Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 2 <br />Oehler, Larry <br />From: Keffelew, Berhan /' <br />Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:01 AM <br />To: Oehler, Larry /~ <br />Cc: Keffelew, Berhan <br />Subject: m-1999-034 n,,~,/L <br />N r~~ <br />To: Larry Ohler /1 /~~ ( v <br />From: Berahn Keffelew J ~ <br />Re: M-1999-03~AM #)~ <br />The Division is in the process of reviewing the Amendment application. The operator, Aggregate <br />Industries has applied for an Amendment to increase the depth of mining of the lake and place the fines <br />into a portion of the lake. On Apri14, 2003, the Division received a complaint letter from Mr. and Mrs. <br />Hackett. In their complaint letter, the Hackett's, who own a property east of the lake, stated that the <br />mining and backfilling of the existing lake with fines could cause flooding of their property. In addition <br />to the flooding, they also listed possible fugitive dust problem. <br />With Mr. Hackett and the operator, and their representatives present, a site inspection was conducted. As <br />reported by Mr. Hackett, his property lies east of the previously mined lake, which aggregate industry <br />plans to conduct additional mjning and backfilling a portion of the lake? According to Mr. Hackett, <br />during a measurable rainstorm, he gets a lot of surface water drainage from the highway located North <br />East of his property which appears to flood his equipment storage area and if the lake is backfilled, it <br />could compound his problem. Both the ground water and surface water hydrology gradient is towards <br />the WEST OR TOWARDS THE LAKE away from Mr. Hackett's property.. West of the property line, <br />there is a berm measuring approximately 3 feet and approximately the length of the lake perimeter along <br />the East, paralleling, Mr. HACKETT'S LOT. Even if the operator backfills the entire lake with fines, <br />unless water goes from low pressure to high pressure, it will not contribute to the flooding problem Mr. <br />Hackett mentioned in his complaint letter. In the first place, an aggregate industry does not plan to back <br />fill the entire lake. Only a portion of the lake is going to be depending and wash fines aze going to be <br />placed on the portion of the lake that will not be mined. This wash fines for the most part will have the <br />same rate of permeability as would the natural ground, so percolation will not be hindered. During the <br />inspection, Mr. Hackett suggested to Aggregate Industries that if they could provide him with fill <br />material sufficient to raise his lot by approximately a few feet, he felt that could remedy his problem. <br />Since his property is with the 100-yeaz flood plain of the South Platt River, that would be something <br />Urban Flood Drainage Control might have jurisdiction. As far as what the Amendment propose to do, it <br />has a very negligible impact on the Hackett's property. <br />However, the proposed plan could affect a well located along the West side of the property. Both the <br />operator and consultants agreed that they would be willing to work with the well owner and draft some <br />sort of agreement to mitigate the impact, in the event the well is affected by the operation. In addition, I <br />suggest the operator monitor the well and the few pizometers located along the North side of the lake in <br />addition to any other wells along the West side of the permit, that could possibly be impacted by the <br />operation. <br />05/19/2003 <br />