Laserfiche WebLink
OBSERVATIONS <br />PERMIT #: M- 2004 -055 & M- 2009 -054 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: TCW <br />INSPECTION DATE: August 28, 2012 <br />This was a normal monitoring inspection conducted by TC Wait of DRMS. Mr. Herb Pearson represented the <br />operator during the site visit. The site is located about 5 miles southwest of Rocky Ford. Post -mine land use <br />for this site is rangeland. <br />This mine includes two mine permits: M- 2004 -055 (111) and M- 2009 -054 (112). The entire 111 mine permit <br />(30 acres) lies within the 112 permit (51 acres) boundary. This site inspection report will consider both <br />permits as one mine operation. At the time of the site inspection, roughly 20 acres has been disturbed by <br />mining activity. <br />The site includes an access road from the County Road. The mine was accessed by vehicle. The permit sign <br />was posted, and the permit boundaries have been marked. There are stockpiled materials in the west and <br />southeast areas of the mine. Mr. Pearson estimated about 90,000 cubic yards of material on site. The mine <br />has not been worked in about 3 years, but they are hauling from the stockpiles on a monthly basis. <br />The southern end of the mine pit includes a highwall approximately 12 feet high and 1,200 feet in length. This <br />area may collect runoff water and multiple tamarisk plants are growing. The DRMS file includes a weed <br />control plan from the Operator (D. Gonzales, 8/27/04) that requires monthly inspections for noxious weeds, <br />and herbicide spraying and removal of any noxious weeds present. The number and size of tamarisk present <br />on the site indicates that the Operator is not following their weed control plan. <br />Mining will progress southward as the demand requires. As of yet no portion has been reclaimed. There is <br />not adequate topsoil stockpiled on the site for reclamation. This was cited as a problem in 2009 during a site <br />inspection (DRMS, 1/16/09). The Operator's response was that the importing of topsoil for reclamation will be <br />addressed in the 112 (M- 2009 -054) permit application. Reviewing the M- 2009 -054 permit application, there is <br />no language addressing the importation of topsoil for reclamation. Per the 1/16/09 inspection report, an <br />estimated 10,800 cubic yards of topsoil will need to be imported for reclamation of the site. <br />Because of the two different active permit files for this mine, there is some potential confusion and a lot of <br />duplication and inefficiency for both DRMS and the Operator. <br />1) The Operator has not formally requested release of the 111 permit (M- 2004 -055) per Rule 4.17, and as <br />stated in the 112 permit (M- 2009 -054) permit adequacy response #1, (Banks and Gesso, LLC, <br />10/16/09). <br />2) The Operator is submitting duplicate annual reports and fees to keep two permits open for one mine <br />site. The permit fee for the 111 permit (M- 2004 -055) is $504 each year. <br />3) The Operator is carrying bonds for both permits for one mine site. The bond for the 111 permit (M- <br />2004 -055) is $75,000. The bond for the 112 permit (M- 2009 -054) is $192,800, which includes <br />additional money for importing topsoil. <br />4) Because there are two active permits for one mine site, DRMS is inspecting the mine twice as often as <br />needed, and there is potential for confusion between the requirements in the mine and reclamation <br />plans of the 111 permit (M- 2004 -055) and the 112 permit (M- 2009 -054). For example, the 111 permit <br />mine plan does not allow for a highwall, and requires mine operations to have slopes of 3:1. This is not <br />the case at the mine site, and could give a false "problem" cited for the Operator, depending on which <br />permit application is being inspected. <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />