2015-03-18_INSPECTION - M2014061

Home Browse Search

PERMIT #: M- 2014 -061 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS: ERR INSPECTION DATE: January 5, 2015 OBSERVATIONS This was a pre - operational inspection of the Schlosser Pit 1 conducted by Elliott Russell with the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety (Division). Tom Schlosser and Todd Schlosser, with Schlosser Incorporated, were present during the inspection. The I I 2 construction materials permit application was received by the Division on October 23, 2014. The application was deemed complete on December 2, 2014. After the Division received a decision date extension request, the decision due date has been set for April 1, 2015. The Applicant published public notice as required by Rule 1.6.2(d) for four consecutive weeks. Based on information provided by the Applicant, the last notice was published on January 1, 2015. The public comment for the application ended on January 21, 2015. No objections were received by the Division. The proposed I I 2 permit will encompass 80 acres with about 50 acres planned for mining disturbance. The proposed post - mining land use for the site is Pastureland. Slopes will be reclaimed at a 3H:1 V or flatter with 12 -18 inches of topsoil replaced during reclamation. The gravel deposits proposed for extraction are located on the south side of the ephemeral channel known as Sandy Creek. This channel enters the proposed permit along the northern half of the western boundary, runs through the northern portion of the site, and leaves the site along the eastern boundary. At 15:30, the Division met the Operator's representatives at the proposed mine site entrance, located 1 mile south of County Road K, on the west side of County Road 49. At the time of the inspection the temperature was cold, the sky was overcast, and the ground was frozen. There was up to 10 inches of snow covering the ground throughout the site. The mine site notice sign was observed at the entrance to the site and was in compliance with Rule 1.6.2(b). The permit boundary had been delineated by metal fence posts at each of the four corners of the rectangular- shaped permit. Based on monuments observed near these markers, the Division assumes these have been surveyed and set by a Professional Land Surveyor delineating the Schlosser's property. The Division observed that pastureland, listed as the current land use of the permit area, was the main use of the southern portion of the site. Along the north side of Sandy Creek, an agricultural field (assumed to be owned by the northern adjacent landowner) was observed extending into the permit area; this area extended approximately 25 acres into the permit boundary. The Division also observed a similar situation along the southern boundary; a long sliver of an agricultural field (assumed to be owned by the southern adjacent landowner) extended approximately 2 acres into the permit boundary. The Applicant stated that these agricultural areas within the permit will not be disturbed. Two fences lines, one along the southern edge of the northern agricultural field and one along the northern edge of the southern agricultural field, were also observed during the pre - operational inspection. The Division addressed these structures, which were missing in the application, in the Division's adequacy review letter dated February 3, 2015. The Division observed a large excavated area and an associated overburden stockpile existing within the proposed permit boundary. This disturbance was once permitted as the Reed Pit (M- 1983 -072) by Schlosser, Inc. and has since been terminated. The pit is approximately 30 feet deep and encompasses 6.5 acres. The overburden pile, located 700 feet west of the pit, is approximately 15 feet high and encompasses 3.5 acres. The overburden pile was stable and consisted of adequate rangeland vegetation. The pit was also adequately vegetated, but comprised of a major erosional feature along the reclaimed slope in the southeast corner of the excavated area. During the inspection, the Applicant asked about activity versus inactivity at the site after the permit has been issued and due to the economy, how could the site be operated. Listed below are a few statements regarding this inquiry: • If the site is left undisturbed and the Operator continues to submit Annual Reports and Fees, there will be no requirements forcing the Operator to terminate the permit. • When mining activities (construction material extraction, processing, or transportation) commence, Operators must continuously engage in these activities. o If mining activity occurs every year, but the activity occurs for less than 180 days in a year, then the permit must be placed in "Intermittent Status" by submitting an application for a Technical Revision that Page 2 of 10