Laserfiche WebLink
III. COMMENTS-COMPLIANCE <br /> Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations made <br /> during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during the inspection <br /> and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br /> This was a follow up Phase II and Phase III final bond release inspection for the Blue Ribbon Mine. <br /> Present was Stan Muhr, owner of Minrec, the operator of the Blue Ribbon Mine. Also present were <br /> Elizabeth Shaeffer, representing the Office of Surface Mining and Joe Dudash of the Colorado <br /> Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety. The Bureau of Land Management, the USDA-Forest <br /> Service, Oxbow Mining LLC and the holders of the Allen grazing rights were notified of this inspection <br /> but no representatives were present. <br /> The original Phase II and Phase III final bond release inspection had been held on August 27, 2008. <br /> The Division's inspection report of August 27, 2008 contained details of the bond release process, the <br /> Blue Ribbon Mine bond release permitting process (SL-2) and the operational and reclamation history <br /> of the Blue Ribbon Mine. As a result of the original Phase II and Phase III bond release inspection, it <br /> was determined that additional reclamation work needed to be performed before the Division could <br /> propose to approve the final bond release. Therefore, the purpose of this follow up inspection was to <br /> examine the success of this additional work. In addition, a general assessment of the overall <br /> reclamation work at the Blue Ribbon Mine was conducted. <br /> This inspection report is divided into three sections. The first section involves the follow up Phase II <br /> and Phase III bond release inspection. The second section concerns the general inspection. The third <br /> section contains digital images taken during the inspection. <br /> Follow Up Bond Release Inspection <br /> In the Phase II and Phase III final bond release request(SL-2), Minrec had provided a soil loss <br /> comparison evaluation that had demonstrated that the vegetative cover on the reclaimed disturbed <br /> area was sufficient to control sediment loss so that untreated runoff from the disturbed area will not <br /> contribute suspended solids levels greater than that from pre-mining levels. Therefore, sediment <br /> ponds 4 and 5 were no longer needed so they were reclaimed. <br /> At sediment pond 4, the northeast section of the pond embankment had been pushed in and the pond <br /> spillways had been removed. The disturbed area had been seeded. The resulting vegetative cover at <br /> pond 4 appeared to be comparable to the surrounding undisturbed area vegetative cover. The <br /> vegetative cover at the location of the former pond embankment was lagging behind that of the rest of <br /> the reclaimed pond, even though the area had been ripped before seeding. However, the total area <br /> was very small and the terrain was flat, so no problem with erosion is anticipated. <br /> The southern section of the pond 5 embankment had been pushed in and the area seeded. The pond <br /> 5 spillways had been removed as well. The vegetative cover on the reclaimed pond 5 disturbed area <br /> was comparable to that on the undisturbed land. Similar to pond 4, the vegetative cover on the <br /> reclaimed pond embankment area was not as good as on the rest of the reclaimed pond disturbed <br /> area. However, erosional problems are not anticipated since the very small area is flat and the <br /> vegetation is sufficient. <br /> The 18 inch diameter black plastic culvert that had been in the side drainage on the north end of the <br /> disturbed area had been removed. Several of the culvert sections had been temporarily stored at the <br /> reclaimed coal stockpile area but those had been removed as well. <br /> 1 <br />