Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(Page 31 <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID ~ M-1984-001 <br />INSPECTION DATE 8 2/ 3/00 <br /> <br />rock-trapping earthen berms are not included as part of the approved reclamation <br />operator may desire to revise the reclamation plan to address reclamation of the <br />location, and reclamation of the highwall at its present configuration. <br />Geotechnical Stability Exhibit DMG records indicate that the stockpile was constructs <br />time, DMG has not observed evidence of slumping, settling or slope movement fc <br />stockpile appears stable, except for the minor surface erosion resulting from content <br />crossing the stockpile. However, the stockpile was constructed on a natural 60% slop <br />stockpile is located adjacent to and upslope from Hwy 141. Due to the steep slope o <br />is located and the steep outslope of the stockpile, DMG is concerned that geotecl <br />stockpile be adequately demonstrated in order to ensure that no adverse impacts to pul <br />141 occur. Therefore, DMG requires that the operator satisfy the applicable requi <br />Geotechnical Stability Exhibit, addressing the highwall and stockpile. Given the proxim <br />boundaries of affected lands, DMG requires that the operator also submit the inform: <br />6.4.19. Please note that the information required under Rule 6.5 may satisfy the <br />6.4.19(bl. Copy of Rule 6.4.19 and 6.5 are attached to this inspection report for refs <br />R'S INITIALS WHE <br />Therefore, the <br />at its present <br />in 1987. Since that <br />the stockpile. The <br />ted upland drainage <br />11.67H:1 V), and the <br />which the stockpile <br />ical stability of the <br />c safety and/or Hwy <br />ments of Rule 6.5, <br />/ of Hwy 141 to the <br />on required by Rule <br />:quirements of Rule <br />;nce. <br />Financial Warranty DMG reclamation cost estimation, dated 11/14/96, totaled 526,88. Preliminary review <br />of DMG's 1 1 /14/96 reclamation cost estimation appears adequate to ensure reclamation f remaining affected <br />areas. However, DMG's 11/14/96 reclamation cost estimation assumed reclamation f only the footprint <br />underlying the 60,000 cy stockpile and did not cover reclamation costs for reclaiming he stockpile on site <br />or relocating the stockpile to an appropriate location. Subsequent to receipt of the revisi n referenced above, <br />DMG will review the additional costs associated with reclaiming the stockpile on site. Sh uld the Geotechnical <br />Stability Exhibit, required by Rule 6.5, indicate that the existing stockpile does not hav the adequate factor <br />of safety to remain as a permanent fill, DMG may require that the financial warranty be increased to include <br />costs associated with removal or relocation of the stockpiled material to an appropriat site. Additionally, <br />should the Geotechnical Stability Exhibit, required by Rule 6.5, indicate that the existi g highwall does not <br />have the adequate factor of safety at its present configuration, DMG may require that t e financial warranty <br />be increased to include costs associated with stabilization of the highwall. <br />Pursuant to Rule 4.2.1(2), should DMG find that the existing amount of financial wawa ty is insufficient to <br />ensure reclamation, the operator shall have sixty (601 days to post the additional amount f financial warranty <br />OR to complete appropriate portions of the reclamation plan, as necessary to ensure he adequacy of the <br />financial warranty. <br />Responses to this inspection report should be directed to the Division of Minerals and <br />del Rio, Room 125, Durango, Colorado 81301, Attn: Wally Erickson, phone no. 970- <br />I & E Contact Address <br />NAME John Schmahl <br />OPERATOR J & M Schmahl <br />STREET 2301 River Road <br />CITY/STATE/ZIP Grand Junction. CO 81505 <br />cc: Tom Gillis, DMG <br />^ CE <br />^ BL <br />^ FS <br />^ HW <br />^ HMWMD (CHI <br />^ SE <br />^ WOCD ICH) <br />X Mike Meininger, <br />ology, 701 Camino <br />'-5469. <br />County Engineer <br />