Laserfiche WebLink
Pa e 3 <br />MINE ID # OR INSPECTOR'S <br />PROSPECTING ID #: M-1983-102 INSPECTION DATE: 09/05/2006 INITIALS: RMW <br />With respect to the presence of asphalt in the fill used to backfill the ponds, as documented in photograph six on <br />page seven of this report, the Division does not feel that this is a problem because that asphalt appears to be cured <br />sufficiently so as to have little to no risk of affecting the local ground water quality. <br />Because the Division believes that ground water does exist near the surface of the pit floor, the operator must <br />refrain from further (deeper) excavation in this area. <br />During this inspection, standing waterwas observed on the pit floor southwest of the former ponds and east of the <br />concrete batch plant. Ted Pratt and Larry Thompson both indicated that this water was the result of the overfilling <br />of the water storage tank located under the batch plant. This was confirmed by the personnel operating the batch <br />plant on the day of this inspection. Ted Pratt and Larry Thompson also indicated that the operator of the batch plant <br />obtains his water from an adjacent landowner. <br />In the complaint letter, the Homeowners express concem about the steepness of the current mining slopes. They <br />state that they understand that the slopes "...should beat 5 to 1 except for the east side being 3 to 1. According to <br />our understanding of the slope we believe the slope is approx 2 to 1 AT BEST." During this inspection, the <br />reclaimed part of the east slope was measured with an inclinometer and found to be no steeper than 3H:1 V while <br />the remainder of the east slope has been mined essentially as a vertical highwall with sloughing of the sand and <br />gravel creating a slope varying between 2H:1 V to nearly vertical. The west slope of the pit has been mined as a <br />vertical highwall. Based on a review of the mining plan there an: no restrictions on how steep the operator may <br />mine. However, forfinal reclamation, the operator must reclaim the east slope to no steeperthan 3H:1 V. Since the <br />operator is still mining material from the pit, the existing slopes are acceptable to the Division. <br />Another issue the Homeowners identified in their complaint letterwas the presence of"...several piles of pit run and <br />Class C material that has weeds growing out of it because it was mined and mixed incorrectly and cannot be sold:' <br />Due to the nature of gravel mining and processing operations, stockpiles of different sizes and types of materials <br />are necessary and unavoidable. Unfortunately, not all materials produced as a result of mining are in equal <br />demand from consumers. Therefore, some materials produced may take longer to utilize. As a consequence, <br />weeds may grow on stockpiles of material that take longer to consume. So long as the weeds are not noxious, or if <br />they are, they are being controlled, the Division does not regulate what stockpiles of products the operation <br />produces. It is not within the purview of the Division to regulate the efficiency of a particular gravel operation. <br />During this inspection, representatives of the Division observed the stockpiles in question and determined that the <br />weeds present were not of the noxious variety and therefore, does not have an issue with the existing stockpiles. <br />With respect to the Homeowners understanding that the mine would be mined out and reclaimed by next year, the <br />Division does not place a time limit on mining operations. Reclamation permits are valid for the "life of the mine", <br />unless sooner terminated or revoked forjust cause. <br />With respect to the Homeowners concem regarding dust and noise, these issues are not within the jurisdiction of <br />the Division. The Air Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment <br />regulates dust pollution. Grand County is expected to be the regulating authority for noise concerns. <br />Based on the results of this inspection, the Division believes that the operator did expose ground water but took the <br />appropriate measures to cover up all exposed areas with the exception of the wash-out pit north of the concrete <br />batch plant. The Division also finds that all other issues raised by the Homeowners do not constitute a violation of <br />the reclamation performance standards as outlined in Rule 3 of the Mineral Rules and Regulations of the Colorado <br />Mined Land Reclamation Board for the Extraction of Construction Materials. <br />Two other problems not related to the complaint were identified during this inspection. The first one is the lack of <br />topsoil to complete the approved reclamation plan. The second is an insufficient financial warranty to cover the cost <br />of reclamation. The insufficient financial warranty is a direct result of the operator's failure to salvage sufficient <br />topsoil to reclaim the site after completion of mining. <br />