2005-02-10_REVISION - M1999034

• Permit No: M1999034
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 2/10/2005
• Doc Name: Response to DMG 2/2/05 Letter
• From: Karen & Ralf Topper
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: AM1
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

f+M-o1
~"_V"" Le f~l~
~I{aren & Ralf Topper
9628 Fallen Rock Road
Conifer, CO 80433
[phone]
February 9, 2005
Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman Street, Room 215
Denver, CO 80203
Attn. Kathleen L. Sullivan
RE: Permit No. M-1999-034, Amendment No. 1
Aggregate Industries - WRC, Inc.
Dear Ms. Sullivan:
RECEIVED
FEB 1 0 2005
Division ~! Minerals and Geology
We aze in receipt of your letter of February 2, 2005 and enclosed documents regarding the water
quality sampling issues raised in reference to Aggregate Industries, Cooley Reservoir & Fulton
Wildlife Area Pit, Permit No. M-1999-034, AM-Ol. We greatly appreciate your response to our
previously submitted concerns/letters, and your thorough review and response to Aggregate
Industries addressing the required monitoring plan, lake sampling protocol, and well sampling
protocol.
We are deeply concerned, however, that we have a fundamental difference of opinion with
regard to the interpretation of the Mined Land Reclamation Board (ML,RB} Order in this matter,
dated July 8, 2003. We believe this difference may stem from your lack of historical perspective
on this application and our concerns related to it. It is our opinion and we believe also the
opinion of the Mined Land Reclamation Board that the sampling frequency specified in
Condition #1 of the Order also applies to Condition #2 "after de-watering begins". We can
understand that without the full historical perspective and consideration of Condition #1, you
may interpret Condition #2 to mean only two events. A monitoring plan with only two events,
one before pit watering begins and one after, is of little benefit. The entire premise of
monitoring is to detect changes in water quality due to some external activity. If you only have
two endpoints, you have no information on the magnitude or timing of the change attributable to
the external event and you have no opportunity to mitigate the effect. That is, the response plan
alluded to in Condition # 1.
We do not believe that Condition #2 of the MLRB Order can be taken in isolation and out of
context of Condition # 1. Both of these conditions were a consequence of the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order in the matter of the 112c permit amendment application of
Aggregate Industries-WCR, Inc., File No. M-199-034, Amendment No. 1. The two conditions
were implemented in response to our concerns regazding ground water contamination addressed
in paragraphs 15-22. In fact, the language of condition #2 comes directly from paragraph 21 of
the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. Prior to your arrival at the Division, we