My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC05225
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC05225
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:59:55 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:20:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1987024
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
3/5/2001
Doc Name
MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
2/23/2001
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.
/
4
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
(Page 21 <br />MINE ID J/ OR PROSPECTING ID k M-1987-024 <br />INSPECTION DATE 2/23/01 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of <br />operator was contacted about the inspection and a time was arranged <br />representative named on page one was present throughout the inspection. <br /> <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO <br />Construction Materials 110c permits. The <br />to jointly inspect the site. The operator's <br />The required permit ID sign was observed at the entrance to the site, atnearhe NW permit boundary. The boundary of the <br />permitted area is adequately delineated by fencelines and undisturbed areas. The configuration of the disturbed area <br />corresponds to that depicted on the permit file maps. <br />Operations have progressed in the permit area such that the south highwall has reached its limit and is in its final location. <br />The slope has been graded to a uniform 3:1 gradient. About 25°~ of the slope surface exhibits the local reddish topsoil, <br />but its depth was not verified. <br />The floor of the site is gently rolling to level. Its present configuration would be adequate for establishing rangeland, but <br />would still require careful levelling if it is to be irrigated in the future. (Both scenarios are apparently approved in the file.) <br />The reclamation plan states that if the site is irrigated a pipeline is to be installed, extending from the irrigated field on the <br />hilltop immediately south of the permit area, down the permitted slope to a pipe or ditch to distribute the water across the <br />reclaimed area. Another exhibit in the application states that groundwater will not be encountered. <br />Observations made during this inspection include the fact that none of the pit floor exhibits any of the (impermeable) shale <br />which underlies this site, indicating that there is still some remaining layer of (permeable) aggregate present. Though the <br />crop field south of the site is irrigated, there is no water on the field presently, and the surface is dry. However, along most <br />of the toe of the existing highwall a small drain ditch has been excavated, which is currently conveying water off the site <br />to the west. Flow is very slow, the water volume is small, and the water appears clear. In possible relation to this water <br />and the ditch, there is a small excavation in the sloped highwall, which might have been made to determine the source of <br />the seepage. <br />This report shows a aroblem on page one under the tonic of "hvdroloaic balance" due to the presence of this seepage since <br />there is no evidence in the file of aooroval for exposure of groundwater The corrective action will be to either eliminate <br />this exposed groundwater or provide documentation of aooroval for such exposure The physical need for the ditch <br />appears warranted now and for the future reclaimed condition but it does not appear to be part of the "approved" plan <br />for the site. See the last page for the corrective action date. <br />There are a few stockpiles of crushed product in the pit, but no earthmoving equipment or processing equipment. There <br />are 2 stockpiles of topsoil (cobbly, reddish) and 2 presumed to be subsoil (grey, no cobbles) on the site. Total topsoil <br />volume is estimated at 2,500 to 3,000 cubic yards. Total subsoil volume is estimated at about 7,000 cubic yards. All piles <br />are relatively weed free. The reddish topsoil is fairly cobbly, which may complicate spreading or tilling it, If both types <br />of material are used for growth medium, there will be sufficient volume to replace the 6" depth as the reclamation plan <br />requires. <br />No significant infestations of noxious or other problematic weeds were noted onsite during this inspection. There were <br />no contaminants and very little debris noted onsite. <br />The financial warranty is 55,000. It is probably insufficient to perform all outstanding reclamation, but is not noted as a <br />problem in this report. The reclamation costs will be estimated by the Division, and new figures will be sent to the <br />permittee and operator for review. If there is an increase indicated, the operator will be so notified. Per statute, any bond <br />increase must be provided within 60 days after notification. <br />There were no additional items discussed or observed during this inspection. For all questions or responses to this report, <br />please contact this inspector at the following address or phone: 701 Camino del Rio, Room 125, Durango CO 81301; <br />tel 970/247-5193 or fax 970/247-5104. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.