2006-07-13_REVISION - M1986079

• Permit No: M1986079
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 7/13/2006
• Doc Name: E-Mail Correspondence
• From: Lafarge
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: TR6
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Rowe, Chris
From: Rowe, Chris
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 3:29 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Cc: Mount, Carl
Subject: RE: M&G Pit
Steve,
Permit #: ! vl~Y4~-n ~q Confidental?:
From: Lc, fr rg lZ To; r
Doc. Name: -~ G~ ores e
Doc. Date (if no date stamp): 3 O
Specialist: ~w.12 _ - ___
Thanks for the email and the pictures. That's a lot of water and a nice looking lake.
I went back to the permit file to check your findings and I found a couple of items that
you might want to review.
In the June 23 2005 letter from Albert Frei and Sons they state that "The material will be
placed within the M&G Pit where exposed groundwater exists as shown on the 2005 TRS map."
The February 16, 2005 TRS map shows a lake that covers a portion of the northwest permit
area that appears to be leas then a quarter of the permit area. The June 23, 2005 letter
continues "There is approximately 8.85 acres of water surface along the northern part of
the west side needing filling". The June 23, 2005 letter also states that the estimate of
imported material will be about 150,000 cubic feet.
The points you make about filling the lake as it currently exists under TRS are good,
however the above information from the TRS process indicate that what was intended was to
fill the 8.85 acres lake as it existed in 2005. Therefore I believe an amendment would be
still be needed to fill areas beyond the 8.85 acres specified in TRS.
Please feel free contact me further about this issue.
Chris Rowe, Environmental Protection Specialist Division of Minerals and Geology
1313 Sherman Street
Denver, CO 80203
[phone], chris.rowe~state.co.us
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven.Brown~lafarge-na.com [mailto:Steven.Brown~lafarge-na.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 1:06 PM
To: chris.rowe®state.co.us
Subject: M&G Pit
Hello Chris,
I got the spreadsheet,. Thanks, I appreciate the help.
After looking at the records more closely and visiting the site, I think the issue of area
of the M&G Pit to be filled is clear.
The approved fourth Technical Revision (TR4) specifies and allows a "final
reclaimed lake acreage of 83 acres". The approved fifth Technical
Revision (TRS) goes one step further. TRS specifies and allows Lafarge as the permit
holder to "Backfill exposed groundwater area to two feet above water line and re-vegetate
entire premitted affected area". The boundary of the lake area is not specified in TR5
because it was understood that the size of the lake has historically changed seasonally,
with changes in weather and with construction on surrounding properties. (I discovered
that the boundary was intentionally left unspecified for these reasons by DMG in their
approval from conversations with the consultant who processed
TRS for Frei & Sons.)
To comply with the State Engineer's requirements, the property owner must backfill to
eliminate evaporative loss. As the this lake has historically and periodically filled
essentially the entire permit area, because the permit area is now almost completely
1