INSPEC44239 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 21 MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-81-154 INSPECTION DATE 07/03/97 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS TDG OBSERVATIONS This inspection was conducted in response to an anonymous complaint received by the Division on June 4, 1997 regarding possible damage to an adjacent landowners fence and possible off site impacts from erosion. t. Fence -After discussing the fence issue with the operator of the adjacent United/Norwood Pit and the manager of the Norwood Pit, it appears that this issue is outside the Division's jurisdiction. The 300 ft. segment of fence referenced in the complaint is associated with a fence replacement agreement worked out between the County and the surface owner where the County would provide the materials and the surface owner would provide the labor to install the replacement fence. The reason why the original fence was taken down or who took the fence down was not made clear, however the area where the fence is located is well away from the permitted area and any activities in that area would not appear to be associated with any mining activities. 2. Erosion - No significant erosional problems were observed during the inspection. There was evidence of minor gully formation down the face of a short fill slope in the southwest portion of the permit area, and the operator has committed to install straw bales or silt fence in that area to minimize furth~=_r downcutting and prevent discharge of sediment laden water into the irrigation ditch. This work needs to be completed in the near future to ensure that adequate sediment control is maintained at all times. Routine Inspection Topics -The contract crushing company referenced in the Division's 04/22/97 inspection report has completed their work and demobilized from the site. IJo problems associated with storage of industrial chemicals (fuels, lubricants, antifreeze, etc.l were observed during this inspection. The operator has indicated in a response to the Division's 04/22/97 inspection report [ha[ perimeter markers have always been in place around the pit. Although the pit areer appears to be bordered by fences and an irrigation ditch, there is no information on the ground or in the permit file that clearly shows which fences constitute the perimeter of the permit area. There are no unique markings on the fences such as colored teipe, paint, or signs that clearly indicate where the perimeter is located. There are many fences in the area, some being parallel to each other, and at present there is no indication as to which specific fence segments comprise the perimeter of the permit area. The full perimeter of the permit area needs to be clearly marked, and the Division clearly informed as to which fences and other features constitute the permit boundary, no later than August 31, 1997. There is a problem with pit excavation activities extending a near vertical highwall to within a few feet of a fence and a possible easement corridor situated along the eastern boundary of the pit excavation, and to within a few feet of a fence situated along the southern boundary of the pit excavation. The Ac[ requires that mining operations adhere to one of three options: 1) Stay a minimum of 200 feet from any significant, valuable permanent man-made structures, including fences; 21 Obtain fully executed damage compensation agreements with persons h~rving an interest in the structure that any damage to the structure will be compensated for by the operator; or 31 Provide an engir~eering evaluation demonstrating that mining operations occurring closer than 200 feet from a structure will not adversely effect the stability of the structure. At present the proximity of the near vertical highwall to the fences and the possible easement corridor jeopardizes the stability of the fence and easement corridor. As such, the operator will either need to complete one of the three 4ollowing options: 11 Backfill the highwall to a stable slope; 2) Obtain a fully executed damage compensation agreement from all persons having an interest in the fences and easement corridor that they will be compensated for any damage by the operator; or 31 Provide sufficient evidence to the Division that the operator is the sole entity having an interest in the fences and the p~~ssible easement corridor. Please complete one of these options by August 31, 1997. The extension of the pit highwalls to the east and south has progressed to a point where additional topsoil salvage above the highwall may be necessary before the pit ~:xcavation expands any further. Also, the topsoil material being utilized as a backstop for the sheriff's dept. shooting range should be salvaged when the shooting range is no longer in use and the material stockpiled in a protected area for use in final reclamation. Additionally, growth of weedy species, including thistle, is becoming a problem on the topsoil stockpiles and along the western boundary of the permit area. These areas will need to be sprayed with an appropriate herbicide by August 31 , 1 997 to prevent .3n infestation problem from occurring at the site. I & E Contact Address cc: Sr. Specialist, DMG ^ CE NAME Mike Horner. Road Superintendent ^ BL OPERATOR San Miguel County Road Deot. ^ FS STREET P.0. Box 426 ^ HW CITY/STATE/ZIP Norwood. CO 61423 ^ HMWMD ICHI ^ SE ^ WOCD ICH) ^ OTHER