PERMFILE126919 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

= iii iiiiiiiiiiiii iii ~ STATE O~ COLORADO DIVISION OF h11NERALS AND GEOLOGY Department of Natural Resources 7 313 Sherman St ,Room 215 Denver, Colorado 80'03 Phone: 13071856-3557 FAr: (3031 832-8106 ~E~EIVELi Febnlan' 6, 2001 FEg 0 g ~~ Ed Stew-art IX~~a~~88Ge~, Valco Gunnison Concrete Division P.o. BD. s37 '~i~~+li ' ~ ••`~~~~~r~.Jo~":~i;~, DIVISION O F MINERALS ~` 6.•19 ~} ~.r 3~{ 'Z ( RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY .1 __ (_ b7 ~' 1 ~• I1,v,( Bill Owens f~ I Q _ /, r~~ l'Lwwac-I ul/ W Governor Greg E. Walther Executive Duectur Gunnison. CO 81230 Micnacl B. Long Division Director Re: Ready Mix Pit, Perntit No. M-1977-023, Reclamation Cost Recalculation. Bond Increase Notice. Dear Mr. Stewart, I have recalculated [he reclamation costs for dte above-named site, based on the current condition of the site and the approved mining and reclamation plans. As you know, the bond amount of each permit must be reviewed periodically. The State statutes require that if mt existing bond amount is insufficient, the operator must provide the additional bond within 60 days of notification. Your existine bond amount is $27,837.00. The inclosed reclamation cost estimate amounts to $ 115.814.00. which indicates an increase of $87.977.00 in the reouired bond. You are hereby notified of such increase Please revie+v the figures in the enclosed reclamation cost estimate packet. The packet consists of a one-page summary sheet followed by the set of detailed individual task sheets, a set of equipment cost and production sheets. and several pages of notes and calculations. The figures in the packet account for the performing all outstanding reclamation in the amounts needed presently, and according to the specifications from the approved plan in the file. This cost estimate is significantly higher than the existing bond amount. 1 have tried to analyze the reason for this increase. and the best single answer 1 can find is that numerous reclamation cost items were underestimated or excluded in the past. A few points should be made about the basis and assumptions of the updated figures in this estimate. Tltis site was approved for mining a series of ponds initially, then uniting them into larger lakes by full removal of the dikes. Later, [ecl)nical revision TR-01 allowed for leaving the dikes in place so the small ponds +eould remain. A later revision allo+ved partial removal of the dikes, to make one large pond with peninsulas in it. A revision also specified the removal of the five acres in the NE comer of the property from reclamation liability, but did not remove it from the permit area. The industrial buildings and other structures in that NE five acres have no reclamation costs were assigned [o s[ntctural removal there, but are still subject to clean-up costs on that area. The largest single task cost in this estimate is tite removal mid disposal of structures and debris from the site. Tltis, as you will recall from my January 24, 2001, inspection, involves the demolition of the steel shop building altd concrete floor, and the offsi[e hauling of all miscellaneous debris and equipment stored near the building and on the north end of [he penni[ area. For all true debris, or parts and equipment whose condition is unknown, 1 included haulage and disposal costs. Contaminants. ferrous and pu[rescible materials, and hydrocarbons cannot be disposed of onsite due to the high water table. For equipment and parts which appeared to have some current value, and salvage value for the foreseeable future, I included only offsite hauling cost and no disposal cos[. Concrete debris all appeared [o be free from steel and iron. I[ can therefore be disposed of onsite and below the water [able. For all concrete debris I included only [he cost of carroing it to the nearest pond and dumping it in for onsite disposal. The demolition [ask sheet includes line-by-line detail for your information.