Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MAY 2 1 2008 <br />McSTONE AGGREGATES, LLC. <br />P.Q. Box 483 <br />Dur-i. ,.. girl oMao Cortez, CO 81321-0483 <br />Division ca i- aclornation <br />, <br />Mining GIs Ratfe3ickford <br />RECEIVED <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety MAY 2 9 2008 <br />Durango Office <br /> Division of Reclamation <br /> <br />VIA E-mail , <br />Mining and Safety <br />19 May 2008 <br />SUBJECT: File No M-2008-010 Mud Creek Pit 112(c) Permit Application. Response to your letter of 13 <br />May 2008 (PART 11) <br />As stated in the first part of our response to your letter, this letter completes our response to your letter of <br />13 May 2008. Again, we thank you for your comments and concerns. We believe that we meet or exceed <br />all requirements. <br />4. Use of We agree to eliminate the use of offsite construction debris as backfill material <br />construction from our application. <br />and demolition However, we must add that we did intend to comply with the requirements of <br />debris Rule 3.1.5(9), which states <br />in part: "If an Operator intends to backfill inert <br /> , <br />structural fill generated outside of the approved permit area, it is the Operator's <br /> responsibility to provide the Office notice of any proposed backfill activity not <br /> identified in the approved Reclamation Plan." Since we have identified backfill <br /> activity using inert structural fill generated outside of the approved permit area in <br /> the Reclamation Plan and related documents in the Exhibits to our application, it <br /> would seem as 9 this rule should not apply to these circumstances. In <br /> particular, since the commitment to use only "clean, inert material" (as defined in <br /> Rule 1.1(20) is stated in the original application; the first response, and now <br /> again in this response, all of which were signed, and since the application was <br /> notarized, we believe that we have met all'requirements for an "affidavit. <br /> We believed that our response did meet all requirements with the possible <br /> exception that the response letter was not a sworn statement. <br /> We actually had no hesitation about providing affidavits as required by the <br /> regulations; it is simply that it is difficult to provide affidavits at this time for <br /> possible debris generated over the life of the pit (approximately 20 years), <br /> before we .inspect that material at the time it is generated and proposed to be <br /> delivered to the project site. We fully understood the limitations on placement of <br /> concrete (which is a restatement of the definition of "inert material" from Rule <br /> 1.1(20), and at no time did we intend tD place fresh concrete in contact with <br /> ground water. Please note that the permit application indicates that there is little <br /> or no ground water expected to be encountered in the areas of the site to be <br /> mined. While we appreciate the thoroughness that prompted that comment, we <br /> are concerned that restating the requirement gives the false impression that we <br /> had originally intended to place fresh or uncured concrete in ground water which <br /> was not our intent. <br />5. Seeding and We do commit to use the "Semkrrigated pasture seed mix" for those portions of <br />reclamation the site which are irrigated but not in cropland, and to use the "D land pasture