My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2014-08-06_INSPECTION - M1999089
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1999089
>
2014-08-06_INSPECTION - M1999089
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2020 2:13:07 PM
Creation date
8/6/2014 3:23:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999089
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
8/6/2014
Doc Name
Insp. Rpt.
From
DRMS
To
Byron J. & LaLani R. Weathers
Inspection Date
7/8/2014
Email Name
ERR
TAK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PERMIT#:M-1999-089 <br /> INSPECTOR'S INITIALS:ERR <br /> INSPECTION DATE: July 8,2014 <br /> OBSERVATIONS <br /> The inspection was conducted by Elliott Russell of the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety(Division). <br /> Byron Weathers was present for the inspection. The Weathers Mine#1 is located approximately 9.5 miles south <br /> and 2.5 miles west of Yuma, Colorado. The site is an active 110c operation with 9.9 acres permitted and the <br /> approved post-mining land use is pastureland. This inspection was carried out as a part of the Division's routine <br /> monitoring inspection program. <br /> At 11:10, the Division met Mr. Weathers at the mine site just south of County Road 29 between County Roads <br /> C and D. At the time of the inspection it was partly cloudy and warm, and the ground was dry. The permit <br /> identification sign was posted at the entrance to the site. Though this sign did not meet the requirements of Rule <br /> 3.1.12(1), Mr. Weathers corrected the sign prior to the date of this report. The permit boundary of the mine was <br /> delineated by t-posts. No mining activities were occurring during the time of the inspection, and no equipment <br /> was present on site; but there was evidence of recent mining activities observed. <br /> The site consisted of two mining areas within the permit; an older dig face was on the western half and a newer <br /> dig face was on the eastern half of the site. The western portion of the site had a highwalls (10-20 feet high) <br /> along the northern and southern sides, while the western slope was approximately 3H:1 V. The eastern portion <br /> of the site, which was most recently active, was approximately 5-10 feet deep. The disturbance boundary is <br /> near the limits along the eastern side, but the mine could still progress farther toward the west. <br /> The eastern portion of the site contained a large stockpile of red-colored road base material and a smaller <br /> stockpile of white-colored overburden material. Topsoil piles were located along the north and south perimeter <br /> of the western pit and a much larger pile along the northeast boundary of the eastern pit. The site had some <br /> cheat grass, a state-listed noxious weed, and kochia, a nuisance weed that is difficult to eliminate once <br /> established. This won't be cited as a problem for now due the small area these cover, but the Division <br /> recommends mowing these areas until a different temporary vegetation cover is established. Please note that <br /> these species would delay any future bond release requests if they are still present at the site during the release <br /> inspection. <br /> After further research of the permit files, the approved mining plan stated a 15 foot setback from the permit <br /> boundary would be followed and was also reflected in the cost estimate as a reduced acreage for the topsoil and <br /> seeding calculations. During the inspection, this setback was not observed: mining had occurred quite close to <br /> the southern permit boundary and the large topsoil pile's outside toe was placed right along the northeastern <br /> boundary line. This deviation from the approved permit will be cited as a problem and will need corrective <br /> action; please refer to page 1 of this report for more information. <br /> The reclamation cost estimate was last calculated in the fall of 1999 when the permit was applied for. In <br /> accordance with Rule 4.2.1(2),the Division has reviewed the estimated cost to reclaim the site and found <br /> that the current bond of$14,260.00 is inadequate. The Division calculated the cost to reclaim the <br /> proposed affected disturbance of 9.9 acres to be $22,000.00.Attached for the Operator review, is a copy of <br /> the reclamation cost summary. Within 15 days of this report, the Division will issue a Surety Increase revision; <br /> please contact me prior to August 21, 2014 to discuss any questions regarding the cost estimate. When the SI is <br /> issued, the Operator will then have 60 days to submit the additional bonding of$7,740.00. <br /> Photographs taken during the inspection are attached. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.