Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />. . <br />MINE ID # OR PROSP CTING ID # H-~~-C`~-Q- <br />INSPECTION DATE_ ly~(~,Qq <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS J5 <br />The following problems (PH) and/or possible violations (PV) (and suggested corrective <br />actions) were identified during this inspection. The problems should be corrected by the <br />dates given, or they will become possible violations. The possible violations should be <br />corrected by the dates given to reduce their severity when considered by the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Hoard. The inspector noted on the previous page should be notified of all <br />corrective actions taken. <br />PROBLEMS/POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS <br />AND <br />CORRECTIVE ACTIONS <br />CORRECTION <br />DATE <br />1) The County has graded pre-permit mining disturbance <br />lying outside of the approved permit area boundaries to <br />slope into the pit. This was done, however, without securing <br />the adjacent landowner's permission and amounts to possible <br />damage during mining and reclamation of the pit of an area <br />outside the approved affected area. <br />(See C.R.S. 34-32.5-116 (4) (i).) <br />Prior to the I ~~~'~' <br />2#,2000 hearing / <br />of the Board <br />PB or PV: PV <br />TOPIC (s) OD.BG,MP <br />approved permit area. (These alternative corrective actions would <br />normally be corrective actions acceptable to the Hoard <br />should a violation be found in this instance.) As a third <br />alternative, the County may choose to wait until the Board <br />determines if there is a violation of the County's permit and <br />specifies an appropriate corrective action. <br />The County could secure the adjacent landowner's written <br />permission and reclaim the old, pre-permit mining disturbance <br />lying outside the approved affected/permit area for the San <br />Acacio Pit or the County could, with the adjacent <br />landowner's permission, propose an amendment to the San Acacio <br />Pit permit which includes the disturbed land outside the <br />2) It appears possible that one of the adjacent landowners CORRECTION <br />was not accurately identified in the County's permit DATE <br />application, specifically the owner of the land immediately <br />adjacent to the proposed permit area on the south identified 1/20/20000 <br />as Margaret Munro. As a result, the actual owner of this <br />property, at that time, may not have been notified of the <br />County's permit application as required. (See Rule 1.6.2 (1) (e).) <br />The County should recheck the County records and provide PB or PV: PB <br />evidence to the Division that Margaret Munro was the owner <br />of record of the property adjacent to the proposed permit TOPIC(S): AR <br />area on the south at the time the permit application was <br />submitted to the Division. <br />3) The County has not taken steps to minimize the effects CORRECTION <br />of runoff from the disturbed areas of the pit on local DATE <br />surface water quality. The County committed in its permit <br />to prevent erosion and runoff from the site by employing _1/2012000 <br />runoff control structures such as ditch liner, flexible <br />pipe and hay check dam. (See attached copy of County <br />adequacy letter dated June 30,1999.) <br />(Page 4) • <br />