My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC33167
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC33167
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:35:40 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 10:40:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1979206
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Name
MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
Inspection Date
3/4/1998
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.
/
2
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
• (Page 2) • <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-79-206 <br />INSPECTI ON DATE 3/9/98 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS AJW <br /> OBSERVATIONS <br />This was a normal monitoring inspection conducted by Tony Waldron of DMG along with Joe <br />Lionelle of U.S. Soil Conditioners. The site is located approximately 7 miles southeast of <br />Salida, Colorado just north of U.S. Highway 50. The site is divided into two distinct <br />operations consisting of the processing plant and the quarry. These two components are <br />separated by a distance of approximately two miles. <br />The inspection began at the quarry which is located north of the plant. There was no <br />identification sign at the entrance to the quarry and this is being cited as a problem on <br />page three of this report. The disturbance was clearly delineated by the quarry benches, <br />outslopes, and pit floor and appeared to be well within the defined affected area boundaries. <br />The site appeared to in compliance with the proposed mining and reclamation plan and was <br />benched and outsloped. Some vegetation, mainly rabbitbrush, was evident on the benches and <br />outslopes. Although no mining was occurring during this inspection, it was evident that <br />mining had occurred fairly recently. In areas where no additional mining is expected to <br />occur, the outslopes should be reduced to 1.5:1 and both the benches and outslopes should be <br />seeded with the approved seed mix. This would appear to be the case along both the east and <br />west sides as the mine progresses to the north. There is also an area along the west side <br />near the entrance that has been partially reclaimed and should be seeded or reseeded. <br />The processing plant was included in the reclamation permit during the original permitting, <br />however, the operator indicated that the processing plant has been used commercially to crush <br />and process material from outside sources. If that is indeed the case, the processing <br />facilities should probably not be included in the reclamation permit since the mine may be <br />exhausted while the plant could be used as a commercial processing facility for many more <br />years. If that scenario occurred, the Division would be holding a reclamation permit on a <br />processing plant completely separate from any mine. On the other hand, if this plant is used <br />solely to process material mined from the Maverick Placer claim, it should be included as <br />part of the reclamation permit along with adequate financial warranty to remove the <br />facilities and reclaim the site. <br />The financial warranty for this site is $33,260.00, which should easily be adequate to cover <br />the cost of reclaiming the quarry site. However, this amount appears to be inadequate to <br />cover the cost of reclaiming the processing site. Therefore, this is also being cited as a <br />problem on page three of this report with corrective actions being to clarify the status of <br />the processing plant with respect to this permit. If the plant is used both, to process <br />material from the Maverick Claim and to process material commercially (this scenario was <br />represented in a letter to the Division dated 12/18/79 from Robert Biglow), the permit <br />application should be revised to delete the plant and release any reclamation liability <br />associated with it from Permit No. M-79-206. However, if the plant is used solely to process <br />mined material from the Maverick Placer Claim, the Division will reinspect the site to <br />determine what the actual reclamation bond should be. The operator should submit a letter <br />with supporting documentation (contracts or job orders for processing, etc.) clarifying what <br />the status of the plant is. Once the Division receives this information, the operator will <br />be notified of how to proceed to either, secure financial and performance warranty release <br />on the plant or, when the Division will conduct another inspection to update the financial <br />warranty. <br />I & E Contact Address <br />NAME J.E. Lionelle <br />OPERATOR U.S. Soil Conditioners <br />STREET P.O. Box 926 <br />CITY/STATE/ZIP Salida, CO 81201 <br />CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z~~ ~~ (0 ~ Sy <br />TURN RECEIPT REQUESTED <br />cc: Jim Stevens <br />^ CE <br />^ BL <br />^ FS <br />^ HW <br />^ HMWMD (CH) <br />^ SE <br />^ WQCD (CH) <br />^ OTHER <br />RE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.