INSPEC05999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 2) • M121E ID ~ OR PROSPECTING ID # M-84-097 INSPECTION DATE 10/12/94 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its ongoing monitoring of 110(2) permits. The operator was contacted about the inspection. A meeting with the operator (Kent Hager) was held at the courthouse before going to the site. Another representative of the operator, named on page 1, accompanied this inspector to the site. This being a county pit, there is no financial warranty and no requirement for a etormwater management plan. There was a sign at the entrance gate, and there were adequate markers delineating the permit boundary. This permit area lies very near to another permit area (M-81-150), for which Colo Dept of Transportation is the permittee. On the ground it appears that there is some overlap of the two permit areas, though the mapped descriptions reflect that there is no overlap. There ie no stockpile of topsoil in the permit area. Observation at the site indicated that there ie topsoil in the area, but apparently none has been saved. (There is a statement from the operator, in 1986, that there is topsoil stockpiled, but there is no pile now.) The approved reclamation plan states that there would be approx 4 to 6 inches of topsoil put back during reclamation. when incremental or final reclamation occurs, the operator must ensure that adequate amounts of clean topsoil are available to reapply to the graded surfaces. In total, given a permit area of 4 acres, and topsoil of 4 inches of minimum depth, there must be approx 2300 cubic yards of topsoil. The lack of adequate topsoil ie noted ae a problem on page 1, and the corrective actions are shown on the last page. The operations within this permit area have reached the southern and northern boundaries, and have not yet reached the eastern boundary. The western aide of the permit area, closest to the other nearby permit area, ie where the majority of the large stockpiling ie going on. The stockpiles of gravel, in fact, extend beyond the western permit boundary. Due to the discrepancies of the relationship of the locations of the two pits, what ie not known at this time ie how much of the operator's activities lie within the nearby permit area, or how much "unpermitted" land lies between them. At this time it ie also not known if an agreement exists between the two permittees, allowing Mineral County to stockpile on the CDOT permit area. At this point, this discrepancy ie regarded as a problem in the "records" and "general mine plan compliance" topics (page 1), for having an inadequate map in the files, and Bite act ivitiee which do not match the approved plan. What would help clear up this ie for the involved parties (ie., Mineral County, CDOT, and USFS) to have a resurvey of the two permit areas, to determine if there is overlap, and to show the locations of all disturbance and activities on the sites. The map and descriptions should be submitted first, ae noted on the last page of this report. Until an adequate map ie submitted, no off site damage will be considered as a possible violation, since it is not known at this time if there ie offeite damage or how much there might be. The files also show that this permit was first issued as a 111, project-specific permit. Almost from the beginning, however, the permit has been treated as a 110(2) permit, yet there is no documentation in the files reflecting the change. If the operator can locate any documentation showing the changing of this permit type, please submit it. Mr Rogers indicated several other markers onaite, delineating an extension to the original permit area, ae authorized by the landowner, USFS. The operator should be aware that such an extension ie not yet part of the approved MLRB permit, and must not be dieturDed until it is approved. A change such as that requires a new 110 application, if total area ie still below 10 acres. There were no other problems noted at the Bite. The above-mentioned conditions were discussed with the operators representative (Danny Rogers) onaite. The next morning a meeting with both Mr Rogers and Kent Hager was held in the courthouse to again discuss these problems. The USFS representative was not able to attend.