My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-02-14_INSPECTION - M1992102
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1992102
>
2012-02-14_INSPECTION - M1992102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:48:37 PM
Creation date
2/22/2012 7:31:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1992102
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
2/14/2012
Doc Name
Insp Rpt
From
DRMS
To
Western Gravel, Inc.
Inspection Date
1/31/2012
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.
/
10
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
OBSERVATIONS <br />PERMIT #: M- 1992 -102 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: GRM <br />INSPECTION DATE: September 27, 2011 <br />This inspection was conducted as part of final enforcement action by the Colorado Division of Reclamation, <br />Mining, and Safety (Division) for failure to maintain a reclamation bond in good standing. The South D -20 Pit <br />is a 112c permit, south of Montrose, Colorado. Shauna Hovey, Western Gravel's representative, accompanied <br />the inspector on site. <br />The Mined Land Reclamation Board signed an order on November 25, 2011 noting the permit was subject to <br />revocation and the bond could be forfeited. Under the Order a cease and desist order was issued except for <br />Division approved reclamation and or environmental protection actions. Western Gravel sought and was <br />granted permission to do reclamation plan approved tasks to reduce the overall liability. The stipulation being <br />that topsoil and other materials could not be handled if saturated by precipitation or frozen. All activities <br />were to be completed and equipment moved off site by 5:00 pm January 31, 2012. This inspection is to note <br />conditions of the site on the 31 to estimate the reclamation liability should the current reclamation bond be <br />forfeited during the March 2012 MLRB hearing. <br />The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers are in place and in compliance with Rule <br />3.1.12. The sign is located at the entrance to the site. Permit boundary markers were noted as the mesa <br />edge, t -posts and fencing. <br />As noted in the previous inspection of September 27, 2011 the area of disturbance encompasses most of the <br />53 acres permitted. In September highwalls were noted along the north edge, several stockpiles of processed <br />materials were observed, as well as some equipment. Photo documentation shows the highwalls have been <br />established, all highwalls backfilled, and material removed or utilized in the reclamation with the exception of <br />one pile for the landowner which will be discussed below. The reclamation plan calls for 4:1 slopes which is <br />Tess than the usual 3:1. All slopes are established at 3.5 to 5:1 which is within normal tolerances. Slopes were <br />established in a natural looking way to match surrounding topography. Original plans called for the east side <br />to daylight out at the mesa edge. However, disturbances never reached that point. The operator sloped the <br />inside to 4:1 which creates a natural looking dish for the site as well as some stormwater control. This <br />technique also prevented off site disturbance from materials being pushed or rolled down slope to <br />unpermitted areas. The outlying undisturbed slopes are well vegetated with native grasses and shrubs with <br />no visible signs of erosion or sedimentation issues. <br />Interior, temporary stormwater management has been removed. The site has two stormwater outlets located <br />along the east side where natural drainage has occurred before mining. The inspector notes the northerly <br />collector ditch cuts just past the power poles on site. The outlet shows heavy cobble and some boulders that <br />afford some erosional protection during peak flows. However it must be noted the outlet and ditch have not <br />had any type of engineering review and it appears some additional work may be necessary to bring it up to an <br />acceptable specification. The second ditch is located just north of the landowner stockpile left on site. The <br />collector ditch here has been in place for some time. The outlet here appears to have been reworked and in <br />doing so is now less defined. The north edge of the outlet area has some very good river cobble armoring. As <br />noted with the other ditch, it is functional but has not had any type of review for sustainability over time. <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.