INSPEC15058

• Permit No: M1981276
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Date: 8/7/2006
• Doc Name: Inspection Report
• From: DMG
• To: RNP Enterprises
• Inspection Date: 7/13/2006
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

(Page 2)
MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1981-276
INSPECTION DATE 07/13/2006 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS DEG
OBSERVATIONS
This routine monitoring inspection of Permit Number M-1981-276 (Hertzog Pit) was conducted by Deb E. G6nima of the DMG.
Rusty Taylor, Operator, was present during this inspection. The pit is located approximately 3 miles east of Maybell, CO off of
Highway 40 running parallel between County Road 74 and the Yampa River, and currently consists of approximately 85 acres
where approximately 34 acres have been disturbed, and approximately 10 acres are being actively mined. It is a stipulation of
this permit that no more than 10 acres be actively disturbed at any one time.
Mine entrance signs and permit boundary markers are all in place, and the topsoil stockpile is located on the north side of the
mine entrance road that leads down into the pit (see photos 2 and 5). The site is stable and no disturbance was observed
outside of the approved permit boundaries. For future reference, this site is correctly positioned in the DMG online GIS.
There are several large material stockpiles that are situated near the northwestern portion of the site, southwest of the mine
entrance (see photo 1). The site is at varying stages of activity, and the eastern side of the permit area has been partially
reclaimed. There are two pit areas, the active area to the west and the eastern of which has been documented in previous
inspection reports to have been backfilled, regraded to 3h:1v slopes, and topsoiled. As a result of this partial reclamation, a
partial bond reduction was approved in September of 2002 for this eastern portion. This bond reduction brought the required
bond amount down to $34,500. However, the amount currently posted by the Operator is $34,000. Therefore, the Operator is
required to post the remaining $500 of the bond within 60 days of the receipt of this inspection report (see Problem No. 2 on pg
4).
Information in the file documents the approved change in seed mixture to (no more than 50% by weight) crested wheatgrass
and other wheatgrasses (including intermediate, western, or slender). However, at the time of this inspection it was difficult to
determine if the site had been reseeded because the majority of the vegetation on this portion of the site consisted of cheat
grass. This inspector recommended seeding with the approved seed mixture as soon as possible (during the appropriate
seasonal timeframe) if the Operator does not plan to re-disturb this portion of the permit area. This should help limit the
possible impacts of erosion and increase the likelihood of vegetative success.
At the time of this inspection there appeared to be no offsite erosion, and no long-term (greater than 72 hours) water retention
was observed. However, there was an erosion feature on the west-facing slope near the mine entrance road feeding into the
active pit (see photos 3 and 4). This erosion feature must be repaired (see Problem No. 5 on pg. 5) on or before October 2,
2006.
The Division also has documentation from the landowners requesting that the haul road leading into the site from County Road
74 be left in place (see photo 5). Therefore, it is not necessary tc reclaim this road.
Previous inspection reports and the original permit file (Exhibit G) require placement of an intact berm along the western
perimeter between the site and the Yampa River as a barrier to drainage and offsite discharge from the site into the Yampa
(see photo 8). This berm appears to be in place at the western edge of the permit boundary. However, if this berm becomes
compromised or damaged, it must be repaired in order to prevent water from the site from discharging into the Yampa.
The Operator asked about the possibility of constructing a 13 acre pond at the western portion of the site near the Yampa (see
photo 5 -the possible placement of the pond would be to the southwest (left) of the circled area). The Operator stated that this
pond would be fed by runoff onto the site and a draw that previously ran across the site from the erosion feature in photos 3
and 4 to the low spat near the cottonwoods and the Yampa. This inspector advised the Operator that this would constitute a
significant change in the reclamation plan and may necessitate an amendment to the reclamation plan. In addition, the Office of
the State Engineer (OSE) would need to be notified, and the Operator would need to contact OSE to ensure that he is in
compliance with all OSE regulations and standards prior to construction. If the Operator remains interested in constructing this
pond, he should contact the Division and OSE to determine what steps must be taken.
The secondary containment area for fuel storage in the active pit area is inadequate (see photo 6). It appeared that fuel and
other possible hazardous materials were being stored at the time of this inspection (see Problem No.1 on pg. 4). All storage
tanks, petroleum and hazardous materials on site for any period of time shall have secondary containment. The Operator must
supply photo documentation that the fuel tank and 5-gallon containers are stored in a proper secondary containment structure
or are removed from the site on or before September 1, 2006. A berm must be constructed around the tank. The dimensions of
this berm must contain all contents of the tank (when full) plus 10% of the tank's capacity. In addition, a liner shall cover the
entire basin as a barrier to infiltration. During the inspection a plastic liner was observed under the fuel tank (see arrows in
photo 6). This liner (if devoid of any holes) may be used to line this containment basin. If the liner is not intact, a new liner shall