Laserfiche WebLink
• (Page 21 • <br />MINE ID q OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1994-097 <br />INSPECTION DATE 5/4/00 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 112 permits. The operator <br />was contacted about the inspection and the operator's representative named on page one was present throughout the <br />inspection. <br />The permit ID sign was posted at the entrance gate to the site. All permit boundaries run along existing fencelines. <br />The site was not active at the time of the inspection. The pit and other affected areas closely match details reported in <br />recent annual reports. The pit is still confined to the northeast corner of the original 40-acre portion of the permit area. <br />The areas added to the permit in amendment AM-O7 are still in farmland and have not been affected by mining. <br />The configuration of the pit has changed somewhat since the last inspection by the Division (2/25/971• The original pit was <br />mined in a series of successive excavations to about 30 feet deep, with benched highwalls. The deepest part of the original <br />pit has apparently been backfilled to about a 15-foot depth, and the presently larger pit has been excavated at a uniform <br />15-foot depth throughout. Highwalls are nearly vertical, being mined by loader from the pit floor. There is a ramp road <br />down into the pit on the north end. <br />The only equipment onsite was a wheeled loader in the pit, a 300-gallon raised fuel tank in the pit (with no evidence of <br />spilled fuel), atrailer-mounted scale house parked west of the pit on the onsite haul road, and several recently poured <br />concrete footers for a portable scale to be placed near the scale house. This will presumably be used as part of the <br />upcoming crushing operation in the pit. <br />The south end of the pit has been levelled for installation of a crusher plant. As the pit grows to the south, topsoil is <br />stripped and stockpiled along the eastern and southern permit boundaries. The topsoil appears to be sufficient in amount <br />for reclaiming the existing disturbance. Some of the topsoil stockpiled is fairly new, and has not yet been seeded for <br />protection from degradation. Topsoil stockpile seeding was discussed with the operator as a necessary aspect of the <br />mining plan. It was also pointed out that if there is an insufficient amount for reclamation, a thin layer may be borrowed <br />from the adjoining irrigated cropland in the permit area, though much of that soil exhibits noxious weeds la thistle speciesl. <br />There is a concern about topsoil handling at this site, though at this point it is not considered to be a problem. A short <br />segment of the highwall, along the southwest edge of the pit, appears to be advancing without any prior stripping of <br />topsoil. Along the western edge of the pit, the highwall has advanced to the edge of the topsoil stockpile. There was a <br />small amount of topsoil on the pit floor, and is assumed to have sloughed from above the highwall. A significant amount <br />of the stockpiled topsoil on the western side of the pit has been borrowed from, and has been removed from the site <br />(according to the operator during the inspectionl• As mentioned above, there is no current lack of sufficient topsoil, but <br />these practices must not continue. If topsoil damage or offsite export is continued, there may be a future topsoil deficit <br />or increased difficulty in replacement of topsoil, either of which scenario will result in increased reclamation costs. At this <br />time, the reclamation bond (540,000) is felt to be sufficient, but the amount will be recalculated as a matter of this routine <br />monitoring. If the operator desires to continue with the observed topsoil uses, which vary from the presently approved <br />plan, the operator should apply for a technical revision. <br />In addition to the several product stockpiles in the pit and stockpiled topsoil around the pit, there were two large waste <br />asphalt piles on the site, west and south of the pit. These were imported by the operator from paving work elsewhere. <br />The use and/or disposal of this material was discussed. If older than 60 days, the asphalt is considered to be "inert" and <br />can be backfilled onsite, if above groundwater. The operator stated that it was to be ground up and used as a dust-free <br />type of dirt road surfacing material. The present aggroved mining plan does not include the storage, handling. or disposal <br />of this material The estimated volume of waste asphalt labout 600-800 cvl is gresently a reclamation liabiliri In order <br />to be allowed to continue importing and storing materials generated offsite but which might have to be handled onsite <br />during final reclamation the ogerator must cooly for a technical revision. Until the material is removed or a technical <br />revision is approved this situation is a problem Please see the last gape for the corrective action date. (Please note that <br />the technical revision should probably include information such as that detailed in Rule 3.1.519) regarding the importing of <br />material generated offsite.) <br />