Laserfiche WebLink
RATIONALE FOR 12ECOMMBNDATION FOR APPROVAL OVER OBIP.CfIONS -Appliatioa for <br />Ameudmea No.l, Aggregate 7aduaaies- Wl1L, Ira:., Cooky ReservoQ sad bYdtoa Wildlife Aare, Pest No. <br />M-1949-034 <br />INTRODUCTION <br />On February 12, 2003. Aggregate Induateea-WCR, lac. (An filed an application for Amendment No.l to the Cooley <br />Reservoir a~ Fulton Wildlife Area, Pernut No. M-1999-034. The Snal day for public wmment was Aprn 4, 2003. <br />Three timely let0era of objection were received. One objecter withdrew the objection. A Pro-Hearing Conference <br />was conductedbyMa Sandra Brown onMay 27, 2003. Om ofthe renm{niog two obJecoora did rat Upend the <br />conference. One objecoor Ms Karen Tapper did attend the conference. A dntftPre-Heating Order wan prepared and <br />issued te the Board, on May 30, 2003. The draft order identified the patties to the Hearing and tiered rho issues to be <br />rnmidered by the Board. <br />TheDiviaion Bent an adequacy review of the apptieatton to Al'a conaaltaatRobert Fleming ADl:O Consulting, Inc. <br />on Apn129,2003. The origieal decision doe date wen May 13, 2003. Aggregate Indoahiea regveated tbU the <br />Division's caasideration be continued te ]une 12, 2003 te give thaw imre bare te respond to the list of adequacy <br />items. A second adequacy review letter with a few remairnag adequacy items wan sea te AI on lane 11, and AI <br />raeponded hens 12, 2003, agreeing to a Division condition for approval of the application <br />Several ofMa Toppers iasrees had na been remlvcd nt the limn ofthe Pro-Heeriag Confectmoe. Those issues are <br />1. L the application acpaate and consiatea regarding the description of the bupw7 atocl~iks? (Rafe 1.4.4(3)) <br />Me Topper noted that in one location Ste application read thU overbmdett and oopaoil asodcpllea wiII im 30 fatx <br />high and io amtba location it read that>be overburden and topeon etadginea win ba?A Feet in height. The <br />applicant bas clarified the applcation end states "We win prolnbit ateckptlea within 200' of 104° Avenue and <br />make the maaimmm height of eteckpllea to be 20 feet. <br />2. Will the applicant comply with apptiatble water laws sad regulations governing W@Y to erdatiog water <br />Right epecifieany a potantisl for loaerimg oftba wader tnbk? (Ra4 3.1.6(lxa}) <br />The Office of the State 13ngineer -Divislaa of Water Rmonrcea reviewed ~e eppliutiaa sad, se a wndiflon of <br />Approval, ata6ed "Prior to approving a wen permit, the applicant mtnt conduct a field impecflon of the site <br />and document the location of all wells within 600 Beet of rho permit area. The appliccaa must then obtain a <br />waiver of obJectia~n from all well owners with wells within 600 feet of rho permit area or request s heating <br />before the Slam Engineer. Aggrogate fndtutriea lens agreed, is the applicati~, that no dawatetirg will occur <br />unlit an agreeffiea has been reached with the owtur of any well within 600 feet or the State Engineer's Office <br />approves partial do-watering and the Division of Misstate a~ Geokgy reviews and approves of any each <br />agreemea or approval, Aggregate ladusaies has agreed to limit do-watering te a maximum depth of 15 feet. <br />3. Has the applicant submitted a statement or plan showing how dewatering apecatioos wiIl be maosged to <br />Protect against ponutioq specifically temobitixation of DiMP (diisopr+opyhnethyipltosphomte)? (Rule <br />6.4.7(2xc ) <br />The operamr bas agreed to a condition for approval of the application (nee "Recoamrendatiea for Approval <br />with a condition"). The first sentence reads "No de•watering or extraction adivitia win occuu anal AI <br />develops a plan te monitor the gravel pit pond water for diisopropylmethylpltoaphonate (DII~) a~ obtain <br />