|
RE: M-1999-120, Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel Mine, TR-03, Additional Information
<br />The revised backfill numbers are shown in the following table. The difference between the old
<br />estimate and the surveyed estimates is 266,101 cubic yards less. Matt also surveyed the
<br />amount of backfilling that has been completed in the phases, which is listed in the last column.
<br />
<br />Phases Estimated
<br />Backfill Volumes
<br />(from DRMS
<br />Applications) Surveyed
<br />Reclamation
<br />Backfill Volume
<br />(Cubic Yards) Difference
<br />between original
<br />and surveyed
<br />estimates Surveyed %
<br />Completion of
<br />Backfill Volumes
<br />Fort Lupton East & West 384,432 --- 384,432 ---
<br />Fort Lupton East --- 292,816 -292,816 30%
<br />Fort Lupton West --- 426,071 -426,071 0%
<br />Golden 119,268 260,974 -141,706 85%
<br />Hill-Oakley 360,290 212,157 148,133 20%
<br />Parker-Panowicz 507,099 239,632 267,467 0%
<br />Swingle-North 466,704 212,064 254,640 0%
<br />Swingle-South 314,945 242,923 72,022 0%
<br />2,152,738 1,886,637 266,101
<br />cubic yards cubic yards cubic yards
<br />If you need anything else to accept these re-calculated backfill amounts for bonding, please let
<br />me know.
<br />Although all of the information above is to help you re-calculate the complete bond (for the
<br />entire slurry wall construction, backfilling, etc.), L. G. Everist, Inc. would like to hold off getting
<br />the complete bond until just before we start the slurry wall construction work in the third quarter
<br />of next year. The reason is simply just to save money. Prior to starting the slurry wall
<br />construction and of course prior to exposing groundwater, we will submit another Technical
<br />Revision to the Division to bond for all the major slurry wall construction, backfilling, etc.
<br />In the meantime, we would like have a partial increase in our bond so that we may begin
<br />preparing the remaining phases for the major mining and slurry wall construction. Please
<br />calculate what the partial bond would be to disturb the ground in the three remaining un-bonded
<br />phases (Parker-Panowicz, Swingle-North, and Swingle-South). We will be stripping topsoil and
<br />overburden, stockpiling them, and also stockpiling materials from other phases of the site.
<br />Please account for stripping and revegetating of the entire remaining phases in the partial bond
<br />calculation. We will not be exposing groundwater during any of this stripping work.
<br />One last thing that I discussed with you was that L. G. Everist has some slight changes that
<br />need to be done to the mining (C) and reclamation (F) maps to show changes, such as slightly
<br />different oil and gas well pads and pipeline changes, and also taking the Eber property out of
<br />the mining area, since we are not going to mine it. We would like to do the map changes in a
<br />different TR. One of the reasons we would like to do map changes with a different TR (probably
<br />sometime in the spring of 2009) is because we may have more map changes soon, due to the
<br />City of Aurora. As I mentioned to you, Aurora will be taking over after we finish mining and
<br />reclaiming the Fort Lupton Sand and Gravel site, and they may want more access roads around
<br />the water storage reservoirs and other changes related to the end use of water storage. LGE
<br />and Aurora are working on those specifics now, so it makes sense to make all the map changes
<br />at the same time, rather than confusing everyone with multiple map changes. We may ask you
<br />for guidance and help to formulate what needs to be done for the future map changes and TR.
<br />FL-DRMS-TR03-Revisions-toES-121008.doc
|