INSPEC30978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1983-164 INSPECTION DATE 3/10/05 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 110 permits. The operator was contacted to arrange a time to meet onsite for the inspection. The operator's representative named on page one was present during the inspection. The site was inactive at the time of the inspection, though the site exhibited disturbances related to mining and processing activities that have occurred since the Division's last inspection (9/22/99). The site is identified at the entrance gate by a permit ID sign. Though the sign contains the pit name and correct permit number, the permittee is still noted as "Colo Dept of Transportation" which is not the current permittee. The sign should be replaced to reflect the current permittee's name. The east, south and west permit boundaries roughly correspond to existing fencelines, and the SE and SW boundary corners are considered to be close to the existing fence corners. (The original permit maps show the boundaries as being slightly inside the fencelines.) There are no NE or NW boundary markers. The lack of clearly described boundaries and lack of boundary markers are noted as a problem on page one under the topic of "signs and markers:' The operator must accurately locate the boundary corner locations and mark them in a manner that is visible and durable. (This inspector delivered copies of the original maps to the operator to assist him in measuring and locating the corners.) The date by which this office must receive proof of completing this corrective action is shown on the last page. The recent excavation activity includes mining on the western side of the main pit. Mining there has produced a highwall that encroaches to within 6 feet of the western fenceline, leaving an inadequate setback distance in which to perform cut and fill pit sloping, within the permit area. The point where the highwall is within 6 feet of the fence is included in an 80-foot length of the highwall that is an average of 10 feet from the fence. To reduce such a slope by cut and fill methods (ie., by dozing it down from above), would require a setback (unmined) distance from the fence of about 35 feet, to allow adequate room for equipment to maneuver and sufficient material to push down. Reclaiming that feature without disturbing the fence or lands west of the fence will require backfilling the slope from below, pushing materials from elsewhere in the pit. This should be done promptly, so that offsite areas are not damaged by sloughing. (Offsite damage, even occurring indirectly as a result of mining activity, may be a possible violation.) This encroachment is not noted as a problem in this report, since no offsite damage has occurred, and the approved mining plan states that "specific mining methods will be left to the discretion of the contractor." However, this office strongly encourages the operator to act promptly to remedy this potential instability, by backfilling all highwalls that are steeper than 3:1, which are currently closer to the boundary than 35 feet. Until that is performed, this activity will be included in the Division's upcoming bond calculation. When it is completed, the operator should inform this office so that it may be deleted from the bonded reclamation tasks. The topic of "records" is noted as a problem on page one because there is no evidence of an approved transfer of this permit to Mr. Gallegos as a private operator. Though he requested a transfer in 1993, he did not provide a bond and the request for transfer was denied in early 1995. Mr. Gallegos has provided the annual fees and reports for nearly 10 years, controls the pit activities, and runs the pit as a private business. CDOT has not been involved for over 10 years. The correction to this problem will require Mr. Gallegos to submit a new request for transfer of this permit (forms are enclosed with this report). A bond amount that will be calculated by this office will be communicated to the operator. Upon notification of the amount, it must be submitted by the operator to effect the permit transfer The required bond amount will be stated in the packet mailed to the operator under separate cover, will be the amount that the operator must provide. (During the inspection, Mr. Gallegos stated that he would prefer a Letter of Credit. New forms for this type of bond are also being included with this report.) See the last page for the correction date. The topic of "financial warranty' is also noted as a problem on page one, since this site is being operated without a posted bond. An adequate, acceptable bond is required for the permit transfer to be completed, as explained above. The correction to this problem requires that the operator provide a bond to this office, that is to be accepted and approved by the date shown on the last page of this report. There are several areas of knapweed infestation that were noted during this inspection. These were identified to the operator during the inspection, and the importance and requirement for treatment and control was also explained. The knapweed was found during the Division's 1999 inspection and, though not noted as a problem at that time, the operator was encouraged to develop and implement a weed control plan. Since the noxious weeds are still present and there is no apparent effort to control them, this is now being noted as a problem, under the topic of "revegetation" Correction of this problem requires the operator to develop an adequate weed control plan, with the assistance of a local weed control expert, and to submit the plan along with a commitment to implement it beginning in 2005. Upon approval by this office of the plan, it will become part of the permit requirements. See the last page for the correction date.