INSPEC33219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• (Page 2j • MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1986-061 INSPECTION DATE 9/12/01 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS RCO OBSERVATIONS This enforcement follow-up inspection was performed by the Division to verify the adequate completion of the required corrective actions as outlined in the Division's 4/19/01 inspection. A time was arranged to meet at the site for the inspection. The operator was represented by the person named on page one, who was present during the earlier part of the inspection. The operator was to have prepared a map of the entire permit boundary, including the changes made as part of the acreage release SL-Ot and the land exchange TR-01. Mr. Jacobs delivered the required map during the inspection. The map sheet includes a metes and bounds description of the entire boundary. The map is labelled as "Reclamation Map" and is felt to be adequate, even though it includes two features which presently exist but are not part of the reclaimed condition Ithe "limits of excavavtion [sic]" and "stockpiles"1. The map shows the configuration of the 2.65-acre TR-01 addition differently that any of the three previous versions, but this one is felt to be the one correct version. The TR-01 area is drawn to completely encompass the disturbance at the north end of the permit. That problem has been corrected. Please ensure that this map is used whenever submitting annual reports. not partial or outdated or hand-sketched maps. Another item required to be corrected was the issue of lack of permit boundary markers. Particular emphasis was made to inspect the boundary markers in the disturbed area. The markers were to have been installed at every corner, in the proper location, and such that they match the mapped locations. This has been done adequately, and that problem has been corrected. All new markers consist of green steel T-posts, with the top 10 inches painted red. Please note, however, that in the north end of Phase 2 there is an extra marker present, and a marker down on the ground presumably near its correct posted location The posted locations of the permit boundary markers clearly show that about half of the northern Phase 2 pad, plus the 200 feet of the road crossing the gulch and all of the in-gulch disturbance are outside the permit boundary. This is not a new fact, having been brought before the Mined Land Reclamation board on 2(23/00. However, since the exact and complete boundarv is now delineated, it is the time to provide a more tangible barrier along this boundarv, to guard against future offsite disturbance. It is strongly recommended that the fenceposts be loosely strung with wire or an earthen berm be placed along the boundary. Equipment operators must be able to recognize this irregular boundary and not cross it. The area of erosion on the sloped highwall in Phase 2 has been backfilled with large cobble and small boulders. No real upland diversion was created, but it is hoped that such gully fill will act to stabilize this slope. For now the this site is stabilized, but it will have to be monitored. The pad drainage has been directed down the gulch slope through a narrow opening in the berm. Runoff has eroded to the cobble layer which underlies the surface dirt. This also will require monitoring and repair as necessary, but for now is adequate. Noxious weeds Iknapweed and thistle) were an issue recently, for which the Division required the submittal of a weed control plan. This was submitted, and found adequate. Mr. Jacobs mentioned during the inspection that a different approach was to be taken for the thistle, a biologic (insect) control formulated in consultation with the county's weed officer Rod Cook. Such a plan is fine, but the Division has no documentation for it yet. The operator or one of the parties operating the site must submit a copv of that plan. A question the Division has is, how will herbicide spraying affect the insects or the host plant (thistlell LaFarge has been removing its stockpiles since the last inspection. Nearly all the sand is gone, but much other stockpiled material remains. Some of it will be spread across the pit floor or backfilled against highwalls prior to topsoil replacement. Gosney still has stockpiles onsite, of product, topsoil to replace and asphalt waste to remove or recycle. The operator stated that there will be about 8 feet of overburden depth to handle during mining of Phase 2. Such a volume may be most easily handled by placement out of the way of future mining, with no need for additional handling or replacement. This may be possible through permanent in-gulch placement for the landowner. It is known that Mr. Cugnini wishes to fill the gulch and extend the usable area beyond the level mined area. It must be clearly understood, however, that such a plan may only be carried out after receiving the Division's approval for such change, showing how the area offsite will be stabilized during and after the project, plus describing how none of the existing offsite area nor any expansion to it will be affected by mining activities. Please contact this office to discuss this prior to undertaking anv such activities. Most of the highwalls are now sloped to approximately the final gradient, but very little topsoil has been spread. There