Laserfiche WebLink
• (Page 2) • <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-80-203 <br />INSPECTION DATH 12/11/97 <br />INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO <br />This partial inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of 110 <br />permits. The operator was contacted about the inspection but was not present for it. <br />Snowcover at the site (ranging from 12 to 20 inches in depth) prevented a full inspection <br />from being possible. The roads which provide access to the site were not plowed and allowed <br />only limited vehicular access. The operator's ramp road up to the pit allowed foot travel <br />only. <br />The site is identified by the required permit ID sign, which is posted at the gate at the <br />Hightower Creek Road. The lack of boundary markers was noted as a problem in a recent DMG <br />inspection report. The problem correction required that the operator install markers and <br />provide the Division proof of such installation. The file contains no such proof from the <br />operator. During this inspection no markers were observed. The operator indicated by <br />telephone to this inspector that the corners were marked by metal posts. (The site is <br />located on a brush-covered hillside. The brush is mainly oak and sage on the undisturbed <br />areas. If the markers were located in the brushy areas and snowcover was sufficient to <br />obscure the corner markers, then they would be obscured by brush also.) Because the file <br />contains no evidence that the markers were installed, and because they were not observed <br />during the inspection, this is regarded as a problem, as noted under the topic of "signs and <br />markers" on page one. Please see the last page of this report for the corrective action. <br />If the markers are in place, as the operator has stated, abatement of this problem will not <br />require re-installing markers, but proof of such placement will be needed (by the date shown <br />on the last page). <br />The file does not contain an adequate map of the permit area. The only map therein is one <br />which delineates a 40-acre parcel owned by the operator. The 9-acre permit area is not <br />depicted nor adequately described in the file. The lack of a permit area map is regarded as <br />a problem under the topic of "records" on page one. Please see the last page of this report <br />for the corrective action. (This is somewhat related to the marking of corners. If the <br />operator has marked the corners of the 9 acres, these points should be relatively simple to <br />depict on a map.) The map to be submitted should depict the various features and activities <br />present onsite. <br />Observations at the site include a main pit which daylights on the southwest side. It is at <br />a level which is about 15 feet above the processing and loadout level. Sideslopes are graded <br />at about 2:1 to 3:1. These appear stable, with no obvious gullying or slumping. A small <br />area in the western corner appears to be stripped in anticipation of mining. <br />Topsoil is stored in low, stable stockpiles along the north and east perimeter of the pit. <br />The volume of soil appears adequate to perform the reclamation. Vegetation visible above the <br />snow indicated that it was mainly perennial grass and woody species. <br />Stockpiles of other material included several areas of oversize material (boulders over one <br />foot in diameter), and a pile of crushed gravel (containing several thousand yards). <br />There are cattails growing in a small patch at the toe of the northeast highwall. The pit <br />floor appeared to be mostly level and significant impounding of water was not evident. These <br />plants may only indicate a seep. <br />The current total disturbed area was estimated to be at least seven acres. The approved <br />permit area is nine acres. The operator must ensure that the boundary is marked and that no <br />