My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-02-15_INSPECTION - M1980041
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1980041
>
2011-02-15_INSPECTION - M1980041
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:31:01 PM
Creation date
2/22/2011 1:54:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980041
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
2/15/2011
Doc Name
Inspection report
From
DRMS
To
Jame L Treat
Inspection Date
2/14/2011
Email Name
GRM
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.
/
4
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
PERMIT #: M-1980-041 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: GRM <br />INSPECTION DATE: February 14, 2011 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the normal monitoring review process of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining, and Safety (Division). Division inspector Russ Means was accompanied by owner/ operator James Treat and <br />consultant Angela Bellantoni. <br />The Rock Gulch Pit is currently in the process of being converted from a 110c to a 112c permit per a Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board order. The site was found to be outside its currently approved acreage of 9.8. The conversion will <br />add an additional 16.3 acres of disturbed and undisturbed lands for 26.1 of permitted acres. Of these 26.1 acres, 19.9 <br />acres is proposed as affected lands. <br />The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers are in place and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. The <br />sign is located at the entrance to the site County Road 107 where it enters the permit boundary. Permit boundaries are <br />marked by t-posts and adjacent roads that are easily identifiable. The required notice per Rule 1.6.2(b) was posted next <br />to the mine identification sign. <br />The site is split into two areas. Phase 1 is the already disturbed site with the existing pit. The inspector notes the only <br />identified utilities within the permit boundaries are the power poles. A damage agreement is provided which notes the <br />poles must have 3:1 slopes and a 25 foot exclusion zone. The operator has flagged the exclusion zones to prevent <br />excavation into these areas. Two poles however have already been excavated to within the 25 zone under the old <br />permit. The inspector noted to the operator that material should be pushed up against the highwall in this area as soon <br />as possible. The geological integrity of the general area is not in question at this time; it is more of a preventative <br />maintenance issue. NO other utilities issues within the permit area or within 200 feet were observed. <br />At this time it is noted that there is a highwall of approximately 20 feet in height and 300 feet in length. The new mine <br />plan calls for 3:1 concurrent mine sloping. Once the conversion is approved the operator will need to eliminate the <br />highwall to have the reclamation bond reduced. <br />The inspector noted some imported concrete and asphalt on site. An affidavit for importation is required for such <br />materials. A file review will be done to see if this needs to be included. If required, doing so now will eliminate a future <br />issue and possible technical revision. <br />Phase 2 is undisturbed. Topsoil in the area is generally thin as this is typical of alluvium deposits. The operator will need <br />to take care to conserve and protect all topsoil on site for reclamation. No noxious weeds were noted in the general <br />area. <br />Stormwater issues appear to be confined to precipitation that falls on the site. No drainages cross the site although two <br />go around it. <br />All permanent manmade structures appear to have been identified. As discussed all damage waivers appear to be in <br />place with the exception of the one with the County. The operator and consultant are working on this issue and it will <br />need to be resolved prior to a decision on the conversion. <br />A review of the bond is part of the conversion process and will be addressed there. No issues other than those noted <br />within this report were observed. <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.