INSPEC30818

• Permit No: M1977193
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 7/9/1982
• Doc Name: NOTICE OF INSPECTION AND INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 7/9/1982
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

i
S TOTE OF COLOR4D0 n~[r.~Pn ~r4 .,-.~ ,., ~,
D EPARTrdENT OF NATURAL RESOU0.CE5
D. Monte Pascoe, E<ecu rive D~recsor
JIL\ED L_1~D RECLA`IaTIO`
a23 Centennial Building, 13135herman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203 7e1. [phone]

.NOTICE OF INSPECTION
AND
INSPECTION REPORT
DATE OF INSPECTIC{V
NAME OF OPERATOR:
ADDRESS:
Canon City, CO 81212
RE: FIIE NO.: 77-193 MINE: Burnito Canister
' Quarry and Aggregate
Pit
(Please note the instructions indicated by
an X to the right.)
Area I: E~ NE's NW1 & NW's NEB, Sec. 31
Area II: NW~aSE'3, SWNE3d and E'~ SE%NIO~, Sec. 31
AIZ in TZ85, R70W of the 6th P.P1.
iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
999
David C. Shelton
Director
No problems noted at time of inspection
As a reminder, be sure to file your
Annual Report or'Notice of Intent to
Continue on the Pe•.rmit Anniversary Date
Possible problem(:.) - Note recotmnenda-
tion(s) below to e.void further complica
lions or possible violation(s) at the
time of the next inspection.
Q Possible violation(s) - Note recommenda
lion(s) below and reply to the Division
by July 20, 1982°' to avoid
enforcement action.
Possible violation(s) pose(s) an
immediate threat of harm to the
environment, public welfare, or
continued operation. Enforcement
Photos: 15-24 Nu+~ ->mlr 1c`a3 rfi "'~ action forthcoming.
o.s u5~.6~+-
OBSERVATIONS OF IMPORTANCE:
1. The operation appears to be within the limited impact permit boundaries (considering the
Zirnits of the 110 permit), although the operation is undoubtedly close to the western boundary
of the southern portion of the permit area.
2. Tonnage to date, using best available figures, is about 64,000 tons (for 1982, so far).
3. A water truck was present and watering roads on the permit area.
4. A large fines stockpile was present. It may contain 4,000 cubic yards (visual estimate),
This is Located between the quarrying and the gravel mining areas,
5. No topsoil stockpiles were in evidence on the site.
6. No sediment control structures were in evidence on the site. This includes the area below
the mining, processing, and stockpile areas, as well as along the haul roads.
7. Discussions with the Fremont County Planning Department indicated that there may be a
problem with the conformance with local zoning for parts of the existing op~°ration, as well
as the proposed expansion areas. ,
RECIXVT1Eia14TIONS
I. The operator is cautioned to take care not to exceed the boundaries of the permit area,
especially considering the present uncertain nature of the various boundary lines.
2. Once the operator reaches the tonnage limit (less than 70,000 tons/yr.), he musC stop mining
until such time as a 100 to 112 permit conversion has been approved by the .3oard and appropriatF
financial warranty has been received and approved by the Division.
3. The fines stockpile should be maintained at a level to allow its use in reclamation as
a topsoil supplement and substitute.
4, Clarify the amount and location of present topsoil stockpiles, If tops~~il has not been
stockpiled, why has it not been stockpiled? A11 future salvageable topsoil should be stripped,
stockpiled and planted with a perennial grass cover crop for use in reclamation. Please claiif~~
this matter as a part of the conversion application.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET
Inspected by: "/~'-.rt~2 ~ ~>~
Reclamation Specialist
145E/mmt
cc: A1r. Charles Rupp
* Please discuss the recommendation section as a part of the reply to my adequacy letter.

July 9, 1982
Ernest L. Snider
P.O. Box 1241