_INSPECTION - C1981037 (13) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

August 4, 2011 C-1981-037/GEC Strip Mine JHB obvious in the channel from the recent precipitation events. Vegetative cover on the pond consists of annual species. Gullies remain evident throughout the mine site.The slopes on the reclaimed pits(East Pit and West Pit)and spoil hill(Chen's Hill) show evidence of large, 5 ft deep, gullies. These gullies have been in place for an extended period of time and have been observed over the years by Division inspectors.Vegetation has rooted in some of the gullies,helping to stabilize them. No operator or permittee remains responsible for maintaining the property, and the Division retains no monies for maintenance of the site. The Ditch alongside the northwest side of Chen's hill has undergone extreme gullying. Portions of this ditch have down-cut 20 feet or more. The most extreme portion of this gully extends approximately 200 yards with depths of 10-25 feet deep(estimated),with a top width of approximately 30 feet wide. This gullied ditch is adjacent to the Fremont County Road No.92,which serves as the access road to the Southfield Mine and as an access road to portions of the Corley and Vento properties. Dr. Corley is concerned that the erosion will continue and only get worse. As the inspection continued along the access road between Chen's hill to the north, and East and West Pits to the south,there was evidence of sloughing off the roadway into the drainage ditch. The road is currently wide enough to pass through in a vehicle. Concentrated flow along the roadway has started to cut into the road in two spots. (Photo 4)The landowner is no longer able to drive a trailer for his ranching operation up this roadway. Dr. Corley had previous inquired about routing runoff into the adjacent pond that is permitted and located within the Southfield permit. The inspector had investigated this question. Numerous things would need to occur: Energy Fuels Coal Inc. (EFC)would need to be in agreement with the landowner's request. EFC would need to submit a revision or bond release application that demonstrates the requirements of Rule 3.03.1(3)(b)have been met,reclaimed lands are contributing no suspended solids to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area in excess of pre-mining levels. This revision would need to receive DRMS approval.The pond would need to be permitted as being removed from the Southfield permit. Southfield's Pond No. 5 was designed and constructed to treat runoff from the Southfield portal area. It is unknown at this time if the pond would be adequately sized to treat the runoff from a watershed from the GEC mining area. Dr. Corley wondered who would be responsible for maintenance and inspection of the pond, if these actions were to occur. Rule 3.03.1(3)(c)indicates that future maintenance of Pond No. 5 would be the responsibility of the landowner. If routing GEC runoff to the Southfield pond No. 5 were plausible,Dr. Corley would propose to install a 6 ft. diameter culvert from the GEC collection ditch to route runoff into the pond. The access road passes over the Magpie drainage reroute. The slopes alongside the north side of the Magpie drainage are bare of vegetation and steep. The culvert structure and rock armoring appear to be holding up(not gullying or sloughing). There is down-cutting alongside the access road leading to the Magpie drainage. This down-cutting extends approximately 10 feet from the edge of the drainage,but has not cut back to the roadway. (photo 6) Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 0 Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 2 Page 3 of 7