INSPEC22138 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 21 MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-7987-038 INSPECTION DATE 5/7/02 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This inspection was performed by the Division as a result of a request by the landowner and possible successor operator (Gosney and Sons) and as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 112 permits. The operator's representative named on page one was present throughout the inspection, as well as several representatives of Gosney and Sons: Don Gosney, Matt Barnett, and Dave Jacobs. All were present throughout the inspection. The main reason for the inspection was to assess the amount of unreclaimed disturbance which still remains, which will either revert to Gosney upon the transfer of the permit, or to be reclaimed by the present operator prior to permit transfer. Numerous reclamation plan details were discussed at each onsite feature observed during this inspection. Several of the main reclamation plan details will be included in this report, for the operator's information and assistance in performing certain of the final reclamation tasks. The slope gradient of the pond banks is one of the primary items inspected. There was little of the existing pond margins presently sloped at the final 3:1 gradient. Portions of the north side and the east side of the north pond are presently sloped at near 3:1, though that is a visual estimate. Amendment AM-03, approved in August 1998, clearly includes the requirement for 3:1 maximum gradient in the approved reclamation plan. This slope gradient applies to banks above the waterline, and to a depth below the waterline down to 10 feet. The ponds are shallower than 10 feet, so all banks above or below the waterline are to be 3:1 . The operator should review Rule 3.1.517) for maximum pond slope gradients. There was some discussion of allowing steeper pond banks, which would be stabilized by riprap. If this is a desired change to the reclamation plan, the operator should submit it in a request for revision, accompanied by an engineering evaluation. Revisions must be approved prior to implementing them. The north side of the north pond exhibits at leas[ two small slough features. It was stated by the operator that they are due to instability caused by wet ground from seepage of the ditch water directly above the slope. If this is so, and assuming the ditch cannot be moved or lined, additional material will have to be added to buttress the slope toe or reduce the entire slope. Such material should be determined to be suitable for this use. After placement of the additional material, the affected part of the slope will require new topsoil application and revegetation. Topsoil has been applied on some portions of the existing slopes. The approved reclamation plan requires an average depth of 5 inches of replaced topsoil in the original phases of the permit area; the 11-acre area added in amendment AM-03 requires an average of 30 inches of replaced topsoil. The seed mix to be applied is uniform throughout the site. Its species and rates are not reiterated herein, nor are the other revegetation inputs such as mulch and fertilizer. If there are desired changes to the existing plan, the operator should submit them for consideration in the form of a request for revision. Revisions must be approved prior to implementing any changes. The dike between the north pond and the main soutern pond has been breached, allowing the water level to egaulize in the two ponds. The pump formerly located on the dike has been removed and diesel contaminated soils apparently are removed also. There is some small amount of concrete debris in the center of the dike, which will be removed. Portions of the dike which are wider will likely be the source for materials to be used in the required slope reduction earthwork. The gasline extending west from the well is now exposed in the breach in the dike. On the west side of the gas well is a small patch (approx. 100 sq ft) of knapweed. It appears to be fairly young and not strongly established. This patch must be controlled, and if possible eliminated. The operator stated that there is a weed control plan for the site, so this is not noted as a problem. If the patch is observed during a future inspection to be larger or just as robust as it is presently, this may become a problem. Roads are to remain, as well as the gas well in the central portion of the site. There are buried pipelines, which may be exposed or intercepted as a result of slope reduction earthwork, so caution is recommended. There were no additional items observed or discussed. No problems exist at this time. All responses or questions about this inspection report should be directed to this inspector at the Division's Durango Field Office. The address is: Division of Minerals and Geology, 701 Camino del Rio, Room 125, Durango, Colorado 81307; telephone 970/247-5193, or fax 970/247-5104.