INSPEC09263 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-2001-069 INSPECTION DATE 4/15/04 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 112c permits and to inspect the conditions relating to a verbal citizen complaint. This office does not normally respond to verbal complaints, but this inspector was in the vicinity of this pit and an inspection was felt to be needed. The citizen subsequently decided to not submit a written complaint, since issues were satisfactorily resolved between him the operator. The operator was contacted about scheduling the inspection. The operator's representative named on page one was present during the inspection. The citizen involved in the verbal complaint, who is an adjoining landowner, was also on the site at the time of the inspection, but did not accompany the inspector and operator. The required permit ID sign was posted at the entrance to the site. Some of the affected area boundary markers were observed. This is a phased operation, and the operator must ensure that all affected area boundary markers are maintained in place, to ensure that no offsite damage occurs, and so that disturbance occurs in the proper phase areas, At this time, all activity is occurring in compliance with the approved plan. There was no mining-related activity at the site at the time of the inspection. The asphalt plant, processing equipment, and earthmoving equipment were onsite, but idle. The reason for the citizen's contact with this office was due to disturbance by the operator of a ditch which crosses the permitted area. The operator is the landowner, and there was no easement recorded on the propertry deed. The condition of the ditch showed that it had not been used in many years, and the operator believed that the ditch was abandoned. The ditch was not, in fact, abandoned, and was used occasionally to convey irrigation water across the permitted area to the adjoining land which lies to the east. Upon learning of the adjoining landowner's need for such a conveyance, the operator reconstructed a functional ditch, which received water from the same location and delivered water to the correct location, though the alignment of the new ditch was different within the permitted area, The former route crosses the main pit west to east, and new route is around the south end of the pit. The adjoining landowner was not satisfied, even though the new ditch was actually used last year. The operator contacted the NRCS and a surveyor, and the ditch layout was "proven" to be functional. It is the conclusion of this office that, since the initial version of the rebuilt ditch was functional, resolving a complaint based on a dislike of that ditch was beyond what this agency could require the operator to correct. However, in order to attempt to satisfy the landowner, the operator agreed to rebuild the new ditch. The office considers this to be an activity performed between two landowners, outside the scope of permit-related activity. Earthwork being performed by the operator at the time of the inspection involved building up a new ditch pad with earthen material scraped from non-permitted land owned by the operator. A grader and loader were placing abuilt-up pad into which a new ditch would be pulled. The adjoining landowner was staking the pad for ditch depth. It is the opinion of this inspector that, though there is officially no complaint received, the operator has satisfactorily resolved the ditch issues in a manner which should not involve this office. (This inspector encouraged the operator to seed the stripped area this year, to maintain the land in good condition, and reduce the potential for erosion or weed growth. The operator stated that he would rely on natural seeding from vegetation on surrounding land. This should be monitored, however, since it opens the possibility of weed introduction from the non- permitted land to the permitted land.) The main pit has not been fully excavated to its southern limit, according to the approved phased plan. In order to provide a safety berm along the present south highwall, some topsoil was dozed up. This topsoil will be necessary to perform reclamation, and must therefore be carefully salvaged. Other large stockpiles of salvaged topsoil exist along the east and west highwalls. The total topsoil volume appears to be sufficient to reclaim, but will require additional handling to pull it back from the highwall shoulder before slope grading occurs. At this time there is no problem, but could become a problem if topsoil degradation occurs due to mixing during slope reduction, or sloughing of steep highwalls. There was another minor ditch crossing the site immediately above the north end of the main pit, which the excavation has so far avoided but for which operator has also provided an improved ditch pad. The location of this ditch will not be moved, and the excavation cannot proceed farther north although the phased plan allows it to. The operator stated that the south end will be excavated, and then the next phase to the west will begin. If a revision of phase areas or expansion of the affected area is needed in the future, the operator should contact this office to discuss the requirements.