INSPEC45858 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i~ (Page 21 • MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID k M-7707 INSPECTION DATE 01/30/97 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This partial inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of 110 permits. The operal or was contacted about the inspection, and a time was arranged to meet onsite. The operator was present during the inspectior. There was thin snow cover on much of the site, mostly on the level areas, but it did not prevent the inspection of the items rotted on page 1. The entrance to the site from Kinikin Rd. was adequately marked by a permit ID sign posted there. The hermit area is defined in the file as a 9.9-acre area, the stockpile area being adjacent to the east edge of Kinikin Rd., and the area to be mined farther east on top of a finger ridge. The permit boundary and topography are both irregular, and the permit boundary markers were not noted all along the entire permit boundary. There were, however, sufficient surface features to adequately determine the extent of the permit area, and the site disturbance was within those limits. Though the topic of "signs and markers" is not noted as a problem in this report, the operator should determine as closely as possible where the boundary of the 9.9-acre area lies and mark it. The natural hill slopes which surround this pit are steep, rocky and brush- or timber-covered. The reclan anon plan calls for 3:1 slopes or gentler, which is significantly less steep than the surrounding undisturbed terrain. This is necessa•y, however, due to the ridge top location, the soil and climate, and the type of underlying material expected to be used for reclaiming the slopes. Parts of the permit area have been graded and are being reclaimed presently, especially the western stockpile area aitd the south end of the mined area. Much of the pit margins have maintained a berm of unmined material, to reduce visibility of the operation from outside the permit and to control sedimentation or rolling material from affecting areas oifsite. The extreme north end and southeast end of the pit have highwalls, at 1 :1 or steeper, and 30 feet or higher. Presently there is barely enough room to grade some material down at both points to attain the gradient specified in the approved reclamation plan. The operator should ensure that mining does not encroach farther into the ridge, or expensive backfilling will have to occur. These slopes must also be made stable if they are to stand idle for any length of time. There is no debris on the site. The operation appears orderly throughout. There are no stockpiles in the western stockpile area (since it is being reclaimedl, but a few exist in the upper pit area. Most of that material has been piled anti prepared for a CDOT highway construction contract which Corn Construction is currently performing. Several items seem to present problems, and those topics are noted on page 1 . There is no adequate map o'' the permit area in the tile, which depicts the permit area's features in enough detail (permit area boundaries, topography, natural drainage and drainage control, topsoil areas, etc.l. This is regarded as a problem under ttre topic of "records". The operator should follow Construction Materials Rule 6.3.5(21-131 to prepare mining and reclamation maps which meet the requirements of the corr~:ctive action. See the last page of this report for the date these by which these must be submitted. Another problem, which falls under the topics of "mine plan compliance" and "processing facilities" is that thore is an asphalt batch plant currently operating on this site, and its operation is not part of the presently approved plan. The operator stated that there have been several episodes of this type of processing at this pit since it was permitted. However, there is nothing in the permit files indicating that it would be a possible activity, or that it was evaluated by Division staff and approved. Likewi:~e, none of the annual reports indicate that it occurred at anY time in the past. To allow this type of activity, the present approved plan la copy of which is attached) must be revised. If the operator has any early documentation from this permit file which indicates that asphalt hatching is allowed, providing it to this Division will immediately abate this problem. The asphalt batch facility is owned and operated by Corn Construction Inc., and is a new portable plant. It i; presently located in the south end of the pit floor. Operations have ceased for the winter, but are planned to commence in the spring. The mining plan must be revised prior to that time. See the last page for the corrective action and its due date. There is evidence in the file chat a 110 to 112 conversion has been considered since 1994. The operator stated during the inspection that he is presently preparing the application for the conversion, and plans to submit it by June 1997. One possible option for correcting the problems noted in this report would be to make sure that the conversion application is suomitted by that time, with the adequate maps and mining plan changes included therein. However, it the conversion application is not timely submitted or not submitted at all, the present 1 10 permit will have to be appropriately revised, by the same corrective a~;tion date, to include the required changes. If the operator, or his consultant who is preparing the conversion application, does not have the correct "ivory colored" application package, with the words "Construction Materials" in the title, please request that a copy be sent to you. Outdated forms are not accepted, and timeliness is important, if redundant submittals are to be avoided.