Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-1987-ma <br />INSPECTION DATE: n6%27/n6 INSPECTOR=S INITIALS: TAS <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />1. A site inspection of the Gypsum Quarry was made. The operator was contacted several times prior to the inspection. <br />Present during the inspection was Tom Schreiner and Rick Wenzel of the Division. Digital photographs were taken and <br />are attached to this report. <br />2. The Gypsum Quarry is an active quarry. The site is permitted for a total of 65.52 acres. The surface owner is the <br />Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The mine plan specifies a maximum disturbance of 15 acres at any one time, and <br />rnntemporaneous reclamation where possible. The reclamation plan specifies reclamation to multiple use as practiced by <br />the BLM, but primarily wildlife habitat. Disturbed slopes are to be graded to blend in with the surrounding topography, <br />and no steeper than a 2:1 slope. Disturbed areas will be re-topsoiled with available topsoil, and re-vegetated with a <br />grass/shrub seed mix. The operator has provided a reclamation bond of $15,000 to the Division and $34,900 to the BLM. <br />3. The inspection verifted that the current disturbance is incompliance with the approved mine plan. Most disturbed <br />slopes in the pit area were found to be at or near a 1:1 slope. The operator has also salvaged available topsoil, and <br />stockpiled away from the active pit disturbance. Further, the operator has done an exemplary job of reclaiming portions <br />of the quarry where possible. In particular, the completed backfill and grading blends in very well with the surrounding <br />terrain and the slopes appear to be very stable. This inspector has re-calculated a total reclamation cost for the <br />disturbance specified in the mine plan and found the existing reclamation bond(s) to be adequate to complete reclamation <br />of the current and planned disturbance. (See attached reclamation cost estimate). <br />4. There was evidence of musk thistle on site. This inspector notes that the operator has an approved weed control plan, <br />via Technical Revision No. 2. The Division encourages the operator to implement the weed control plan each year, as <br />needed, to control the presence of noxious weeds such as musk thistle. <br />5. As noted in a previous inspection report, dated January 13, 2000, the operator had specified that the landowner, BLM, <br />prefers to have the western highwalls left in place, out of wncern for the stability of the intact down-gradient slope. If <br />these highwalls are to be left in place, a Technical Revision to the mine and reclamation plan must be submitted, including <br />a map showing the specific areas to be left as highwalls steeper than a 2:1 configuration, and a letter from the BLM, <br />confirming their preference that these slopes be left at a 0.5/1 or a 1/i slope. Otherwise, the site will be bonded for the <br />cost of backfilling the highwalls to a 2:1 slope. <br />I & E Contact Address <br />NAME: Gem A Mavne <br />OPERATOR: Mayne Industries Inc <br />STREET: 4255 Hwy 6 - P.O. Box 1689 <br />CITY/STATE/ZIP: (; su CO 81637 <br />tt: Carl Mount, DMG (via E-Mail) <br />Attachments <br />