Laserfiche WebLink
STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />j' - ~ Department of Natural Resources <br />1373 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3567 <br />FAX; (303) 832-8106 <br />'~~January 9, 2006 <br />-",~ Terry Wetz <br />International Uranium (USA) Corp. <br />Independence Plaza, Suite 950 <br />1050 Seventeenth St. <br />Denver CO 80265 <br />RFC-'~A~;,~~ <br />f. <br />J'~'' 1 <br />~Ti)L` <br />~aleq el .. "'''~y7 <br />~Ipe/HIS a <br />~1 Leola9Y <br />COLORADO <br />OIVI SION OF <br />MINE8RAL5 <br />GEOLOGY <br />RE CLAMATION~MINING <br />sAf ETT•sCIENCE <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br />Russell George <br />Executive DirecYOr <br />Ronald W. Cattany <br />Division Director <br />Natural Resource Trustee <br />~a~ <br />V <br />Re: Sunday Mite Permit M-1977-285, DMG Respons- e to Operator's Questions about Bond Recalculation.~-~ ~ Zl <br />Dear Mr. Wetz, / <br />I apologize for the delay in responding to the questions in your 5/12/05 letter concerning the above-named site and <br />the latest bond recalculation that was sent to you for review. I hope that the following responses adequately explain <br />the Division's estimated cost figures, so that we may reach closure on this matter. My responses below are <br />numbered to correspond to the points from your letter. <br />You had mentioned that some of the recalculated reclamation costs in the packet I sent you did not conform to the <br />details of the permit's ongfnal reclamation plan. That is true, but please be reminded that numerous details from <br />the original reclamation plan were revised under Technical Revision TR-02. Please refer to your letter dated <br />1/9/04, page 3, and specifically the statement that TR-02 is intended to revise the reclamation plan. The revised <br />reclamation plan is now the guiding set of reclamation requirements for this permit. <br />1) The requirement for backfilling the vent shafts was included in TR-02. Your letter of 1/9/04, page 5, states that <br />shaft closure will be by removal of the fan and any surface hardware, followed by backfilling to within a few feet of <br />the surface, followed by the breaking and backfilling of the concrete collar. This would be observed for settling, <br />then covered by a few feet of native rock and soil, and finally revegetated. The bond recalculation was based on <br />performing these tasks for the specified shafts. <br />2) The requirement for 2:1 slopes is part of TR-02, and was detailed in the 1/9/041etter, on pages 4 and 5. <br />Applicable paragraphs describe the 2:1 slopes for the graded portal backfill, road cuts, and dump surfaces. <br />3) The revegetation of the dumps was specified as part of this technical revision. Please refer to your letter dated <br />10/22/04, which was accompanied by the TR-02 Reclamation Map. The map delineated and labeled the <br />"Reclaimed Area." The letter stated that all reclaimed areas would be revegetated. <br />4) Pursuant to Rule 4.1(7), and Section 117(6)(a) of the Act, reclamation costs must be fully bonded at all times <br />during the life of a permit. The Division has the responsibility of periodically reviewing and updating the <br />reclamation cost estimate, normally every few years, barring permit revisions or transfers. The State may allow a <br />salvage value for materials and structures to offset demolition or reclamation costs, which can result in a lower <br />bond amount, as described in the citations from the Rules and Regulations in the paragraphs below. <br />The actual amount of offset or savings to be realized is ofren not known or can change dramatically prior to or <br />during reclamation, making the setting of a salvage value a temporary figure at best. A salvage value that is <br />Office of Office of Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Active and Inactive Mines Geological Survey <br />