INSPEC08325 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 21 • MINE ID X OR PROSPECTING ID # M-82-033 INSPECTION DATE 07/11/97 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This inspection was performed by the Division as a second pre-operation inspection for the 112 conversion application which was filed by the operator. The original materials submitted for the conversion included only lands on the northeast side of the canal which crosses the property; the more recent version of the application included additional acres on the southwest side of the canal too. Due to the inclusion of these additional lands, which had not been inspected previously, this new inspection was necessary. Some items involving the existing 110 permit were also inspected. The operator was contacted about the inspection, and was present for it. The permit ID sign was present at the entrance gate. There were no permit boundarv corner markers visible, which is why the topic of "signs and markers" is noted as a problem. There has been significant new mining disturbance toward the south from the southeast corner of the pit since the last inspection (which was evident by comparing the pit margin depicted on a May 1997 survey mapl. New permit maps for the 112 conversion do not depict the existing 110 permit boundaries, and there is not a good 110 permit boundary map in the files. Recent excavation appears to be progressing to very near the south boundary, yet it is not clear exactly where the boundary is. The operator stated that the present map, dated 1994, incorrectly depicts the boundary. Because the file lacks a permit map, the topic of "records" is noted as a problem. Please see the last page of this report for the corrective action date. The recently-submitted conversion materials, mentioned above, were in response to the adequacy letter sent to the operator by this office. The submittal primarily consisted of revised maps; the other conversion materials and exhibits are still considered to be inadequate, and must be supplemented with additional information. The adequacy letter to the operator, dated 3/27/97, listed the items that were lacking or incorrect. The content of the letter was discussed during the inspection, and the operator stated that it would be helpful to receive another copy of the letter, with notations on it indicating which items still must be submitted. That copy is attached to his inspection report. The land surrounding this 1 10 permit will become the northeast part of the 1 1 2 permit through the conversion. A significant portion of that land, mainly on the south, is now part of a 1 1 1 permit obtained by Western Mobile (permit no. M-97-0441. That application included information in several of its exhibits which might be of use to this operator's conversion application. This was alsc discussed, and the operator requested a copy of these exhibits; copies for him are also attached to this report. Regarding the conversion application, there are still several items which must be pointed out: 1. The operator has obtained the affidavit of publishing the legal notices. The affidavit now should be submitted to this office. 2. There are no owners of property within 200 feet of this operation, as the boundaries have been revised, therefore no notices to adjoining owners are required to be sent for that. 3. The operator stated that he has sent a copy of the revised application to the county Clerk and Recorder. However, the Division still requires that a receipt of some sort, documenting this updated filing, be submitted to this office. 4. The operator will note in the application form that a copy of the conversion application is required to be sent to the local soil conservation district and the county commissioners. Proof of sending those materials was submitted by the operator at the time of the original conversion application submittal (March 19971. But the rules require that another notice and copy of the application be sent to those offices if the application is significantly revised, and this one has been. Please send those offices the new materials and send this office proof of doing so. 5. The application form's first page must have [he correct acreages shown on it. These were corrected during the inspection to reflect the following numbers: 8.3 acres of existing permit area, plus 81 .8 acres of additional area ladded to the existing area, according to the survey mapsl, for a total of 90.1 acres for the 11 2 permit after the conversion is approved. If these are incorrect, please let me know. Observations made of the additional 48 acres in the southwest triangle include: the vegetation appears the same as the other areas, though the topsoil depths may differ (this has been evident on the other areasl; the south and west boundaries are marked approximately by an old fenceline (though the fence is largely dilapidated Howl, and across the south by an old ditch about 10 feet north of the fenceline (though the ditch has not been maintained in many yearsl; there is an old corral about 800 Teet west and 100 feet north of the southwest corner; the well mentioned in the file was also seen in this location, just south of the corral (the well is not used presently, nor will activity encroach closer than 150 (eetl. These features are old and not to be regarded as significant