INSPEC03951 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 21 MINE ID p OR PROSPECTING ID rY M-86-061 INSPECTION PATE 1/20/00 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This was a partial inspection and onsite meeting performed by the Division as a follow-up to the 1 /11 /00 inspection during which areas of offsite damage were observed. Various parties involved with the permitted operations were contacted about this follow-up inspection. Parties present at this inspection were: Patrick Cugnini, permittee and landowner; Don Gosney, operator and lessee; Todd Calderwood, representing Lafarge, operator and lessee; Brian Kimmel, Southwest Land Services; Ron Johnson, Southwest Land Surveys. These parties were present throughout the inspection. There was no mining activity at the time of the inspection. Previously noted snow cover was partly gone, affording better view of ground surface conditions. Onsite equipment still included earthmoving equipment, conveyors, crusher plant and asphalt plant (as was noted during the previous inspectionl. After offsite damage was noted at the 1I11I00 inspection, the permittee was sent a letter from the Division's Denver office stating that there is reason to believe that a possible violation exists for offsite damage. That matter will be heard by the Mined Land Reclamation Board at their February 2000 meeting. At this time, it is estimated that all offsite disturbances afftec less than 2 acres, and the matter is being pursued as offsite damage of a permitted site. Ilf the survey to be completed bears out that there are two acres or more affected outside the permit boundary, the matter will be pursued as possible unpermitted mining.) Discussions during this inspection mainly involved determining where the actual permit boundary was located, determining the extent of areas of offsite disturbance, and various options of correcting the possible violation. These options are detailed below. 1. 112 Permit Amendment to add land to the existing permitted acreaoe. The present area of offsite disturbance is along the eastern permit boundary. The boundary itself is fairly high up on the hillslope, with the upland areas included in the permit. The permittee may wish to add the adjoining land on the lower slope itself and beyond, if not for future excavation then as a buffer against future offsite disturbance. The permit amendment process allows for adding several areas at one time to an existing permit. The fee fora 112 amendment is $1,550.00. 2. Reclamation of all disturbance of offsite areas. The areas of offsite damage may not need to be specifically included in the permit, if the permittee and/or operatorlsl commit to promptly commence full reclamation of the offsite damage. The required earthwork may have to wait until springtime, but all work should begin and be carried to completion in a timely manner. These two alternatives were discussed as good-faith efforts only, and may not necessarily be what the Board requires to be performed as a corrective action to bring the situation into compliance. A possible alternative of deleting undisturbed land from the permit and subsequently adding land through an amendment (termed a "land exchange") is not normally allowed as a corrective action for a possible violation. That alternative was discussed but was not a preferred one anyway. Prior to commencing any mitigating activity, please contact this inspector at the address below. The registered surveyor present during the inspection was instructed by the operator to map the existing permit boundary and to map the disturbance that falls inside and outside the boundary. This outside disturbance will consist of placement of fill material at the head of the gulch, pad construction southwest of the gulch, possible sediment transport down the gulch, excavated material above the gulch and pad, possible placement of crushing equipment outside the boundary, and stripped material and brushy debris pushed down the slope into the bottom of the gulch. The permittee and/or operator should ensure that the survey is performed promptly, the maplsl are submitted soon to this office, and a decision made as to the type of corrective action commitment to be presented to the Board next month. Please note that though no problems or possible violations were noted on page one of this report, the same problems and possible violation conditions noted in the 1 /11 /00 report still exist. and must still be corrected. The weed control. sediment control and permit boundary marking must still be preformed. and evidence of such provided to this office. For all problem descriptions, corrective actions, and correction dates. please see the report for the 1 /11 /00 inspection.