INSPEC20822 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 2) • MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-87-097 INSPECTION DATE 08/19/98 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO This inspection was performed by the Division as part of its monitoring of 110 permits. The operator was contacted about the inspection, and a time and date were arranged to jointly inspect the site. The operator named on page one of this report was present throughout the inspection. The permit an~a is 9.9 acres, measuring 650 feet x 660 feet. The boundary markers were not observed at the corners, though fencelines do delineate the north and east sides. The 9/14/94 inspection report, though not naming the lack of markers as a problem, does indicate that the markers should be placed (especially the one at the SW corner). No permit ID sign was noted during this inspection either. Since future expansion of the pit would be toward the south arn3 west, posting the location of the SW permit boundary corner is felt to be important (to prevent possible off site damage). Likewise, a permit ID sign should have been placed at the: entrance. The lack of boundary corner markers and an ID sion is therefore noted as a problem in this report t;nder the too, of "signs and markers". Rule 3.1.12 specifies that. boundary ma k e m _ b- placed, and an ID sign posted. Please refer to that rule for a description of the ppoper information to be included on the sign. See the last page for the correc iv. a. ion da The site is s.ctively operated, though there was no mining observed during the inspection. There is no processing onsite; all mined material leaves as pitrun. There was only a small amount of material stockpiled in the pit. A wheeled loader was observed in the pit (an older model 'Michigan 75A") belonging to the operator. The ramp road into the pit is now through the north central part of the pit; the previously used road west of this has been abandoned. Several areas of the pit have been excavated. The northeast area is shallower than the rest. The south and west areas areup to 10 or 12 feet deep. Th~a active highwall seems to be on the west. The gravel layers are distinct and alternate with clay layers. There is a distinct topsoil layer visible above the clay and gravel on the vertical highwalls. Topsoil has been stockpiled on the east and south, where it was stripped prior to mining. It appears stable in the stockpile, but is probably insufficient in volume to disturbed area. The operator must begin salvaging topsoil by stripping it prior to further mining. Ae a case in point, the portion of the west highwall that is being actively mined shows a that there is no topsoil salvage being performed, that it is being pushed down along with the gravel and clay as mining progresses. This wasting of the topsoil appears recent, but has probably been occuring for several years, since there are no new topsoil stockpiles, and no stripped areas along the advancing highwalls. The conditions described in the preceding two paragraphs are not in conformance with the existing mining and reclamation plan, as they are approved in the file. They are therefore being considered as a problem under the topic of "topsoil". The operator must begin immediately salvaging tapeoil, by stripping and stockpiling it separately, and protecting it for future reclamation of the site. See the last page of the report for the corrective action date. Cont.