INSPEC20197 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 21 MINE ID fJ OR PROSPECTING ID rY M-1977-567 INSPECTION DATE 11 /20/01 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of Construction Materials 110 permits and to assess the reclamation costs, since an application to transfer the permit to a private party has been received by the Division. The current operator was contacted about the inspection, but was not present during the inspection. TF~e site was not active at the time of the inspection. A significant amount of mining-related disturbance exists at the site, though little of it appears recent. No reclamation has been carried out at the site. There are numerous notes made in this report for the benefit of the new, successor operator. The required permit ID sign was not posted, but was observed on the ground near the NE entrance gate. This is not considered a problem, mostly since the permit will likely transfer to the successor operator in the near future. After permit transfer, however, a new ID sign containing the successor operator's information must be posted. (Please see Construction Materials Rule 3.1.12 for sign content requirements, a copy of which is enclosed with the successor operator's copy of this report.) The permit boundaries are not well delineated on the ground, unless the permit area can be described eis a rectangle defined by the single T-post presently located near the presumed NW permit corner, and the fencelines which meet at the SE permit corner. There are no NE or SW boundary corners marked on the fencelines. Features and distances were estimated during the inspection, and appear to generally delineate a 9.5-acre permit area. Lack of certain boundary markers is not noted as a problem at this time, but must be addressed prior to commencing activity. There is not an adequate permit area map in the file, and one must be provided by the new operator, e:;pecially for purposes of the Division's periodic monitoring inspections and bond reviews, plus for the operator's use in submitting meaningful annual reports. Prior to any renewed activity, an updated map of the site should be prepared and sut~mitted to this office. (Please refer to Construction Materials Rule 6.2 for map standards and Rule 6.3.5 for map content :equirements.l• Lack of an adeguate moo is not noted as a problem at this time, but should be addressed as described at~ove. Topsoil has been salvaged to some extent. Stockpiles for later use in reclamation are windrowed along the south and east highwalls toward the SE pit corner. The pile along the south highwall appears to have been recently spread, but it was not performed well: it is rough and varies in thickness, and much still remains piled above the pit slope. Most existing pit slopes are at 1:1 to 2:1 gradients, which is steeper than the gradients approved for final reclamation. It is hoped that the south wall was reduced to 3:1 prior to pushing topsail down onto it. All slopes still require reduction to gentler gradients, which must be done prior to placing any topsoil on them. The native soil visible in the profile of the slopes and highwalls (mainly on the west side) varies from about a foot of clean soil to less than a foot of cobbly soil. The north slope exhibits a large amount of soil and sod which seems to have sloughed from the tap of the slope. These observed conditions appear to stem from lack of adequate soil salvage prior to mining, and failure to minimize erosion from areas above the slope. The operator must be diligent in ensuring that all topsoil is stripped well ahead of mining, and is segregated and protected for later use in reclaiming the pit. Failure to do so may constitute noncompliance with the approved plans in the permit, and will result in inadequate amounts available at the time of reclamation, making reclamation more difficult and time-consuming. It could also result in a hi4lher bond amount if topsoil must be purchased elsewhere and hauled in to perform the approved reclamation plan. The topsoil stockpiles now existing do not exhibit a vegetative cover to protect them from erosion, as required by the approved plans. The south and east pit slopes are at their final locations, though not at their final epproved gradients. There is no problem noted for topsoil at this time, since there is an opportuniri for the successor operator to perform the necessary reclamation of the slopes, such as grading, topsoil replacement and seeding, during the coming construction season. If such activites are not to be performed in 2002, the operator will be required to seed the Topsoil piles to grass and provide evidence of having completed this activity. There are two ramps into the pit, both on the west side. There are a couple piles of material remaining in the pit, appearing to be fines, overburden, or other mainly small-sized product. The floor is gently sloping, and consists o f several floor levels. The pit depth varies from about 5 to 12 feet. There is no evidence of water impoundment. There is minimal debris on the site, and no apparent contaminated soil or noxious weeds. No equipment or fuel are stored onsite presently. Future eguipment or fuel storage must ensure that contamination to soil and water does not occur.