ENFORCE31684 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_ 3 ..-,.. • ` (Page 4) ~'~''~ MINE ID #( OR PROSP CTING ID # M-Q~{-~- ,~..++ INSPECTION DATE_I~(bIQR INSPECTOR'S INITIALS JG7 The following problems (PB) and/or possible violations IPV) (and suggested corrective actions) were identified during this inspection. The problems should be corrected by the dates given, or they will become possible violations. The possible violations should be corrected by the dates given to reduce theiz severity when considered by the Mined Land Reclamation Soard. The inspector noted on the previous page should be notified of all corrective actions taken. PROBLEMS/POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS CORRECTION DATE 1) The County has graded pre-permit mining disturbance Prior to the ~~ d~~' lying outside of,the approved permit area boundaries to °~-,~-~~- Jan ,2G ~;,Z7 slope into the pit. This was done, however, without securing 24,2000 hearing ~ the adjacent landowner's permission and amounts to possible of the Hoard damage during mining and reclamation of the pit of an area outside the approved affected area. (See C.R.S. 34-32.5-116 (9) (i).) The County could secure the adjacent landowner's written PH or PV: PV permission and reclaim the old, pre-permit mining disturbance lying outside the approved affectedfpermit area for the San TOPIC (s): OD,HG,MP Acacio Pit or the County could, with the adjacent landowner's permission, propose an amendment to the San Acacio Pit permit which includes the disturbed land outside the approved permit area. (These alternative corrective actions would normally be corrective actions acceptable to the Board should a violation be found in this instance.) As a third alternative, the County may choose to wait until the Board determines if there is a violation of the County's permit and specifies an appropriate corrective action. 2) It appears possible that one of the adjacent landowners CORRECTION was not accurately identified in the County's permit DATE application, specifically the owner of the land immediately adjacent to the proposed permit area on the south identified 1!20120000 as Margaret Munro. As a result, the actual owner of this property, at that time, may noC have been notified of the County's permit application as required. (See Rule 1.6.2 (1) (e).) The County should recheck the County records and provide PH or PV: PB evidence to the Division that Margaret Munro was the owner of record of the property adjacent to the proposed permit TOPIC (s!: AR area on the south at the time the permit application was submitted to the Division. 3) The County has not taken steps to minimize the effects CORRECTION of runoff from the disturbed areas of the pit on local DATE surface water quality. The County committed in its permit to prevent erosion and runoff from the site by employing 1/20!2000 runoff control structures such as ditch liner, flexible pipe and hay check dam. (See attached copy of County adequacy letter dated .Tune 30,1999.)