INSPEC13995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID ~ OR PROSPECTING ID ~ K-77-205 INSPECTION DATS 12 95 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This inspection was performed by the Division as a follow up to a prior inspection (dated 4/21/94) as a result of which certain topics were found to be problems and subsequent actions were required of the operator. The operator was contacted about the inspection and was present for it. The topics of "records" and "signs and markers" were problems from the 4/21/94 inspection, and were found to have been corrected. An adequate map of the permit area is now part of the file. The permit area lies on a portion of the total landholdings of this operater. Extensive areas of the land surrounding the permit area is in industrial use, and even somewhat involved with this permitted operation. However, these surrounding lands and facilities are also used for materials and activities apart from the operation, and are not regarded ae part of this operation. Adequate markers and features were observed delineating the permit area. There ie a permit sign at the entrance to the operator's property. The permit area is now defined ae two parcels, one to the north and one to the south of the railroad bridge. There ie a 300-foot setback from the bridge to the permit boundary. The permit area consists of, and lies wholly within, the channel of the North Fork of the Gunnison River, ae it exists currently. The operator should be reminded that the Hermit boundaries do not chance automatically to conform to chances in the river banks. The river ie wandering back and forth across a broad flood plain, sometimes depositing gravel, sometimes taking out gravel bare, mature trees, bottomland pastures and fences. A steep rocky cliff and short length of irrigation ditch border the river on the north, restricting its movement, and necessitating prevention of its movement, in that direction. Periodic high flows have changed the river's course, indicated to this inspector during the inspection. The operator indicated that recently purchased bottomland upstream of the permit area and bottomland presently in the permit area are all in danger of being lost if the river meanders to the south. Ascent activity ie restricted to the north (upstream) portion of the permit area, partly to not endanger the AR bridge footings in the river. Shallow excavation and movement of gravel material is accomplished by truck and loader, during low water times, to encourage the main flows to stay in the center of the channel. The land not in the river channel is valuable in its use as commercial land or pasture land. The operator therefore only wishes to mine in the channel. This would not require the typical reclamation of grading, topsoil replacement or seeding. This acts to keep operating and bond coats low. The operator indicated that if the channel moved to the south, onto hie pasture land, he would be interested in mining there too. Discussion followed regarding the reasons for defining the location of a permit boundary. If future expansion ie anticipated, even if only after the river moves, the boundaries should not be placed at the current edge of the channel, unless a future amendment to the permit is desired. There ie a fee for amendments. The operator also indicated the adjacent portions upstream (off the permit area) where mining would be considered, both for the sale of material and to protect the bottomland by channelling the water. If such mining ie desired before the coming spring runoff, the operator ie encouraged to apply soon for an amendment to extend the existing 112 permit. The operator stated that he would be interested in seeking a "Declaratory Order" from the Board, based on extraction purely for the purposes of controlling the river and protecting the land. If such order is to be sought, the operator should state that in writing to the Mined Land Reclamation Board, for it to be considered at a monthly Board meeting. There were no problems noted during this partial inspection.