My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC40344
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC40344
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:44:35 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 11:15:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1987020
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
10/12/2007
Doc Name
Inspection report
From
DRMS
To
Rio Grande County
Inspection Date
9/27/2007
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.
/
5
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
MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: nn_~ vR~_mn <br />INSPECTION DATE: n9/~zmv INSPECTORS INITIALS: KAP <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />1. This inspection was performed as part of the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety's four-year <br />monitoring program. Present at the inspection were Kate Pickford, DRMS, and Patrick Sullivan, Rio <br />Grande County. Weather at the time of the inspection was clear, calm, and approximately 70 degrees. <br />2. A sign is posted at the entrance to the site and the boundaries are easily identifiable in the field. The <br />disturbance at this site consists of o pit covering much of the permitted site, approximately 8 feet deep. <br />Some material is stockpiled on the pit floor. Most of the highwalls of the pit are graded to 3: i slopes with <br />the exception of the west-side highwalls. <br />3. There has been no activity at the site for approximately 2 years. The County plans, however, to mine the <br />entire site, with the exception of the 40-foot setback required in the permit. No topsoil is stockpiled at <br />the site for reclamation. Mr. Sullivan indicated that there is little topsoil present at the site but material <br />will be pulled in from the edges onto the slopes for reclamation. <br />4. Mr. Sullivan stated that the pit is part of the water conservancy district and is used as containment for <br />overflow from irrigation ditches. There is exposed water in the pit, and it was not evident during the <br />inspection that some or all of the water was not exposed groundwater. Additionally, during a record <br />check related to the inspection, communication with the Office of the State Engineer indicates that the <br />site does not have a valid well permit nor an approved substitute supply plan for the exposed <br />groundwater at the site (see problem 1, page 3 of this report. <br />5. The July 11, 1995 Inspection report, regarding an inspection conducted by the Division, cited the <br />exposed groundwater at the site as a problem and indicafed that the County would need a well permit <br />and substitute supply plan for the site. A letter dated March 12, 1996 from Suzanne Benton, Rio Grande <br />County Administrator, to Keith Vander Horse, Water Resources Engineer, Division of Water Resources, <br />indicates that the county had hired an engineer to help resolve the problems related to water at the <br />site. No further correspondence was received by Elie SEO. <br />I & E Contact Address Cc~ ~ BL <br />NAME: Patrick Sullivan ^ FS <br />^ HW <br />OPERATOR: Rio Grande County ^ HMWMD (CH) <br />STREET: P (~_ Rnx 4G X SE <br />CITY/STATE/ZIP: MnntP Vi~tcy C(7 R1144 ^ WQCD (CH) <br />^ Other: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.