Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-2001-113 <br />INSPECTION DATE 9/16/09 <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO <br />This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 112c permits. The <br />operator was contacted about the scheduled inspection, but was not present during the inspection. The site is operated a <br />different company: United Companies of Mesa County. Mr. Greg Frazier of United Companies of Mesa County <br />accompanied this inspector throughout the inspection. Mr. Frazier did not represent the permitted operator, Varra <br />Companies, but he was knowledgable about the operation that United Companies was carrying out. (A copy of this report <br />will be sent to United Companies' office in Grand Junction, to inform them of the issues and observations pertaining the <br />inspection of this permit.) <br />There was no permit ID sign observed at the entrance to the site, though it is required pursuant to Rule 3.1.12. The <br />permit was transferred to Varra Companies in 2004, and the permit ID sign that is required to be posted should therefore <br />include the current permitted operator's name. (If the permitted operator additionally wishes to include United Companies' <br />name on the sign, that is allowed.) There are roads, ditches, fences and other features on or near the permitted area <br />boundary, but no clearly identifiable boundary markers, making it difficult to confirm whether the disturbance that is near <br />the boundary is contained within the permitted area. The lack of_a_ permit ID sign and boundary markers is noted as a <br />problem in thyis report. The corrective action is that the operator must post a proper ID sign and visibly and durables <br />the boundaries. See the last page for the correction date. <br />The operation consists of dewatering and excavating alluvial gravel from the main pit/pond that occupies the western half <br />of the site, and some onsite processing (screening, crushing, and washing). No dewatering is being performed presently, <br />but the operator is processing the large stockpiles of material onsite. The pond is full (the water line up to within a ferw <br />feet of the unmined surface) and a couple remnant islands of unmined material. The pond extends nearly to the westrrn <br />end of the permit area, and to the south side of the permit area. Stockpiling and processing occur in the eastern half, and <br />the wash ponds are in the NE end of the site (near Tomichi Creek). <br />Stripping the topsoil from the surface of so many acres that have become permanent pond surface has created a large <br />stockpile of topsoil. Most of it will not be needed for reclamation, so there is a large excess, and some of it is sold as a <br />commodity from this pit. The operator is reminded to retain a sufficient amount to topsoil the pond banks as well as all the <br />upland areas, and to protect the topsoil from erosion and weed infestation. No noxious weeds were observed in the piles, <br />but there was a lack of protective vegetation on much of the piles too. Since no topsoil will be replaced in the near future, <br />the operator should seed the piles this fall with one or more species from the approved seed mix. This is not a problem at <br />this time, but the operator should seed the piles and monitor them for weeds, since this is part of the approved plan. <br />Several areas of Canada thistle were noted in the product stockpiles in the east end of the site. The plants did not exhibit <br />any sign of being treated this year, though controlling noxious weed is required by the state and county. The presence of <br />the noxious weed patches is noted as a problem in this report. The corrective action is that the operator must submit an <br />adequate weed control plan (developed with assistance from the local weed district) to be included in the permit. <br />Including such a plan requires the submittal of a technical revision, the fee for which is $216. (The permit now contains a <br />weed control plan which only covers Russian olive and tamarisk, but it is not complete enough to cover the thistle.) See <br />the last page for the correction date. <br />There is a diesel powered pump along the north bank of the pond. The diesel storage tank is set on two concrete footers <br />but there is no underlying impermeable liner. The soil around and under the tank exhibits staining and smells of ongoing <br />diesel spillage. The lack of adequate storage and the contaminated soil are noted as a problem in this report. The <br />corrective action is for the operator remove the storage tank from the site until such time that proper impermeable <br />secondary containment is provided, and the operator must excavate and properly dispose of all diesel-contaminated soils. <br />See the last page for the correction date. <br />The bond amount for this permit is $29,804. It is currently due for review by this office. The new figures will be sent soon <br />to the operator under separate cover. If an increase is indicated, the additional bond must be submitted within 60 days. <br />No further items were observed during the inspection. Responses to this inspection report should be directed to this <br />inspector at the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety, 691 County Road 233, Suite A-2, Durango, Colorado 81301. <br />(Please note: As of 7/1/08 the Durango Field Office moved to the new address, shown above. Please revise your <br />records as necessary.)