Laserfiche WebLink
10/22/92 11:01 <br />'r <br />$505 7662609 OSD1 9LBUq FO +++ MLRD <br />• • <br />0003/006 <br />5/ <br />'1IirESITE. 11S1'LCTIO±' NARRA'1'Il'E 3 <br />is also good. The third most affected soil occurs in tine 19E (about <br />'L, 500 foot). This soil is generally found on 1l to 25 pereent slopes <br />and has only a surface soil hhich is acceptable for reclamation <br />purposes. The surface lacer is about 2 inches thick ir. some areas and <br />arac he absent in others- Present and potential productivity of this soil <br />is tai:. ?s to the remainder of the soils t:.hes affected, I +:ill not <br />atcuun,t for. i am sure my measurements are rnu:~h bur for tl:e un rposes <br />nt this tiolarioc, T pace =_hot:n that there is salvabeahle soils alont_ <br />[hc route. I hill also admit that in other areas there are ror_ky <br />~uttcrops along the route. that !rave no sa?rat•~able soil. Thar Using the <br />case, it is the responsibilit} of the operator ro i!t9icate/S110F' Fhat <br />hill he done to reclaim these slopes. <br />A~ :n the :larger of the construcriort, I would agree bur also hill <br />conun.e:nr. that the. dozer cperator r:as e:+pose~.! to fire risk of putting _.. <br />the elivers•in and did so. ;f the risk ryas too hi_^h Ute ditch shonlri ba <br />rel~~cared or t!te ca.nunt of mine trna shontrl ho ra'nct+:i:d. th:•rebt <br />li!citing rite danger. To further mp comment in t11i-s matter, the . . <br />ca[erhill.ar porfurmance 11aRd1?Onk edir.iw'. 1l?7, indicates that sidehil.l <br />nn;.~:~[ion i~f cozens are allow;able on 100 percent slopes, 2:1. Fou „ill <br />n~:e that of r.he soils, the most extreme slope ~ki~. i:~mAnted has GS <br />percent. Obviouslc the final doterminatiun of the ~'.s~tn¢e ,.~ <br />construction on these slopes depends on the o;~etator are ; n; her <br />e>:perience in these areas. <br />I m?^,h[ add [hat other diversions built for ether mina areas on this <br />mine prior to this current approval were constructed a•i*.h the salvage of <br />topsoil azd or an approved Sl1b5t1tlltP,. ]. fall not touch for the soils <br />t~•pes in those areas but hould comment that the slopes o: which the} <br />w~?re constructed are much the same. Documen[aticn of that is noted in a <br />closed TD\' file and will be. prnt•ided on request. <br />The second Dart of the TDN was issued for the operator's failure to <br />provide a sketch of each blasting pattern for every shot fired on the <br />mine fora year prior to this inspection. The method of recording the <br />shot patterns Foes back even further, supposedly hack to the first <br />permit. T did not extend the violation to include those years. <br />The blasting report, a copy of which is attached, Attachment "r.", notes <br />'he shooting pattern for the day as symbolized - a triangle and a dash. <br />These are representative of the blast pattern according to company <br />officials. I asked them to itlustrate the blast, The, here nt~le to do <br />so by using typical tables out of the approved mine Ulan with some <br />modification. The modification as I understand is is done per the dash <br />stmLnl <br />Colorado's Cual Mining Revelation 4.08.5{7) regcires the operator Co <br />provide a record of each blasting sketch of r!ce blast pattern including. <br />the number of holes, burden, sparing and delay' pattern. <br />II;i~ 5}:etrlt is oat available for ra re•.'ie;; for each shot that is ~ <br />l.lation. Instead the scketch ,~ ::alv ~~~ i.ai~le niter the operator <br />