My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-04-13_REVISION - M1999034
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1999034
>
2005-04-13_REVISION - M1999034
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:51:50 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 4:54:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999034
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
4/13/2005
Doc Name
Board Materials
From
DMG
To
File
Type & Sequence
AM1
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Karen & Ralf Topper <br />9628 Fallen Rock Road <br />Conifer, CO 80433 <br />(303) 838.5636 <br />RECEIVED <br />FEB 10 2005 <br />February 9, 2005 <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Attn. Kathleen L. Sullivan <br />RE: Permit No. M-1999-034, Amendment No. 1 <br />Aggregate Industries - WRC, Inc. <br />Dear Ms. Sullivan: <br />Division ~t Minerals and Geology <br />We aze in receipt of your letter of February 2, 2005 and enclosed documents regarding the water <br />quality sampling issues raised in reference to Aggregate Industries, Cooley Reservoir & Fulton <br />Wildlife Area Pit, Permit No. M-1999-034, AM-O1. We greatly appreciate your response to our <br />previously submitted concerns/letters, and your thorough review and response to Aggregate <br />Industries addressing the required monitoring plan, lake sampling protocol, and well sampling <br />protocol. <br />We aze deeply concerned, however, that we have a fundamental difference of opinion with <br />regard to the interpretation of the Mined Land Reclamation Board (MI,RB) Order in this matter, <br />dated July 8, 2003. We believe this difference may stem from your lack of historical perspective <br />on this application and our concerns related to it. It is our opinion and we believe also the <br />opinion of the Mined Land Reclamation Board that the sampling frequency specified in <br />Condition #1 of the Order also applies to Condition #2 "after de-watering begins". We can <br />understand that without the full historical perspective and consideration of Condition #1, you <br />may interpret Condition #2 to mean only two events. A monitoring plan with only two events, <br />one hefore pit watering begins and one after, is of little benefit. The entve premise of <br />monitoring is to detect changes in water quality due to som external activity. If you only have <br />two endpoints, you have no information on the magnitude timing of the change attributable to <br />the external event nod you have no opportunity to mitigate a effect. That is, the response plan <br />alluded to in Condition #1. <br />We do not believe that Condition #2 of the MLRB Order can be taken in isolation and out of <br />context of Condition # 1. Both of these conditions were a consequence of the Findings of Fact, <br />Conclusions of Law and Order in the matter of the 112c permit amendment application of <br />Aggegate Industries-WCR, Inc., File No. M-199-034, Amendment No. 1. The two wnditions <br />were implemented in response to our concerns regarding ground water contamination addressed <br />in pazagaphs 15-22. In fact, the language of condition #2 comes directly from paragraph 21 of <br />the Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law and Order. Prior to your arrival at the Division, we _ , . <br />wog d 5~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.