INSPEC00537 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. -- 1 (Page 2) MZNE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID ~ M-93-090 INSPECTION DATE 03/10/00 INS2ECTOR'S INITIALS ESC 03SERVATIONS This was an inspection of the La Poudre Sand and Gravel Site conducted by Er'_:a Crosby and Tom Schreiner of the Colorado Divis_on of Minerals and Geology. Dana Mocre of Tuttle Applegate was present reeresenting the operator, riall I_^~in Construction Compa=i. ;he purpose of the inspection was co inspect the area where the sl~.:rry wall has :..en installed and to meet with Clem McNaney regarding his concerns and objection to the La Pcudre Sand arc ravel Permit Amendment. The permit amendment was filed in response to the Division's inspection of May 1a, ,1999. During that inspection, the operator indicated that a slurry wall had been constructed around ':.,. gravel pits #a and #5 to facilitate a water storage reservoir. The Division ccnsiders the construction of the reservoir to be a 'significant change' to the reclamation plan..=~;; Therefore the operator was required to change a portion of the postmining land use from open4 space, consezvation and recreation to developed water resources. •.r..~ .: The amendment was deemed complete for purposes~of~~filing on January 21,2000. The Division's: _ _. decision due'date?,is:?schedul•ed•for Apri1~20.„20.00_.: ,The°•Division:_reeeived one objection to j the application from"Clem MCNaney'on February .25, :2000-`` 1tiro: concerns _are noted in the ' letter; the~obstruction;of the.floodway.elevating the_grouad`around the.McNaney property~and~;~. ~:~r.- 4, e,,._ ,.. YP, oP Y f .. urry .,~...,,.; +~..."raisin th water level oa the. r ert diie;.to~coastruction;of the el wall Clem;claims~''s',. ,;:that installation of the slw-iy wall has caused the groundwater to"raise thn:water level.on the property and flood the utility cellar. ,. ;, _ ..'',-•: Clem directed the Division to the berms installed on the west end of the property,. adjacent to weld County Road 13 and The Poudre River. The berms are roughly 3 feet high. Clem .stated. that during the Spring of 1999, the berms directed floodwater on to his property. In addition, the natural drainage Swale has been blocked by the construction of the shop area. f Clem stated that Hall-Irwin i::istalled a culvert to relieve some of the drainage concerns, but _ ,".. was not functional during the flood event. _ In addition, Clem stated that the construction of the slurry wall has raised the groundwater table on his property. He indicated that the water elevation in his well=is higher than what it was prior to installation of the slurry wall, but no measurements were taken of the water elevation in prior to the slurry wall. He also stated that his basement is not currently flooded. ' According to the Slurry wall Alignment and Details Map, submitted under the permit amendment, the southeast corner of the NfcNaney property is over 1,000 feet from the closest portion of the slurry wall. In addicio.n, a groundwater fed pit (Pit #1) is immediately south of the McNaney property. In the adequacy review letter, the Division required the operator to determine the hydrologic impacts that may be expected with the presence of the slurry wall. Upon submittal of the additional information and the observations noted during the site inspection, the Division should be able to evaluate t:he hydrologic impacts due to installation of the slurry wall.