The static water table of this aquifer is above
the soil surface in the central portion of the wetland for parts of the year, and this
produces saturated soils over the entire wetland area. The wetland center is
dominated by three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus pungens), with patches of
hard-stem bulrush and cattails (Typha angustifolia and T latifolia). These plants are
all adapted to live in seasonally or permanently saturated soils, and at least
seasonal inundation. On the basin margin are communities dominated by species
that tolerate seasonally or permanently saturated soils, but only very shallow
standing water, e.g. spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), Nebraska sedge (Carex
nebraskensis), hairy sedge (Carex lanuginosa) and others. On the driest margins of
the wetland are species that tolerate both seasonally saturated soils and high soil
salt concentrations, including foxtail barley (Critesionjubatum) and other species.
1
• • Page 2 July 16,2001
This complex wetland ecosystem is supported by ground water inflow from the
south. Because the ground water aquifer is in sand substrate, supporting a thin
capillary fringe, the water table must be at or above the soil surface to support this
wetland. A permanent and directional lowering of the water table of 1-3 feet below
its present range of variation, and spring and summer levels, will cause the loss of
this wetland.
The report by John Gerstle of Hydrosphere Resource Consultants analyzed
potential water table declines on Sage Hill Farms using three scenarios of aquifer
transmissivity and pumping rate. However, from a wetland perspective all three
scenarios produce relatively similar water table changes under the Sage Hill Farm
wetland, and all are substantially greater than 1-3 feet. All of John's models indicate
short-term water table declines of 20 feet or more under the wetland. This type of
drawdown will result in the rapid drying of your wetland, oxidation of the soils, and
the death of wetland plants. Under these circumstances, if the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers were called out to do a wetland delineation, they would not call this site a
wetland. From an ecological perspective the wetland, as well as the pond located
just east of the wetland, would not longer support frogs, toads, and other aquatic life.
I am also extremely concerned about the prospects of noxious weeds invading the
wetland area once it is dried up. In particular Canada thistle (Cirsium arvensis) is
most likely to invade and it is extremely difficult to eradicate, even if the site is wetted
again at a later time. This would severely degrade your land.
You asked me to address whether a wetland like yours could be maintained using
surface water inputs. Because this wetland is ground water connected, the flow of
water through the wetland has created many of the sites features. For example, the
Nebraska sedge community on the southern wetland edge is a typical spring
community occurring where ground water discharges to the surface. The main
community occupying the large central wetland area dominated by three-square
bulrush is also found in areas with high ground water tables.
Because the site has sandy soils, the application of surface water when the water
table is 20+feet below the soil surface likely could not create and maintain a high
water table. The application of surface water for wetland creation is only useful
where the wetland soil is fine-textured and water can be perched on the soil surface.
Also, the problems of bringing water to the site and distributing it on the site would
require the installation and maintenance of expensive ditches. Even with these
ditches the surface soil infiltration rates like could not keep up with the loss of
ground water due to pumping at the Nix gravel mine. Therefore, it is unlikely that a
water table could be produced to replicate the type of wetland that occurs on your
farm today. Wetlands dominated by ponded surface water also tend to be
completely dominated by cattails, and do not produce the complex wildlife habitat
that you desire.
2
• Page 3 July 16,2001
In summary, water table drops of more than 1-3 feet would destroy your wetland. It
would no longer pond and support aquatic life, the soils would be oxidized, and most
wetland plants would die in the first couple of years. I also feel that this land would
be subject to noxious weed invasion. I also strongly doubt that the application of
surface water could in any way mitigate the pumping down of the natural ground
water table under your wetland.
Sincerely,
David J. Cooper
3
July 17, 2001
CountyPlanning Weld County plan
Dept.
Weld Commission
1555 N. 17th Avenue t 7
Lri1 ( :bd
Greeley, CO 80631
RECEIVED V ^
RE: Owens Brothers Concrete Company
Case#USR-1343
The following are concerns we have regarding the approval and operation of
another sand and gravel mine in the area:
• Current and future impact on irrigation water (ie. seep ditch on our
property that is used for irrigation, livestock water and commercial
sale).
• Impact on shallow water wells that serve the residents of the area.
• Traffic. Highway 66 has become increasingly dangerous with the
increased truck usage and high speed limit. Transformation from
rural to commercial and residential usage has already caused the
roadways to become congested.
• Gravel roads in the surrounding area are being used more and more for
increased commercial operations. Dust has become an enormous
problem to residents and livestock producers.
• Dust and noise from these operations are a detriment to the
surrounding areas and a nuisance to landowners and residents,
decreasing the value of their land and properties.
Submitted by:
Gerald and Pamela Heintzelman
12190 Weld County Rd 17
Longmont, CO 80504
970-785-0305 EXHIBIT
/°
Hello