Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />(Page 21 <br />MINE 1D p OR PROSPECTING ID N M-88-037 <br />INSPECTION DATE 07/03/97 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS TDG <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was conducted in response to a complaint received from an anonymous citizen regarding the following topics: <br />1 . Possible safety hazard associated with an excavation near an irrigation ditch drop box; <br />2. Question as to whether permitted acreage is 10 acres or 84 acres; <br />3. Question as to whether operator is washing water & what the source of the water is; <br />4. Question as to current status of amendment approval stipulations; <br />5. Possible off-site damage associated with re-stringing a fence. <br />1 . Safety Hazard -During the inspection the operator clarified that the excavation near the drop box was done by the surface owner, <br />Mr. Skelton, as a means to extract water from the ditch in a manner allowed by the ditch company. As the Division understands <br />i[, the ditch company does not allow direct pumping from the ditch, so the surface owner installed a pond or sump with a parshall <br />flume from which water could be removed from the ditch, metered through the flume, and then pumped out of the sump for use <br />by the surface owner. This activity was not undertaken by the operator and is not associated in any way with the mining operation, <br />therefore this issue is not within the Division's jurisdiction. However, the operator, in order to alleviate the safety hazard, <br />volunteered to install a rock barrier along the side of the sump that could be accessed from the main road. This work was completed <br />during the inspection. The issue of whether the surface owner has the right to remove the water is not within the Division's <br />jurisdiction. Persons concerned with water rights issues need to contact the Colorado Division of Water Resources. <br />2. Permitted Acreage -After the amendment was approved, the permitted acreage increased from 9.9 acres to 83.3 acres. <br />However, the amended permit is for a phased operation where only a portion or "phase" of the permitted area is disturbed, and <br />where reclamation of one phase or a group of phases is completed before mining operations extend in to the next phase. <br />The operation is still within phase 1 at the present time, however mining within this area is nearing completion. The operator is <br />aware of the stipulated restrictions on mining in future phases where the easement disputes are still in the process of being resolved. <br />The operator indicated during the inspection that the easement disputes are nearing resolution, and that the Division will be provided <br />with the necessary documentation regarding final resolution of the easement disputes to demonstrate compliance with stipulation <br />no. 2 attached to the amendment approval. <br />3. Gravel Washing - No gravel washing was taking place at the time of the inspection. The operator indicated that the company <br />was still in the process of obtaining the rights for a source of water to be used in gravel washing activities. Water rights issues are <br />not within the jurisdiction of the Division. Persons concerned with water rights issues need to contact the Colorado Division of <br />Water Resources. <br />4. Stipulations -The operator has complied with stipulations no. 1 & 3 attached to the amendment approval. Stipulation no. 1 <br />regarded submittal of additional financial warranty, and stipulation no. 3 regarded submittal of a written statement from the operator <br />that all permits required by other applicable laws had been applied for. Stipulation no. 2 regarded resolving the easement disputes <br />prior to disturbing areas within which the easements were located. This stipulation is still in [he process of resolution, and the <br />operator is in compliance with the terms of the stipulation by not disturbing areas within which the easements are located. <br />5. Fence -The 300 ft. segment of fence mentioned in the complaint is located well away from the permit area, and the alleged <br />damage to the fence does not appear to be associated with any mining activites occurring at the United/Norwood Pit. As such, this <br />issue is not within the Division's jurisdiction. <br />Routine Inspection Topics <br />After reviewing the file, it was not clear as to what specific mining methodlsl the operator will use to mine portions of the permitted <br />area that are within 200 ft. of permanent man-made structures. As a reminder, the Act and Rules require that an operator either <br />obtain fully executed damage compensation agreementlsl from owners of significant, valuable, permanent man-made structures <br />Ihouses, fences, irrigation ditches, etc.l situated closer than 200 ft. from areas to be disturbed by mining operations, or provide an <br />adequate engineering analysis demonstrating that mining activities occurring closer than 200 feet from a structure will not adversely <br />effect it's stability. Information in the file indicates that the operator elected to use the engineering demonstration option to comply <br />with the Act and Rules. The geological evaluation contained in [he file indicates that an adequate factor of safety will be achieved <br />if slopes are kept at 3h:1v. However, it is not clear whether the operator plans to mine a near vertical highwall up to a certain <br />proximity to a permanent man-made structure and then grade the slope to 3:1, or if the operator plans to mine at a maximum 3:1 <br />slope at all times. Please clarify. <br />