Laserfiche WebLink
Records were inspected at the Routt County Courthouse. All required records were <br />available for review, but some records were not current. Items which were not current have <br />been submitted to the Division office, and so just need to be updated at the courthouse. <br />Records which were not available during the last complete inspection were on file during <br />this inspection. The operator should, however, get all records current through the third <br />quarter of 1996. <br />Hydrologic Balance -All three sedimentation ponds held water below the discharge level. <br />None were discharging. <br />The spring below the Lower Pond was flowing. No samples were taken, nor were field <br />parameters recorded. <br />Reclaimed areas do not appear to be contributing solids in excess of adjacent, non-mined <br />areas, based on a lack of soil pedestalling, excessive tilling, or sediment accumulation in the <br />sediment ponds. <br />Backtilling and Grading -The pit area was backfilled to the approved post mining <br />topography rn 1983. Monitoring by the operator and Division observations since then give <br />no tndreat~on of instability. <br />All lateral ditches and the northwest ditch have been backfilled and graded to blend with <br />the surrounding topography. The northwest ditch and lower two lateral ditches were <br />completed on June 5, 1996. The upper two lateral ditches were graded in the Fall of 1994, <br />and the remainder were graded in the Fall of 1995. <br />Revegetation of the site was completed in 1984, and appears to have been successful. The <br />site exhibits a healthy, diverse stand of vegetation. With a few minor exceptions, erosion <br />is controlled by vegetation. <br />Gullies identified in earlier inspections this year had been repaired. The repair work, <br />however, did not appear to be adequate to ensure long term stability. The gullies had been <br />only partially filled, and would probably tend to channelize any flow that might otherwise <br />be sheet flow. The operator should fill the gullies completely to deter channel zed flow and <br />promote reestablishment of vegetation on these areas. <br />With one exception, no new signs of erosion were observed on any part of the reclaimed <br />area. There was one new gully, roughly 6" deep, caused by road drainage above the upper <br />pond. There was a high spot to the road drainage ditch whrch had caused water to escape <br />the ditch. The operator should clear the road ditch above the gully to cut off the flow, and <br />then repair the pally. Old erosional features were showing signs of recovery, in that new <br />grass was sprouting rn the channel sides and bottoms. Reclamation of the lateral ditches <br />has cut off flow to existing erosional features, allowing the areas to stabilize. <br />Based on these and prior observations, vegetation on the reclaimed area owned by the <br />Eiltses appears to be adequate to control erosion. <br />Revegetation on the reclaimed lateral ditches is progressing well. With the exception of the <br />lowest two ditches and the northwest ditch, vegetation cover is about 30%. Cover on the <br />lower two ditches and the northwest ditch averages about 10-15%. There were no signs of <br />erosion on any of the reclaimed ditches. Vegetation of the ditches is similar to that of <br />surrounding reclaimed areas in all as ects except cover density. This is to be expected, <br />however, given the short amount of time which has elapsed since the ditches were <br />reclaimed. <br />Meadows No. 1 Mine 2 September 23, 1996 <br />