INSPEC06630 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-2001-100 INSPECTION DATE: 1/29/04 OBSERVATIONS INSPECTOR'S INITIALS GRM This inspection was conducted as part of the normal monitoring program established by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology. The BLM Pit No. 1 began mining in 2002. This inspection is the first since the per- operational inspection on 10/31/01. The BLM Pit was inspected as a matter of convenience in conjunction with visits to the 2 adjoining pits. Brent Kerr, the operator's representative was present. The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers aze in place and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. The sign is located at the main entrance to the site, which is shazed by two adjacent pits. Boundary mazkers aze noted as fence t-posts located at strategic points that cleazly delineate the permit boundaries. As noted above the site began producing gravel in 2002. The current pit conditions aze somewhat disheveled as the operator encountered shale bedrock roll that has affected the Phase 1 mining to the anticipated depth. This bedrock roll had to be worked around and it appeazs, at this time, to have had a major impact on the levelness of the pit floor. Materials from the pit aze being moved to the adjacent Hall Pit for processing. It was anticipated that as the mining progressed, working room would be developed so that materials would not necessarily be moved off site. The operator may need to submit a Technical Revision to the Mining Plan at a later date if the pit floor cannot be leveled as anticipated with the original permit application to address permanent use of the Hall Pit for processing and stockpiles. The Division received a copy of the BLM's report from July, 18 2002 that raise concerns about the handling of topsoil and overburden. A review ofthat report with on site observations concludes that United did not follow soil- handlingprocedures as it agreed to with both the BLM and DMG. Topsoil and overburden are now sepazated and stockpiled at the edge of Block 2 for use in reclamation. The operator is required by Rule to protect any topsoil from wind and precipitation erosion if it is to remain in place for more than one growing season. In conversation with Mr. Kerr it appears that the topsoil has not been protected as required. The inspector will not list erosion protection of topsoil as a problem, however, he will ask for documentation that some kind of seedin¢ has taken place this spring to protect the stockpile. The Division highly recommends using the approved seed mix for such purposes. This may give some indications of what species of grasses and shrubs will have the greatest success or failure when final reclamation efforts aze undertaken. No stormwater or erosion issues aze noted at this time. All precipitation appeazs to be being contained on site. The inspector observed no signs of off-site disturbance to existing mesa slopes. No evidence of hazardous materials /waste storage or spills was noted. There was some snow cover on site, however it was in undisturbed areas of the permit and did not hinder visual inspection. The Financial Warranty was calculated in late 2001. Based on current conditions, the estimate appeazs to be adequate. Although the current disturbance may require more work, it is not as deep or as wide as the original impact was based on and evens out. Once the operator gets farther along in development of the site a re-evaluation of the current reclamation bond will be warranted.