INSPEC14636 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 21 MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-85-085 INSPECTION DATE 01 /29/97 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This was an inspection performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of 1 1 2 permits and to follow up to verity compliance with a required corrective action described in the inspection report of 12/06/95. The operator's representative was contacted IMr. John Lubitzl but was unable to be present during the inspection. The permit ID sign was observed at the entrance to the permit area, at the southwest corner gate. The south and east boundary lines were adequately delineated by the fencelines which border the realigned location of CR 66T. The actual location of the northwest boundary line was not readily apparent, though operations do not appear to have disturbed land offsite. For the future, though the topic of "signs and markers" is not noted as a problem in this report, markers should be placed along the boundary of the northwest side of the permit so that there is less chance for mining activities to occur outside the permit boundary. The pit is located in the central portion of the triangularly-shaped permit. Processing and stockpiling occur in the western end, the eastern end is mostly undisturbed, and the northeast is affected only by topsoil stockpiling. Other topsoil stockpile locations are along the southern edge of the pit, just inside the perimeter fence, and along the east edge of the pit. There is a 3-acre area scraped bare immediately west of the pit, whose topsoil appears to be bermed along its north edge (very close to the permit boundary). The topic of "topsoil" is noted again as a problem on page one, because of the related problem noted in the prior inspection report mentioned above. In it, topsoil was observed to be unprotected lunvegetatedl in the stockpile. A protective seeding was required to be performed, with evidence of completing that activity to be submitted to the Division. The operator provided no information as to attempting the topsoil seeding. It is acknowledged that 1996 was a droughty year, and seeding success would have been marginal. This pre-existing problem is therefore not going to be regarded as a possible violation simply because it was not resolved. However, this topic is still a problem and the operator must properly protect all the topsoil stockpiles which will not be respread over regraded slopes during 1997. Evidence of completing this action must be sent to this Division, as described on page 4. The financial warranty is 525,000. It is based on reclaiming 10 acres at once: highwall reduction, ripping, topsoil spreading and revegetation activities. The current disturbance is almost 10 acres, but the pit's highwall is mainly reduced to 3:1 . Maintaining the pit slopes this way will act to keep reclamation costs related to earthmoving minimized. The financial warranty is felt to be sufficient at this time. The topsoil along the south edge of the permit, as mentioned above, is piled adjacent to the fenceline. The operator must take great care in not allowing this material to slough down outside the fence. That might indicate more than just topsoil degradation Iwhich could be a "problem" in the context of this report), but could involve offsite damage (which is a "possible violation" and is more serious). Removing it from its present location may prove difficult without moving or damaging the fence. This is noted here for its potential to be a problem, but is not regarded as a problem at this time. Future stockpiling of topsoil or other mined materials should not be so close to fences or any other permit boundaries. The site is overall very neat, with no debris or non-mining related items present. There were five old culverts noted in the stockpile area west of the pit. A ranch ditch crosses the onsite access road, and these culverts may have once served to convey water there. They do not appear to be in a useable condition, but being possibly mining related, requiring their immediate removal is not an issue. However, the cost of their removal must be covered under the present bond. If the operator actually puts the culverts to use onsite land they are to remain there after reclamation) or they are removed from the permit area, the operator should inform this Division, so that the task of their removal does not remain in the total reclamation task calculation. There was no equipment on the site. The only other stockpile observed was a chip pile, containing approximately 1 500-2000cubic yards of product. Drainage from affected areas within the permit appear [o be able to be adequately contained either in the pit or able to percolate into this nearly level site. Control of stormwater does not appear to be a problem at this location. There were no other items noted, nor further problems. If the operator wishes to contact this inspector, please contact Division of Minerals and Geology 484 Turner Dr., Bldg. F-101 Durango CO 81301 Phone: 970/247-5193 or 247-5062