INSPEC26651 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: nn-i 99x-nee INSPECTION DATE; 7/13/05 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: KI S OBSERVATIONS This was a monitoring inspection conducted as part of DMG's inspection program for permitted operations. This was an inspection of the Maryland Creek Pit conducted by Kathleen Sullivan of the Colorado Division of Minerals 8. Geology. Greg Norwick of Everist Materials, LLC was present during the inspection. The identification sign was missing from the entrance to the mine site, as was the fence/affected area boundary marker north of the mine entrance along Cell 2 pond. This is noted on page 4 as Problem No. 1. A reclaimer has been installed for concrete, to help prevent the complaint that prompted the Division's prior inspection of Sept. 27, 2000. The process area also includes aself-contained concrete plant and an asphalt plant. The asphalt oil tank is within a concrete secondary-containment vault. Cell 1 has been mined and acts as the settling pond. Process water is discharged to the north end of the pond and a pump at the south end provides water to the processing plants. The CDPS water quality discharge permit compliance point/outfall for cells 1 and 2 is at the discharge from these ponds. Cell 2 may be filled with inert materials in the future. Cell 4 is aflood-irrigated meadow near the middle of the permitted area that also contains stockpiled boulders. Irrigation overflow from the meadow enters Cell 3, which they are currently mining. The operator reports that they are mining lakeshores at 3H:1 V and 2H:1 V or concurrently ba<:kfilling with overburden or inert fill to create 3:1 and 2:1 slopes, per their Mining and Reclamation plans. Topsoil is placed near the pit boundaries so it can be pushed down the slopes for reclamation. The highwall on the second level (dry-mining phase) of Cell 3 is approximately 15 feet (see photo no. 4 ). A dozer in photo nos. 5 and 6 is reportedly forming 3:1 slopes as they mine. There is an "inert fill" pad at the south end of Cell 3 (see photo no. 7). It appears the inert fill pad has been constructed in a previously reclaimed area. If placement of this fill has or will change the final configuration of this pond, the operator will need to <.;ubmit a revision to the Reclamation Plan. Concrete that cannot be recycled may be dumped at the inert fill pad to harden for the 60 days prior to placement in the cell slope as inert backfill material. The dozer operator is tasked with ensuring the concrete is aged 60 days before used as fill material. Other inert fill is dumped from this south pad. According to the "Inert Fill Procedures and Controls" described in Everist's October 20, 2000 letter for Technical Revision No. 3, no material is to be dumped directly down the slope, but delivered to the pad, inspected by the front-end-loader operator, and then deposited as described. Photo no. 7 appears to capture a different scenario. The same letter states that the Division will be notified prior to dumping inert fill into any cells other than Cell2; however, currently material is used in Cell 3. Please explain the activities depicted in photo no. 7 and these apparent discrepancies from the procedures by October 31, 2005. Prior to any further receipt or deposit of inert fill material in Cell 3, please provide proper notice per Rule 3.1.5(9). This is noted as Problem No. 2. A February 25, 20051etter to the Division from Summit County forwarded a letter the county sent to Everist requiring the company take action to control noxious weed infestations at the mine site. The operator is spraying to treat weeds, and the effectiveness of weed control efforts is still undetermined. Since the current permit does not include a comprehensive weed control plan, the operator must submit a technical revision'lo incorporate a noxious weed management plan into the approved reclamation plan. This is noted on page 4 as Problem No. 3. The approved Mining Plan allows a maximum of 58 acres disturbed at any one time, with a specific breakdown identified in the Mining Plan approved with Technical Revision No. 4. The last annual report states 66 acres are affected thus far. It is unclear to the Division how many acres are disturbed. Since the Division must bond for the maximum amount of disturbance at any one time, please demonstrate to the Division that no more than 58 acres are disturbed, and the breakdown of the type of disturbance. The Division may follow up 1o this inspection with an aerial photo to assess the total disturbed area and possibly adjust the bond. If the opera for has exceeded these acreage limits, the operator will need to request a revision to the permit and correspondingly increase the reclamation bond. This is noted on page 5 as Problem No. 4.