INSPEC05366 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 4) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-83-209 INSPECTION DATE 07/29/98 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO distribution systems or natural drainage, though it seems that it has occured. )fig situation is not considered to be a Droblem under the topic of "offsite damage" in this Dort. It is considered however to be a gr~b~em u_*+den the conic of "eros+on/sedimentat;on" in this report r ;s omm nd d ha h;c a ;on b rnrr d wh; ~h shn, ld ;nvo~v discussion with the landowner. This was a pre-existing problem which has not been corrected. See the last page for the corrective action. The operator indicated that he wished not only to deepen the pit, but also to pull the ditch berm material (presently outside the permit boundary) into the pit as part of his reclamation backfilling and grading. This would result in elimination of the berm separating the pit from the gulch. The potential for problems due to uncontrolled discharge of stormwater runoff and/or irrigation water (from nearby fields) was discussed. Though it is possible to apply for approval of onsite use of material generated offsite for reclamation backfilling (through the Notice procedure descibed in Rule 3.1.5(9)), it is not reco[mnended in this case. As. it presently stands, the ditch berms provide adequate runoff containment for stormwater runoff and escaped irrigation water. Since the ditch structure and the potentially affected lands both lie outside of the permit area on Mr. Dawson's property, discussions with the landowner should be initiated icmnediately as to the desirability of such future mining and grading. The right of entry by the operator is assured by an existing lease. However, throughout the permit application and the lease document, the issue of operating and reclaiming the site to the satisfaction of the landowner is repeated. The operator must maintain right of entry or there may be a violation of the permit conditions. Proper operations and prompt problem correction will help assure continued right of entry. Though the financial warranty is not noted as a problem in this report, the reclamation costs will be recalculated soon. The revised figures will be sent to the operator for review. If the bond is insufficient, the operator will have 60 days to provide the increased amount. Problems: The inspection of 1/30/97 revealed several problems, not all of which are corrected. 1) The unlabeled drums and vessels containing unknown materials which were to be removed apparently have been. The onsite debris which was to be removed is still present. Since the operator has no interest in removing it from the site, its removal will now be included in the bond. 2) The permit ID sign was not noted, and was to be replaced. The sign is now posted at the entrance (though its letters are faded and should be repainted). 3) The breach in the d+tch noted as respons;r,~e for caus;ng downs one erns; nn has not been repaired. This is still a Droblem under "erosion/sedimentation" (as noted above) and should be repaired in the shor - rm. un it h ;ssi_s of final grading of that material and D~ d~Dth a se ~ d w+ h h BrODerty owner. See the last page of this report for the corrective action. At this tame there ;e a problem noted under the top;c of "m;ning Dian/compliance" on pagg one Th; s is due to the conflict between the actual and approved minino de,D~hs site drainaa s abi~; v of d' ch s r d tim;ng of reclamation after m;ning. The corrective actions are described on the last page of this report. Comments by Landowner's Representative: The issues of breaching the ditch berm and depth of mining were discussed with Mr. Gilmore at the site. His statements were that these conditions were not satisfactory and must be corrected soon. The landowner ultimately reassume use and management of this land, and it should be mined and reclaimed in a manner that will be consistent with post-mining use. This