INSPEC03861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY Department o(Natural Resuurces 131 S Sherman SI., Room 21.i DCOVei, Qiluradu NO''_03 DIVISION O F Phune~ (3031 NGG-JSG7 MINERAL S FAx:lJn31 NJZ-NIOG & GEOLOGY RECLAMATION MINING•SAFETY February 26, 1999 B~II Owens Mr. Lloyd V. Bamhart eUVernor Bamhart Agency Greg E. Walther ~ I ~ W 13i1~ ~ Execmrve Diecor Pueblo. COS 1003 Michael B. Long Division Director RF,: Buena Vista Pit (Permit M-77-196) Division estimate of cos[ of reclamation Dear Mr. Bamhart: Based on observations made during inspections of [he Buena Vista Piton 9/10/98 and?/3/99, the Division has re-evaluated the cost of reclaiming current disturbance at the site according to the approved reclamation plan. As the enclosed materials indicate, this tentative re-evaluation indicates that a total financial warranty of $34,700.00 is necessary to provide for reclamation of the Buena Vista Pit. The fmancial warranty posted for the pi[, at this time, totals 55,000.00. This letter is, therefore, notice to you, as agent in this matter for Hard Rock Paving and Redi-Mix, Inc., permittee for the Buena Vista Pit (Permit ht-77-196), that the currently posted fmancial warranty of $5,000.00 is considered insufficient to complete reclamation of [he pit. A total financial warranty of $;4,700.00 or an amount acceptable to the Division must be posted within 60 days of the date of this letter or by April 19, 1999. The re-evaluation is tentative at this time and your comments, suggested revisions, etc., are invited in order that the cost estimate be as accurate as possible. [n the event that no agreement can be reached that lowers the Division's estimate, a total of $34,700.00 must be posted by April 19, 1999. Since you did acknowledge the insuf£ciency of [he financial warranty N your letter to the Division of November 27, f 998 and provided an estimate of the reclamation cost at that time which differs considerably from the Division's, the following discus ion is intended to indicate the appazent reasons for the differences and to provide for a better understanding of the Division's procedure. TASK 1 (Backfilling highwalls that cannot he pushed down): In your estimate, you stated that backsloping of highwalls would be done in conjunction with the mining. That obviously cannot be done in the eas[em and northeastern portions of the pit where essentially vertical highwalls, ranging in height from 20 to 30 feet, extend all the way to the permit area boundaries. The only way approved 2:1 slopes for the pit margins can be attained in these areas is by backfilling. The highwalls here cannot now be mined to 2:1 slopes nor can the highwalls be pushed down without extending disturbance outside of the permit area boundaries. As a result, the Division's estimate includes the cost of backfilling these highwall areas with material derived from across the pit where such material is available front within [he permit area. Calculations are based on the use of a DSN dozer , an average push distance of 300 feet, and approximately 700 feet (by the map) of essentially vertical highwall. TASK 2 (Push down accessible highwall): Portions of the south margins of the pit are already at roughly 1:1 slopes and can be further reduced without disturbance extending outside of permit area boundaries. Portions of the west and northwest margins of the pit are already essentially at 2: I slopes Consequently, I have based this calculation on approximately 500 feet of highwall now at or close to a I:l slope.