INSPEC46448

• Permit No: M1986061
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 4/30/2001
• Doc Name: MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 4/19/2001
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

• (Page 21 •
MINE ID JJ OR PROSPECTING ID +X M-1986-061
INSPECTION DATE 4/19/01 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO
OBSERVATIONS
This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 112 permits and as a
follow-up inspection to view the required on-the-ground activities which were performed to abate a violation for offsite
damage, and to begin controlling onsite erosion. The operator's representatives named on page one were contacted about
the inspection and were present during the first part of the inspection.
Initially, the northern end of Phase 1 was observed and discussed with Mr. Jacobs. This area had been mined by the
lessee, Gosney and Sons, at some time during the 1990s (according to materials in the filet. During the last inspection
(10/26/00) that portion of the site was observed to still be disturbed but unreclaimed. During this inspection it was noted
that most of the highwall slope and pit floor grading had been carried out. Mr. Jacobs stated that it was done in late fall
2000. Reclamation tasks still required there include: more complete topsoil replacement, revegetation according to the
species in the approved reclamation plan, and noxious weed control. (Noxious weed patches existed along the boundary
margins and tops of pit slopes, which have now been graded, thus spreading the weed seed and the area potentially
infested.) These items were discussed with Mr. Jacobs, who then departed from the permit area.
The permit's original north boundary line followed a fenceline across the top of the mesa. A later land exchange in the form
of a technical revision (TR-01 in 1995) added about 2.6 acres to the north of the original line, resulting in a crooked permit
boundary line which does not follow the topography. Excavation in this north end of the pit (called Phase 11 has affected
all of the original area and also the additional 2.6 acres. It was noted that there were no boundarv markers on this north
end of the aermit. The affected area boundarv markers were not observed and must be installed aer the requirements of
Rule 3.1.12 121 that state: The boundaries of the affected area will be marked by monuments or other markers that are
clearly visible and adequate to delineate such boundaries. The lack of boundarv markers is noted as a problem under the
tonic of "sians and markers." The corrective actionlsl and correction date are specified on the last gage of this report.
None of the aermit maps submitted since the 1995 addition of the 2.6 acres to Phase 1 have clearly shown this new
boundarv (nor a delineation of the 2.6 acres which were released from the permit in 1995 either). The aermit mans should
be brought ua-to-date, esaecially given the past mining and recent reclamation carried out in Phase 1 and portions of Phase
2. The 1993 conversion to a 112 aermit increased the permitted area acreage to 48 acres, vet recent annual resorts
variously state the acreage to be 57 or 58 acres. The lack of correct mans and correct accounting of permitted acreage
is noted as a problem in this resort under the tonic of "records." The corrective action and correction date are saecified
on the last gage of this report. (Future annual reports should include current features on the updated map.)
The area within Phase 2 that has been affected by the sublessee, Lafarge, was inspected and discussed with Mr. Carnahan.
Portions of the recent mining activity were found last year to have affected areas offsite. Lafarge has performed several
Board-ordered activities to remedy the offsite damage and potential for future damage. The offsite damage to the gulch
slopes has been cleaned up by removing much of the bulldozed woody vegetation and by grading most of the slopes to
about 2:1. The slopes do not yet show signs of revegetation, but that aspect will be monitored, since it is part of the
Board-ordered activity to be carried out.
Some permit boundary markers Iwooden lath) have been replaced along the estimated location of the permit boundary in
this area. This is not considered adequate since the true boundary location is not known, and the laths are not considered
a long-term method of boundary delineation. When the missing markers are installed in their correct locations in Phase 1
las saecified above) this portion of the boundarv should be accurately surveyed and adequately marked also. The lack of
reliably located or marked boundaries is included in the "sians and markers" aroblem noted above.
The existing permit boundary is very irregular and, where not based on fencelines, is largely based on elevation. The 1993
conversion application, and the 1995 land exchange, failed to include a good metes and bounds boundary description of
the permitted area, which should have been included in the exhibits for legal description and/or on the maps. The lack of
markers and the inability to accurately re-establish lost markers has resulted in problems for this operation. It is reouired
therefore, that when the boundarv survey is aerformed for the corrective action shown on the last oaae, that the boundarv
also be described by a metes and bounds narrative, and be part of the submittal to the Division.
The stormwater control berm and retention pond areas were inspected. The berm exists along the eastern edge of the
disturbed area, with a designed outlet that appears sufficient to direct runoff to a single point of discharge to the gulch.