INSPEC16580

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 2/4/2002
• Doc Name: COAL INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 1/30/2002
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

III. COMMENTS-COMPLIANCE
Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations
made during the inspection. Comments in Section IV describe any enforcement actions
taken during the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action.
reclamation. Mr. Marah asked about protection of riparian areas. Mr. Walker advised
that there were some requirements and that Walker would provide Marah with a
copy of the applicable rule (Rule 4.05.18). Mr. Marah asked if there was some latitude
in reclamation seed mixes. Mr. Walker advised that there was some, and that
proposals (submitted by the applicant) would be reviewed and the US Forest Service
given an opportunity for review and comment.
This road segment would be a connection between two existing roads. The purpose
of the road is to provide access to drill pads to the south of the current area of
underground mining. The proposed road would start in the vicinity of the boundary of
the SE '/a SE '/a Section 21 and SW '/a SW '/a Section 22 and would extend to the south
line of SE '/a NE '/4 Section 27, T13S R90W (see the Somerset USGS 7.5-minute
topographic map quadrangle). This route would be an alternate to the current 20-
mile (estimate) circuitous route of traveling from the mine site, west on Colorado
Highway 133 to Paonia, thence up the Minnesota Creek road, through residential,
private property, and US Forest Service lands, The proposed alignment reviewed is
described in a geotechnical report titled Conceptual Evaluation of Sylvester Gulch
Roadway Construction Feasibility prepared for Mountain Coal Company, November
28 2001, by Buckhorn Geotech. The proposed ground trace had been flagged. Some
of the road would be on US Forest Service property (Somerset quadrangle) and some
on private (West Elk) properly. The proposed road alignment is nearly superimposed
upon an existing trail (old over-grown dozer trail, ATV and snowmobile use) for
(estimate) a third of the project, and is located near-by or adjacent to undisturbed
areas to the existing trail for two-thirds of the way. This proposed route is located on
east-facing and north-facing slopes for the majority of the route.
The meeting was then adjourned, with all but Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Griepentrog
making a site reconnaissance of the proposed route. At the time of this inspection,
the proposed alignment was covered by snow, approximately three feet in the valley
bottom and north facing slopes, approximately two feet on the south-facing slopes.
Ample examples of land slides, head escarpments, slope failures, mass movement,
and soil creep were noted during the inspection, and attest to a history of instability
of some of the slopes to be traversed. In general north-facing slopes appeared to be
less stable than south-facing slopes. Snow cover inhibited notation of wet areas or
seeps. In general, south-facing slopes were covered with mature oak (Gambels)
brush, the valley bottom with mature but thin or disconnected areas of aspen, and
the north slopes with aspen and pine trees.
The proposed alignment is not located on ridges, but is located close to the bottom
of the ravine/valley of Sylvester Gulch (Rule 4.03.2(2)). There are two crossings of the
C-80-007, Page _4_ of _1 1 _ Pages, (date) _4 February 2002 (initials) _BGW