Laserfiche WebLink
• (Page 4) • <br />MINE ID # OR PROSP``EC~TING' ID # ~(-(QQq'-O~U- <br />INSPECTION DATE_Il~[/pp INSPECTOR'S INITIALS <br />The following problems (PB) and/or possible violations (PV) (and suggested corrective <br />actions) were identified during this inspection. The problems should be corrected by the <br />dates given, or they will become possible violations. The possible violations should be <br />corrected by the dates given to reduce their severity when considered by the Mined Land <br />Reclamation Board. The inspector noted on the previous page should be notified of all <br />corrective actions taken. <br />PROBLEMS/POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS <br />AND <br />CORRECTIVE ACTIONS <br />1) The County has graded pre-permit mining disturbance <br />lying outside of the approved permit area boundaries to <br />slope into the pit. This was done, however, without securing <br />the adjacent landowner's permission and amounts to possible <br />damage during mining and reclamation of the pit of an area <br />outside the approved affected area. <br />The County could secure the adjacent landowner's written <br />permission and reclaim the old, pre-permit mining disturbance <br />lying outside the approved affected/permit area for the San <br />Acacio Pit or the County could, with the adjacent landowner's <br />permission, propose an amendment to the San Acacio Pit permit <br />which includes the disturbed land outside the approved <br />permit area. (These alternative corrective actions would <br />normally be corrective actions acceptable to the Board should a <br />violation be found in this instance.) As a third alternative, <br />the County may choose to wait until the Board determines if <br />there is a violation of the County's permit and specifies an <br />appropriate corrective action. <br />2) It appears possible that one of the adjacent landowners <br />was not accurately identified in the County's permit <br />application, specifically the owner of the land immediately <br />adjacent to the proposed permit area on~the south identified <br />as Margaret Munro. As a result, the actual owner of this <br />property, at that time, may not have been notified of the <br />County's permit application as required. (See Rule 1.6.2 (1) <br />The County should recheck the County records and provide <br />evidence to the Division that Margaret Munro was the owner <br />of record of the property adjacent to the proposed permit <br />area on the south at the time the permit application was <br />submitted to the Division. <br />CORRECTION <br />DATE <br />Prior to the <br />Jan. 26-27,2000 <br />hearing by the <br />Board <br />PB or PV: PV <br />TOPIC(S): OD,BG,MP <br />CORRECTION <br />DATE <br />1/20/2000 <br />(e) . ) <br />PB or PV: PB <br />TOPIC(S): AR <br /> <br />