Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-2000-067 <br />INSPECTION DATE: 11-27-06 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS GRM <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the normal monitoring program established by the Colorado Division of <br />Reclamation, Mining and Safety for permitted sites. Beavers Construction representative, Art Beavers, requested a <br />joint inspection with BLM personnel of the site to discuss current conditions and plans for expanded activity. Lynn <br />Lewis from BLM joined the inspector, Art and property owner representative Nick Streza on site. <br />The High Mesa Gravel Pit is a112c permitted site east of Delta, Colorado off Highway 92. The site has a phased <br />plan of operation and reclamation plan. <br />The mine identification sign and affected area boundary mazkers are in place and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. <br />The sign is located at the entrance to the site and the permit boundaries are marked by t-posts at key corners and <br />border lines. <br />No significant infestations of noxious or other problematic weeds were noted on site during this inspection. <br />Although the inspection is in late November, no visual signs of infestations are noted. <br />The site has a large stockpile ofprocessed materials on the pit floor. No current excavation appears to have occurred <br />lately. No equipment, fuel or mine related equipment is noted on site. Excavation azeas have sloped areas and no <br />major highwalls were observed. Topsoil stockpiles are stable, but unprotected. There is some discussion ofhaving <br />to move the piles. If the piles are not moved by next spring or shortly thereafter, they should be seeded to help <br />prevent wind erosion. This issue is not listed as a problem currently, but maybe at a later date if not addressed. <br />The primary reason far the meeting was to discuss current plans to ramp up production for the landowner and other <br />projects. As presented, it appears that Beavers Construction will remain in the phased operation as planned. The <br />primary disturbance will remain focused in lA and 1B first. Should the operator decide to change the phasing for <br />some reason a Technical Revision will need to be approved prior to moving in a different direction. <br />The bond was recalculated and reduced to $17,000 in 2003 to reflect only Phase 1 disturbance. If the total area of <br />disturbance exceeds Phase 1 the bond will have to be recalculated to reflect those changes. <br />BLM representative Lynn Lewis pointed out the Beavers Construction had some issues with the fees for the sales <br />contract. Although it is not directly an issue for the Division, failure to maintain the contract in good standing is <br />technically a loss of right of access. Beavers Construction needs to ensure that the contracts are kept in good <br />standing. <br />An option discussed between the parties is the possibility of a Succession of Operator (SO) at some time from <br />Beavers Construction to the landowner. The SO process is available on line at http:/hvww.mining.state.co.us/. <br />Option A would require a new bond calculation prior and posting the new bond in that amount. Option B would <br />allow the posting of the current bond and immediate transfer of the permit. The Division would then recalculate the <br />bond within 60 days of the transfer. BLM has its own requirements for sales contracts, etc. and should be consulted <br />prior to any decisions to transfer responsibility for the site. <br />No major erosional issues were noted. Hay bales have been used along the access road to help reduce sedimentation <br />in the bar ditch running along the road. Berms along the pit edge prevent any run-off from causing off-site damage. <br />