REV102664

• Permit No: M1986079
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 7/5/2005
• Doc Name: correspondence
• From: sherman and howard llc
• To: dmg
• Type & Sequence: TR5
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Sherman & Howard 1.. c.
GARY L. GREER
Direct Dial No.: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mr. Larry D. Oehler
Environmental Protection Specialist
Division of Minerals and Geology
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Ste. 215
Denver, CO 80203
arroRNEYS ~ couNSEwRSar uw
633 SEVENTEENTH STREET; SllII'E 3000
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
OFETCES W: COLORADO SPRINGS
RENO • (AS VEGAS • PHOENIX
tl1~4~1 b ~®
July 1, 2005
JUL 0 § YOar
Oivisian of Minerals and Geology
1 ~-~~~
Re: Albert Frei & Sons, Inc., M&G Pit, Permit No. M-1986-079 /
Dear Mr. Oehler:
Your response to John Corkle's letter of May 25, 2005 concerning the Albert Frei &
Sons application for a Technical Revision (No.S) has been referred to me for advice and
comment.
The Mann Trust is disappointed to learn that the Division has decided to approve the
permit revision. As you point out, the operator's intention seems to be to place a very small
amount of fill in the pit to cover the relatively small volume and area of water surface that is in
the pit at the present time. The proposed revision represents inadequate reclamation.
This is not an appropriate time to declare that importing a small volume of fill is
adequate to reclaim a dry pit of this size (in lieu of establishing aquatic wildlife habitat). We aze
emerging from a significant drought. It is also a period during which neighboring properties
have been deliberately dewatered. Grassing over a depression does not make it a wildlife
habitat, particulazly if there is a chance that the pit could again become a Lake when and if the
groundwater table reestablishes equilibrium. Neither AF&S, nor the Division, nor the State
Engineer has established that such aband-aid would achieve permanent reclamation. If the
operator gets approval to dump a small volume of fill material in the hole and gets himself
released before groundwater has an opportunity to be re-exposed, he will be enabled to walk
away from a situation that is unstable. It is premature to determine,that no augmentation plan
will be needed for exposed groundwater until considerably more engineering has been done than
AF&S has demonstrated in its February 16`h letter.
You mention that AF&S will be required to comply with Rule 3 (Section 3.1.5 (9) (a)
through (f). That requires that the operator provide significant and substantial information in the
form of a notice to the Office prior to backfilling with off-site material. The February 16`h letter
from AF&S falls far short of providing such information. The letter does not qualify as notice