Laserfiche WebLink
A *130, 2013 C-1992-080/Carbon Junction Mine MLT <br /> tributary to Carbon Junction Canyon, and then traveled down the tributary to its intersection with <br /> Carbon Junction Canyon, and explored the canyon a short distance downstream of the <br /> confluence. Reclaimed Sediment Pond #2 was observed. The team then retraced its steps, <br /> collecting measurements of the permanent diversion channel throughout its length. These <br /> measurements consisted of channel gradient, channel width, and size of riprap used. <br /> As we proceeded upstream from the permanent diversion, we noted the erosion that has occurred <br /> on the southern side of the drainage. (This issue has been addressed in previous Division <br /> inspection reports, beginning with March 29, 2013.) We continued to move upstream, along the <br /> diversion berm which parallels the original channel on the south, passed beneath the toe of the <br /> reclaimed North Pit, and eventually reached the undisturbed, native channel. <br /> Designs for reconstruction of the Carbon Junction Canyon drainage were approved with TR-I I <br /> in October 2002. Details may be found in pages 5-8 thru 5-17 of Section 2.05 (Operation and <br /> Reclamation Plan). The approved design plan, profile, and cross section views of the Carbon <br /> Junction channel and its environs appear on the following permit maps, also approved under TR- <br /> 11: Mine Plan Map, Site Cross Sections, Mine Hydrology Map, and Post Mining Topography <br /> Map. (Note: the location of the shared permit boundary with the adjacent gravel pit, Ewing <br /> Mesa Pit No. 1, was subsequently revised in July 2004 under TR-12.) <br /> Permanent Diversion <br /> The permanent diversion channel was stable; however, certain field measurements indicate that <br /> the channel was not constructed as designed: <br /> • The gradients of Segments 1 through 6 differed from what was shown on the Site Cross <br /> Sections Map, with Segment 1 being steeper and the other five segments being generally <br /> flatter than was specified, as seen in the table below. <br /> Channel Segment* % Grade %Gradient <br /> (Measured) (Design) <br /> 1 14.0 7.30 <br /> 2 1.4 2.19 <br /> 3 4.0 5.31 <br /> 4 15.0 16.14 <br /> 5 9.0 to 10.0 9.78 <br /> 6 (lower) 1.0 2.15 <br /> 6 (upper, to curve) 1.4 2.15 <br /> *As shown on Site Cross Sections Map, approved with TR-I I <br /> • The riprap size was frequently coarser than what was required. <br /> • For the culvert crossing of the permanent haul road (Segment 4), the design called for a <br /> single pipe arch culvert, whereas twin 66" CMPs were installed. An as-built design for the <br /> twin culverts was submitted in May 2007; however, the design was not revised in the permit. <br /> Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 2 <br /> Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 3 Page 3 of 7 <br />