INSPEC05895 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 2j • MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1981-014 INSPECTION DATE 7/2/01 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO This inspection was performed as part of the Division's monitoring of Construction Materials 112 permits. The operator was contacted about the inspection, and a time was arranged to meet at the site. The operator's representative named on page one was present throughout the inspection. Two separate phases are being operated concurrently at this site. Most activity is in Phase I-A, where the concrete batch facility, scale and scalehouse, cement truck wash site, and main stockpile location are. There was no crusher at the time of the inspection. There were stockpiles of pitrun, and various processed aggregate products in the pit and near the processing facility. A stockpile of concrete riprap material was also present, consisting of clean concrete from the trucks, and not of imported concrete/construction debris. Diesel fuel is stored in a raised tank (capacity less than 500 gallons), which includes a concrete secondary containment structure below the tank. This area of the permit is orderly and clean. Mining is estimated to have progressed to the southern, eastern and western limits of Phase I-A. Temporary slope grading has been performed on some of the highwalls, though not to the gradient of final reclamation. A large portion of the active highwalls are vertical. The highwalls which adjoin any future phase which will not be the next phase to be activated should be graded down to maintain stability and reduce the bond liability. Further reclamation on those temporary slopes might be considered if that adjoining phase will not be activated for several decades. The last annual report states that Phase II, directly to the west, will be the next phase activated. Please note that the bond amount set for this site is based on amount of disturbance, and therefore depends on a certain amount of reclamation performed in a "finished" phase prior to opening up a "new" phase. There is a map accomoanving the annual report which depicts all phases The map however is not current in that it does not show the 1996 boundarv chance associated with the new access road into Phase II. The map base used for future annual reports must be undated and the out-of-date one discarded The annual report map should also depict the Phase II access road topsoil stockpile locations, in-pit drainage and runoff controls, and fencelines las applicable when used as boundarv markers) This out-of-date map with limited depicted information is noted as a problem in this report (under records), to be corrected as described above, and by the date shown on the last pane. Phase I-B, lying mostly east of the river, has been partially affected. The upper INWj end has been mined, though not down to its final floor depth. Most highwalls (north side of pit) are sloped at 1.5:1 or gentler. Topsoil is bermed above the highwalls, and appears to be sufficient for reclamation of the pit. Irrigation drainage from agricultural lands upstream, and possibly surface drainage from adjacent uphill lands flows into this pit, requiring a drainage ditch across the floor. This ditch is still present, though it appears to be sufficiently wide to have become a shallow one-half acre pond in the pit. A temporary electric livestock fence has been installed across the pit floor also. The fence indicates that this pond may be the landowner's and not the operator's. The pond appears to be draining at the same rate as inflow, and is in a location of the pit that will be mined further, eliminating the pond. If the present existence of this pond is due to a change in the currently-approved mining plan, which does not include a pond, then the operator must submit a request for a technical revision to the permit. There was a noted presence of the locally-widespread "daisy "one of the species the county has designated as a noxious weed It covers portions of the topsoil piles and other undisturbed areas within the permit boundarv. A noxious weed control plan for this permit area or for the private ranchland on which this permit is located might exist and be in practice, but this office reguires that evidence of such a plan be documented for the permit files. If no such weed control plan exists vet, one must be formulated and implemented. Formulation of the plan requires the input from a local weed authority. whose name and contact information is provided at the end of this report. The plan must be submitted, along with the operator's commitment to implement it. If such a plan exists and is being carried out (whether it be by the operator or landowner) please provide a statement confirming such, along with any details of what the plan is. The presence of the weed and the lack of evidence of a weed control plan are noted as a problem in this report (under reveaetation), to be corrected as described above, and by the date shown on the last pace. Rule 3.1.12 requires that markers be placed along the affected area boundaries of 112 operations. Affected area is defined as the area which is bonded for disturbance. In this case, in addition to the mining phase limits. there is a specified setback distance from the Slate River, which runs through the permit area. The setback is to be 100 feet on each side of the centerline of the river, making a 200-foot wide non-mining corridor. The river setbacks exist in Phases I-B, III and V. Since