Laserfiche WebLink
<br />s <br />MINE SITE EVALUATION INSPECTION REPORT PAGE 3 <br />Eckman Park and vine #1 <br />B. Performance standards that assure reclamation quality and <br />• timeliness: <br />1 1. <br />3 2. <br />1 3. <br />1 4. <br />1 5. <br />1 6. <br />Topsoil handling <br />Backfilling & grading <br />Timing of reclamation <br />Success of revegetation <br />Disposal of excess spoil <br />Handling of acid or <br />toxic materials <br />1 7. Timing of <br /> revegetation <br />1 8. Highwall <br /> elimination <br />1 9. Do•anslope <br /> spoil disoosal <br />1 10. Post mining <br /> land use <br />C. For each standard marked (2), what action(s) has the State <br />taken to cause the violation to be corrected? <br />NONE. <br />D. For each standard marked (3), indicate what action(s) the <br />State should have taken. <br />B.2. - Backfilling and Grading - The State (Colorado Mined Land Reclama- <br />tion Division) should have initiated enforcement action for rills and <br />gullies over 9 inches in April 1982. The events leading up to this <br />follow-un inspection and the issuance of OSM Notice of Violation #83-2- <br />6-2 is as follo•:~s: In April 1982 the State informed the operator, in an <br />inspection report, of erosion on Area #l. The State did not initiate <br />~~ enforcement action but continued to include mention of the erosion in <br />June, July, August and September inspection reports. From September 21 <br />to Or_tober 2, 1982, OS~] conducted a complete inspe~~tion of Mine #1 and <br />the EcY.man Park mine. During the inspection OShi ir~Eormed the operator <br />of the rill and gully erosion at both Areas #1 and #41. <br />On 9/28/82 OSM issued Violation #3 of Ten-Day Notice 82-2-1-4 and on <br />10 4 82 OSht issued Violation #1 of Ten-Day Notice 32-2-1-5, both of <br />which included violations for rills and gullies. ~4LRD's response to <br />Violation #3 of Ten-Day Notice 82-2-1-4 stated tha_ the MLRD had issued <br />NOV 82-33 for one of the two areas mentionecl in Violation #3. hiLRD's <br />response to the concern for the second area in.Viol.ation #3 indicated <br />that the rills and gullies were not excessive, and would stabilize upon <br />controlling the drainage source. hILRD's response to Violation #1 of <br />Ten-Day CJOtice 82-2-1-5 also stated that rills and gull>.es were not <br />