GENERAL34851 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~' ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIII III STATE O~ COLvi~UO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Rerources 131 3 Sherman 51.. Roam 21 S Dern~er, Colorado 8020] Phone: 130}I 866-3567 rr`x: aosl aJ2 alo6 February 5, 1999 - =Ci~~v~~ Li~~91~~ S' I ~~ Cr~,y~ _ Z DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Jim M. Burcltett r~ Asphalt Gravel Products, Inc. ; ~,Cep100-y 117 White Pine Drive Alamosa CO 81 101 Roy Ron,er Governor ~,n,es s. fncnnrad Esrc Wive Director Michael B. long Division DireUOr Re: Garrett Pit, Permit M-78-271, Recalculated Reclamation Costs, Increased Bond Needed. Dear Mr. Burchett, As we discussed during the 1/14/99 inspection, the reclamation bond for the above-named pit is probably insufficient, based on the currently approved reclamation plan. I reviewed the reclamation plan, which was approved in 1982 at the time of the 112 permit conversion, and used those criteria for the existing amount of disturbance. I used the recent annual report map to extrapolate the current extent altd types of disturbance. The enclosed packet of reclamation tasks should fully cover what we believe to be a close estimate of the current costs to reclaim the site. This is a brief list of the details and assumptions used in these estimated costs: current amount of distLrbed area is less than 50 acres, but after slope grading for higitwall reduction, is approximately 50 acres; some of this disturbed area will not require topsoiling or seeding; highwalls range from vertical to l : l slopes; final slopes must be in the range of 3:1 to 4:1 (with 3.5:1 used for calculations); topsoil to be salvaged and cntsher fines produced will be used in reclamation, with asix-inch layer to be replaced; revegetation is necessary on about 40 acres currently; itt addition to seeding, the plan includes a transplanting task for the native rabbitbrush, for which I estimated about 600 small plants to be placed in certain areas. I did not include the cost for purchasing and hauling topsoil, since I did not know what additional amount, if any, might be needed. Also, I did no[ include the cost of fencing the disturbed area to exclude grazing livestock, though the plan states that this may be required. In all, the tasks amounted to a total cost of $108,012. Your current bond amount is $38,120, which makes the amount of this increase $69,892. The last inspection report included the fact that there are a couple problems to correct, concerning a revision of the mining and reclamation plans, and the present excessive amount of unreclailtted disturbance. You had stated during the inspection that a new detailed map tnigltt have to be produced, one which would identify the actual disturbed and/or reclaimed acreage, and the volume of existing stockpiles of growth medium. At this time, these numbers are simply es[intated Please review the enclosed packet. Until more "exact" figures are provided by you, my enclosed recalculated reclamation cost estimate must be the figures used for the required bond increase. If, however, you note any other type of detail, such as choice of equipment, etc., which bears revising, please le[ me know. Either type of feedback from you may influence [he total reclamation cost required. Apart front that, please know that the site is quite underbonded and a sizeable increase in needed.