My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC19112
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC19112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:20:15 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 9:28:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980003
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
Inspection Report
Inspection Date
6/4/2002
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
III. COMMENTS -COMPLIANCE <br />Below are comments on the inspection. The comments include discussion of observations <br />made during the inspection. Comments also describe any enforcement actions taken during <br />the inspection and the facts or evidence supporting the enforcement action. <br />This was a complete inspection of the Hayden Gulch Mine conducted by Jim Stark of <br />CDMG, This was also a complete OSM oversight inspection. Henry Austin of OSM <br />and John Weinman of Montgomery Watson Harza accompanied me, The mine site <br />is reclaimed. The weather was warm and clear and the ground was mostly dry with <br />some muddy spots on the road. <br />Availability of Records: All of the necessary records were available at the <br />Montgomery Watson Harza offices in Steamboat Springs, CO. See the records <br />checklist at the end of the inspection for more details. <br />Signs and Markers: The permit boundary markers around the shrub plots were up and <br />in good condition. The mine ID sign at the West shrub plot was down at the <br />beginning of the inspection but it was fixed in the field by John Weinman. <br />Roads: The access roads to the shrub parcel areas were a bit muddy but appeared <br />to be stable and in good condition. These roads are permitted as permanent roads <br />and are no longer a part of the permit. <br />Hydrologic Balance: -Both remaining ponds are permitted to be permanent. <br />Although they are within the shrub parcels they are no longer a part of the permit. <br />- Pond 003 contained water but was not discharging. The pond appeared to be <br />stable at the time of the inspection, <br />- Pond HG-8 also contained water. This pond was not discharging either. The pond <br />appeared to be stable at the time of the inspection. <br />Fish and Wildlife: Several grouse and jackrabbits were observed in the shrub parcels <br />as well as some ducks on the ponds. There were antelope grazing on the land <br />outside the parcels and evidence of deer and elk on the 1994 slump area. <br />Reveaetation/Reclamation Success: Generally, all three shrub parcels appeared to <br />be in good condition. The grasses were beginning to grow and turn green. The <br />fences around the shrub parcels were up and in good condition. <br />The first parcel we looked at was on the West Side of the county road with Pond 003. <br />The shrubs in the upper part of this parcel were much denser that those on the lower <br />portion but the entire area looked good, <br />The next parcel we visited was on the East Side of the road with Pond HG-8. This <br />parcel was also well vegetated and the shrubs in this parcel were more dense (in <br />numbers and over the range of the parcel) than those of the previous parcel. This <br />area was in good condition. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.