My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2015-12-16_INSPECTION - M1981121
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1981121
>
2015-12-16_INSPECTION - M1981121
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:13:28 PM
Creation date
12/29/2015 8:16:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1981121
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
12/16/2015
Doc Name
Inspection Report
From
DRMS
To
S & K No. 1, LLC
Inspection Date
3/18/2015
Email Name
TC1
WHE
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.
/
21
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-1981-121 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: TC1 <br />INSPECTION DATE: March 18, 2015 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the regular monitoring program. The Operator (5 & K No. 1, LLC) was <br />represented by Mr. Joe Kraig who was present for the inspection. <br />The Hale Pit site entrance is located at the intersection of Spencer Rd and McClelland Rd, approximately five <br />miles southeast of Peyton, CO. This is a 110c sand and gravel mine. It was not operating at the time of the <br />inspection. <br />Inspection: <br />Markers & Boundary — A permit sign was displayed at the site entrance (see Photo 1). Mr. Kraig indicated the <br />south, west, and north permit boundaries were marked by fences (see Photo 2) and the east boundary was <br />topographically marked by the creek bed (Brackett Creek). <br />Mining Plan — Highwalls were estimated to vary between 10 and 15 feet in height. Most highwalls appeared to <br />be between 1H:1V (see Photo 3) and 2H:1V (see Photo 4) with upper portions of some highwalls near vertical. <br />Mr. Kraig indicated the mine was worked south to north to a depth of 10 feet then expanded to the east. A <br />review of historical Google Earth images suggests mining has occurred in a more or less random outward <br />expansion over the years as opposed to the proposed 660 ft x 100 ft south to north strip prior to expanding to <br />the east. A comparison of blurry 2004 and late 2005 Google Earth images indicate a northward expansion of <br />the pit on the west side, suggesting the current Operator is following the approved mine plan. No significant <br />lateral expansion of the pit can be discerned from Google Earth images since late 2005. This does not imply <br />excavations have not occurred within the horizontal confines of the pit since then. <br />The Division used 2011 Google Earth satellite imagery combined with photos taken during the inspection to <br />estimate the disturbed area and the lengths of highwalls at various slopes. Figure 1 presents the total estimated <br />disturbance of 6.63 acres and total lengths of highwalls categorized as 1H:1V, 1.5H:1V, or 2H:1V. For the <br />purpose of estimating the volume of backfill necessary to flatten these highwalls to the minimum 3H:1V in the <br />approved reclamation plan, the Division assumed an average highwall height of 10 feet (these calculations are <br />included in the enclosed bond estimate. As mining related disturbance is closer than 200 feet (in some cases <br />as close as 25 feet) of the section lines (McClelland Road and the fence and access road along the south side of <br />the site), structure agreements may be required now. <br />Reclamation — The flatter ("2H:1V) highwalls were mostly revegetated (likely through natural progression) and <br />appeared stable (see Photo 5), whereas the steeper ones were not (see Photo 6). Mr. Kraig stated topsoil <br />stockpiles were located on the northwest, northeast, south central and southeast crests of the pit. Mr. Kraig <br />also indicated he was considering beginning final reclamation, but had not made a decision as of the date of the <br />inspection. <br />As portions of the east and south highwalls appear to have fairly well established vegetation and little to no <br />erosion, the Division may consider a revision to the reclamation plan to exempt these areas from further <br />reclamation if: 1) the Operator intends no further mining activity in these areas, and 2) wishes to submit a <br />Technical Revision application to revise the reclamation plan for these areas. If approved by the Division, this <br />sort of revision would have some effect on reducing the currently proposed bond increase. <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.