Laserfiche WebLink
September 14, 2021 C-1980-007/West Elk Mine LDS <br /> Inspection Topic Summary <br /> NOTE: Y Inspected N=Not Inspected R=Comments Noted V=Violation Issued NA=Not Applicable <br /> N -Air Resource Protection N -Roads <br /> N -Availability of Records N -Reclamation Success <br /> N -Backfill&Grading N -Revegetation <br /> N -Excess Spoil and Dev.Waste N - Subsidence <br /> N -Explosives N - Slides and Other Damage <br /> N -Fish&Wildlife R - Support Facilities On-site <br /> R -Hydrologic Balance N - Signs and Markers <br /> R -Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan N - Support Facilities Not On-site <br /> N -Other N - Special Categories Of Mining <br /> N -Processing Waste N -Topsoil <br /> COMMENTS <br /> This was a partial inspection by Leigh Simmons of the Division of Reclamation,Mining and Safety(Division). Ed <br /> Ogrodny of Mountain Coal Company(MCC)accompanied the inspection. The weather was clear,dry and hot. <br /> The mine was active. <br /> HYDROLOGIC BALANCE -Rule 4.05 <br /> Drainage Control 4.05.1,4.05.2,4.05.3; Siltation Structures 4.05.5,4.05.6; Discharge Structures 4.05.7,4.05.10; <br /> Diversions 4.05.4;Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; <br /> Drainage—Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8;Impoundments 4.05.6,4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br /> The repaired area of South Prong Creek appeared to be stable. The restored stream channel was <br /> functioning as intended.The water level in the creek appeared to be slightly lower than when it was last inspected <br /> (July 20,2021),but was sufficiently high that attempting to cross it in a light truck was not prudent.MCC should <br /> propose some method of crossing the stream other than a low-water crossing prior to beginning any future work on <br /> the south side of South Prong Creek. <br /> Silt fence that had been placed around the South Prong Creek disturbance in order to control runoff was in <br /> bad repair and would not be effective,however vegetative cover on the disturbed area appeared to be sufficiently <br /> well established that the silt fence is no longer necessary and should be removed. (The barbed wire fence around <br /> the disturbed area was also in bad repair, and had not been effective in keeping livestock out.) <br /> GENERAL MINE PLAN COMPLIANCE: <br /> The longwall was in the SS2 panel at around cross-cut 19. <br /> Development of the SS3 headgate was in progress,at around cross-cut 7. <br /> RECLAMATION SUCCESS-Rule 4.15,Rule 3: <br /> Two sites that had been included in the SL-13 application,and later switched to the SL-14 application <br /> were inspected: 1 OLC-01 and-02 were exploration holes drilled under MR-406.No additional disturbed acreage <br /> was associated with the permitting of the holes.The locations of the holes were inspected and both appeared to <br /> have been adequately reclaimed,however no survey pins or other location markers were found during the <br /> inspection. <br /> Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 3 <br /> Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 1 <br /> Page 2 of 17 <br />