REV01778 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SATE d~ co~o~o DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Deparrmem of Natural Resources 1317 Sherman St., Roam 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 861>-3567 FAX: (303) 83?-it106 Febnlary 18, 1999 C_ ._ ~ 1 ry ~(~'~~ E !Lc ~-qf-o s~rE: ~-~_ f Mr. Thomas Logue RE~E~VED Elam Constnrction, Inc. FEB 22 1999 1225 S. 7`s SI;. Grand Junction CO 81501 p~ms~opetM~netatshGe°togY Re: Mule Farm Gravel Pit, Permit M-91-079, Scheduled Bond Recalculation, Increase in Financial Warranty. Dear Mr. Loc;ue, DIVISION OF MINERALS GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY Bill Owens Governor Gceg E. Watcher EneNlive Dueaor Michael B. long Division Director Amount of Enclosed is a packet of revised estimates of the reclamation costs associated with the full reclamation of your gravel pit. These revised costs reflect the amount and type of disturbance observed during the Division's ll'.)8 inspection, the amounts of disturbance and reclamation reported in your annual reports, and the details ofthe approved reclamation plan in your file. This Division requires that every operator's mining disturbance be re-evaluated periodically, to ensure that the State holds enough bond in case the State must contract the reclamation work to be done. The new total estimate is $162,179, which is an increase of $E8,799. Your present bond is $73,380 in the form of a corporate surety. This amount resulted in the approval of Technical Revision TR-O1, which acted to set the per-acre reclamation cost and limit the number of disturbed acres. There are some aspects of this TR-Ol, which I will discuss below. When I inspected the site in 1998, I informed you that I would estimate the current reclamation costs. The enclosed bond recalculation includes several conservative assumptions to bring this site into apost- mining, fully-reclaimed condition. My estimates were based on the 1997 annual report map and my o~vtl field measurements, plus the approved mining and reclamation plans in the file, The assumptions and specified details of your p]an include: ] 5 acres of the area has been disturbed to some extent, and much of those acres will be reclaimed to a rangeland condition, with some of the acres actually being under the waterline of ttte pond; the existing pit will expand toward the north and east, with the new sections adjoining the old on one side; the pit must be dewatered before and during all earthmoving; the highwall of the expanded pit must be reduced to 3:1 before the scraper can begin to move overburden and topsoil; the upland areas (above the waterline) will be topsoiled by 7-inch-thick layer of topsoil; compacted areas in the northwest corner and interior roads will be ripped prior to revegetation; and the costs reflect only a small portion .lf the 42 acres is actually mined. As the site is more fully mined, making more of an area for the excess overburden to be backfilled, the costs actually decrease. Until that point is reached, however, this office feels that a bond amount should be calculated at a maximum disturbance level. This is important now, since you stated today on the phone that you will soon submit another technical revision to allow fill) disturbance of the site. Later in the operation, more pond area will decrease the needed bond.