My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL45289
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL45289
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:14:17 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 1:41:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1980003
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
11/19/2003
Doc Name
Unresolved Problems Noted in Past Inspection Reports
From
DMG
To
Sarah McNulty
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.
/
6
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-1980-003 <br />INSPECTION DATE10-29-2002. INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This was a routine inspection conducted as part of the Division of Minerals and Geology s ongoing monitoring program for <br />permitted mines in Colorado. The inspection was also conducted to evaluate the current site conditions for use in updating the <br />reclamation cost estimate to ensure the financial warranty curtertiy held by the state is adequate to reclaim this site. <br />The mine identficetion sign was observed but was not in compliance. Some affected area boundary markers were in place but <br />not enough to make the permit boundary readiy Identifiable. Please install a mine identification sign and adequate boundary <br />markers per the requirements of Rule 3.1.12 that state: <br />1) The operator shall post a sign at the entrance to the mine site which shall De clearly visible from the access road and <br />specify the following: <br />a) The name of the operator; <br />b) indicate that a reclamation permitfar 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 orother markers that are clearfyvisible 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 />specked on the last page of this report <br />As with past Inspections, this inspection raised questions about the permit boundary locations and possibility of off-site <br />disturbance. This situation arises mainly due to the poor maps currently in the permit. The operator indicated that a new <br />survey of the actual permit boundary was done a couple of years ago to clarify the actual boundary locations. Please submit <br />this map, as a technical revision to the permit, so future confusion regarding the boundary can ba avoided. Please ensure the <br />map meets the requirements of Rule 8.2.1(2), and 8.3.5 (copy enclosed), showing and labeling all operation features including <br />product stockpiles, waste rock stockpiles, topsoil stockpiles, processing faclities, hazardous materials storage with spilt <br />containment, current highwall locations, etc. It would also 6e very helpful if all adjacent disturbance is shown and labeled <br />including pre-1978 mining features that have not been affected bythis operation and storage and equipment salvage areas that <br />support the ranching operation and not the mining operation. <br />Noxious and/or problematic weed infestation was observed within the affected area. The infestation of Canatla thistle, if not <br />controlled, will most likely hinder and/or delay successful reclamation of this site and contribute to off-site spreading and <br />establishment of these weeds. A weed.control plan developed in consultation with, and approved by, the appropriate local <br />weed control authority must be submitted as a technical revision to this permit Weed infestation is noted as a problem, with <br />the corective action(s) and correction date specified on the last page otthis report Sign~gnt progress toward control of on- <br />site weeds must be demonstrated within three years to avoid potential Board action. <br />A 55 gallon drum and a couple of 5 gallon buckets reportedly containing hazardous materials were not stored within adequate <br />spill containment A portable fuel tank was also to be moved onto the sfte. The operator was instructed to ensure these <br />materials are stored acid maintained within adequate spill containment so these materials are confined and eas>7y cleaned up in <br />the event of a spill. The lack of adequate spill containment is noted as a problem with the corrective action(s) and correction <br />date specked on the last page of this report <br />In an effort to ensure the financial warranty remains adequate fo reclaim this site per the requirements of the approved <br />reclamation plan, DMG has updated the reclamation cost estimate (copy enclosed). Clearly, the site is currently under-bonded. <br />Therefore, pursuant to Section 34-32.5.117(4) of the Colorado Land Reclamation Actfor the Extraction of ConsWCtbn <br />Materials, adequate financial warranty must be submitted to DMG within 80 days of the mailing date of this report <br />Please review the enclosed ftgures as soon as possible and contact our offrce if any calculation errors are noted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.