Laserfiche WebLink
MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-2000-072 <br />INSPECTION DATE 04/21/2005 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS <br />This was a routine monitoring inspection conducted as part of DMG's ongoing monitoring program for permitted mines in <br />Colorado. Mr. Gary Cooper, prospective future permittee for this site accompanied during the inspection. <br />Mr. Bob Goode , operator of the site and partner in the permit has recently passed away. Ms Dorothy Goff (formerly Dorothy <br />Goode) Bob Goode's ex-wife has been assigned to distribute Bob Goode's estate. Ms. Goff is the other partner on the permit <br />and is also included on the bank note for this property. <br />Ms. Goff is in the process of selling the property and transferring the permit to Mr. Cooper <br />This is the first site inspection since permit issuance in 2001. <br />The mine identification sign and affected area boundary markers were not observed and must be installed per the requirements <br />of Rule 3.1.12 that state: <br />1) The operator shall post a sign at the entrance to the mine site which shall be clearly visible from the access road and <br />specify the following: <br />a) The name of the operator; <br />b) indicate that a reclamation permit for the operation has been issued by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board; <br />c) the permit number. <br />2) The boundaries of the affected area will be marked by monuments or other markers that are clearly visible and adequate to <br />delineate such boundaries. <br />The lack of an identification sign and boundary markers is noted as a problem with the corrective action(s) and correction date <br />specified on the fast page of this report. <br />Noxious and/or problematic weed infestation was observed within the affected area. The infestation, if not controlled, will most <br />likely hinder and/or delay successful reclamation of this site and contribute to off-site spreading and establishment of these <br />weeds. A weed control plan developed in consultation with, and approved by, the appropriate local weed control authority must <br />be submitted as a technical revision to this permit. Weed infestation is noted as a problem, with the corrective action(s) and <br />correction date specified on the last page of this report. Significant progress toward control of on-site weeds must be <br />demonstrated within three years to avoid potential Board action. <br />No significant erosional features were noted on the affected areas of the site. <br />Excavation has extended deeper and across more acreage that was specified in the permit. The excavation has progressed <br />within 200 feet of power line poles on the south side of the permit area. The plan indicates that excavation would not encroach <br />closer than 200 feet to the powerline or the fence lines on the north and west sides. The fences are reportedly owned by Mr. <br />Goode, but the permit doers not document that. To correct this problem, damage waiver agreements or demonstrations of <br />stability, as required by Rule 6.3.12 of the Construction Materials Rules and Regulations must be submitted forthese structures <br />as a revision to the permit. If the fences are owned by Mr. Goode, documentation of that fact must also be submitted. In <br />addition, a revision to the permit must be submitted to change the mining and reclamation plans and maps to coincide with the <br />on-ground conditions. The current maps are marginally adequate for this permit. DMG highly recommends that this <br />opportunity be used to upgrade the permit maps and have them prepared by a qualified person. <br />The size of the excavation does not appear to exceed the 4.5 maximum specified in the mining plan for this 9.5 acre permit <br />area. The location of the excavation within the permit area is not as shown on the maps and the depth ranges to approximately <br />12 feet though the maximum specified depth is 5-6 feet. Since this is permitted as a topsoil pit, any excavation that extends <br />deeper than the topsoil extends results in excavation of fill dirt (sub-soils) that may not be as good of a growth medium as the <br />topsoil. In this case, the permit and the reclamation bond must be revised to account for replacement of topsoil. An alternative <br />is to demonstrate that the subsoil is also adequate to support a revegetated stand to stabilize the area affected by mining. <br />Ms. Goff submitted a technical revision to DMG on April 25, 2005 addressing the revised mine plans, reclamation plans, and <br />including marginally updated maps (better maps are stilt recommended). The revision also includes the damage waiver <br />agreement for the Delta Montrose Electric Association powerline. On May 9, 2005 a soil analysis of the subsoil (sample <br />obtained by Mr. Cooper from a depth of 12 feet in the pit during this inspection) was submitted to DMG with verbal consentfrom <br />Ms. Goff to include those results in the technical revision. The overburden was determined to be adequate to use as a growth <br />