INSPEC08440 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1978-222 UG INSPECTION DATE 7-17-2002 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS OBSERVATIONS This was a complete inspection conducted to evaluate current site conditions so that a recalculation of the reclamation cost estimate can be performed to ensure adequate financial warranty is being held by the State of Colorado to reclaim this site. Records -Several annual reports from the early 1980's do indicate that acreage in this permit was affected and some reclaimed. However, those reports do not specify where the mining and reclamation activities occurred. A letter dated July 22, 1986 from Taminco, Inc. (the operator at that time) to Umetco Minerals Corp. (the lease holder) indicates that the only mining activity associated with this permit, since permit issuance (March 1, 1979), was at the Great Hesper site. All annual reports since 1986 indicate no additional mining activity except some reclamation performed in 1995. Therefore, it appears that the Great Hesper site and the locations of the 1995 reclamation are the only areas currently requiring reclamation under this permit. All other sites within this permit were apparently not disturbed after permit issuance and therefore are not required to be reclaimed under this permit. However, DMG strongly recommends that these sites be reclaimed to remove the liabilities of hazardous openings and potential for weed infestation. The 1996 Annual Report indicates that workings were backfilled and highwalls knocked down at the Great Hesper, Monogram Pit and Buckhorn sites in 1995. However, during this inspection, Mr. Jim Fisher indicated that he was in charge of that reclamation project and had mistakenly directed the contractor to the wrong locations for the Monogram Pit and the Buckhom. The correct location was reclaimed at the Great Hesper. The reclamation intended for the Monogram Pit and Buckhorn sites, but actually conducted outside the permit area on other locations within the Monogram Claim Group, is considered to be landowner diligence. This reclamation is not considered to be associated with this permit. Siuns and Markers -The component sites of this permit area are in various stages of reclamation, most of which occurred naturally or before these sites were included in this permit. Some are unreclaimed while others are completely reclaimed. The majority are partially reclaimed. However, the only site that was evidently disturbed under this permit is the Great Hesper. Therefore, until mining activities are to resume, the Great Hesper appears to be the only site under this permit that is required to have the mine identification sign in place. Before affecting acreage at any other of the sites, a mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers must be installed and must be consistent with the details of the mine plan and maps and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. While the Great Hesper is in final reclamation, affected area boundary markers will not be required. If the site is reactivated, new markers will need to be installed. Hvdroloaic Balance -None of the sites exhibited mine drainage nor do they intercept or store any surface drainage. Acid or Toxic Materials - No significant acid or toxic materials were noted at any of the sites. ErosionfSedimentation - No significant erosion or sedimentation problems were noted at any of the sites. Off-Site Damage - No off-site damage was identified. The generality of the permit maps in this old permit make it very hard to identify the actual sites that make up this permit area. This fact, plus the abundance of adjacent pre-law disturbance and the timeframe since any of these operations were actively affecting new ground makes identification of the actual boundaries of these sites nearly impossible. Therefore, determining the existence of off-site disturbance would also be nearly impossible. Part of the reason for this inspection was for DMG and the operator to attempt to identify the permit areas shown on the maps and come to an agreement about the location of the permit affected area that the operator is responsible for reclaiming under this permit. Areas agreed to were to be the same size as indicated in the approved permit, and include the features specified in the approved permit. Explosives - No explosives storage was noted on any of the sites. Great Hesper -Annual reports indicate this site was regraded in 1995, but no seeding was done. DMG has no indication that seeding was ever completed. Regrading has settled slightly on the southwest corner leaving some small openings where portals were apparently located. Some minor tilling has also occurred on the west end of the regraded area. These problems will need to be fixed by minor regrading. Various types of debris has surfaced from the backfilled area. This debris will need to be removed from the site or buried at an adequate depth to ensure it does not resurface in the future. No topsoil was noted at the site, and it is assumed that none was available at this pre-law disturbed location. The road to this site was pre-existing and does not require reclamation. Natural revegetation of the site has done quite well, though there are bare patches and some patches with an abundance of annual weeds. No noxious weeds were noted.