REV05119 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DIVISION Of MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of NaWral Resources 1 J 13 Sherman St., Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone (303) 866-3567 FAX: (703)832-8106 August 25, 2000 Alan Parkerson Parkerson Construction, Inc. 710 South 15th Street Grand Junction, CO 81501 III IIIIIIIIIIIII III 999 RECE/V~D AUG 3 0 ?000 Division o1 Minerals and CealoBY co~o~,~o DFNV Fj ~~~CF~ E~ICE S/T~. ~ - SPY L ~~ DIVISION OF MINERALS GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MININ G•SAFETY Bill Owens i _ / ~ ~i jGoeernor ~~/ fwd Greta E bValcher vyA,-, Esecuhve Direilor h///y Michael B. Lung Division D~reaor Re: Orchard Grove Pit, Permit No. M-1990-094, Revision of the 6/21/00 Bond Recalculation. Dear Mr. Parkerson, This letter is in regard to the Division's reclamation cost estimate for the above-named site, which was mailed to you on June 21, 2000, and your response to that estimate, which was received here on July 24, 2000. In that response letter you named several items which appear to have a significant effect on the bond estimate: the amount of onsite concrete rubble which is presently not on the permit area surface, and the amount of pond (pit) area which is now filled (with the above-mentioned rubble). My June 21, 2000, bond estimate indicated an increase was required in the bond amount, from the present $29,000 to a new total of $135,387. The bond increase was to be provided within 60 days, i.e., before August 22, 2000. Your response was mailed to us well ahead of the August 22, 2000, deadline for submitting the increase, though I am only now responding back to you. Please accept my apologies. Your written response also referred to an approved "alternative" surface reclamation which could include a pond within the industrial land, of some indefinite water surface area. My cost estimate did not account for that alternative at all; my costs were based on simply backfilling the pit with available fill with no pond remaining. This alternative was not included in the original application materials in 1990, but actually came out during the Division's adequacy review, prior to the decision. Earlier, I had not been able to locate the document which detailed this alternative, and could only base my estimate on the original proposed reclamation. I now have a copy of this alternative, which I found during my current permit file search. You and I have discussed this pond alternative by phone recently, and it appears that some new recalculation is warranted. I will consider your recent response and perform a revision of the recent bond estimate, and restart the 60-day clock, which will bwgin when you receive the next cost packet. For now, I would like to request that you provide me with more detail about the factors which affect the costs for the reclamation tasks. For example, please provide a close estimate of the amount of rubble still onsite to be backfilled, the length of the present pond margin and its average slope gradient, plus detail about the amounts remaining on any of the other tasks to be performed. Your estimate of the reclamation costs will help ensure that we are both estimating for the same end condition of reclamation (including equipment types, volumes, distances, etc.). A couple of photos of the features onsite would be very useful also. With this detailed information, I will start over with the cost recalculation.