My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC02948
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC02948
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:57:55 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 8:08:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983084
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
12/27/1995
From
ZIGAN SAND & GRAVEL INC
To
DMG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
' This may be a possible violation to the approved mining <br />plan in that the active pit has exceeded the maximum, <br />allowable size of 2.1 acres. <br />Corrective Action: Either backfill the pit to the <br />approved maximum size of 2.1 acres or submit a complete <br />amendment to the permit. This needs to include revised <br />mining and reclamation plans and maps which increase <br />the maximum allowable pit size, provide plans for <br />reclaiming all areas disturbed by the mining operation <br />including the pits and settling ponds and recalculates <br />the financial warranty amount. The backfilling <br />activity or amendment submittal must be completed <br />no later than December 12, 1995. During operations, <br />the operator must resume concurrent backfilling and <br />reclamation plans are changed and approved by the <br />Division. <br />From my perspective, how could PV-1 be a possible violation <br />when the excavation started by M & M Mining in 1989, concluded <br />in 1990 and inspected by the Division in 1993 and found to be <br />not in violation in 1993 now be in violation in 1995 when we <br />did not enlarge the area of excavation? I relied on the 1993 <br />Division finding that the pit we only deepened for two months <br />this year was within the permit specifications. We do plan <br />to expand this pit before we backfill. The reason is we must <br />reach bedrock to recover the best gold values present. This <br />deposit is about 100 feet deep. It is impossible to reach <br />bedrock by mining within this 2.1 area footprint. We intend <br />to present to the Division shortly a plan to increase the area <br />of severe disturbance. This, however, is impossible to complete <br />in seven days. <br />PB-1 There are currently no design criteria for the sediment <br />pond in the permit file. <br />Corrective Action: The operator needs to contact <br />the office of the State Engineer to determine if this <br />is a jurisdictional dam pursuant to the "Rules and <br />Regulations for Dam Safety and Dam Construction' and <br />MSHA to determine if this is an MSHA dam. If it is <br />not a jurisdictional or MSHA dam, the structure falls <br />within the jurisdiction of the Division of Minerals <br />and Geology as a tailings dam. In that case, the <br />operator will need to submit to the Division and get <br />approved design parameters and construction specifi- <br />cations for the structure and a demonstration of <br />stability both from a flood containment and a slope <br />stability standpoint. The design specificatins <br />must be submitted and approved no later than December <br />12, 1995. <br />In any case, a reclamation plan needs to be submitted <br />-2- <br />!'•. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.