Laserfiche WebLink
August 1, 2014 C- 1981- 041/Roadside Portals MPB <br />Inspection Topic Summary <br />NOTE: Y= Inspected N =Not Inspected R= Comments Noted V= Violation Issued NA =Not Applicable <br />N - Air Resource Protection <br />N - Availability of Records <br />N - Backfill & Grading <br />NA - Excess Spoil and Dev. Waste <br />NA - Explosives <br />N - Fish & Wildlife <br />R - Hydrologic Balance <br />N - Gen. Compliance With Mine Plan <br />NA - Other <br />N - Processing Waste <br />N -Roads <br />N - Reclamation Success <br />N - Revegetation <br />R - Subsidence <br />NA - 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 />N -Topsoil <br />COMMENTS <br />This was a partial inspection of the Roadside Portals Mine conducted on August 1, 2014 by Mike Boulay of the <br />Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety (DRMS) Grand Junction Field Office. There was no operator <br />representative present at the time of the inspection. I was contacted on July 31st via e -mail by Mr. John Hasstedt a <br />landowner whose property is within the mine permit boundary in the South Portal area north of the Ute Water <br />Plant. He indicated in his e-mail to me that he has what he thinks is subsidence at the west side of his house and <br />was interested in having someone look at it to see if it is a problem. On the following day, August 1 st I spoke with <br />Mr. Hasstedt on the telephone and made arrangements to meet him at his property later that same day. I inquired <br />whether or not Mr. Hasstedt would like to have his request for inspection kept confidential (Rule 5.02.5(2)), and <br />he indicated that he did not. <br />I met Mr. Hasstedt at his home at 1:30 pm. The purpose of the inspection was to view the features that he thinks <br />may have been caused as a result of subsidence from the Roadside Portals Mine where the South Portal <br />underground workings are located beneath his property. Weather conditions were warm and sunny and ground <br />conditions were dry. <br />SUBSIDENCE — Rule 4.20: <br />We began the inspection on the west side of his house where he indicated the subsidence is located. He stated that <br />he built a deck on this side to get a Certificate of Occupancy and complete the building of his home. He stated that <br />the deck has sagged and pulled away from the house (see attached Photograph No. 1). Mr. Hasstedt indicated that <br />he noticed the deck sagging sometime last spring. The deck posts when originally built were not centered over the <br />cement footers as seen in the attached Photograph No. 2. The cement footer located on the north side of the deck <br />has sunk into the ground about 1 foot deep (see Photograph No. 3) as compared to the footer on the south side of <br />the deck (Photograph No. 4). <br />Also on this side of the house in the fill material surrounding the house he pointed out a surface crack that runs in <br />a semicircular shape around the side of the house. The crack is not continuous but can be traced almost the entire <br />Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 4 <br />Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 0 <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />