INSPEC40768 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(Page 2) MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID # M-1998-014 INSPECTION DATE 2-26-2002 INSPECTOR'S INITIALS SSS This was a routine inspection conducted as part of an on-going monitoring plan for permitted mine sites. This inspection also served to assess current site conditions for use in updating the reclamation cost estimate, ensuring the current financial warranty is adequate to reclaim the site. . The affected area boundary markers were not adequate to make the affected area boundary readily identifiable. Additional markers must be installed per the requirements of Rule 3.1.12 (2) that state: The boundaries of the affected area will be marked by monuments or other markers that are clearly visible and adequate to delineate such boundaries. The lack of boundary markers is noted as a problem with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on the last page of this report. No significant erosional features were noted on the affected areas of the site. There appear to be several deviations from the approved mining and reclamation plan occurring at the site. Several structures have been constructed, relocated or modified without the permit and reclamation bond being revised. These structures include the overburden stockpile relocated to the north boundary of Phase 2, a location that the permit geotechnical report has determined to be unstable; a new concrete batch plant has been constructed near the southeast corner of Phase 2 with numerous concrete support structures and bins; a buried fuel storage facility has been located within an embankment with unknown spill containment; portions of the highwall appear to be taller than the 25 foot approved mining depth, increasing the amount of required backfilling and possibly jeopardizing off-site structures; excavation in Phase 2 began on the end opposite Phase 1 resulting in increased highwall length to be reclaimed; powedine poles have been relocated and some are near to the highwall crest; some apparent off-site disturbance has occured, in the form of stored junk equipment, constructed roads and soil stockpiling. Pit sloping in Phase I did not occur as mining progressed into Phase 2 (though the current operator has initiated some of these efforts). There appear to be more than the specified maximum of 30 acres (not including "permanent" facilities on Phase 1) disturbed and not reclaimed, this is because excavation of Phase 1 was not completed prior to excavation in Phase 2 and the Phase 1 highwalls have not been backfilled and reclaimed yet. Permit maps show some of the drainage channels proposed for the pit are to be constructed outside the permit boundary. DMG is aware that some of these problems were initiated by the previous operator and that the current operator is in process of bringing some of those problems into compliance. Never-the-less, these deviations are noted as a problem with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on the last page of this report. Noxious andlor problematic weeds were observed within the affected area. If not confrolled, these weeds will most likely hinder and/or delay successful reclamation of this site and contribute to off-site spreading and establishment of these weeds. A weed control plan developed in consultation with, and approved by, the appropriate local weed control authority must be submitted as a revision to this permit. Weed infestation is noted as a problem, with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on the last page of this report. Significant progress toward control of on-site weeds must be demonstrated within three years to avoid potential Board action. Review of the current site conditions and reclamation cost exhibits in the permit has revealed that the site is significantly underbonded. The current reclamation bond amount was figured for a site with shallower excavation, less steep pit slopes that are shorter in length, no structure demolition and disposal, and less affected acreage at any point in time. An updated reclamation cost estimate must be calculated so that an adequate financial warranty can be maintained for this site. Please ensure that any revision, submitted to address the problems noted above, includes an up to date reclamation cost exhibit. The dimensions and construction specifications of all structures on site will need to be included in this exhibit. Upon receipt of this information, DMG will review the proposed reclamation costs against our calculations. The amount of financial warranty will then determined and will need to be submitted to, and accepted by, DMG within 60 days of the date that DMG mails out the reclamation cost estimate. DMG records indicate that Mervin Lapin is the landowner for the parcel where Phase 1 is located. However, our files do not include documentation of legal right to enter and mine for this parcel. This lack of documentation of legal right to enter is noted as a problem with the corrective action(s) and correction date specified on the last page of this report.