Laserfiche WebLink
May 9, 2013 C- 1996 - 083 /Bowie No. 2 Mine SLB <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y= Inspected N =Not Inspected R= Comments Noted V= Violation Issued NA =Not Applicable <br />Y - Air Resource Protection <br />N - Availability of Records <br />R - Backfill & Grading <br />R - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />N - Explosives <br />N - Fish & Wildlife <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />Y - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />NA - Other <br />V - Processing Waste <br />N - Roads <br />N - Reclamation Success <br />N - Revegetation <br />N - Subsidence <br />N - Slides and Other Damage <br />N - Support Facilities On -site <br />N - Signs and Markers <br />NA - Support Facilities Not On -site <br />NA - Special Categories Of Mining <br />R -Topsoil <br />COMMENTS <br />This was a partial inspection of the Bowie No. 2 Mine conducted by Susan Burgmaier of DRMS. Bill Bear, of <br />Bowie Resources, LLC, was present during the inspection. Weather conditions at the time of the inspection were <br />clear and cool; ground conditions were extremely wet due to rainfall in the days prior to the inspection. <br />BACKFILL and GRADING — Rule 4.14 <br />Contemporaneous Reclamation 4.14.1; Approximate Original Contour 4.14.2; Highwall Elimination 4.14.1(2)(f); <br />Steep Slopes 4.14.2, 4.27; Handling of Acid and Toxic Materials 4.14.3; Stabilization of Rills and Gullies 4.14.6: <br />The backfilled Hubbard Creek fan shaft site was inspected. There did not appear to be additional settling <br />or vertical displacement since the last site inspection (March 19, 2013), but it was still apparent that the immediate <br />shaft fill area was lower than its original surface configuration. This area should continue to be visually monitored <br />to ensure that it does not become a public safety hazard, and repairs should be made as necessary. If additional <br />backfill material is required, the topsoil should first be removed, segregated, and properly stored until it is <br />redistributed. <br />HYDROLOGIC BALANCE - Rule 4.05 <br />Drainage Control 4.05.1, 4.05.2, 4.05.3; Siltation Structures 4.05.5, 4.05.6; Discharge Structures 4.05.7, 4.05.10; <br />Diversions 4.05.4; Effluent Limits 4.05.2; Ground Water Monitoring 4.05.13; Surface Water Monitoring 4.05.13; <br />Drainage — Acid and Toxic Materials 4.05.8; Impoundments 4.05.6, 4.05.9; Stream Buffer Zones 4.05.18: <br />Ponds B, C, D, F, and K all held water; none were discharging or being pumped. Pond J was dry. Pond F <br />had a 2' delta of sediment at the inlet. The aerial extent of the delta was roughly .05 -.075 acres, which would <br />equate to roughly 0.10 -0.15 acre feet of sediment. This is a very rough estimation, given the irregularity of the <br />deposition of sediment, but does indicate that a significant amount of sediment has collected in the pond inlet. The <br />sediment capacity of this pond is only 0.20 acre feet, so this should be monitored closely to ensure that the <br />available capacity in the pond is adequate to treat runoff from the design event (10 yr - 24 hr). The operator <br />indicated that Ponds B, C, F, and possibly D would be dredged this summer. The operator will also be placing <br />elevation markers in Pond F (required by June 15, 2013) to assist in determining the available capacity of the <br />pond. <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 13 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 <br />Page 2 of 15 <br />