Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'•!I\ESITE I\SPECTIO'•: ~ARRaTI1E ? <br />is also vr,od. The third most affected soil occurs i^ type 19E ;r,bout <br />2,500 feet). This soil is gar.erallc found on 12 to "1.5 pert?n[ slopes <br />and has only a surface soil which is accentahie for reclamation <br />purposes. The surface lneer is about 'L inches thick in some areas and <br />may he absent in others. Present and potential productir-ity of this soil <br />is I•rir. As Cu t!+e remainder cf tht- sails t_.hes affected, I ~.;il] not. <br />acruur.t fo-. I am sure ms mews uremant: s. are touch hot fnr th_ pn rpose= <br />of i-his ri„larion, I I:a•:e <l: o~:;n that there is salvabeab.le soils al^m. <br />the route. I hill also adroit that in ~tber •,re~s there ar9 rock>• <br />„utrri,ps .,ions the route th.,l h•,ee nn salccgeable soil. Ihat being the <br />rase, it is the responsibility of the operator to indicate/shop: what <br />rill he done to recl•.tim these sL;pe=. <br />-._ `.0 Lhe danger cf thN coustntction, I v:nuld agree but also will <br />comment chat t.l!e. dozer oper~atnr r:as expose,] to Cho risk of pnttin;% _.. <br />the di':ersio^ and did so. It the risk ~:3s too high the ditr!: sh~iul!i lea <br />r?l;;rared or the aro~urt ;f mine ~,r~=a should. 'ue reL,cat:ed th~.r~h~_: <br />lin;iting the danger. To further me comment. in this matter, tl:e -.. <br />•_~[~:rnillar performance handbr.uF; editirn §11, Indic.rtes that sip}eh.il..'- <br />~nr-r.3rinn of doers are allow:able on 100 ~~~rcent slopes, 2:1. `.n,i ui11 <br />.,. -_ that of the soils, the most e:areme slope docua+?nted tits OS <br />r,~rce:,t. Obciousl•, the final determinatic^ of the usnae~ ar:rl <br />con<.r.r'~~rtion on these slopes depends on the oneratnr anal his nr her <br />esn?rience in these areas. <br />I nuFlht •,dd tha* other diversions hurt fnr other min? areas or. this <br />o!ine prior to this current approval +,ere constructed r;ith tl:e calva~~~ of <br />t+n'~=.oii and o: an apr,roved. cubstitute. ran r.ot couch for the soils <br />u ups in those areas bur would cnmmen.t that the slopes on which thec <br />t:?re constntctcd are much the same.. Documr-^tation of that __ noted in <br />closed TUN file and will bc: provided On request. <br />Tha second Hart of the TUB' das issued for the operator'=_ failure to <br />provide a sketch of each blasting pattern for eeere shot fired on the <br />mine for a year prior to this inspection. The method of recording the <br />shot patterns goes back eeen further, supposedly bacl- to the first <br />permit. I did net _xtend the violation to include those years. <br />The blasting report, a copy of which is attached, Attachment "C", notes <br />the shcoting pattern for the day as s mbolized - a triangle and ^ dash. <br />These are representative of the blast pattern according to company <br />officials. I .,sk?d them to illustrate the blast. The': Yore able to do <br />so b; nsin~ topical tables out of the approaed mine plan with soma <br />mociificatinn. the modification as I understand it is done p~~r the dasl; <br />s'. ml:, r,l. <br />Colorado's Cual htining Regulation 4.OR.5(71 rnyuires the operator to <br />proeidP a record of each hlastino sketch of the blast pattern including <br />the number of holes, burden, spacing and delay pattern. <br />The sF:etch is not available f.or my re~~ie'r: for each shof that is a <br />ciniation. Instead the scketch is only a'.ailahle •+Eter the ouerator <br />