My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC10552
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC10552
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:12:10 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:46:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2000028
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
8/28/2000
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-2000-02ft <br />INSPECTION DATE: R/7R/00 <br /> <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: JCS <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was conducted primarily to check completion of the corrective action required for <br />Compliance Problem 1 identified during the Division's inspection of the site on 6/5/00. The site was <br />inactive at the time of the inspection. Mike Ferrero, the listed permittee, was present during the inspection. <br />The posted ID sign was in order. Boundary markers for the affected permit area were in place as before. <br />Inspection of the northwest boundary of the affected/permit area found that, as requested, the diversion <br />ditch indicated in the approved permit application had, in fact, been installed along the entire boundary. As <br />a result, Compliance Problem 1, identified in the report of the Division's inspection of the site on 6/5/00, <br />has been resolved. <br />While the overburden and/or topsoil previously stockpiled along the northwest boundary had been <br />removed in order to install the approved diversion ditch, the overburden and/or topsoil involved was still <br />not located in the areas near the north boundary of the affected/permit area approved for such stockpiles in <br />the permit application. At present, overburden was simply being stockpiled along the margins of the pit. In <br />addition, just north of these materials, stockpiles of topsoil were located. Mr. Ferrero pointed out that it was <br />his present intention to backfill portions of the current pit with this stockpiled overburden in the near future <br />and believed that it was not practical to handle this material two times in order to do so. While this <br />inspector might agree, review of the permit application indicates that such a plan conflicts with the <br />currently approved mining plan which states that the overburden and topsoil from the Phase 2 mining area <br />will be used to reclaim Phase 1 when mining in that phase is completed. Phase 2 is to be reclaimed using <br />the overburden and topsoil salvaged and stockpiled during the mining of Phase 1. It was also this <br />inspector's understanding, from conversation with Mr. Ferrero, that because of the availability of additional <br />gravel at greater depths than reached by the current pit, the pit would probably be deepened. The approved <br />maximum depth of the pit, however, is 12 feet which is just about how deep the pit is at this time. The <br />Division strongly recommends that Mr. Ferrero re-read the approved mining plan and decide just what he <br />may want to do. If a mining plan other than that currently approved is to be followed, then the current <br />mining plan must be revised which becomes a compliance problem that will be included on Page 3 of this <br />report. <br />Mr. Ferrero appeared not to be as certain that he would be making as immediate a reclamation use of the <br />salvaged topsoil as he was the overburden near the pit. Consequently, he was advised that Rule 3.1.9(3) <br />requires that topsail stockpiles shall be stored in places and configurations to minimize erosion and where <br />disturbance by ongoing mining operations will be minimized. Since the topsoil so far salvaged may not to <br />be intended for immediate use in reclamation and may need to be moved in order to deepen and expand <br />the pit, its current location does not meet the requirements of Rule 3.1.9(3) which is considered a <br />compliance problem that will be included on Page 3 of this report. <br />_ ,~#~~~~ <br />I & E Contact Address <br />NAME: Mr. Mike Ferrero <br />OPERATOR: Mike A. Ferrero <br />STREET: 34259 Hwy. 12 <br />CITY/STATE/ZIP: Trinidad CO 81082 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.