Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MIME ID # OP. PROSPECTING ID # [4-77-522 <br />INSPECTION DATE 5/24/2000 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS TAS <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />1. A site inspection was made of the Herman Feit Pit as a follow-up to the Division's <br />previous inspection on January 20, 2000 when several compliance issues were noted. Present <br />during the inspection were Dave Nettles of the Office of the State Engineer, Greeley Office, <br />and Ron Richardson of River Valley Rock. <br />2. The site entrance sign and affected land boundary markers were not posted as required by <br />Rule 3.1.12. This concern was previous noted in the Division's January 20, 2000 inspection <br />report. Mr. Richardson indicated that surveyors have been hired and are ;.n the process of <br />surveying the 76 acre permit area. This inspector reviewed with Mr. Richardson the <br />requirements of Rule 3.1.12. Mr. Richardson indicated that a site entrance sign and <br />appropriate boundary markers will definately be posted on or before June 23, 2000. <br />Photographs verifying completion of these tasks will also be submitted to the Division office <br />on or before the close of business on June 23, 2000. The Division considers this matter to <br />be a problem. Please see page 4 for corrective actions. <br />3. According to the results of an inquiry with the Office of the State Engineer (OSE), the <br />operator has exposed groundwater since December 31, 1980 absent an approved well permit or <br />approved plan for mitigation of evaporative loss. Stipulation 1 of the operator's amendment <br />application conditionally approved by the Colorado Mine Land Reclamation Bo~~rd on August 22, <br />1994 requires the operator to obtain the proper permits from the OSE concerning any exposed <br />groundwater at the site. This concern was brought to the operator's attenti~~n in 1994 during <br />the amendment permitting process and again in the Division's January 20, 2000 inspection <br />report. The Division considers this matter to be a problem that will require corrective <br />actions. Various options For resolving this matter were discussed with Mr. Richardson and <br />Mr. Nettles. Please see page 4 for corrective actions. <br />4. Mr. Richardson, Mr. Nettles, and this inspector agreed that there are currently 30 acres <br />of groundwater that have been exposed after December 31, 1960. The depth of this acreage <br />averages 20 feet. The volume of material required to backfill the exposed groundwater to an <br />elevation that is at least two (2) feet above the water surface is 1,064,580 cubic yards. <br />This inspector and Mr. Richardson estimated that there is approximately 808 of this volume <br />available on-site as suitable backfill materials. The remaining 20B or 212,916 cubic yards <br />of material will need to be imported and backfilled. The Division estimates a cost of <br />$10.00(cubic yard for imported and backfilled material. Accordingly, the Division has <br />calculated a total reclamation cost of $3,015,200 for the Herman Feit Pit which includes <br />backfilling and revegetation of the 30 acres of exposed groundwater. (;.'he operator has <br />currently posted a financial warranty of $14,000). Reclamation costs cz~lculated by the <br />Division are listed below: <br />A. Import & backfill 20~ of exposed groundwater ..............................$ 2,129,160 <br />B. Backfill 80~ of exposed groundwater with on site materials .................. 380,865 <br />C. Revegetate 30 backfilled acres .............................................. 15,000 <br />..................... <br />D. Current reclamation plan requirements ............. ..... 14,000 <br />E. Indirect Costs .............................................................. 476.175 <br />F. Total Reclamation Cost ......................................................3,015,200 <br />