INSPEC22415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 2) • i11 I' MINE ID # OR PROSPp;C ~]G ID # M-82-131 INSPECTION DATE 3 ~ 2 1 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS TAS OBSERVATIONS 1. A siteilinspection vas made of the Bucklen Pit as part of the Division's on-going 4-year inspection program.; ¢'he pit i.s located in the north Greeley area immediately south of the Cache la P' udre River and west of Island Grove Park. Present during the inspection was Mike Bucklen of HucklenEq~¢ipment Company, Inc. 2. The Bucklen Pit is ~ermitted for a total disturbance of 58.9 acres, comprised of Amendment Area A - 34.9 acres arl(d Original Area B - 24 acres. The mine plan specifies dewatering and dry mining methods wit offsite discharge to the Cache la Poudre River. The reclamation plan specifies a post-mini~~ land use of private recreation with creation of several unlined lakes. The operator 9s posted a financial warranty of $68,984 in the form of a corporate surety and a certific to of deposit. The existing financial warranty is adequate to cover the cost oaf reclamati ri for the current disturbance at Areas A & B. 3. Area B has been tgind and partially reclaimed. Area B now contains a large lake with pre- law disturbances tot east ar~d west of the permitted area. A majority of shoreline within the permitarea:will n'~ed to be finish graded to contours of no steeper than 3:1, topsoiled, and revegetaCed with t~e approved seed mix. Existing shoreline areas are currently steeper than 3:1 and contain ~ moderate weed growth. 4. Area A 3s currenCly~'ilbeing mined via dewatering and dry mining methods. Approximately 40$ of Area A i~s Currentyly,disturbed with 60$ of the 39.9 acre area yet to be mined. Topsoil has been salvaged and stoc``piled for reclamation use. Pit slopes vary from from 0.5:1 to 1:1 and from 10' to 20' in he~ht. However, the existing reclamation cost and bond of $68,984 is based on the operator ining pit slopes at no steeper than 3:l,ie: there is no provision for backfilling & grading f pit slopes to the desireable 3:1 contours. Since only 406 of Area A is currently distur ed, the existing financial warranty is still adequate to complete reclamation at the sit However, if mining continues "as is" then the reclamation bond will be inadequate When the disturbance at Area A reaches 100. The reclamation cost and bond required under these c nditions is estimated by the Division to be $80,000. (This estimate is based c~n a cbst o~ $2, 000/acre for Area A, plus $10, 000 for completing grading and revegeta tion in 'Area ~). The Division considers this matter co be a problem and requests that the erator Clarify whether future excavation will be done at a 3:1 slope (as previously~i ndicated) ~r whether future excavation will be done at slopes much steeper than 3:1. Please see page 6 for corrective actions. 5. As ment i'ioned above ~tt Item 4, the operator is actively dewatering Area A. Review of the annual repots and pYe sous Division inspection reports indicates that Area B had also been dewatered during minig. During the inspection, Mr. Bucklen was unable to provide any documentation from th~ Office of the State Engineer (OSE) verifying that all necessary permits have been setu~ed. Review of the permit file also does not provide any evidence of written apdrovals from',, the OSE. It appears that both a gravel well permit and a temporary substitute__IIIsI''upply pldni~are needed for the existing water management activities at Areas A & B. A condp.tion of'tk~le Board approved 1992 amendment application for Areas A & B is as follows: o Ierator wi mt e ore groundwater until the aporopriate permits are obtained from the state engineer's~o ,ice. Since it is unknown whether the appropriate permits have been otained from the OSE, Ithe Division considers this matter to be a problem that will require corrective actions. Pease see page 4 for details. 6. In Sepl~~ember, 299~~ a "Mon.i [oring Well Program" was submitted to the Division as a corrective faction for is problem noted in a 6/26/95 inspection report. The Division had I it ~I. ~~ ~ ~ I~~