INSPEC15759 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 21 MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1978-271 INSPECTION DATE 8/28/02 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 112 permits. The operator's representative was contacted about the inspection, but was not present during the inspection. The required permit ID sign was observed as posted at the entrance gate in the NE corner of the permit. The permit is an 80-acre rectangle, described in the application as the N1/2 of the NE1/4 of Section 9, T36N, R8E, NMPM. It is approximately bounded along the north side by a dilapidated old fenceline, and along the east by a newer fenceline. Operations have affected the permit area up to the fenceline on the north and except for an unmined triangle in the NE corner, mining is only a short distance from the fence on the east. Most of those highwalls have been sloped to their near- final configurations, with no future mining to encroach closer to the boundary. No topsoil appears to have been placed yet on those slopes. The inspection of 1 /14/99 noted several problems, one of which was the lack of adequate markers along the west and south boundaries. Really the only marker lof the four corners) which was not field located during this inspection was the SE corner. The operator must ensure that the SE corner is marked clearly. There are two old steel posts marking what can be considered as the location of the SW corner of this permit area. They are accompanied by a survey marker, marked with "Davis 22583, N Cen 1/16 sec 9", which matches the legal description of the permit boundary corner. These steel posts are difficult to see from any great distance, and the danger is that operations on the western highwall or the south central highwall will exceed the boundaries, causing offsite damage. Technically the boundary is marked, but improvement can be made by placing intermediate markers along those south and west lines. There is a survey monument at the NW corner of this permit area. The survey monument is located on the north quarter corner of Section 9, and is noted on the 4/19/99 boundary map provided by the operator (surveyed and drawn by Davis Engineeringl. It also marks the SW corner of a new permitted pit which is located directly north of this one (permit M-2001- 108), as noted on the July 2001 survey by Davis Engineering. The corner lies 16 feet to the south of the old fenceline, meaning that the fence lies north of and outside this 80-acre permit area. The topsoil stockpile along the north boundary of the Garrett Pit is located within a few feet of this old fenceline in places. Since the Garrett Pit's boundaries are based on defined section lines and their legal subdivisions, it would seem that portions gf the north edge of the topsoil pile lie outside the permit boundary. It might be that all of this offsite portion of the topsoil pile lies within the now-permitted area north of the Garrett Pit, but this issue must be clarified. At this time, the tonic of "records" is noted as a problem. The corrective action is that, at the very least, a written clarification must be submitted, providing undated description of the permit boundary and its relation to nearby features such as topsoil stockpiles. crests of vertical and sloped highwalls, fences, roads and survey points. (lf DMG finds that written explanation is not sufficient, new information will have to be added to the 1999 survey map, and submitted, since the existing one may be seriously outdated, and activities have encroached so close to the boundary.) See the Iasi page for the correction date. Active excavations along the west highwall do not appear to be preceded by careful stripping of topsoil. There is evidence of very surficial stripping of vegetation, but there is at least 12 inches of topsoil not being adequately stripped ahead of mining. It is still clearly present and apparently being mined along with the underlying aggregate. Topsoil is scarce in this area, and successful revegetation will depend on replacing as much of this important resource as possible. Topsoil degradation was noted as a problem in the 1 /14/99 inspection, and is also noted as a problem again. The operator must protect the soil for future reclamation by stripping it to its full depth, and stockpiling it in an area not subject to degradation by mining activity and/or prompt replacement on newly graded areas. If stockpiled for periods of longer than one year, the pile's sideslopes must be more carefully configured to no steeper than 2:1 and seeded for erosion protection. Several stockpiles of topsoil exist on the site, but they are too close tothe top of the vertical highwalls, their sides are too steep to support grass vegetation (though the weeds are thriving), and they appear to be subject to erosion. It is questionable how some of this material will be handled during reclamation without mixing it with underlying bank material since it is so close to the vertical highwalls. The tonic of "topsoil" is noted as a problem. The corrective action will be to provide a signed statement of commitment to careful topsoil salvaging and storing for all areas of the permit in all future mining, as well as a description of actual adequate topsoil handling Istripoing, stockpiling, replacement) carried out during the year. These items are to be included in the next annual report (due October 30. 2002) and will become monitored in all future annual reports. See the last page for the correction date (which is the anniversary date).