Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1980-246 <br />INSPECTION DATE 9/15/04 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO <br />This inspection was performed by the Division as a follow-up to its monitoring inspection of 8/19/04 and in response to the <br />operator's request for an inspection to discuss problem corrections onsite. The operator's representative named on page one <br />was present during the inspection. <br />The site was active at the time of the inspection. Processing of stockpiled material and hauling were occurring. The new scale <br />and scalehouse are not yet being used, but the old ones are present and still used. <br />The household and/or agricultural-related trash observed previously within the east boundary of the permit north of the new <br />scale location, is still present, but the operator who is also the landowner intends to leave those items in that location but <br />remove that area from the permit area. The dump location has been used on this ranch for many years, such use being <br />separate from permit operations. Pre-existing dumps consisting of such materials is allowed in La Plata County by <br />grandfathering, and such dumps need not be removed. Other areas within the present permitted area boundary were also <br />discussed as being appropriate for removal from the permitted acreage. Any reduction in permitted acreage must be through <br />action initiated by the operator, as described in Construction Materials Rules 4.13 and 4.16. The Division will consider either <br />method of correcting the present problem of this dump being in the permitted area: removal of the dumped material from the <br />permit or reconfiguring the permit boundary to exclude the dump, The operator is reminded that the problem will continue to <br />exist until either of these actions is completed, and there is a correction date to meet. Though this issue is not noted again as a <br />problem in this report, the operator must notify this office as to which course is to be followed, and request an extension to the <br />original correction date. <br />There were also a lot of non-mining-related equipment and parts placed within the northern end of the permit area, that are not <br />in compliance with the approved mining or reclamation plans in the permit. Some of the parts and equipment have been <br />removed from the permit area, though the operator wishes to retain some of them there for his ranch operations. Certainly <br />storage of agricultural equipment is necessary and appropriate, but the overall amount formerly onsite was excessive. This <br />office will allow a limited amount of such storage, but it is not to become excessive again. This issue is still a problem to <br />correct, by a correction date. The correction of this problem will require the operator to define exactlvwhere in the permit area <br />the non-mining items are to be kept, and a maximum amount of such items. This office will determine whether the items <br />described will require additional bond for the permit. Though this is not noted acain as a problem. the operator should provide <br />a written statement that includes the information required above. <br />The problem of damage to topsoil appears to be corrected through onsite discussions that clarified the topsoil handling <br />methods during mining. The topsoil that was observed to be in danger of sloughing off the top of the north highwall is actually <br />pushed off, and then retrieved and piled in the pit floor prior to advancing the highwall. It is not felt to be allowed to deteriorate <br />now, but the operator is reminded that topsoil is most stable if the stockpile slopes are 2:1 or gentler and vegetated. It should <br />be shaped, and must be seeded if it is left longer than one year in the stockpile. The laroe stockpile in the pit floor must be <br />The operator has an infestation of knapweed, which require more aggressive treatment. The county weed officer has been <br />notified in the past, in regard to a weed control plan for the ranch, and is aware of the knapweed. This is still a problem, and <br />there is still a deadline for submitting the plan. The operator must submit a new, adequate weed control plan to this office. The <br />plan must address how the knapweed will be controlled onsite, including how the infested topsoil will not contaminate further <br />areas when it is spread durino reclamation. <br />The area that contained numerous barrels of waste oil has been partially cleaned up: the barrels were consolidated and <br />closed, and only a little oily soil was visible there. There were 35 barrels seen. The operator stated that it was to be moved to a <br />disposal facility before the end of September. He requested that there be allowance for continued, but limited, storage of waste <br />oil on the site. This office will allow such storage, but it must not exceed an agreed maximum amount, it must be stored only <br />with impermeable secondary containment, and must be only waste oil. The operator must define where the storage area will <br />be, the type(s) of storage vessel(s) to be used, and the maximum foreseen quantity of oil. The bond amount will be adjusted <br />accordingly. This is still an outstandinc problem, even though the oil may already be removed. W ritten follow-up describino the <br />removal is required. If future storage is desired, it must be requested in writinc. <br />The large diesel tank holding fuel for the processing and earthmoving equipment had not been lined by the date of the <br />inspection, but was scheduled for the following week. This is also still a problem, even though the liner may be in place by the <br />