ENFORCE32706 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PERMI~ED Ct III GENERAL INFORMATION Inspection Date: May 9 & June 21, 2000 Operator: Bacon & Southwick S&G IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII =.~T~•.4L sss_____.,,,,, corm File No.: M-1986-007 E~:TRACTION Landowner: Glenn Southwick Commodity: Gravel/Stone Acres affected: 0.2 acres County: Larimer Method of Mining: Open excavation Specialist: Christina Kamnikaz WAS THIS CASE THE RESULT OF A ROUTINE INSPECTION'! NO OR COMPLAINT? YES A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER WAS NOT ISSUED TO THE OPERATOR BECAUSE: This is a permitted mining operation. DIVISION'S REASON FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE BOARD AS MINING OUTSIDE THE PERMIT BOUNDARY VERSUS MINING WITHOUT A PERMIT: The Landowner/Operator already holds a current 110 permit with the Division, and the area of disturbance is less than 0.25 acres, a tenth of the site area. NATURE OF UNPERMITTED (Construction Materials Extraction C.M.E. or Exploration Operation E.O.) Est. Acreage disturbed (Do not use for permitted sites) N/A Est. Vol. Removed N/A Est. Ac. outside permit boundary approximately 0.2 acres SERIOUSNESS Operator conducted activity on own property X , on others property Site activity, describe -The first inspection on May 9, 2000, was made in response to a complaint received through the Larimer County Planning Department. It was believed that the Operator had gone outside the boundaries of the permitted 2.5 acres of this site, possibly affecting the creek below the excavation area. When the site was inspected, it was found that a 15' long chicken-wire restraint azea between two trees on the north side of the site, and below the main excavation azea, had collapsed. This left a hole in the restraint netting which allowed rocks from the terrace above to tumble down, through the gap, and into the creek. Lack of site markers during this first inspection made it difficult to tell exactly how much disturbance was inside and how much was outside of the permit boundaries, and this was cited as a problem to be corrected within 30 days. The site boundary markers were in place during the June 2l, 2000, follow-up inspection. It was noted that the possible excess site disturbance appeared to be limited to the area along the north side of the site, down the hillside from the permitted area. Quarry debris had slid down the hillside towazd the creek, but had been restrained from choking or entering the creek at this time by a system of netting and chain-link that extended across the bottom of the slide area. This area was approximately 200' wide by 45' deep, fot an area of approximately 0.2 acres. As of June 2l the chicken-wire had been replaced with chain-link fences, wooden posts, and a higher stone wall. Topsoil adequate to finish reclamation had been salvaged and stored at the site.