Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1977-424 <br />INSPECTION DATE 8-22-2003 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS. GRM <br />This was a routine monitoring inspection conducted as part of DMG's ongoing monitoring program for permitted mines in <br />Colorado. <br />The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers are in place and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. <br />No significant erosional features were noted on the affected areas of the site. <br />No significant infestations of noxious or other problematic weeds were noted on the portions of the site observed during this <br />inspection. However, some occurrence of Yellow spine thistle will need to be treated and monitored so it does not overtake the <br />site. <br />A very small amount of water was noted in the leak detection sump at the evaporation pond. It does not appear that this is <br />anything more than precipitation that seeped in through the leaky capon the sump. However, the operatorwill need to watch <br />this closely to determine id patch repairs are needed on the pond liner. The pond had only a few inches of water in it, along <br />with an abundance of salt crystal deposition. <br />The upper portions of the site, above, adjacent to, and just below the vent fan appear to be ready for release from further <br />reclamation responsibility. The operator is encouraged to apply for release of any portions of the site that have been reclaimed <br />to the specifications of the reclamation plan. The specific area designations of each of these reclaimed locations are unknown <br />due to the lack of a detailed site map and reclamation map in the DMG Grand Junction Field Office files. The operator <br />representative indicated that copies of these maps could be provided to this office. These maps would be most appreciated. <br />Reclamation of the facilities area around the portals and mine dumps is occurring. Currently, hand dug benches are being <br />excavated on the mine dumps, in an effort to establish better microclimate for establishing islands ofvegetation. The benches <br />are not part of the reclamation plan, but should greatly increase the chances for successful vegetation establishment. While <br />digging the benches, the crew is removing all exposed refuse from the waste dump surtace. <br />While reviewing DMG files for this mine, several deficiencies were noted in the permit records. First, the Reclamation Plan <br />calls for the portals to be blocked and sealed. Clearly, with the mine water issues, a simple portal seal will most likely not bean <br />adequate method for sealing this mine. This was made more evident by the failure of the Technical Revision No. 2 water <br />management practice. The permit will need to be revised to indicate how the portal seals will be designed to account for the <br />hydrologic conditions that can reasonably be expected in the mine location in the future. <br />Second, the Reclamation Plan does not clarify how the evaporation pond will be removed and disposed of. The permit will <br />need to be revised to indicate how reclamation of this pond will take place and where and how the liner and the evaporated <br />salts will be properly disposed of. <br />Thirdly, it was noted that the pilot water treatment plant, specified by Technical Revision No. 3 has been operational, but had <br />some technical difficulties, and is currently shut down. Review of TR-03 identified that the financial warranty increase of <br />$2,245.00, required for TR-03 to be approved, was never submitted to DMG. Therefore, TR-03 was never officially approvetl, <br />the pilot plant iscurrently anon-compliance site feature, and the site is currently under-bonded. If adequate financial warranty <br />is not received by DMG by October 17, 2003, this issue may be brought before the Mined Land Reclamation Board as an <br />enforcement action. <br />The operator representative indicated a desire to leave the chain link mesh rock fall protection on the faces of the portal bench <br />highwalls. This proposal is not an option because of the high probability that this chain link would eventually fail, possibly with <br />more hazard potential than there would be if the mesh were not left in place. Failure of the mesh would then result in <br />unreclaimed waste on the site. <br />