Laserfiche WebLink
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # N1-1979-216 <br />INSPECTION DATE 10/30/06 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 110c permits. This office <br />attempted to contact the operator by phone; a voice mail message was left notifying the operator of the inspection date. <br />There was no activity at the site and the operator was not present during the inspection. <br />There is a locked gate several hundred feet to the NW of the permit boundary, securing a road which serves as access to <br />several different permitted areas. There is no permit ID sign at the gate, nor down at the edge of the permit area either (though <br />the operator does have a permit ID sign posted for a different neighboring permit area). Since there was no permit ID sign <br />provide evidence of such posting to this office, See the last page for the correction date. <br />There were numerous white posts observed around much of the perimeter of the disturbed area, and theywere assumed to be <br />the permit corner markers, for the six-sided permit boundary. Past inspectors have also noted the presence of the corner <br />markers, and they are assumed to be in their proper locations currently also. There is no problem for the topic of boundary <br />markers. <br />However, there is a discrepancy concerning the maps in the permit file, which involves the permit boundary. The maps that <br />were provided during the permit application in 1980 do not conform to the most recent ones submitted for the annual reports. <br />Background: The 9.89-acre permitted area is an irregular 6-sided polygon that lies within a 23.31-acre rectangular property <br />parcel, The 23.31-acre property parcel contains land within both Sections 15 and 16. The permit area lies only within Section <br />16, and the east line of Section 16 defines the eastern permit boundary line. Older permit maps clearly show the delineation of <br />the 9.89-acre permit area within the 23.31-acre property parcel. The most current annual report maps, however, do not show <br />the permit boundary. Additionally, the area of disturbance that is delineated on the recent maps extends beyond the actual <br />permit boundary location (i.e., far into Section 15). <br />The disturbance observed, which extends to the east of the estimated boundary location, consists of extension of the pit floor <br />and the easternmost highwalls, and most notably a deep dozer slot cut into the east highwall, daylighting through the river <br />terrace, with dozed material pushed dowh to the ephemeral drainage to the east ofthe property parcel. This is several hundred <br />feet east of where the permit boundary is suspected to be located, and may contain 2 to 3 acres of offsite disturbance. <br />At this time, assuming (but not being certain) that the white posts observed around the site indicate the permit boundary, and <br />observing the actual area of disturbance extending eastward beyond the eastern markers, it is this inspector's opinion that <br />there maybe offsite disturbance. Due to the irregular topography and irregular boundary, the existence of offsite disturbance is <br />only suspected, and the actual extent of it is only estimated. This issue is noted as a problem on page one under the topics of <br />~~~~~~~J..n ...mil '~..fir.ii.. .~...M /.AI. ,~ TL......n.n~~~:~....G ~L...~~.~~~Ll...-... ...:II M~~~ .:.J~...~.....J..~...J.«~~...1-:.. L. .. il~~....~..I....4. i...... <br />to be offsite mining disturbance, the topic of "offsite damage" may become a possible violation. See the last page for the <br />correction date. <br />(Note: This operator may consider converting this 110c permit to a 112c permit, so that it contains more acreage and all offsite <br />disturbance. Please contact this office if this option is being considered. A 112c conversion will not eliminate a possible <br />violation, since that will be a Board determination, but is one option to bring the permit into compliance and all disturbance into <br />a reclamation plan.) <br />There was no processing equipment at the site. Earthmoving equipment consisted of a wheeled loader parked in the pit floor. <br />No fuel is stored onsite. Mining is proceeding toward the east, with sloped highwalls and level floor. The site contains several <br />stockpiles of pitrun, product, and various materials imported from elsewhere, including steel (from county bridge structures?), <br />old culverts, concrete blocks, waste asphalt, and wood debris. This has been noted in previous inspection reports with no <br />problem cited, and there is no problem at this time, but the operator must exercise prudence and limit the items imported, to not <br />allow the site to become a junkyard or landfill. There were no noxious weeds noted. <br />Topsoil appears to be stockpiled above the north highwall, which has been sloped. The south-facing slopes of the highwall and <br />topsoil stockpile exhibit healthy stands of annual weeds (mainly Russian thistle) and onlya little grass, though there is evidence <br />that the operator has tried seeding the 3:1 highwall slope. Since this slope may be difficult to get revegetated, end will not be <br />further disturbed by future mining, the operator is encouraged to continue revegetation attempts, sooner rather than later. <br />