My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-05-22_PERMIT FILE - M2008010
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2008010
>
2008-05-22_PERMIT FILE - M2008010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:31:53 PM
Creation date
6/2/2008 11:05:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2008010
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
5/22/2008
Doc Name
Response to Cooments Received from Ms. Nancy Segel and Mss. Catherine Neva and Debra Cross
From
McStone Aggregates, LLC
To
DRMS
Email Name
KAP
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.
/
3
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
o? Rcc?a fiekl n, <br />'?ol9 Ord S? <br />McSTONE AGGREGATES, LLC. <br />P.O. Box 483 <br />Cortez, CO 81321-0483 <br />Ms. Kate Pickford <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />Durango Office <br />A0 <br />?lAY 2 ,?o 2008 <br />C%Lil^c7; <br />Diva. n of i.. r <br />Aining and S„ 19' F, 2008 <br />VIA E-mail <br />SUBJECT: File No M-2008-010 Mud Creek Pit 112(c) Permit Application. Response to comments received <br />from Ms. Nancy Segel (28 April 2008) and from Mss. Catherine Neva and Debra Cross (dated 30 May <br />2008). <br />Dear Ms. Pickford: <br />We thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns addressed by these ladies, which we received <br />on 13 May 2008. We do understand their concerns for safety and other matters, and we wish to address <br />these as much as possible. Many of these issues have already been addressed in our response to the <br />Division's comments and to the Mancos Conservation District. <br />We also note that many of the items in the Neva/Cross letter seem to pertain to the High Impact Permit <br />Application submitted to Montezuma County, and not to the DRMS application. These were answered to <br />the satisfaction of the Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in the public hearing in <br />Cortez on 5 May 2008. However, we will again answer these, as we respect their concerns. <br />Ms. Segel's letter: <br />1. Safety issues on US Highway 160. We appreciate Ms. Segel's concern with traffic safety, <br />which we share. Prior to obtaining County planning approval, and to filing the application with <br />the Division, we filed for and obtained an access Permit from the Colorado Department of <br />Transportation (CDOT). We are required by CDOT to make certain improvements to the <br />access before we can begin mining operations at the site. CDOT did look at adjacent traffic <br />conditions and access in issuing the access application, and we will comply with the access <br />permit conditions. In addition, because of our concern for safety, we are requiring additional <br />training and orientation for truck drivers. We believe that the combination of the improvements, <br />the better site distance, and the training will prevent accidents and improve safety. <br />2. Excessive diesel emissions from trucks and dust/sand from operations: Air emissions are <br />regulated by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). Our trucks and our <br />operations meet or exceed APCD requirements, including permits issued by APCD for both the <br />pit and for portable equipment operating in the pit. These permits require that dust and other <br />control measures be implemented at all times, and we intend to do so. <br />3. We understand that there have been claims that there is inadequate water available to properly <br />reclaim the property after mining. As stated in the application to DRMS, the amount of water <br />available for agricultural use from irrigation (water rights) and from natural precipitation is <br />sufficient for reclamation as proposed. We operate other pits in the area under DRMS permits, <br />and most of those do not have any water rights. They depend entirely on natural precipitation, <br />and have been successfully reclaimed and released over a period of many years. We are <br />confident that we can and will properly reclaim all disturbed areas in accordance with state <br />standards. Even though irrigation water is not a mandatory requirement for reclamation, we
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.