Laserfiche WebLink
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III » <br />999 <br />• <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department oI Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: 1303) 866-3567 <br />FAX:(303)832~8106 <br />October 29'x, 2001 <br />Bud Thompson <br />Mesa County Transportation Department <br />P.O. Box 20000-5025 <br />Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-5025 <br />DENVER OFFICE <br />PUBLIC FILE CORY <br />rro: -1y7~-31 <br />~f~a: - /3 /jo~lO r`T <br />b.r'on: M~ <br />~~ <br />DIVISION OF <br />MINERALS <br />&__ <br />GEOLOGY <br />1ATION <br />r.SA.. _•SA Ff TY <br />OOJ [till Owens <br />Governor <br />~~, Greg E. Walther <br />Ezecmive Director <br />Michael B. Long <br />Division Director <br />RE: Inspection Reports for Baxter Pass, 13 Road, 21 Road, FruitaBLM, A.2, Orchazd Mesa and <br />Durant Pits. <br />Deaz Mr. Thompson: <br />Please fmd attached the inspection reports for the above mentioned permitted sites. Thank you <br />for taking the time to spend the day with me getting all these done. It was a time saver for both <br />of us. <br />Take the time to read each report carefully. With the exception of A.2, each has some issues that <br />need to be specifically addressed. Most issues aze minor and extra time for correction has been <br />given for scheduling and weather. The Durant Pit has an issue that must be cleazed up. The <br />mine plan specifically states all slopes will be 3:1. Given the nature of the site, it is clear that <br />Mesa County has done its beset, but the slope is roughly 2:1. If it can be geo-technically proven <br />that the 2:1 slope is stable, Mesa County can request a Technical Revision and the issue is <br />resolved. However, if the slope can not be demonstrated as being stable, Mesa County must take <br />what ever steps aze necessary to make it so. The issue of liability must be raised with people <br />living rather close to the soufllem permit boundazy and such a large azea of slope. Slope failure <br />could have undesirable result:(. <br />Generally speaking this Office would like to raise a bigger issue. All of these sites are between <br />18 and 23 years old. Some sites have materials still stockpiled, but mining operations have long <br />ceased on all the mentioned sites. Under the Minerals Act, 34-32.5-116(q), an operator has a <br />duty to "carry to completion with reasonable diligence" reclamation requirements "concurrently <br />with mining operations". Documentation in the files shows that Mesa County has been less than <br />diligent in its reclamation efforts. Some efforts such as the A.2 site revegetation and contouring <br />of all sites aze good. But the revegetation of all but the A.2 aze mazginal at best and reseeding is <br />highly recommended. The Orchazd Mesa Pit appeazs to have been forgotten all together. It is <br />understood that topsoil is in short supply. But, Mesa County has a legal responsibility to reclaim <br />these sites. Mesa County has been given a more than liberal time frame in order to accomplish <br />what needs to be done. Operaltors of similar permits and circumstances have been accessed civil <br />penalties and bond forfeitures for a lot less. The County itself has requested this Office bring the <br />yo` <br />O~ <br />