Laserfiche WebLink
MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-1999-1 13 <br />INSPECTION DATE: 8/97.19108 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />INSPECTOR=S INITIALS: IF/ <br />MAC <br />This was a pre-operation inspection of the Verhoeff Pit No. 2, permit number M-1992-113. This site is located <br />about 4 miles east of Hasty, Colorado in Bent County. I, Jared Ebert and Michael Cunningham of the Colorado <br />Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety conducted the inspection. Mr. Cutis Sniff of Bent County <br />accompanied us on the inspection. <br />Currently, the permit area consists of 36.8 acres, they want to expand the pit by 52.87 acres to make the total <br />permit area 89.85 acres. They have placed boundary markers around the proposed new permit area. Upon <br />inspection of the new permit boundary it appears that no permanent man-made structures are on or within 200 <br />feet of the proposed permit boundary. Once the adequacy review issues are addressed for the permit <br />application, and the Division approves the application, the site is ready to be mined. <br />According to Mr. Sniff, the county took over the pit many years ago, and that they had not done any actual <br />excavation on the site. The pervious operator had stockpiled large piles of material that had been mined, and <br />the county has only taken material from these stockpiles. Several permit boundary markers where noticed <br />during the inspection, however the majority of the markers are not in place. The current permit area is an <br />irregular shape and it is difficult to tell where the actual permit area is located. The additional acreage to be <br />added will simplify the permit boundary by making it a square shape and it will encompass all the current pit <br />excavation/disturbed area. <br />Within the new amendment application, a survey map of the current disturbance was submitted, based off this <br />map and the visual inspection of the site, the affected area may be within the current permit boundary but as <br />mentioned above it cannot be certain. The approval of the new amendment will clear up the uncertainty. <br />Several excavations were notices just north of the current western permit boundary. Mr. Sniff stated that the <br />county had excavated several small test holes in these locations. These excavations are clearly outside of the <br />current permit area. Mr. Sniff stated that each test hole was dug once with a backhoe and was backfilled with <br />the material that was excavated. A small pile of material was left in place at each of the test hole sites so the <br />current landowner could easily locate them. <br />Upon further investigation, there were approximately 12 small test holes observed on the site. The test holes <br />were arranged in three rows with four test holes per row. Mr. Sniff stated that the county had been granted <br />permission from the current landowner of the site prior to disturbing the area. These test holes were relatively <br />small and did not appear to be greater than 1,600 square feet of disturbance, thus an exploration permit was not <br />needed. However, the operator is reminded that in the future if they are to conduct test holes and they plan on <br />disturbing more than 1,600 square feet in a single block of land, they will first need to obtain an Exploration <br />Permit from the Division.