2011-05-23_INSPECTION - C1981008 ‎(2)‎

• Permit No: C1981008
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 5/23/2011
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• Inspection Date: 5/11/2011
• Email Name: MLT
• Email Name: SB1
• Email Name: DAB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

May 11, 2011 C- 1981- 008/New Horizon Mine MLT
to the ground surface in the current cut than what has been observed in preceding inspections.
This rise in the Bench 1 surface from north to south and from east to west may be clearly
seen in Photo 3. The result of this change in the Bench 1 surface is that Lift B subsoil in this
cut is thin (approximately 2 feet) to non - existent on the Morgan property, and the Lift B that
is present does include a higher proportion of rocks. Lift A topsoil is also thinner along the
current exposed strip than what has been noted further to the east on earlier cuts.
• We were able to observe a series of three locations east of the Lift B berm and south of the
water tank (Photo 4) where a bulldozer blade had very recently cut down into the upper
Bench 1 surface. Mr. Gubka explained that this was done to ascertain whether there was any
additional Lift B subsoil to be salvaged, or whether Bench 1 had indeed been reached. In
each case, the material exposed by the dozer's cut was clearly Bench 1 overburden (Photo 5)
rather than Lift B subsoil.
The mine's shovel was parked to the east of the Lift B berm, on top of in situ Bench 1
material (Photo 6). Based on tracks made across the exposed Bench 1 surface, it appeared
that the shovel had been recently moved to this site from the northern, lower end of the
Morgan property, where topsoil salvage operations had been conducted on the preceding day
(May 10). There was no evidence that the shovel had been driven across Lift A topsoil or
Lift B subsoil. Upon later inquiry by the DRMS, Mr. Wade confirmed that the shovel had
been relocated to an accessible location (that observed during the inspection) on the morning
of May l l so that maintenance could be performed.
At the northern end of the Morgan parcel, immediately south of the elevated water tank, two
small piles of soil were present. One pile, 8 to 10 feet in height, was Lift A topsoil, and the
other, approximately 6 feet in height, was Lift B subsoil (Photo 7). There was a relative
increase in equipment tracks surrounding these two piles. Mr. Wade explained, in follow -up
communication, that following the shovel's departure from this area on the morning of the
11th, a bulldozer had worked to clean up the area where the shovel had been working on May
10 The bulldozer pushed up the remnant topsoil into piles to in order to protect it until the
salvage operation could be completed at a later date. Topsoil in the piles did appear to have
variations in moisture content, but none of the resource appeared to be saturated or to have
been moved at a time when the physical and chemical properties would be compromised.
Subsequent to the inspection, Mr. Berry made an independent email inquiry of Mr. Wade
regarding the situation, and Mr. Wade provided precipitation data from the mine's weather
station for May 9, 10 and 11 (Attachment #1), a narrative statement as to ground activities
(Attachment #2), and equipment operation logs (Attachment #3).
A summary of the precipitation data is provided as follows:
Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 8
Number of Comylete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 Page 4 of 14
Precipitation
Total Precipitation
Date
Time(s) of Precipitation
inches
inches
May 9
8:45 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
0.12
0.13
(M onday)
12:45 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
0.01
May 10
n/a
0.00
0.00
( Tuesda y)
May 11
3:15 a.m. to 3:45 a.m.
0.02
0.29
(Wednesday)
1 5:45 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
1 0.27
Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 8
Number of Comylete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 Page 4 of 14