INSPEC01689

• Permit No: M1983084
• IBM Index Class Name: Inspection
• Doc Name: MINERALS PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT
• Inspection Date: 9/28/1995
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

(Page 2)

NINE ID f OR PROSPECTING ID ~ M-83-086
INSPECTION DATE 9-28-95 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS GSC
OBSERVATIONS
Thie monitoring inspection was conducted in response to a citizen complaint. Mr. Ted Zigan,
the operator's representative, was presegt during the inspection. The Division last
inspected the site on May 13, 1993. M & M Mining Company was the operator at that time.
Zigan Sand & Gravel, Inc. acquired the permit through a permit transfer which was approved
on April 13, 1995. The current bond amount is $72,818.00 (certificate of deposit).
Amendment 001, approved on November 15, 1990, revised the mining plan to include concurrent
mining and reclamation. Gravel was to be mined, hauled to a process plant, sorted, washed
and sluiced. The processed material was then to be hauled back to previously mined areas
concurrent with mining. On March 27, 1991, Amendment 002 was approved in which the operator
committed to limiting the size of the active pit to no more than 2.1 acres. The reclamation
bond was then based on the cost to regrade the slopes of the final 2.1 acre pit to 3H:1V as
opposed to backfilling. This revision was approved by the Division with the understanding
that the operator would continue with the ongoing concurrent reclamation.
The file indicates that pits 1 and 2 have been previously mined and backfilled and that pit
1 had been reseeded. The following problems and possible violations were observed:
PV-1: The active pit ie roughly 'L' shaped and approximately 6 acres in size. Thie may be
a possible violation to the approved mining plan in that the active pit has exceeded the
maximum allowable size of 2.1 acres. The pit appears to be located in portions of Pite 3 and
4 of the approved mining plan. The average pit depth is estimated at 70' and the floor ie
filled with water. Active mining was taking place in the northwestern corner of the pit.
Mr. Zigan said that the operation ie preparing to shut down for the winter.
No concurrent backfilling and reclamation was being done as required in the approved plan.
Thie is a possible violation to the permit. The operator must either backfill the pit to the
approved maximum size or submit an amendment to the permit to include revised mining and
reclamation plane which increase the maximum allowable pit size and recalculate the financial
warranty amount. The Division will also re-evaluate the bond based on the current
disturbance.
Mr. Zigan indicated that the operator does not want to do any backfilling until after he has
mined the pit approximately 20 feet deeper. Thie activity would moat likely require that the
pit be increased from its current size. In addition, Mr. Zigan stated he may want to change
the order in which the phases are mined. The operator ie reminded that any changes to the
mining or reclamation plane must be submitted in the form of a revision, approved by the
Division and adequate financial warranty in place prior to being implemented.
PB-1: The processing plant and settling ponds are located approximately 2,000' north of the
active pit. Processed fines have filled the settling pond leaving about 1' to 2' of
freeboard. The operator stated that the current water depth ie shallow. The inspector was
unable to verify this during the inspection. The ground on which the pond ie built slopes
gently to the west. The maximum embankment height of the dam ie estimated by the Division
at 10' to 15' and the acreage of the sediment pond is estimated at 18 to 19 acres. The
operator has been increasing the size of the impoundment by backdumping oversize material
onto the western toe of this structure. Topsoil ie not being salvaged and the backdumping
has encroached upon a stand of evergreen trees. The operator said that he plane to increase
the height of the impoundment about 20' in this manner in successive 4' to 5' lifts. Thie
is being done in possible violation of the approved mining plan which stipulates that the
processed material will be backfilled into the pit (see PV-1).
A breach was observed in the northern end of the sediment pond. This happened in Auquet of
1995, according to Mr. Zigan. Processing fines and water had spilled through the breach and
flowed southward along the western side of the dam for a distance of a few hundred feet,
depositing a layer of fines. There are currently no design criteria for this structure in
the permit file. The operator needs to contact the Office of the State Engineer to determine
if this is a jurisdictional dam pursuant to the 'Rules and Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam
Construction' and MSHA to determine if this ie an MSHA dam. If it is not a jurisdictional
dam, the structure falls within the jurisdiction of the Division of Minerals and Geology as
a tailings dam. In that case, the operator will need to submit to the Division and get