INSPEC40280 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: ~-i9»-ns~ INSPECTION DATE: nQ/29/0.4 INSPECTOR' S INITIALS: raP OBSERVATIONS 1. This inspection was conducted as part of the Division of Minerals and Geology's monitoring program. Present at the inspection were Kate Pickford, DMG, and AI Lunbery, Star Ready Mix. Weather at the time of the inspection was clear, calm, and approximately 70 degrees. 2. No sign is posted at the entrance to the site (See Problem 1, Pg. 4). 3. Most of the western pit is complete. The pit was dry at the time of the inspection, and Mr. Lunbery indicated that the remainder of the exposed shoreline would be graded before the pit is allowed to fill again. 4. Currently a crusher and stockpiles are located to the east of the dry pit. Mr. Lundbery indicated that these items will be moved and the area where they are currently located will be mined. There are approximately 8 to 10 acres remaining at the site to be mined. 5. A drainage on the north side of the dry lake allows overflow from Seeley Lake (north of the site) to flow through a ditch that is adjacent to the pit to an outflow, into the Cache La Poudre River. The culvert that allows the Seeley Lake water to flow into the river also serves to allow overflow water from the water - fiiled pit to flow into the river. The approved permit stipulates that the operator must submit the final engineered design for the permanent overflow structure to the Division for review and approval prior to installation. The operator should be aware that the Division has not received the final design, and therefore it must be submitted prior to completion and release of the site. Additionally, the operator will need to submit a flood control plan for the site in order for the Division to review the outflow from the pit, and to assure that the site and the Cache La Poudre River will remain stable during a 100-year flood event. 6. Currently there is a maintenance building, office, and scale house on site. Mr. Lunbery indicated that these structures wilt be removed during reclamation, and the reclamation plan states that these buildings and some material stockpiles will be left onsite, and that the landowner is taking responsibility for reclamation of this area of the site. The operator must clarify the future intent for this area of the site and submit-a revision or an amendment if the proposed reclamation for this area has changed. The operator should also be aware that, as the permit holder, the operator is ultimately responsible for reclamation of the site regardless of agreements held with other individuals. Mr. Lundbery indicated that the reclamation plan may be changed to allow for lining of the ponds. The operator should be aware that if this change were made, the change would have to be submitted to the Division for review and approval in the form of a permit amendment, prior to installation of such structures. 8. The site does not currently have an approved Temporary Substitute Supply Plan (TSSP) filed with the Office of the State Engineer. The last, approved plan expired December 31, 2002. Mr. Lundbery indicated that he is currently working with Tuttle Applegate to have a new plan submitted. The operator should be aware that the absence of an approved TSSP is a possible violation of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations (See Possible Violation 2, Pg. 4). 9. The site has an abundance of weeds. The operator will need to submit a weed control plan for the site for review and approval by the Division in the form of a Technical Revision (See Problem 3, Pg. 5).