Laserfiche WebLink
PERMIT #: M-1988-037 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: GRM <br />INSPECTION DATE: August 3, 2010 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was conducted as part of the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety normal monitoring <br />program. The Norwood Pit is a 112c permitted gravel pit located northeast of Norwood, Colorado on County Road 44. <br />Peter Kearl, representative for United / Old Castle accompanied the inspector on site. <br />The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers are in place and in compliance with Rule 3.1.12. The <br />sign is located at the entrance to the site where it enters the permit boundary. Permit boundaries are marked by t-posts and <br />geological features that are easily identifiable. The inspector notes an issue along the southern boundary currently being <br />excavated. Per the signed permit boundary markers and the Mining Plan Map dated October 18, 2001 it appears that <br />safety berms are straddling the permit boundary. This observation is documented with pictures showing the alignment of <br />t-posts clearly marked as permit boundaries that coincide with the submitted map. ' It therefore appears that the operator <br />has impacted lands outside the permit boundary. If so this is a violation of the permit. This was the operator's <br />representative first visit to the site. He was unclear on the exact boundary and the map does not reflect the temporary road <br />or fence line adjacent to the boundary giving question as to where the exact boundary lies. Please note that the issue was <br />documented in an inspection of August 17, 2001. United submitted documentation to support mining up to the permit <br />boundaries and committed to clearly outlining the permit boundaries. TR-04 approved in 2001 was supposed to address <br />this issue. Verbally past representatives indicated a buffer zone would be maintained. A buffer zone of approximately 10 <br />feet is observable and documented up to the point in question. The inspector is classifying this as a problem of permit <br />boundary markers in order for the operator to resurvey the permit boundary in question. If the operator does not supply <br />definitive proof that the berms are within the permit boundaries as described in the legal description within the permit by <br />the corrective action date, the issue will be changed to a violation for offsite damage and scheduled before the Mined <br />Land Reclamation Board for a hearing. <br />Current observations note that the total disturbance area is around 28.3 acres for Phase 1 and 2, with 5 acres of Phase 4 <br />disturbed by the footprint of overburden and topsoil stockpiles. The inspector observed 2 crushers working with support <br />equipment feeding them. Numerous stockpiles of processed materials were noted. Excavation was being done along the <br />southeastern corner of Phase 2. The highwall in this area is up against the permit boundary and approximately 50 feet in <br />height. The inspector estimates 375 feet of 1:1 highwall in this area. There is 500 feet of highwall that is 1.5 to 1. <br />Backfilling of the area will be required to meet the required slope angles. The eastern mining face has been stripped of <br />topsoil across the phase boundary. Along the northern edge the highwalls are the same 50 feet in height along the length <br />of Phase 2. Presently Phase 3 and 4 offer the opportunity to use cut and fill for reclamation of these slopes instead of <br />backfilling. <br />No stormwater, erosion, or sedimentation issues were observed. Monsoonal precipitation in the area has been heavy <br />lately with no negative impacts on or off the site noted. <br />A fuel station is located within the pit. The inspector noted a lined secondary containment structure in good order. No <br />evidence of spills or improper container storage was noted. <br />Reclamation on site is noted along the western slopes of Phase 1. Slopes are 3:1 with well established wheat and Indian <br />rice grasses. Past inspections noted a thistle problem that is not present today. A few thistle skeletons were noted <br />indicating continued vigilance against noxious weeds and compliance with the weed control plan. <br />The inspector observed the topsoil stockpile does not have adequate protection from erosion. Per Rule 3.1.9(1) the <br />operator shall employ a vegetative cover or other means to protect topsoil from erosion. Only annual weeds such as <br />kochia and Russian thistle were observed along the base of the piles. Please note this issue was brought to the attention of <br />United in the August 2001 inspection. United committed in corrective action correspondence, dated October 18, 2001, <br />that it would seed the piles. Clearly this commitment was not honored. The lack of erosion control on the topsoil <br />stockpile is noted as a problem within this report with corrective actions and corrective dates. <br />Page 3 of 16